It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oh How the Tables have Turned

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well, first this is 15 years old...and John has grown/matured and so has his outlook on things.

Second, John is a comedian, as he states. He doesn't have an obligation to tell "news". As he said, the show leading into his is about muppets making prank phone calls. He's an entertainer and his entire "shtick" is poking FUN at the media.

Third, I don't really think John "won" or the CNN people "won". I actually found it quite amicable. John made some points, some points that looking at today vs. then...wow.

Even 15 years ago we could see the very beginnings of the partisan divide we're seeing today. John makes a good point -- the media is hurting America.

I think one of the greatest disservices the media has done in the last 30 years is the invention of 24/7 news channels. Sometimes, there's simply nothing worthy of coverage, so journalists either end up repeating the same news over and over, speculating and spinning their wheels.....OR, they'll just find really stupid things to report on.

I'm not a "CNN lover" despite being fairly damn liberal. That said, even I have to admit their coverage of that missing plane was insanely stupid. They used toy airplanes and terribly CGI to drone on for days straight about that missing plane. It was totally absurd.

And CNN isn't the only one guilty of this. All 24/7 news networks are guilty of beating a proverbial dead horse.

So I don't think any "tables" have turned, and I don't see John as being a "dick" ... He seemed to really be having a good time, and it's interesting to see the bow tie is still a fashion accessory today.




posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu


Well, first this is 15 years old...and John has grown/matured and so has his outlook on things.

Second, John is a comedian, as he states. He doesn't have an obligation to tell "news".

Of course Jon should have no obligation to be a newsman, he's simply doing comedy, however I think the commenter who says his slant "influences millions of people" has a valid point. When a talk show becomes political it's no longer simple comedy. He cannot want people to take him seriously while simultaneously claiming he shouldn't be taken seriously because he's just a comedian. You cannot go onto political debate shows and then say you have no political motivation or influence on people. This is clearly demonstrated by Colbert, who is pushing a very one sided political slant and influencing the minds of millions, joined on the odd occasion by his best bud Jon, and it's very insidious to claim they bear no responsibility for that because they're just comedians.
edit on 1/7/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes, but sooner or later, someone goes too far either way.

The left refused to learn that lesson. They though they had a lock on power. We saw it with the smugness. Over and over people warned that the left wasn't paying attention to people and what they wanted, but the left felt it had a permanent lock on power and went and did what it was going to do anyway. They over-reached.

Contrary to popular belief, Hillary did not lose because a bunch of heretofore non-voting racists suddenly came out of the woodwork and voted for Trump. She lost because the left took the votes of too many for granted, called them nasty names, and did not produce what they needed in order to thrive, in fact, produced policies that hurt them. So the flipped and voted for the other guy.

That the other guy is Trump tells you just how badly tone-deaf and how much hubris the left had.
edit on 1-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


That the other guy is Trump tells you just how badly tone-deaf and how much hubris the left had.

Precisely, no one thinks Trump was a perfect option, I actually wouldn't have voted for him if I lived in the U.S., I would have voted for a libertarian. When Trump was running I actually made quite a few posts making a case against him. But my opinion shifted over time as I saw events unfold, and I expressed the reasons for my change in attitude in this thread: Embrace the Winds of Change

I'm certainly not a "Trump disciple" as I have been labelled in this thread. I simply decided to at least give Trump a chance instead of running around like a mad man about how much he sucks. It's a modest and balanced position, well maybe a bit slanted to the right, lmao.
edit on 1/7/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I don't love the guy, and I don't hate him.

I might have voted libertarian ... but there was Hillary Clinton to consider as the alternative and the libertarian nominated Gary Johnson who is only a libertarian in the sense of legalization and nothing else. It would have taken a real libertarian to get me to vote libertarian.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If you even considered voting Hillary for a second you are not libertarian.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: ketsuko

If you even considered voting Hillary for a second you are not libertarian.


No, no! You misunderstand. Since I never thought a libertarian could win, if I voted for one, I was essentially throwing my vote away, and that meant not voting against Hillary. That's what I meant.

I would never, ever, in a million years have voted for Hillary. I would have voted for Obama before Hillary, and there wasn't much that was going to entice me to vote for him.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh I see, sorry your wording tripped me up. But I have to disagree some what about your vote being wasted... it seems everyone always assumes the underdog can never win so they never vote for him/her, and that's a very dangerous thing. I think one of the most important things Trump has proven is that it doesn't matter what the MSM says or how sure they are a certain candidate will win, there is always a chance things will take an unexpected turn.
edit on 1/7/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There is still the matter of Gary Johnson. He didn't deserve my vote. He wasn't a libertarian.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I don't love the guy, and I don't hate him.

