he's not an anchor!!!! it's on a television station called COMEDY CENTRAL. the only thing i'm thinking is this was just a setup from the two of them and he'll be on colbert's show and vice-versa

but he got cheap laughs out of misrepresenting comments. he's better than that

The Dude wrote:but he got cheap laughs out of misrepresenting comments. he's better than that

maybe he is, maybe he isnt. i've often gotten annoyed with the daily show and how he splices things, but that's what htey do. they've literally been misrepresenting people who give them interviews for years.

he definitely is. there's so much stuff that actually happens that he makes fun that this was a dumb choice. not a big deal, but a weird thing to complain about

i will say, i historically have found him funnier than stewart, but i guess i just dont expect more out of most comedians. they all fall on hack stuff from time to time, it's just how often they do it that matters. i'm thinking this is a bit. i could be wrong.

OK, so Putin is now saying he will not attack Ukraine. A good question is why would he say this? One possible reason is that the Russian army on paper could kick Ukraine's ass, but in reality, a war would be quite damaging and if Russia's troops performed poorly as I believe they would even a military victory would be a strategic loss. And Putin already lost the political war--no one would recognize any political solution that resulted from any Russian military success.

And this http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html puts into different words what I was saying above that got lost in the the Obama is awesome/sucks discussion that followed. I do think a fundamental error is to always see international events from an exclusively American perspective. It's distorting and results in missing key aspects of what's really happening.

Finally, I wonder if this isn't Putin's Falkland Islands.

pacino wrote:he's not an anchor!!!! it's on a television station called COMEDY CENTRAL. the only thing i'm thinking is this was just a setup from the two of them and he'll be on colbert's show and vice-versa

their whole purpose is to help form and push an agenda. it's an agenda I agree with, for the most part, but I'm tired of them backing away when their integrity is questioned with this comedy channel excuse.

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:he's not an anchor!!!! it's on a television station called COMEDY CENTRAL. the only thing i'm thinking is this was just a setup from the two of them and he'll be on colbert's show and vice-versa

their whole purpose is to help form and push an agenda. it's an agenda I agree with, for the most part, but I'm tired of them backing away when their integrity is questioned with this comedy channel excuse.

well, he didn't do it, i did it for him. Colbert doesnt seem to do that as much as Stewart does.

did you guys watch the howard kurtz piece? it was real dumb

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/howard-kurtz ... qOY8pPZnhd

how did the onion hijack WaPo's email

President Obama on Tuesday unveiled an ambitious budget that promised more than $600 billion in fresh spending to boost economic growth over the next decade while also pledging to solve the nation’s borrowing problem by raising taxes on the wealthy, passing an overhaul of immigration laws and cutting health costs without compromising the quality of care. Obama seeks to raise more than $1 trillion – largely by limiting tax breaks that benefit the wealthy -- to spend on building roads and bridges, early childhood education and tax credits for the poor.

I wish one of these TV hosts had the authority to tell Lindsey Graham to just shut the hell up.

TenuredVulture wrote:... I wonder if this isn't Putin's Falkland Islands.

"Putin head on Iron Lady body" graemlin, or vice versa, would be sweet

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:... I wonder if this isn't Putin's Falkland Islands.

"Putin head on Iron Lady body" graemlin, or vice versa, would be sweet

Actually, I had Putin in the role of the Argentine Junta.

drsmooth wrote:"Putin head on Iron Lady body" graemlin, or vice versa, would be sweet

Best I could do is Putin as Rob Halford

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:... I wonder if this isn't Putin's Falkland Islands.

"Putin head on Iron Lady body" graemlin, or vice versa, would be sweet

Actually, I had Putin in the role of the Argentine Junta.

where's the fun in that?

Putin doesn't need to attack, he's already won.

pacino wrote:Why do we have to provide the direction? And what was our end goal in Syria if we invaded??? People like to say deomcracy is slow. Well, everything is slow, unfortunately. If it isn't, rash, horrible decision create unintended consequences.

I'm not talking about an invasion... I'm just talking about clear and predictable behavior. Let me recap the Obama Adminstration's dealings with Syria:

1. Obama says (Aug 2012), in response to a question about using military action to ensure that Syria's chemical weapons are kept safely out of the hands of people who would use them, that it's a clear red line if the chemical weapons are utilized.
2. Assad uses chemical weapons on own people.
3. Kerry and Obama condemn the attacks. Kerry calls it a moral obscenity, and Obama said that it was in America's national security interest to retaliate, warning that a failure to do so could put U.S. troops in the path of chemical weapons in the future.
4. Various European parliaments vote for inaction.
5. Administration insisted that we may intercede without a broad coalition.
6. Obama then pivots and asks a Congress that can't agree what day of the week it is to vote on military intervention, all the while suggesting that he may still intervene even if Congress votes it down.
7. Putin steps in and brokers a deal for Syria agrees to turn over it's chemical weapons. They have turned over about 1/3 to date.

Now, if the plan was for the US to bumble along with indecision and internal contradiction so that Putin could be the reasonable one (nominated for the Peace Prize LOL), then Mission Accomplished. As it stands, the penalty enacted on Assad for using illegal weapons is... he gives up his weapons... eventually.

By the way, the real reason why we're not doing anything is because of the Northern Distribution Network.

Google that up and you'll see why.