I love it!

Too bad he won't run. I'd definantly vote for both of them. Hopefully Condi will run.

And that brings us to FNC’s new Daily Show knockoff titled "The Half Hour Comedy Hour". Oh wait. That was a show on Comedy Central, like, 20 years ago.

The new FNC show is actually called "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" and there’s a reason why the “comedy” part was left out of the oh-so-clever title. Obviously because, well, you know. There’s no comedy.

Jon Stewart has the wit, ability, talent along with production-values to make me laff at any and all who are on the target-end of his focus; he's equal-time when it comes to skewering.

NOT SO with what I've seen of the FNC offering.

I'm fairly confident that some Dem is soon gonna be parodied because he or she said "poo-poo" when they should have said "ca-ca" (run canned-laugh-track #7).

I swear that watching the FNC offering made me think continuously of that Lt. in "Good Morning Vietnam!"

DanS.-
Comedy Central wasn't around 20 years ago.

You wrote, "Obviously because, well, you know. There’s no comedy."
+I have to call you on that. Is it not funny when the coin gets flipped, or is it not funny when it goes agains your grain?? I find most of it funny, no matter who's gettin' creamed!

"I'm fairly confident that some Dem is soon gonna be parodied because he or she said "poo-poo" when they should have said "ca-ca" (run canned-laugh-track #7)."
+More like some Dem is soon gonna say "tax-tax", "ban-ban", & "give in-give in" (run canned-liberal-loony-track #7)."

Are you so serious that you can't laugh at yourself and your liberal crew while doing the same to Dubya?

Me smells some hypocrisy...

CD, My Good Man:

Quote for me, if you will, those lines & segments you thought funny on the FNC show.

I'm simply saying that Stewart makes me LAUGH OUTLOUD at some of his stuff ...while the FNC offering was as stilted as that LT I mentioned.

IT'S JUST NOT FUNNY!

Unless I'm missing that 'angle' of humor between parsing 'doo-doo' as 'ca-ca' instead of 'poo-poo'.

No hypocrisy here; ... just an ACK of what does (and does not) make me smile & grin in these grim times.

ALL the BEST to you!

"Howard Dean is finally getting the medical attention he has desperately needed for so long."

"Our economy teeters on the brink of collapse"

It's all funny Dan-man!

Quote for me, if you will, those lines and segments you Didn't think were funny...

And why???

The coin has been flipped.

OK, I will:

"Howard Dean is finally getting the medical attention he has desperately needed for so long."
FACT or not?

"Our economy teeters on the brink of collapse"
FACT or not?

Where is the riotus-LAFF-out-LOUD in this one way or the other?

Play that against something like this (from Stewart):

"Today, the Oregon State Climatoligist debunked Global Warming based on the ice cubes in his bath" ....except, there IS NO Oregon State Climatoligist! Now, ice cubes everywhere are under a cloud of suspicion".

See how that works as humor (and also not an attack on the original-phony premise)?

To me, this is just so funny! I can 'see' the ice cubes running for hiding-places.

Nonetheless, I am now given to understanding that the State of Oregon has at LEAST one FANTASTIC BS'er ... -and I LOVE Oregon!

If Howard Dean isn't getting the medical attention he so desperately needs, then the liberal plan isn't working. FACT!

"Our economy teeters on the brink of collapse"
FALSE!

"See how that works as humor (and also not an attack on the original-phony premise)?"
++That was my whole point Dan... It's 'funny' when your crowd rips on Conservatives, but when the shoe is on the other foot, all of a sudden it's "not funny".

What was that about an "original-phony premise"?

DanS. It's funny to conservatives because we understand that when we make jokes about liberals it makes us laugh and they get pissed. You people just cannot understand good humor! You have to completely trash someone such as Limbaugh or W. instead of trying humor. The reason behind liberals inability to understand humor is that they are completely absorbed within theirselves and the hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.

If Jon Stewart is your source for 1)humour and 2)News, it really does show the sad state of our liberal citizens. Why did I find that stint funny? Because I knew the lefty libs were going to rupture their aneurysms over it because as Gene so aptly mentioned above, they only understand humour when it's directed at GWB or conservatives. Anything else is a personal attack on them and well, we all know how sensitive they are being sympathetic to the plight of the Mooselimb terrorists and all. My philosophy, they can take their lack of humour and "sensitivity" and shove it where the sun don't shine. Quite useless wastes of oxygen on this planet and VERY large contributors to CO2 production and global warming (which by the way has been scientifically discounted as being caused by man). And the economy-it's flourishing-I have a business, I'll give you the specifics if you like. The Dims hate it (and the stock market records as well), but you know they've got to blames something on Bush and Company so they'll keep throwing darts at something until one hits.

