Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?
56 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
They are usually pretty civil as guests, but a formal debate should set Stewart loose. He is definitely no slouch intellectually.
Everyone has seen him on crossfire right? A PBS interview with him which aired on Radio NZ led me to this which led me to the daily show. Some people link this interview to the death of Crossfire (see Wikipedia.
-
Kiwiiano, in reply to
He doesn't have to worry about the 47% who don't pay any taxes because it is his job to worry about the 1% who don't pay any taxes but do fund his campaigns.
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
Fuckers.
This is an awfully depressing page: http://www.comedycentral.co.nz/shows/
-
The forthcoming debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly will be epic.
-
I like how well the bunch-of-jokes-and-mockery followed by analytical-rant format works.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
When a politician addresses a potential donor, what will the politician say?
A: the politician will say what he/she "really thinks".
B: the politician will say what he/she thinks the donor wants to hear.
So, the options are:
A. Romney is a hateful fuck-bag who thinks anyone who votes for "the enemy" is a stupid whiny statist tit-sucker he just doesn't care about.
or,
B. Romney doesn't believe any such thing, but boy... his big ticket donors do and he'll say ANYTHING as long as you keep paying for the dirty talk. Like a phone sex operator without the class.
If "Panderer-in-Chief' is the best spin you can come up with, Angus, that's Romney's problem in a nutshell.
-
And revelations have come to light that Fox News’ sister publication, the late and unlamented Spews of the World, outrightly employed Watergate-style burglary tactics.
-
SteveH, in reply to
It's actually the "and so my job is not to worry about those people" line that blows me away - here's a man intending to be President who claims his job is not to worry about 47% of the population?!
It seems clear to me that he's talking about the campaign, not the presidency. And in that respect he's right - his job is to convince the swing voters, not the entrenched democrats. But if he really believes the 47% of Americans getting some form of government support exactly line up with those who support the democrats, then he's a fool. He's certainly alienated some of those central voters he said he's focusing on.
What is concerning is the contempt he has for those people, and the stereotype of them that he's subscribed to. I'm sure he was telling the audience what he thought they wanted to hear, so perhaps his really opinion isn't so strong. It's hard to say with him. But despite his penchant for changing his views, I doubt those opinions would change if he were elected.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
t seems clear to me that he’s talking about the campaign, not the presidency. And in that respect he’s right – his job is to convince the swing voters, not the entrenched democrats
If that's what he meant to say, he couldn't have fucked himself harder if he'd sat on an elephant dildo. Shall we review the transcript.
And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
First, I'm going to stipulate that I don't believe for a moment Romney's comments were "off the cuff" in any generally used use of the phrase. "Inconveniently candid, because I never thought they'd be made public" would be closer to the truth.
But I digress. If Romney had said there are plenty of "tribal" voters out there who'd never vote for him or any other Republican, I'd give him a cookie for stating the blindingly obvious. Obama could say the same without fear of contradiction from me.
But let's just pretend Obama was recorded at, say, a $50,000 dollar a plate fundraiser at George Clooney's house saying: "And so my job is not to worry about those people -- I'll never convince them to care about anyone else or take responsibility for their actions."
First, if you're standing for the Presidency you better give a fuck about the people, even the ones who don't vote for you or your party. Because that really is your job.
It would also show some presidential gravitas to NEVER talk about people who don't support you as ipso facto feckless, lazy boobs. It's arrogant, condescending and you really shouldn't expect to be thanked for it. Least of all, it's also spectacularly bad politics. I'd don't know of Mitt Romney passed high school civics, but he is aware the United States does not have compulsory suffrage, right? Nor are registered Democrats compelled to vote for any Democratic candidate. Same goes for registered Republicans.
-
If “Panderer-in-Chief’ is the best spin you can come up with, Angus, that’s Romney’s problem in a nutshell.
Im laughing my arse off at that one
-
Rommney - Turd Contaignment Crews - Classic - the whole thing is the truth through the filter of homour of stating hte bleeding obvious.
-
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
-
SteveH, in reply to
First, I’m going to stipulate that I don’t believe for a moment Romney’s comments were “off the cuff” in any generally used use of the phrase. “Inconveniently candid, because I never thought they’d be made public” would be closer to the truth.
That's the impression I get.
It would also show some presidential gravitas to NEVER talk about people who don’t support you as ipso facto feckless, lazy boobs.
Which bit of the Republican campaign gave you the impression he had any presidential gravitas? I must missed it.
Least of all, it’s also spectacularly bad politics.
Stunningly bad. The last few weeks have shown me that Team Romney has very questionable political judgement.
-
mccx, in reply to
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
If you're taxing high incomes at 15% and low incomes at 35% then it most certainly is. Or if you're taxing income from activity A at 15% and income from activity B at 35% then it most certainly is.
And someone should tell Sam Seaborn than if the top 1% have 40% of total wealth, then they're getting off light paying 22% of the total taxes.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
But I digress. If Romney had said there are plenty of "tribal" voters out there who'd never vote for him or any other Republican, I'd give him a cookie for stating the blindingly obvious. Obama could say the same without fear of contradiction from me.
There were some early initial attempts in the American media to brush Romney's statement off as the same as Obama's famous "clinging to guns and religion" statement. Except that if you go back and look at the full text of Obama's comment, it was in a speech which stated that the people about whom he was talking had been abandoned by successive administrations, had every reason to be suspicious about the odds of a new one making their lives better, and it was his campaign's job to try and convince them anyway, even if they didn't succeed. It was the total tonal opposite of Romney's comments.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
If you’re taxing high incomes at 15% and low incomes at 35% then it most certainly is. Or if you’re taxing income from activity A at 15% and income from activity B at 35% then it most certainly is.