I might have voted libertarian ... but there was Hillary Clinton to consider as the alternative and the libertarian nominated Gary Johnson who is only a libertarian in the sense of legalization and nothing else. It would have taken a real libertarian to get me to vote libertarian.


Uh no..he has many more libertarian aspects then legalization. He was however, not ideal. He was as libertarian as any republican has been republican since Eisenhower.

Ketsuko I had you all wrong always knew you were a good person but I think in actually agree more with you than I thought.

Except about trump. As a parent I am a bit upset about this president and I think tact matters as far as being a decent role model and for leadership. His vulgarity ending up in the Smithsonian is as bad as Clinton and his oval office incident imo.

That and he is literally an oligarch botn with a silver spoon. He reminds of a cross between Andrew Jackson and LBJ. Two of my least favorite presidents.
edit on 1-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think you're just jealous that conservatives can't seem to find anyone funny and entertaining like John Stewart.

Oh, there have been attempts at "conservative political comedy" ... but it fails miserably. Comedy + conservative politics just doesn't work.

I mean, just stick to fear mongering and doom porn. It seems to work pretty well. I mean, it won the 2016 presidential election as well as both houses of congress.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree. I think the left as a political party is out of touch, I don't think the Republicans are much better.

I have hope for the rand Paul's and Ben sasse types but watched Ron Paul be marginalized and guys like Dennis kucininch get pushed put for the dems.

Had hope for booker and rand but the sessions hearing was gross for booker to launch his next level of politics and dable towards a run for potus. It's become the norm but I despise it.

And I hate Jeff sessions so that says something.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The entire part your missing is that lobby power is slowing the ability for the energy sector to develop efficient means of production.

It is a fact. Impossible to dismiss.

The energy market I'd and has been overly subsidized since the beginning.

It had caused war, environmental destruction, and illness worldwide.

If the field was level and no special interests were writing legislation then combustion engines would be long gone.

Because it is a fact even coal fired electricity in electric cars is a better effeciency model than combustion.

I don't screw decks together with a screw driver, I use a lithium ion cordless drill. Why. It's a better tool.

If screw driver lobbyists controlled politicians like energy lobbyists then I would still be using a screw driver.

Hell nuke plants are probably even better of well designed and small.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Brilliant response my friend, that argument surely blows mine out of the water. If I want to watch comedy I watch comedy, if I want some political insight I watch things such as the Ron Paul liberty report and watch debates with people like Stefan Molyneux. I don't get my political insight from a comedian, that's just dumb, and you admitted yourself comedians should not be taken seriously. Also if I do want to watch some non-pc comedy it's not hard to find on YouTube with legends such as Bearing utterly destroying SJW's, BLM people, feminists, and other far-left nut jobs. Also as I've tried to make clear I am not a typical conservative, I most likely would not enjoy true conservative comedy, I would probably find it small minded the same way I find a lot of the things religious people say to be small minded. I prefer comedians such as Bill Burr who just attack both sides and can see the absurdity in the system as a whole.
edit on 2/7/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It all comes back to lobbyists for you doesn't it? Well then you'll probably very much like what Trump is doing to reduce the impact of lobbyists. In Trumps Contract with the American Voter he promises to reduce the impact lobbyists have through certain measures:


CORRUPTION AND SPECIAL INTEREST COLLUSION

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


He reminds of a cross between Andrew Jackson and LBJ. Two of my least favorite presidents.

I'm not exactly an expert on presidents but what makes Jackson so bad, because he had slaves at a time when it was common practice? Wikipedia says "Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union." It also says "Jackson became the only president to completely pay off the national debt". So a guy working against big bankers and for the common guy, manages to get crap done and remove a great deal of debt, is one of the worst presidents? Sure Lincoln was a beast for ending slavery with the civil war but you cannot simply dismiss every president who owned slaves, at least a dozen different presidents owned slaves.
edit on 2/7/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The programming is to entrench people in partisan bickering for the age old divide and conquer routine.


Precisely! These people are very treacherous indeed and the instant you get on that ride with them you're in for a very long, bumpy ride to ruin.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
By the way. Has anyone else noticed that there still isn't a freedom party that matters? We've had Clinton. We've had Bush (two of them). We've had Obama. Now we have Trump. That's more than 30 years of the same old #. They all disagree with each other about everything.....except for things like spying on Americans is necessary.

Hmmmm. Maybe there is something to that theory about Russia after all. I think I've heard the story about totalitarian governments that spy on everyone and fill the media with propaganda and lies somewhere before.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join