What's the deal with Liberals?

College Confidential Community
21

<p>if it's not satire, then what is it exactly? Please inform me, because the last time I checked, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did not possess a degree in journalism. </p>

<p>This quote is taken directly from <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/about_the_show.jhtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/about_the_show.jhtml&lt;/a>
"If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts, if you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news networks, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."</p>

<p>There is absolutely no accuracy, or journalistic integrity, therefore, it is purely SATIRE. Also Jon Stewart is known as a SATIRIST. </p>

<p>You're a fool if you honestly believe that GWB, Rumsfeld, or any government official take these men and their "newscasts" seriously. Hello? They know that a majority of people watch their shows, therefore, why not take advantage of it? </p>

<p>And yes, the UM-MSU football game. I hope we win, but with John L. as coach, it isn't gonna happen. I want John L. Smith fired. :)</p>

22

<p>"because the last time I checked, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did not possess a degree in journalism. "</p>

<p>Um . . . A LOT of journalists don't have degrees in journalism. You don't need a journalism degree to be a journalist.</p>

<p>But I agree, Colbert Report and Daily News aren't real news.</p>

23

<p>This is what I posted in the other thread about conservatives:</p>

<p>Each party will always think they are better than the other. Republicans will always believe the Democrats are corrupt, and Democrats will always believe Republicans are corrupt. In truth, well, who knows?</p>

<p>No wonder Jefferson didn't want political parties in the United States. Look at us now.</p>

<p>.-_-.</p>

24

<p>hate to burst your bubble, but prominent newsanchors have journalism/communication degrees. </p>

<p>Connie Chung</p>

<p>Walter Kronkite earned a communication degree at the University of Texas </p>

<p>Nightline host, Ted Koppel, earned a B.A. in speech and M.A. in Mass Communication from Syracuse University. </p>

<p>Today Show host, Matt Lauer, holds a B.A. from Ohio University </p>

<p>Dan Rather, holds a journalism degree from University of Texas at Austin. </p>

<p>Need I say more? Thanks for supporting me on the newscast issue btw. :) Finally someone gets it.</p>

25

<p>Matt Lauer never graduated, and having a degree in journalism is by no means a pre-req for being a journalist.</p>

26

<p>"You're a fool if you honestly believe that GWB, Rumsfeld, or any government official take these men and their "newscasts" seriously. Hello? They know that a majority of people watch their shows, therefore, why not take advantage of it? "</p>

<p>You really seem to have your head in the sand dear. The Gop is well aware and seems to visit pretty frequently. People retain things differently.
Both these gentlemen are pretty darn smart as well. One does not have to be "serious" to make commentary. Have you studied Will Rogers (not Roy. and not Roy with the tigers) yet?</p>

<p>Political satire has long been with us. Look at Bret Hume on Fox. Listen to him, he's funny.:) He channels herman munster. </p>

<p>While your busy putting down others for how they choose to spend an evening watching the tellie, try not to trip while walking with your nose up in the air. If you were truly learning by watching what you do, you'd have a better arguement other than what I watch is legitimate and what you watch isn't.</p>

27

<p>And you forgot Keith Jackson Whooaa nellie! </p>

<p>And you still haven't made anything but a snobbish remark.</p>

28

<p>yes he did</p>

<p>Matt received his bachelor’s degree from Ohio University in 1997 after the school determined that his journalism experience could count as “independent study.”</p>

29

<p>Political satire has long been with us. Look at Bret Hume on Fox. Listen to him, he's funny. He channels herman munster. </p>

<p>wow grow up</p>

<p>What snobbish remarks have I made? I'm telling the truth. You're the one who's been snobby by insulting my intelligence by talking about Keith Jackson. So I think you should reread your posts before putting your foot in your mouth again. And trust me, even if I was snobbish, you should read the what's the deal with conservatives thread. Why don't you reprimand everyone on that thread. </p>

<p>After reading your posts about Foley, you must be a Dem. Did you know that the instant messages were a prank gone awry? (Trying to make peace with you instead of starting yet another arguement).</p>

