I've been waiting to hear the term "financial mushroom cloud" emanating from the White House.

"john mccain, the only man who can impulsively overreact to something ten days old."

that's awesome.

burndtdan: "john mccain, the only man who can impulsively overreact to something ten days old."

that's awesome.

That line needs to be repeated. A lot.

GAT_00: burndtdan: "john mccain, the only man who can impulsively overreact to something ten days old."

that's awesome.

That line needs to be repeated. A lot.

Jon Stewart's impression of him at the doctor had me rolling.

Ok, that was hilarious. i'll forward that to Dad.

he'll ignore it...but i'll forward it to him just the same.

Wow. Bush was so right the first time. Why shouldn't we just keep on giving him blank check after blank check after blank check to do whatever the hell he pleases? It just always seems to work out so great for everybody!

Sometimes I really wish I was dumb enough to believe in hell.

MaxxLarge: Sometimes I really wish I was dumb enough to believe in hell.

Just because you won't acknowledge Rhode Island as a state, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

While amusing, such "comparison" clips between two speeches really don't mean much. You can pretty much do that with any two speeches that are long enough - if you have the editing talent and juxtapose it with the "setup" statement before each clip.

Amusing none the less, but don't take it seriously.

impaler: Amusing none the less, but don't take it seriously.

Yes. By all means. We're only talking about the biggest, most expensive, and downright deadliest foreign policy blunder in our history. One that's ruined our world standing, our moral fibre, our economy, and our Military presence. We should just laugh it off!

Also hilarious is the fact that this president, who simply can't manage to do a single thing RIGHT, is using the EXACT SAME rhetoric of irrational fear to manipulate people into giving him MORE power...this time to plunge the entire Western world into the sort of crippling debt our great-grandchildren will still be paying off. Debt to supposedly "fix" a monstrous problem that he and his policies caused in the first place! Hysterical!

Yes, by all means...Lets not make the mistake of taking any of this SERIOUSLY.

MaxxLarge: Yes. By all means. We're only talking about the biggest, most expensive, and downright deadliest foreign policy blunder in our history. One that's ruined our world standing, our moral fibre, our economy, and our Military presence. We should just laugh it off!

Also hilarious is the fact that this president, who simply can't manage to do a single thing RIGHT, is using the EXACT SAME rhetoric of irrational fear to manipulate people into giving him MORE power...this time to plunge the entire Western world into the sort of crippling debt our great-grandchildren will still be paying off. Debt to supposedly "fix" a monstrous problem that he and his policies caused in the first place! Hysterical!

Yes, by all means...Lets not make the mistake of taking any of this SERIOUSLY.

The clip Einstein. Don't take the CLIP too seriously.

Jesus.

impaler:
The clip Einstein. Don't take the CLIP too seriously.

Jesus.

The clip underscores the point.

Y'know, I read something somewhere once that made a lot of sense, and I think it applies in this situation. It said:

"What's wrong with idiots:

They should be criticized and often... and by someone that knows how.

One of the biggest problems in society is that when someone's idiocy causes a bystander to flip their lid and go off on the idiot for being an idiot, we accuse the bystander of being an asshole for telling the idiot the truth, while ignoring the idiot's idiocy. This complacency is confused as acceptance.

The guy wouldn't have been a dick if the idiot wasn't an idiot, so why not stop the problem at the source?

I say no more. The idiot is in the wrong, The person going off on him is using an artistic form of expression. Who cares if they're an ass to an idiot."

I wish I could remember where I picked that up...?

MaxxLarge: The clip underscores the point.

Y'know, I read something somewhere once that made a lot of sense, and I think it applies in this situation. It said:

Indeed it does. Indeed it does.

Now why don't you take some classes in perception, video editing, and marketing, and you will see what I mean when I say the clip doesn't mean much. I.e. it really doesn't convey any information, even if the emotion it illicits is one you agree with.

The clip is truthiness. It is a "gut feeling."

I'm sorry that you overacted and thought I was talking about the economic condition instead of the clip. They are two seperate and distinct ideas. One can take the largest banking problem since the great depression with great seriousness, and still dismiss this clip as just a piece of humor.

impaler: While amusing, such "comparison" clips between two speeches really don't mean much. You can pretty much do that with any two speeches that are long enough - if you have the editing talent and juxtapose it with the "setup" statement before each clip.

Amusing none the less, but don't take it seriously.

