The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Rally to Restore Sanity
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4204
Page 1 of 6

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  Rally to Restore Sanity

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/22/a ... tml?hpt=T2
Quote:
New York (CNN) -- Are you tired of the extremes dominating the debate? Angry about hyperpartisans hijacking American politics? Well, Jon Stewart has a rally for you and me.

The Rally to Restore Sanity is slated for October 30, the weekend before Election Day, on the Washington Mall.

This isn't a concealed campaign rally for either party. It's a counterprotest against the rising tide of conformity that causes hyperpartisans to demonize people with whom they disagree. It's the anti-demagogue Saturday on the mall; people taking to the streets and yelling, "Be reasonable!"

Here's how Stewart described it on "The Daily Show": "We live in troubled times, with real people who have real problems. ... Problems that have real but imperfect solutions, that I believe 70 to 80 percent of our population could agree to try, and ultimately live with. Unfortunately, the conversation and the process is controlled by the other 15 to 20 percent.

"You may know them as the people who believe that Obama is a secret Muslim planning a socialist takeover of America ... or that George Bush let 9/11 happen to help pad Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock portfolio. You've seen their signs: 'Obama is Hitler'; 'Bush is Hitler'... But why don't we hear from the 70 to 80 percenters? Well, most likely because you have sh*t to do."

Among the signs suggested for the rally:

-- "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler"
-- "9/11 was an outside job"
-- "Got Competence?"
-- "I'm not afraid of Muslims, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Immigrants, Gun Owners or Gays ... but I am scared of spiders."
-- "Take it Down a Notch For America"

In the week since the Rally to Restore Sanity was announced, more than 100,000 people have signed up on Facebook (not exactly a scientific measure of success but a good gauge of interest), and more than 900,000 people have watched the announcement on the Comedy Central website.


Fantastic idea. I hope it doesn't get laughed off as a joke.

Author:  Aizle [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:16 am ]
Post subject: 

I really love Jon Stewart.

Author:  FarSky [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 

I really, really want to go, but I don't think my schedule would allow for such travel. Because as Jon Stewart said, "You have **** to do."

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

Colbert is having a "March to Keep Fear Alive" at the same time/place. :D

http://www.keepfearalive.com

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rally to Restore Sanity

Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.

Author:  Aizle [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rally to Restore Sanity

Uncle Fester wrote:
Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.


:roll: Way to miss the point.

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

and what is the point? Basically it seems to be a event to mock Beck, Palin, and the Tea party

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Aizle wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.


:roll: Way to miss the point.

Not necessarily. For anybody who has accused Stewart of being a Democratic establishment shill, this rally is a fairly overt attempt to undermine the Tea Party factor.

Likewise, I've heard several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right. Again, Keep Fear Alive could be taken as an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

Author:  DFK! [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.


:roll: Way to miss the point.

Not necessarily. For anybody who has accused Stewart of being a Democratic establishment shill, this rally is a fairly overt attempt to undermine the Tea Party factor.

Likewise, I've heard several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right. Again, Keep Fear Alive could be taken as an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement.


Word.

Author:  Talya [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

I suspect anyone on either lunatic fringe would accuse just about anyone a bit closer to center of being a schill for the other side. There's an "all or nothing" approach to the extremes, as if the world really was in binary. In Stewart's case, he's making as much fun of those who try to discredit the "tea party" as he is the tea partiers themselves.

Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Uncle Fester wrote:
and what is the point? Basically it seems to be a event to mock Beck, Palin, and the Tea party

And Sharpton who lead a similar rally for the left a few weeks later was my understanding.

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

The sharpton rally was just plain ugly (no hidden racist intent in that statement) just them screaming that "they"own MLK's dream, and them alone. It was marginal and spiritually ugly.

Author:  Aizle [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Uncle Fester wrote:
and what is the point? Basically it seems to be a event to mock Beck, Palin, and the Tea party


The point is to address the excessive and absurd partisanship that has been the norm in politics for the last many years, and poke fun at it. To "hold up the mirror" as it were on everyone involved in politics to show them just how assinine they are behaving and that it doesn't actually address the concerns of the majority of the voters. Additionally, I would hope it also might wake up some of the sheeple voters on how they can't swallow what various candidates and PACs say hook line and sinker.

