Truthiness

[Diuretic]

Diuretic:

Point of order: I believe Mencken's quote addressed the taste of the American public - not our intelligence. That Bill Clinton was elected - twice - is a searing enough indictment of the latter, Lord knows.

Rising to respond to your point of order:

Mencken's quote is universal. After all the biggest selling daily newspaper in the UK is "The Sun" where football and tits are the order of the day. In Australia people get into a lather about "Big Brother" on tv and the second biggest story in our news all week has been a dispute about the results of a football game (football's important to me as a pasttime, let me hasten to add but you have to be here to appreciate the waste of frequency and newsprint on that particular topic).

 

[Diuretic]

Compared to other channels, they hardly rate at all. Neither do CNN....

Fox seems to be quite influential though - it's on cable here. CNN also.

Sorry, thread-drift.

 

[Dr Grump]

Fox seems to be quite influential though - it's on cable here. CNN also.

Sorry, thread-drift.

It's on free to air here..after midnight...

 

[Diuretic]

It's on free to air here..after midnight...

UK?

Fox actually is part of the biggest cable deal here so no way will they let any broadcast channel pick up anything. The cable provider also shows CNN and that can't go free to air either.

 

[Gunny]

Don't faint - I agree with some of your points. Not with the "liberal" bit but with the tendency of any media organisation to put its interests above anything else. You're right, the First Amendment completely screws the chance of your government to issue notices that the UK govt does and that my govt does when it comes to suppression of information. I don't know if that's a good thing. I think on balance you are luckier and I mean "you". You have a guaranteed restriction on your government's right to muzzle free speech, I live in a country where there is only an "implied" right to free speech. I prefer your situation frankly.

You prefer it only because you don't live in it. There ARE things necessary to the security of a Nation that just don't need to be front page news. It's a fine line, but the government we entrust with our security should be empowered to do so.

I find it ludicrous that we hold our government responsible for our security; yet, deny it the authority to carry out that responsibility.

 

[Gunny]

Then you weren't really paying attention.

Of course I wasn't. :alco:

Novel concept: Perhaps I don't find humor where you do; especially, political humor.

 

[Diuretic]

You prefer it only because you don't live in it. There ARE things necessary to the security of a Nation that just don't need to be front page news. It's a fine line, but the government we entrust with our security should be empowered to do so.

I find it ludicrous that we hold our government responsible for our security; yet, deny it the authority to carry out that responsibility.

I prefer it because a constitution that restricts government action is a bulwark against creeping dictatorship. Of course to some people it's just a piece of paper but in a functioning democracy its constitution is unassailable. Certainly there has to be a limit to what information is available but the danger is that the high crimes and misdemeanours of any administration can be concealed behind overly restrictive controls on publicly available information.

I think any government should be given authority very jealously, it should have sufficient to get the job done but not so much that it becomes a threat to the nation itself. In a functioning democracy that's possible because the executive has to convince the legislature and the judiciary is there to ensure what's done is within the law. But where one branch attempts to put itself above the others, especially when it's the executive, that's when the danger signals should be going off. We take democracy too much for granted. It was never granted easily, it was usually won after a struggle with those who held power. Too often "state security" has been a stalking horse for dictators.

 

[Hobbit]

I prefer it because a constitution that restricts government action is a bulwark against creeping dictatorship. Of course to some people it's just a piece of paper but in a functioning democracy its constitution is unassailable. Certainly there has to be a limit to what information is available but the danger is that the high crimes and misdemeanours of any administration can be concealed behind overly restrictive controls on publicly available information.

I think any government should be given authority very jealously, it should have sufficient to get the job done but not so much that it becomes a threat to the nation itself. In a functioning democracy that's possible because the executive has to convince the legislature and the judiciary is there to ensure what's done is within the law. But where one branch attempts to put itself above the others, especially when it's the executive, that's when the danger signals should be going off. We take democracy too much for granted. It was never granted easily, it was usually won after a struggle with those who held power. Too often "state security" has been a stalking horse for dictators.

The Constitution grants Bush the powers he is currently using...all of them. If you're so big on the Constitution, then let's talk about the fact that the federal government spends so much money on useless programs that it has to take 1/3 of your money to fund them. Let's talk about the fact that the federal government has all but ended states' rights. Let's talk about the federal governments never ending failure at just about everything it does...at a waste of billions in taxpayer dollars.