What's amusing is that I got the exact same feeling that the clip articulates when I heard the speech. It was another "trust me, if we don't do what I want, something really scary will happen" speech. Jon Stewart is not the only one who noticed it. I even told my wife the speech reminded me of his Iraq speech before I ever watched TDS that night.

more interesting than funny really. The main point is to emphasize how Republicans try to scare the shiat out of Americans in an attempt to grab power and cash. I haven't read the Shock Doctrine, but as I understand it, this is what Naomi Klein was talking about. Republicans using times of national crisis to push extreme agendas that favor the very wealthy. All of a sudden, the Republicans are saying we should use this disaster to repeal capital gains taxes for two years. How convenient. It's almost like when Grover Norquist said he wanted to financially destroy the American Government... him and the rest of the Republicans weren't even joking. Funny how Republican ideology parallels with Osama Bin Ladin's ideology, without even having to stretch.

The decider, says this will get through with bipartisan support. I believe him. Amazing how the 2 parties can work together when they are not bickering over abortion and flag pins.

impaler: Now why don't you take some classes in perception, video editing, and marketing, and you will see what I mean when I say the clip doesn't mean much.

Hm. I'm guessing the fact that I currently work as a marketing writer, and that my last job was working elbow-to-elbow with a 13-time Emmy award-winning news editor disqualifies me from having an opinion on this, then.

I'm well aware that clever editing can achieve any desired result. WELL aware. The aforementioned editor used every drop of his considerable talent to make our boss NOT look like an insufferable coont, which I felt he deserved at least another few Emmys for. I'm just saying that regardless of the editing, the point stands. Bush used the same strong-arm fear tactics to lie, obfuscate and mislead this country into a horrible, pointless war that STILL stretches on with no end in sight to this day. I'm just saying someone ought to have the sack to step up and call his bluff THIS time. He was crying wolf then, and he's doing it now. It worked before to absolutely horrendous ends, and this video points it out nicely.

impaler: One can take the largest banking problem since the great depression with great seriousness, and still dismiss this clip as just a piece of humor.

Not in light of what's going on. The fact that Bush is trying to lead us down the same bullshiat-paved path yet AGAIN...and using the same bloody speech to do it, besides? That ought to outrage ANYONE. The best satire holds up a mirror to society and shows it how horrendous it is. And that's precisely what's happening here.

TDS was devastating last night. Between this clip and his chronology of McCain's last week, he barely had to do any talking.

SAY NO TO THE BAILOUT!!

http://nocashfortrash.org/ (new window)

the market will be fine!!! both sides are using fear to bail out their wealthy banker friends.

Who's Lobbying Congress On The Bailout?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4479121.sht ml (new window)

not really that impressive... You could play it side by side to a pepto bismol commerical, and it would be the same.

Its simply follows a well known, tried a true method of advertising.
1. Expose a problem that exists.
2. Detail how this problem affects the viewer.
3. Explain how their product/war/bailout will solve problem.

Most every speech written in the history of mankind will be very similar. Only people who watch Jon Stewart would think the similarities signify something profound and submersive.

rga184: impaler: While amusing, such "comparison" clips between two speeches really don't mean much. You can pretty much do that with any two speeches that are long enough - if you have the editing talent and juxtapose it with the "setup" statement before each clip.

Amusing none the less, but don't take it seriously.

What's amusing is that I got the exact same feeling that the clip articulates when I heard the speech. It was another "trust me, if we don't do what I want, something really scary will happen" speech. Jon Stewart is not the only one who noticed it. I even told my wife the speech reminded me of his Iraq speech before I ever watched TDS that night.

When I hear his speeches I just get a "This stuff, coming out of my mouth. If you packaged it and put it on your yard, it would grow greener."

impaler: Now why don't you take some classes in perception, video editing, and marketing, and you will see what I mean when I say the clip doesn't mean much. I.e. it really doesn't convey any information, even if the emotion it illicits is one you agree with.

The clip is truthiness. It is a "gut feeling."

I'm sorry, but both clips boiled down to "trust me on this."

/that's just not something I'm willing to do twice.
//hell, I wasn't willing to do it the first time.

MaxxLarge:
Also hilarious is the fact that this president, who simply can't manage to do a single thing RIGHT,

Hey, credit where it's due - he's done a very good job of convincing millions of Americans that it's a good idea to trade freedom for safety.

Maybe this is just me but the Daily Show has had this great trend of just playing clips of what people said next to clips of what people said. Although normally done for contrast this is a great example for are we going to buy this again.

I detect many similarities between the hype then and the hype now, too. In the case of Iraq, the President was clearly trying to get you to acheter un chat en poche, as they say. What is the true nature of this pig in a poke, this latest Trojan Horse? It also has the rushed quality of PATRIOT ACT, which sailed through virtually unexamined.