Author:  RangerDave [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Uncle Fester wrote:
and what is the point? Basically it seems to be a event to mock Beck, Palin, and the Tea party

Aizle wrote:
The point is to address the excessive and absurd partisanship that has been the norm in politics for the last many years, and poke fun at it. To "hold up the mirror" as it were on everyone involved in politics to show them just how assinine they are behaving and that it doesn't actually address the concerns of the majority of the voters.

I think UF has the right of it, actually. Although Colbert and particularly Stewart routinely mock Obama and the Dems, this specific event strikes me as a pretty straight-forward shot at the Beck/Palin crowd. That said, making fun of Beck/Palin isn't the same thing as defending the Dems. One's opinion of Beck/Palin needn't be linked to one's opinion of Obama.

I think Colbert and Stewart are saying, "Beck, Palin, and the Tea Partiers are nuts." Full stop, not, "Beck, Palin, and the Tea Partiers are nuts...and therefore people should like Obama and the Dems."

Author:  DFK! [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Can I have the "Kick it up a notch" rally, if this is the take it down a notch one?

People aren't upset enough about what is happening in this country. They're busy watching baseball.



As to "Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party are nuts," substantiate that in any way. It's this type of bullshit hand-waving that raises tempers.

Author:  Ladas [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's interesting there is an automatic link here between Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement, and its so readily accepted as a logical grouping.

Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?

Author:  Talya [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?


Oh, neat. That makes it rather strongly bipartisan, if not equally so.

Author:  RangerDave [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

DFK! wrote:
As to "Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party are nuts," substantiate that in any way. It's this type of bullshit hand-waving that raises tempers.

I can understand that, but I'm not trying to pick a fight. I mean, folks here obviously know that I have an incredibly low opinion of Beck and Palin, and a generally negative but somewhat mixed opinion of the Tea Party movement, but in this case I was just identifying, without necessarily endorsing, what I think the point of the Stewart/Colbert event is.

Author:  Dalantia [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.


:roll: Way to miss the point.

Not necessarily. For anybody who has accused Stewart of being a Democratic establishment shill, this rally is a fairly overt attempt to undermine the Tea Party factor.

Likewise, I've heard several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right. Again, Keep Fear Alive could be taken as an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement.


Considering Colbert the person's stated opinion of the character (well-meaning but extremely stupid), it pretty much -is- satire.

Author:  RangerDave [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
It's interesting there is an automatic link here between Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement, and its so readily accepted as a logical grouping. Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?

At the organizational level and in media appearances, Tea Party leaders/groups have certainly aligned themselves with Beck, Palin, Republican candidates, and "conservative" issues generally. That's an interesting stat regarding the party affiliation of the rank and file, though I'm a bit skeptical of it, given the foregoing organizational/media profile.

Author:  FarSky [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
Fairly Pathetic, watching comedians, those supposed to be edgy as guards for the administration.


:roll: Way to miss the point.

Not necessarily. For anybody who has accused Stewart of being a Democratic establishment shill, this rally is a fairly overt attempt to undermine the Tea Party factor.

Likewise, I've heard several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right. Again, Keep Fear Alive could be taken as an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

OK, first of all, the target of this particular piece of satire seems much bigger than just the Tea Party rallies. This is a comment on blind partisanship, extremists on all sides, our media's sensationalism, and oversimplification of the political system.

Secondly..."several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right." There...there are people who question that the character of Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. is in fact a parody of right-wing bloviators and fear-and-anger-based political pundits? I...don't ever want to meet those people. Because their existence makes me sad. I'm pretty sure that vegetables know he's a parody. Probably some minerals, too.

Author:  Talya [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Ladas wrote:
It's interesting there is an automatic link here between Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement, and its so readily accepted as a logical grouping. Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?

At the organizational level and in media appearances, Tea Party leaders/groups have certainly aligned themselves with Beck, Palin, Republican candidates, and "conservative" issues generally. That's an interesting stat regarding the party affiliation of the rank and file, though I'm a bit skeptical of it, given the foregoing organizational/media profile.


It shouldn't really be that surprising, though. Fiscal common sense in government (often mislabeled "conservatism" or "right wing" in an attempt to make fiscal stupidity look okay) is not the primary division between the "left" and the "right." In fact, the "right" in America has been just as fiscally irresponsible as the "left" since long before Shrub started racking up expenses. Right and Left are more accurately about authoritarianism vs. individualism, enforcing morality vs. live and let live--it's a matter of social and civic freedoms, more than fiscal attitudes. On this scale, I'm firmly "left wing," but damned if I'd let any government tax an extra dime or spend a single penny on credit.

