Yes, the exact same information was available in 1993 as in 2001.
[raps on flickster’s skull] Hello?..anybody home?..
Let’s see what the little monkey assumes in only two sentences.
First of all, that I watch “The Comedy Channel”. No such thing. I do watch “Comedy Central”, however.
Second, that I don’t have a sense of humor. Not only do I have one, bit it’s fully developed. The severe level of mental retardation you exhibit must make you miss that.
Third, Jon Stewart and Lewis Black are not my sole source for news.
Three incorrect statements in two sentences. That’s pretty fucking awesome. Throw in something about yellowcake and Iraqi bioweapon drones and you could probably get a job with the BushCo administration.
So, what have you contributed to this thread?
There’s the old monkeylogic chestnut of “…but Clinton…”. Which is just hilarious becuase you sad little bitches just dig it out over and over.
There’s the idea that anyone who appears on The Daily Show has absolutely no credibility. We’ll just look at bnorton’s list and see you’re even dumber than thought possible.
Oh, and the fucking fantastic idea that all proceeds for everything should be given to charity. If said proceeds aren’t given to charity, then whomever is making them is doing it strictly for eeeevil reasons.
Really, it’s just pathtic. I could go through and point out how idiotic pretty much everything you’ve said in this thread is…but why bother?
See, all you’ve done is swing wildly (and feebly) because you have no facts.
The sad thing is that there are enough people around as stupid as you are. And because of that, your little monkeyleader may actually get four more years to continue running this country even further below ground.
The average person isn’t that bright. You’re obviously sub-average. Congratulations!
-Joe, hoping flickster’s group home pulls the plug on their net connection
That’s a fucking moronic thing for you to say after bitching about Clinton not connecting his single dot back in the early 90’s. Several new dots appeared over the course of the decade, including the Cole bombing in the last months of the Clinton afministration, and now you want to let Bush off because he only got the one dot on his watch?** The dots don’t go away every time we get some new guy in the white house**. Clinton’s dots were there for Bush to connect as he pleased. His pleasure was to space them off.
Well, my oh my, we have come full circle. This whole sequence started when you proud few started frothing at the mouth when I made mention of the Clinton/Clarke team having 8 years during which time they only managed to toss a few symbolic cruise missles at a couple of questionable targets (one being an aspirin factory). You screamed bloody murder at having to place a “dot” on the WTC bombing in 1993. You cry because your knight in shining armour (Clarke) was shown to have notable credibility problems. You’re all upset that Kerry is still trailing in the polls even though he should be still riding high from the primaries. So taking all of those items into account, I’ll overlook all the name calling that has been included in your responses (after all this is the pit)
Thanks for providing my cheap entertainment for the afternoon.
Flickster, I notice that in spite of all the colorful words you’ve used, like “scream”, “cry”, “frothing”, etc., you haven’t refuted a single thing we called you on. Guess you’ve got nothing, huh?
And your crowning acheivement: "You’re all upset that Kerry is still trailing in the polls even though he should be still riding high from the primaries. "
Yeah - you bowled me over with that logic. 
God Bless Somerby
Yes, and to be fair, they have all tried to get laughs from the audience.
Stewart will ask real questions, but will also illicit tounge-in-cheek responses. His guests always try to play along.
So, things said on The Daily Show cannot always be taken at face value.
Hands up anyone who can spot the trend in this graph:
Occasional graphology
Data from pollingreport.com.
Approval Ratings, G W Bush
I wasn’t going to insert myself into this hijack, but I can’t stay out any longer. You’d have to be pretty dense not to be able to tell the difference between when Stewart is making a joke and when he’s talking about a real event. There is no attempt to blur the distinction on that show. The format is: (1) Headline news, which takes real news stories and makes ironic comments on them. (2) An obviously tongue-in-cheek “field interview”, (3) A commentary by Black or others, (4) a REAL interview with a REAL celebrity, which may or may not contain jokes. I’ve heard Larry King make a joke once in awhile, does that automatically invalidate anything a guest ever says on his show?
Hmmm…that should have read “One would have to be pretty dense…” I didn’t intend that as an insult to you, spooje.
Yeah, back then it was called “Wagging the dog” because Clinton was only taking some shots at some damned Arab nobody had ever heard of. You know, to distract the Pubbies from a blowjob. Because, as a Democrat, he couldn’t possibly have been doing anything for the right reasons…
Really? Unlike you, I have no trouble remembering things that I don’t like. I remember the first WTC bombing. It was on Clinton’s watch, and those responsible were caught. Bin Laden and the like were struck at (and missed), and further attacks were pretty much out of the question due to Pubbie screaming about blowjobs and wagged dogs.
Kerry should be doing better, but I’ll chalk that up to the five times an hour I see Bush ads while I’m watching TV, while I haven’t seen anything from Kerry, yet.
Besides, if showing yourself to be a jackass suffering from near-total cognitive dissonance is a “cheap” price to pay for your entertainment…well, that says alot.
-Joe, allowed to own sharp objects
Well, I didn’t see the show when Clarke was on. All I’m saying is that I’d have to see the interview to trust a quote from that show. I have seen him joke with political figures. And I have seen them say some things in jest that would appear more serious in a printed form where you didn’t hear the tone of voice or see the context of the quote.
If we look at the quote, or rather, Merijeek seemingly unattributed quote, it does look like something that could be said in jest or hyperbole.
Anybody got a link to the transcript? I can’t download the video on my machine.
Update on the “Clarke is a big fag” developments.
We already knew about the “unamed administration sources are hinting at weird elements in his life” thing that Blitzer said, and later, unconvincingly, tried to retract.
Well Laura Ingraham apparently just recetnly reffered to Dick Clarke as a ‘little fop.’
Anyone who knows anything about how the right wing attack machine works knows that rumors like this get fed through a grapevine in order to coordinate subtle changes in language and then building to the outright charges (for reference, see the “Kerry seems too French” nonsense)
Looks like someone is pushing the “Clarke is a bitter old queen” line under the covers. I doubt the WH wants to be associated with it, but they know that this is a great way to discredit the man among the base they fear losing the most due to his “very dangerous” accusations.
I’ve watched the clip. He never says that there are staffers who’s actual official job it is to give Rove and Hannity talking points. What he says is that the White house is calling right wing radio people and news channels to coordinate talking points against Clarke IN THIS CASE.