<p>And trust me, I know a lot more about politics than the average person. Even my AP US History teacher said that I knew more about politics than him and a lot of other history teachers back when I was in high school. I know what I'm talking about and I don't get my information from Anne Coulter and the like and repeat it. So please don't assume that I know absolutely nothing, because I do a lot of research and keep up with the news through various forms of communication.</p>

<p>And don't call me dear, you're making me feel old. :P</p>

<p>And we are off topic....so can we get back on topic again?</p>

30

<p>Colbert seems to know what he's talking about though. I mean he did warn us about bears.</p>

31

<p>Colbert is funny. John Stewart is the epitome of modern liberalism; ignorant and not funny.</p>

32

<p>WHo exactly is saying that The Daily Show and the Colbert Report count as real news? I'm certainly not. </p>

<p>I'm tired of conservatives and liberals making drastic overgeneralizations, saying

[quote]
ith those evil, filthy liberals? Why are they so intent on tearing down everything that made America what it is? Why are they such overly-idealistic, religion-hating moral relativists?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>
[quote]
What’s the deal with Conservatives?
They’re so lame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Come on! You guys obviously have no idea how similar republicans and democrats are when you look at the entire political spectrum. This is the reason we are such a divided nation; not because we believe in different ideals, but because people have to tear the other party to shreds and demean them. I don't understand why you can't just accept a person's belief with out calling them 'retarded' or 'destroying america'</p>

33

<p>Both sides are fairly lame. But my sympathies lie with the conservatives as of now. They have their **** togather much more than liberals. Of course, classical liberalism is the best alternative, as Mr. Payne stated previously.</p>

34

<p>ahem, i believe i was the one who reffered to classical liberalism.</p>

35

<p>classical conservatism no longer exists either.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
classical conservatism no longer exists either.

[/quote]
Libertarianism is close enough.</p>

37

<p>Sorry Drew I was skimming through (That rhymes). Credit goes to you then I suppose (That doesn't rhyme).</p>

38

<p>libertarianism is closest to classical (or laissez-faire) liberalism, not classical conservativism</p>

39

<p>"I'm telling the truth."</p>

<p>Just your version of it hon, it doesn't make it correct. Just yours. :)</p>

<p>"You're the one who's been snobby by insulting my intelligence by talking about Keith Jackson."</p>

<p>Mr. Jackson is a highly regarded gentleman, amired by many people, including myself. Mr Jackson will be fondly remembered through time. Mr. Hume? don't think so. </p>

<p>"So I think you should reread your posts before putting your foot in your mouth again. And trust me, even if I was snobbish, you should read the what's the deal with conservatives thread. Why don't you reprimand everyone on that thread. "</p>

<p>You were more sporting.</p>

<p>"After reading your posts about Foley, you must be a Dem. Did you know that the instant messages were a prank gone awry? (Trying to make peace with you instead of starting yet another arguement)."</p>

<p>Really, all of them over all those years? More people are coming forward everyday. I really don't belong to either party, I'm just not as easily led as you are. You are writing in such absolutes that you have to be correct. World doesn't work that way kid. </p>

<p>"And trust me, I know a lot more about politics than the average person. Even my AP US History teacher said that I knew more about politics than him and a lot of other history teachers back when I was in high school."</p>

<p>A fine endoursement I'm sure. Certainly a reason to believe that your views are more weighted than others around the world. :)</p>

<p>"I know what I'm talking about and I don't get my information from Anne Coulter and the like and repeat it. So please don't assume that I know absolutely nothing, because I do a lot of research and keep up with the news through various forms of communication."</p>

<p>But you put down others who don't do it your way. Life will teach you more than to assume that wearing blinders is the best way to gain perspective. </p>

<p>And don't call me dear, you're making me feel old. :P</p>

<p>Sorry, I realize some of this is your youth. Most young people think everybody older than them are just stupid or wrong. It's so easy to see the "problem" and the "solution" when you narrow your vision.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
After reading your posts about Foley, you must be a Dem. Did you know that the instant messages were a prank gone awry? (Trying to make peace with you instead of starting yet another arguement).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>uhh...are you kidding me? If it was just some prank...why did it last for years...why did Foley admit to being sexually abused by a priest...why did an assistant from Hastert reveal that he told the congressman about Foley? If you seriously believe that this was a prank, then you need to step back from your strong conservative beliefs and look at the facts.</p>