Since neither party has demonstrated an ounce of fiscal sense once in power, I have to think something like the Tea Party should be bipartisan. Why would people who understand economics and have some sense in that regard come primarily from the sexist, racist, and religiously bigoted roots that the left has always worked to overcome? Why does one have to choose between social/civic freedom and economic freedom?

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

FarSky wrote:
OK, first of all, the target of this particular piece of satire seems much bigger than just the Tea Party rallies. This is a comment on blind partisanship, extremists on all sides, our media's sensationalism, and oversimplification of the political system.

Secondly..."several people speculate that Colbert, despite his character's right-leaning declarations, is satire intended to undermine the right." There...there are people who question that the character of Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. is in fact a parody of right-wing bloviators and fear-and-anger-based political pundits? I...don't ever want to meet those people. Because their existence makes me sad. I'm pretty sure that vegetables know he's a parody. Probably some minerals, too.


All of this. If I recall correctly the left is just as guilty of crying fascism and making comparisons to war-criminals and dictators. Wasn't there a rather large group of leftists who genuinely felt that Bush would declare martial law and prevent the 2008 elections?

Author:  Ladas [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Ladas wrote:
It's interesting there is an automatic link here between Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement, and its so readily accepted as a logical grouping. Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?

At the organizational level and in media appearances, Tea Party leaders/groups have certainly aligned themselves with Beck, Palin, Republican candidates, and "conservative" issues generally. That's an interesting stat regarding the party affiliation of the rank and file, though I'm a bit skeptical of it, given the foregoing organizational/media profile.

I was mis-remembering. Here is the Gallop Poll of the demographics of the Tea Party. As with any poll, take it for what its worth.

8% identify as Democrat, 43% identify as Independent.

Author:  Screeling [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Ladas wrote:
It's interesting there is an automatic link here between Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement, and its so readily accepted as a logical grouping. Last I saw, the Tea Party was something around 40% democrat?

At the organizational level and in media appearances, Tea Party leaders/groups have certainly aligned themselves with Beck, Palin, Republican candidates, and "conservative" issues generally. That's an interesting stat regarding the party affiliation of the rank and file, though I'm a bit skeptical of it, given the foregoing organizational/media profile.

I dunno. I think a good percentage of Democrats were only so because it felt good to support seemingly compassionate initiatives when we had the money. Now many of them are seeing their livelihood threatened by an administration that espouses fiscal responsibility and does nothing but spend. The Tea Party movement isn't espousing what are conventionally thought of as social conservative issues. It's about restoring fiscal sanity to the country and that's something they can get behind.

I think the Jon Stewart thing is rather pointless. It's only advocating what they're not about, which isn't something you can build steam from. People investing their time in this ridiculous rally should do something more tangible like donating their time to a candidate they support in a local, state, or federal election. It sounds more like a gathering of smug people for the purpose of being smug to me.

Author:  RangerDave [ Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Talya wrote:
Since neither party has demonstrated an ounce of fiscal sense once in power, I have to think something like the Tea Party should be bipartisan. Why would people who understand economics and have some sense in that regard come primarily from the sexist, racist, and religiously bigoted roots that the left has always worked to overcome?

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the average level of economic knowledge is any higher among self-described Tea Partiers than it is among politically active people generally. And even though there's a lot of talk from Tea Party folks about balancing the budget, again, I haven't seen anything to suggest that many/most actually understand or embrace the harsh spending cuts and tax increases that would be necessary. On the other hand, what I have seen are articles and polls that suggest members of the Tea Party are split between a minority that does focus primarily on fiscal issues and seems libertarian-leaning in general, and a solid majority that supports an aggressive military posture, explicit Christian appeals, less economic regulation, and more personal regulation on things like abortion, homosexuality, drug-use, etc.

In short, I think the Tea Party movement is just an outburst of frustration by two factions within the Republican coalition - libertarians and social conservatives who became increasingly disillusioned with the GOP establishment during the Bush years but toed the party line until the Dem takeover in 2008, coupled with the economic shocks of the last few years, finally touched a match to the tinder. And as for the split, it seems like the social conservative wing is increasingly winning out over the libertarian wing, just as it has within the GOP more generally.

Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/