Too funny. Sending it out now.

Ahem.....

Conservatives......Action,Leadership,Results,Progress,Lower taxes & geninue humor.

Dimocrats.....Welfare,Posturing,Stagnation,Retreat,higher & more taxes, Lies & Slander.

That about sum`s it up

On the same subject, I suggest an article that I just finished reading at "TownHall.com" by a John Hawkins entitled, "Liberal Emotion" and "Conservative Logic". This can aid Dans to understand the difference between the two thinkings.

Damn it Denny! Did you block Jared the moron from posting here. Now he's sending me e-mails because he can't voice his moronic foolosophy on right and wrong to your site. The following is this asswipes mail to me. Which post I sent he's referring to, I'll never know.

no comments because gay old cripple, blocks liberals
from posting, too much of a sissy to read the truth

80% of this nation wans you out
got it?

you are enemies of the people

you filthy, piece of shit

Ray.....

Probable liberal arts/political science english major.

Ray - Yep! I blocked Jared. Had he followed the rules he could have stayed. Instead he insisted on acting like a spoiled little boy with his inane grammatically incorect and incoherent diatribes. No one reads his crap so he goes to other more popular sites to spout his liberal bullshit. I don't mind sensible debate. There are many liberals I have not banned, but they don't stick around very long. You notice DanS and Prosper are still here. Matthew G stops by occasionally. They all follow the Rules. I don't mind polite debate. Jared is a spoiled brat and I don't deal well with people like that. On top of all that, he is an anti-American idiot.

in our dreams!!! play it again, Sam, for 4 years.

Wow, I would have thought that if FNC was going to do a Daily Show knock-off that they'd at least make decent effort. The writing on that show is abysmal. I doubt that even enough extreme right-wingers will stick with the show to keep it going. Making fun of Democrats isn't enough. You have to actually be funny. And the canned laugh track is simply embarassing.

Oh, and if the title of this post "Dims Worst Nightmare," refers to Limbaugh as president, then it is certainly accurate. But if it refers to Limbaugh running for president, then it is definitely wrong. Rush Limbaugh running for president would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. Rush would maybe win 15% of the popular vote and any Democratic opponent would win the biggest landslide in American electoral history. His brand of political extremism appeals only to a small percentage of people on the far right of the political spectrum.

Also, Dave said, "Hopefully Condi will run." She of course won't run for president, but might be willing to be someone's running mate. However, I don't think that would be a good idea for the Republicans. A few years ago, it looked like she had a great political future. But her star has fallen greatly. She was one of the architects of a failed Iraq War policy and is one of the people responsible for keeping us in Iraq. It states the patently obvious to say that keeping us in Iraq and indeed escalating our involvement is a position unpopular with the American people. She is widely viewed as a failure as a Secretary of State. She is a diplomat who has eschewed diplomacy in favor of a failed war, which she continues to champion, despite our persistent lack of progress. If Condi is the Republicans VP nominee, she will saddle her running mate with a significant political liability.

Oh Rich.
You are so very wrong.
What failed Iraq policy. Our troops are winning that war. I know that it is hard to see for those who get the news from NBC, KOS and the DNC but our Marines and Strykers are kicking butt daily. Granted they have to get the job done quickly before the next presidential election. The Dims are already waving white flags. We will pay for a lifetime if the cowards get thier way.
With very few exceptions, any soldier I talk to is proud of our acomplishments in Iraq and firmly believes we are winning. Not a one can point to any battle that our troops have not won.
Rush of coarse will never be president but he has a crap load of more followers than any candidate out there.
No falling stars for Rice. Just a fucked up liberal press pushing an agenda.
We will watch the new Fox show and laugh.
Unless the show sucks. If that is the case we will just turn it off.

We're winning the war? Even the Secretary of Defense admits that we are not winning the war. No, we haven't lost a single battle. But this isn't that kind of war. This is not a conventional war of army against army. This is a war of an army against multiple disparate groups of terrorists. In this kind of war, you are winning if you can maintain peace, security and the safety of the general public. That is why Seretary Gates and I (and the vast majority of people in this country) understand that we are not winning this war. It was a failed policy with a failed strategy. It is hard for an intelligent person to come to any other conclusion.