 

[5stringJeff]

I thought it was funny, but let's be straight: Colbert is quite funny, but he is also quite liberal.

 

[musicman]

After all the biggest selling daily newspaper in the UK is "The Sun" where football and tits are the order of the day.

 

[Dr Grump]

LOL....

 

[dilloduck]

LOL....

PAGE 3 GIRLS RULE

 

[Abbey Normal]

Ah - it's all subjective, isn't it? Brilliant, edgy, COURAGEOUS satire - or the pathetic death yowls of a useless, gut-shot dog; who's to say? The market - that's who. So, we shall see.

I saw a pretty long clip of it. I kept expecting it to be funny, or at least interesting, but not to be. It just seemed flat. Eventually, I just switched it off.

 

[jillian]

I saw a pretty long clip of it. I kept expecting it to be funny, or at least interesting, but not to be. It just seemed flat. Eventually, I just switched it off.

I'm shocked. :teeth:

 

[Gunny]

I prefer it because a constitution that restricts government action is a bulwark against creeping dictatorship. Of course to some people it's just a piece of paper but in a functioning democracy its constitution is unassailable. Certainly there has to be a limit to what information is available but the danger is that the high crimes and misdemeanours of any administration can be concealed behind overly restrictive controls on publicly available information.

I think any government should be given authority very jealously, it should have sufficient to get the job done but not so much that it becomes a threat to the nation itself. In a functioning democracy that's possible because the executive has to convince the legislature and the judiciary is there to ensure what's done is within the law. But where one branch attempts to put itself above the others, especially when it's the executive, that's when the danger signals should be going off. We take democracy too much for granted. It was never granted easily, it was usually won after a struggle with those who held power. Too often "state security" has been a stalking horse for dictators.

So let's allow paranoia to rule, leaving the Nation defenseless in the meanwhile. Too often, the argument that state security has been a stalking horse for dictators has been an excuse to imasculate legislation, and government action.

Choose your poison: exist with the possibility that in the best interest of the whole, the individual's liberties may be infringed upon. Don't exist having been destroyed by an enemy that uses your inaction against you.

Take recent events as a prime example. The lefties whined and squealed their butts off that the Fed government has to "do something" following 9/11, leading to the Patriot Act. The verysame squealers have criticized each and every effort with a zero defect mentality since; especially, if it dared brush up against their personal convenience they label "individual liberty."

 

[musicman]

LOL....

Diuretic says "football and tits are the order of the day" like that's a BAD thing!

 

[musicman]

I saw a pretty long clip of it. I kept expecting it to be funny, or at least interesting, but not to be. It just seemed flat. Eventually, I just switched it off.

That seems to be the consensus of the media at large, as well. Yet, they're being accused of cowering in fear of a deeply offended George Bush. When did THAT start - did I miss a memo?

I'm beginning to detect the odor of hype. Some wish to create a buzz over what most outlets have interpreted as a flat, graceless, non-event.

 

[musicman]

Now that I think about it - Colbert was operating under the auspices of Comedy Central, was he not? He's got elephant balls, then - intimating that ANY in the media are gutless.

Didn't Comedy Central just censor the show, "South Park", for fear of offending Muslims?

 

[jillian]

Now that I think about it - Colbert was operating under the auspices of Comedy Central, was he not? He's got elephant balls, then - intimating that ANY in the media are gutless.

Didn't Comedy Central just censor the show, "South Park", for fear of offending Muslims?

Which has what to do with Colbert? Did he say "all media are gutless except for Comedy Central?"

Nope...thought not.

At least Comedy Central has the "guts" to air The Daily Show and Colbert Report.... Daily Show alone is probably has more "real news" than the *real news* does (unless, of course, I want to know about Natalie Holloway. (Whether I agree with their censoring South Park is a whole other discussion).

Oh...and just for clarification. This White House tends to deny access to people who write unflattering things. And no access for a reporter means no job. And for the corporations that keep on the people who write unflattering things, the admin's FCC has refused to approve sales and purchases of outlets.

Just for the record...

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Daily Show alone is probably has more "real news" than the *real news* does

Come on, you can't really believe this. I watch the Daily Show and Colbert religiously. Not to get my news, but because they are funny as hell. Colbert's "Know Your District" bit is hilarious. Hell, Colbert got Gov. Rod Blagojevich on and made him look like an ass. These are comedians people. Jackass meets CNN. Just laugh at it and move on.