I'm going to need a bit more than this to change my mind.
Taking money from people does not subsidise them. I think I would accept that if you are taking less money off someone who earn more, you could properly characterise that as a subsidy. But no-one is suggesting that is the case here.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
showtime...
I like how well the bunch-of-jokes-and-mockery
followed by analytical-rant format works.I know, Parliament is almost there...
They need better joke writers though!
(and waaay more intelligent analysis....)
caught report...
spooky - I'd not heard of Crossfire before, but yesterday I pulled up behind a crossfire car, which I'd never heard of before either (Chrysler/Karmann apparently) - everything is connected! -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
No it isn’t. But I’d like to join Mr Seaborn under the couch every time someone like Gov. Romney pretend to be shocked – and outraged – by the idea that someone who earns $400K a year as a lobbyist is – or at least should – be paying considerably more federal income tax than he would if he was an elderly retiree on Social Security.
But I guess the RW political third rail nobody wants to touch in why tax relief and exemptions for the poor are creeping socialism, but larding the tax code with elaborate mechanisms for Sam Seaborn and Mitt Romney to (perfectly legally) avoid tax isn’t. I’d that IS a subsidy and it ISN’T fair.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
As a lawyer I would expect you to be technically accurate and of course you are.
But functionally for the purposes of what most folks see in the bank account after payday then arranging the tax code so that very rich people can pay less tax as a percentage runs counter to the idea of a progressive tax code where each pay according to their means.
No it is technically not a subsidy. But it is most definitely unfair.
The argument has always been that those rich create jobs and the wealth tickles down. Which was a fine theory in it's day but now stinks of rationalisation for a system that has simply not worked.
Defending such a system does you no credit.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Defending such a system does you no credit.
I am not defending such a system. Call it wrong. Call it immoral. But don't call it a subsidy. Calling the taking of $3m from someone to pay for part of social security, and education and everything else, a "subsidy" because you could have taken $7m from them, undermines the fight against the subsidies the rich do get.
-
mccx,
I am not defending such a system. Call it wrong. Call it immoral. But don’t call it a subsidy.
If a subsidy is assistance paid from a government to a private interest then taxing someone less than their equitable share has the same effect as taxing equitably but then giving 20% back to particular interests you deem worthy.
"Don't call it a subsidy" relies on a nominal rather than functional difference and – I think – reinforces the Romney-style argument that their hard earned millions are their own and the government and the bludgers should be grateful that the wealthy even pay the taxes that they do, even if it's a less than equitable share.
I think calling it a subsidy puts inequitable tax rates front-and-centre as a political decision no different than public health care or interest-free student loans.
-
Our ETS scheme subsidises polluters more transparently perhaps - because taxpayers as a whole pick up the tab for our international obligations.
But under-taxing the wealthy - and this is not a uniquely US problem - does exactly the same in reducing their contribution to shared obligations like social security, health and education which everone else then pays for a larger share of.
Unless you're a pimply libertarian who believes society doesn't exist, and that my own income happens in a vacuum.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
But under-taxing the wealthy – and this is not a uniquely US problem – does exactly the same in reducing their contribution to shared obligations like social security, health and education which everone else then pays for a larger share of.
Unless you’re a pimply libertarian who believes society doesn’t exist, and that my own income happens in a vacuum.
Or for that matter, companies dealing in razor wires, concrete walls, bulletproof glass, Kevlar jackets, and security personnel.
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
There is a great piece on the finger pointing of both parties later in show that shows people’s willingness to spout the party line blindly.
Yeah. It's telling. Almost hard to watch.
And the way Jason Jones and John Oliver just let it speak for itself (to the point where they were cross-cutting to both Dem and GOP delegates accusing each other of literally the same things) was acutely handled.
I think the Daily Show is at its best when it lets its team of "correspondents" make hay. Stewart might be the front-man, but he's been blessed with some of the sharpest comic actors around- some of which- such as Steve Carrell or Ed Helms- have gone onto big screen success subsequently. Aasif Mandvi has long been a favourite of mine. Such good timing. They're also lucky to have guys like Hodgman, Lewis Black and Larry Wilmore in reserve.
It helps too, that they have very good writers- including many former (and present) Onion staffers.
But that Stewart clip was something else, he's usually not that furious in his own turf. But he's right- it's astonishing how Roger Ailes's message-machine almost went it meltdown and somehow came out the other side completely contradicting itself without batting an eyelid. The cognitive dissonance is quite jaw-dropping, really.
-
WH, in reply to
Obama has come roaring out of the convention, there has been a big swing in the polls, especially for the Senate. That’s before the effect of Moocher-gate. The debates are Romney’s last chance. It's actually quite sad that I'm this excited.
There’s even been suggestions that the Republican leadership will allow taxes to rise if Obama wins. Not that they really have a choice given the way the relevant legislation is structured.
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
It’s a kind of cross subsidy, with federal spending as the service, and tax rates as the price. The US is running a huge deficit caused in large part by tax cuts on upper income earners. Before that stroke of genius there was as surplus.
I don’t think it helps to confuse total tax payments with marginal tax rates in the way suggested by your clip. Mitt Romney’s average tax rate in 2011 was 14%. Do you really think he’s “paying his share”?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.