mswas, when conservatives use the phrase ‘reality-based community’ as an insult, it’s not because they know the facts are on their side.
I had never heard that used by a conservative until after I saw Liberals using it. They are making fun of Liberals who are just certain that their ideas are more closely based to reality than the ideas of conservatives. Liberals started using the idea in order to make fun of the term, ‘Faith-Based community’. Making fun of pretentious gits is always in style. 
That was a really odd but interesting interview. But given that they’re going on vacation for three weeks, just cutting it off like that seems really sloppy and unsatisfying.
I’m gonna be in withdrawal so bad… 
Stewart held his own well, but he should of done more research. I was kind of hoping for a Jim Cramer style takedown.
Dude, do you even know where the phrase comes from? Hint: a conservative said it, and not with the reasoning you propose.
Also, I propose that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert no longer be allowed to take vacations. Who’s with me?
The interview lacked coherence. I don’t think that Stewart handled it very well, as he couldn’t seem to decide whether to debate her or make fun of her. So he tried to do both, and it turned out crappy.
I can’t believe this woman is as much of a ditz as she appeared (though after Sarah Palin, maybe I should believe anything). I think Stewart just threw her off her stride. He certainly threw me off mine.
I learned absolutely nothing from this. It was “you’re wrong,” “no, you’re wrong.”
Jon: take some time over your vacation to study your Jim Cramer interview. This is the way you should deal with something serious. If a lot of people share this woman’s ideas, and they do, it demands to be approached seriously. Just because you’re mainly preaching to the choir doesn’t mean you should get lazy.
Why don’t you enlighten me as to its origins? It doesn’t of course absolve the public onanism of liberals using it, but I’m interested.
It was coined by (most probably) Karl Rove.
Where’d you get *that *idea?
The context in which it’s used.
Of course Rove had a bit of a point there. Reality can be changed by an act of will. Now before someone goes all aspie literal on me, I mean reality as it affects humans, not like the second law of thermodynamics.
Liberal cognitive bias very much likes to take an ought and pretend it’s an is. To keep it on topic, we have those liberals who immediately have defended health care reform in the abstract when really the debate should be over whether health care reform as it’s being proposed is a good thing. I know it’s being debated both in theory and in practice, but most people are stuck in the theory level.
On both sides people are uncomprehendingly throwing words like ‘socialism’ around and not really giving much thought to consequences. Conservatives are ignoring the fact that American healthcare is good only for those who can afford it. Liberals are ignoring the fact that government provision of resources puts the Government more firmly in an advisory role in how you live your life. They are dismissive of Conservative opinion because it is mostly framed in crude and childish language, but at the bottom of it there is a real point being made. The government gets more control over your life the more provisions it serves.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
So liberals picked up on some soundbite from a minor functionary and ran with it huh?
Well, unfortunately for you, ‘reality-based community’ has absolutely nothing to do with ‘faith-based community’. In fact, I’ve never heard or read the latter phrase. Faith-based initiatives, sure, but that’s very different.
That’s news to me. Cite?
Why should that be the debate?
Both sides? Excuse me? From where I stand, it’s been only conservatives saying WAUGHUGHH! SOCIALISM OMGZ!!1! HITLER!!
I don’t follow your argument here.
Even if that’s true (and ‘unnamed’ is not the same as 'minor), that still means you were wrong in your initial summation.
Speaking of things that got sliced, wtf is it with Betsy’s nose? It’s like 2 sizes too small for her face.
Where did it say “minor”? Preferring anonymity is more typical of a big fish, not a little one.
But hey, he was only working in the White House! It’s not like he was operating in a venue of power or influence. :rolleyes:
He read the part of the the bill that she claimed provided incentives to kill off seniors, and the bill did not say what she claimed. What else could he have done?
Here is the part of the bill that Stewart read on the show:
After Stewart read this, McCaughey claimed that this provision required doctors to consult with their patients on end of life care using a list prescribed by the government, and that the provision would penalize doctors if their patients change their mind about their living wills.
Stewart then countered with the fact that that was no where in the bill, but McCaughey simply disagreed with him and claimed her interpretation was better. I don’t see how he could have took his argument any further.
But not any actual example-like thingies, right? Nothing with any more substance than your own imagination.
The point you were trying to make is that “reality-based community” is a liberal term created and used by liberals. The fact is the opposite. You were wrong. Now drop the weaseling, please.
Rove was claiming *he and his administration *were doing that. Not “liberals”. Gawd, dude. Please read before posting.
This “real point” including death panels and Nazism? Really?
Come on now. :rolleyes:
I’m not going to go back and parse message board posts from the past four or five years just to tittilate you, sorry. :rolleyes:
Are you serious? I was ok with being wrong, but the fact that I was wrong was utterly trivial. This thread is my cite. People used the term to pat themselves on the back for being liberal IN THIS THREAD.
Prove that it was Karl Rove.
I know you have trouble with reading comprehension and my patience with you is very low, so I’m not going to even try and answer this one.
“Crazy deather bitch” works for a medical supply company, and was one of the people who orchestrated the takedown of Clinton’s healthcare reform in the 90s by taking some mundane point and skewing it wildly beyond reasonable interpretation. She’s not some crusading humanist who found a shocking outrage in the bill, she’s a person with a financial interest in healthcare tanking, and has a track record of doing just that.
That’s clear. I don’t even know how to explain such a basic concept. When you are taxed more, more of your money is taken away. When a government agency provides resources you are intimately dependent on the government. Government programs change their terms and conditions once they become the only game in town when they become the big fish for that service, not unlike any other monopoly. If a social service is implemented poorly at the outset then we are stuck trying to fix it as no one ever is willing to release entitlements, so after initial passage it is likely to grow and metamorphose into something completely different, which underneath the hysterical hyperbole is what conservatives are actually concerned about.
Get it?
OMG I feel like such a n00b after you pwn3d me like that. Can we move on?
The point is some anonymous source made an off the cuff remark that liberals found flattering and ran with it.