But in this election year of turned tables, over-turned arguments, and political discontinuities, we find the only opposition comes from Bush's own party in the House. Another paradox in a year of paradoxes. But in any event, we all owe a debt of gratitude to those House Republicans for slowing this bum rush down.

MaxxLarge: impaler: Now why don't you take some classes in perception, video editing, and marketing, and you will see what I mean when I say the clip doesn't mean much.

Hm. I'm guessing the fact that I currently work as a marketing writer, and that my last job was working elbow-to-elbow with a 13-time Emmy award-winning news editor disqualifies me from having an opinion on this, then.

No. Not being able to discern the power of editing makes you disqualified. By the way, a lot of being able to realize this has to do with probability theory, and how the human mind sucks at it. As a marketer, you pretty much just admitted you can't do math, so there you go.

I'm well aware that clever editing can achieve any desired result. WELL aware.

Apparently you aren't.

rga184: I'm sorry, but both clips boiled down to "trust me on this."

/that's just not something I'm willing to do twice.
//hell, I wasn't willing to do it the first time.

Yeah. But you don't need to juxtapose two clips to convey that message.

Editing aside, I think the point is Bush's penchant for screaming, "We're all going to be out on the street/we're all going to farking die if I don't bail out my corporate masters/invade a country that has nothing to do with terrorism".

I would like future president Obama to make Jon Stewart Secretary of Entertainment.

Anyone else notice that if you slide the volume controls on the video all the way up & keep holding the mouse button the volume slider will continue moving to the right?

Got mine all the way off the page. What do I win?

Or is it like the Alpine Yodeler game on The Price is Right?

/Ba ba buhbum RRROOooowww
//off to spin the wheel

impaler: No. Not being able to discern the power of editing makes you disqualified. By the way, a lot of being able to realize this has to do with probability theory, and how the human mind sucks at it. As a marketer, you pretty much just admitted you can't do math, so there you go.

you know, it would be much more effective for you and your denial to just cover up your ears and yell LA LA LA LA ICANTHEARYOU LA LA LA LA!

T.rex: Its simply follows a well known, tried a true method of advertising.
1. Expose a problem that exists.
2. Detail how this problem affects the viewer.
3. Explain how their product/war/bailout will solve problem.

Exactly. TDS could have juxtaposed it with a speech of somebody in the past that successfully handled another problem, and then they could try to make the point that "hey, this could be done and could work - it has in the past."

It's clever in amusing, but it does not convey information.

Anyone have a youtube link?

rga184: you know, it would be much more effective for you and your denial to just cover up your ears and yell LA LA LA LA ICANTHEARYOU LA LA LA LA!

Denial of what exactly?

impaler: Yeah. But you don't need to juxtapose two clips to convey that message.

So you admit that both speeches were the same?
Oh jeebus. then what would you propose they drive that point home? a bush speech and a lost episode of Teletubbies?

/are you this obtuse?

Wonderful. We're going to invade Wall Street

impaler: Denial of what exactly?

I'll let somebody else take that. How about you, Mugato: Bush's penchant for screaming

Couldn't have said it better myself.

rga184: So you admit that both speeches were the same?
Oh jeebus. then what would you propose they drive that point home? a bush speech and a lost episode of Teletubbies?

/are you this obtuse?

I believe my point was that you could find the same similarities with nearly every speech...

Please pay attention.

rga184: I'll let somebody else take that.

No one else can take that. YOU are the one that made that statement. You are the only one that can explain it.

Now fuking explain it.

canyoneer: But in any event, we all owe a debt of gratitude to those House Republicans for slowing this bum rush down.

Dude, they put the brakes on when they found out the government wasn't going to turn over $700 billion in one move. More like $200 billion and you fark ups pay the rest and we'll see how it goes. More billions after we review this mess.

You need to thank the Democrats for telling people that had already blown billions that they couldn't have more.

I heard the screeching brakes of progress meeting Congress from here in KY.

impaler: I believe my point was that you could find the same similarities with nearly every speech...

Please pay attention.

Wait, so every speech promises disastrous consequences unless you do what a politician wants, with no oversight, and no accountability?

Wow, I guess I wasn't paying attention.

*finds Obama's 2004 convention speech on youtube*

hmm, I guess I'm not seeing something you are.

impaler: No one else can take that. YOU are the one that made that statement. You are the only one that can explain it.

Now fuking explain it.

BUSH'S PENCHANT FOR SCREAMING.

pay attention.

impaler: Not being able to discern the power of editing makes you disqualified.

And not being able to parse out the "editing" and see the larger picture makes you functionally blind. The point is the wolf-crying (and the horrendous scenario it led to LAST time we let him get away with it), which no amount of editing could ever hope to disguise.

Apparently you aren't.

No wonder you're a defending the president. You have absolutely no idea that it's time to quit when the whole basis of your argument is proven to be demonstrably false, either.

I know editing. Via osmosis alone, I guarantee you I know it better than you do. But this isn't editing. Not really. It's simply extraction of complimentary parallels. Parallels that Bush is going to use to once AGAIN bend us over the table.

Only this time, the eventual "money shot" is going to cist us all a trillion goddamned dollars.

But go ahead and split hairs over "editing" if you like. Just because someone cuts a few sections out of a canvas completely smeared with bullshiat doesn't mean it makes sense to argue about how fresh the bullshiat so obviously covering the rest of the picture is.

Forgive me, but I do not understand what Jon was getting at. In Mr. Bush's defense, the similarities between his two speeches were the result of them being delivered in the correct linguistic manner.

The War in Iraq and the urgency in which Congress MUST pass this important bail out are very similar in the fact that they are grim necessities that the uninformed public may not have the capacity to understand.

If Mr. Bush were to stand before you, and tell you that we are about to go to war with a sovereign country, whose only other non-isolationist acts of aggressions were against the P.O.S city-state of Kuwait, and our blood-sworn enemy, Iran... you would never have handed over the abilty to slaughter, raped and disperse hundreds of thousands of civilians, rendering their infrastructure to a militia-filled 3rd world state of chaos and rubble...

Now, in this time of Economic crisis, the same resistance is felt from the "people".

The president's job is a difficult one. Sometimes he needs to tell you things you may not want to hear. Such as, we are taking $700 Billion from you, suck our dick.

I applaud both of his stern and direct deliveries.

rga184: BUSH'S PENCHANT FOR SCREAMING.

pay attention.

Were did I deny that??

Nowhere.

Stop making shat up in your head.

impaler: Were did I deny that??

Nowhere.

Stop making shat up in your head.

you really can't see the larger picture then, huh? The whole clip is about that. So if you post on this thread about how you think the clip is "truthy" and just the result of a "gut feeling" that should be ignored, you're denying the significance of what the clip is trying to hammer through your thick skull. That point is that Bush cried wolf last time, and to disastrous consequences. Now he's yelling at the top of his lungs, and expect us to take him at his word.

Do you not see that? Do you not understand the significance of it?

It's not about "all speeches follow the same basic pattern". If you claim this is so, then you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just flat-out lost. It's about a man who set a precedent for untrustworthiness before, once again asking the nation to trust his judgement using the same tactics both times: fear.

MaxxLarge: No wonder you're a defending the president. You have absolutely no idea that it's time to quit when the whole basis of your argument is proven to be demonstrably false, either.

I'm a defender of Bush? Are you farking kidding me???

I know editing. Via osmosis alone, I guarantee you I know it better than you do.

The fact you're so easily influenced by clever editing, and can't identify clever editing, proves you don't know it better than I.

But this isn't editing. Not really. It's simply extraction of complimentary parallels. Parallels that Bush is going to use to once AGAIN bend us over the table.

That's the thing. You can't extrapolate that Bush is going to screw us again from that. This is the part that you're too young, stupid, and naive to get. Bush's ability to fark us over is independent of the speech he gives. The speech means very little. I don't need to hear a speech to know Bush is likely to fark things over.

impaler: The fact you're so easily influenced by clever editing, and can't identify clever editing, proves you don't know it better than I.

This is so ridiculous, you must be trolling. Nobody's that thick.

rga184: It's not about "all speeches follow the same basic pattern".

Yes, this clip actually is all about that. This technique could be applied to any politician on any speech they give. Because of that, it means nothing. Period. End of fuking discussion. Just because you want it to be significant, doesn't mean it is. It just means you're an ignorant, easily influenced moron.

What's significant is Bush actions. Both previous and current.

If Bush's proposal for this bailout is wrong, explain why. Saying "he supported X and X failed, now he supports Y so Y will fail" is a logical fallacy. If you have a legit argument, present it or STFU.

rga184: This is so ridiculous, you must be trolling. Nobody's that thick.

Really? I haven't been the one making up bullshat in my head.

Hell, you retards think I defend Bush. Where the hell did you get that from??