And yes, Rice's star is falling in the eyes of the American people. Most Americans don't like this war. Most Americans want us to pull out. Those are simple facts. And Rice is front and center saying that we have to keep fighting. She was one of the people who put this war strategy together, and it hasn't worked. She wants us to keep fighting when the American people want to end it. That doesn't exactly make for a popular potential candidate.

You know, I think that rather than ripping off the Daily Show, that's a ripoff of This Hour Has 22 Minutes from the CBC. There was a time when it was a funny show, but considering how the CBC is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Liberal/NDP parties up here, they just can't help themselves from being stupid rather than funny sometimes.

If you look closely, you'll recognize a face from an episode of 24, Shaun Majumder. Indian feller with a Newfie accent. Comedy gold....

http://www.22minutes.com/index.php

Apparently all the little inuendoes are lost on some people. Funny as hell.

Rich - Yep! The American people want us to pull out. Y'know why? Because the LSM has bleated over and over again about how this war is unwinnable, just like they did during Viet Nam. We won every battle there, including Tet, but we lost the war at home. Go back and see what happened after we left. Millions died. We had the boat people fleeing, we had the killing fields in Cambodia, and we had the reeducation camps.

I stated after 9/11 that the American people did not have the will to defeat Islamo-fascism (as did bin Laden, which is why we had 9/11 in the first place). Sadly my prediction has come true. We will cut and run from Iraq and there will be a blood bath and the Islamo-fascists will declare victory and prove bin Laden right that we don't have the stomach to win this war. We will get a Dimocrat president in 2008 who will cut military spending and gut our intelligence agencies just like Clinton did in the 90's. There will be more 9/11s. This war against Islamo-fascism will go on as long or longer than the Cold War, because we have a bunch of anti-American leftist assholes and their friends in the LSM, who want us to lose to the Islamo-fascists just like they wanted us to lose to the commies. History does repeat itself. It's times like these that I wonder what happened to my country.

I’m just a narrow minded FUCKTARD!!!

I have had bowel movements with a higher IQ than Jared.

The Jared thing was totally my fault...I humbly, deeply, sincerely apologize for that, for all the annoyance he's caused, and y'all should know that I am a one-woman-cleaning-up-all-his-fcuking-rabid-droppings-all-over-the-blogosphere machine lately, and I'm getting pretty damn sick of it.

He attacks everyone on my blogroll, and so I'm at a total loss. I used to be friends with this guy. What was I thinking?

Sorry.

Denny,
What has happened in Viet Nam in the last decade? Going and killing people just doesn\\\'t work my friend.

haha - What happened in Viet Nam after we left? A fucking bloodbath. You want to talk about killing people? Over a million people were killed by the commies after we left. Read some history.

Please stop avoiding questions. Yes, Viet Nam was a blood bath after we left and we contributed to that blood bath just by being there in the first place. In fact all of Asia was pretty much a blood bath after world war 2. You should read your history. What happens when a tyrannt tries to impose his will on the populace? What happened to Britian when the king tried to impose his will on America? What happened to Napoleon when he tried to claim Europe as his own? What happened to Rome? You are the one who does not understand history. So the question remains. What has happened in Viet Nam in the last decade? I'll bet you just delete this post and write something like, "I like to suck dicks". You won't answer because you don't have the balls.

"Going and killing people just doesn\\\'t work my friend."

It seemed to work for Augustus.
It seemed to work for Charlemagne.
It seemed to work for Charles Martel.
It seemed to work for Henry Tudor.
It seemed to work for Sherman and Grant.
It seemed to work for Patton and MacArthur.

"Going and killing people just doesn\\\'t work my friend."

To paraphrase Heinlein;

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the city fathers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Erica - Actually, I baited Jared into coming to my site just so I could make him an AOTW. It was not your fault.

haha - I did answer your question. We went into Viet Nam to prevent a bloodbath. We had a treaty (SEATO) with South Viet Nam. North Viet Nam was trying to conquer SVN. It was another Korea. (BTW, compare and contrast North Korea with South Korea.) As I said, we won every battle but lost the war at home, just like we will lose this war at home because of the assholes in the media and the Dimocrat Party. I do read my history and I actually lived the history I'm talking about. I served in Viet Nam.

As to killing people never solved anything, does that mean we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary War? Does that mean we shouldn't have fought the Civil War? Does that mean we shouldn't have fought WWII? Sometimes killing people does solve things.

You sound like someone who thinks the end justifies the means. Because Viet Nam is peaceful today that must rationalize the millions killed after we left. You don't seem too upset about that. Maybe killing people is OK as long as it is not the US doing the killing. It must have been OK for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

I guess because China is peaceful today, that rationalizes the millions of Chinese that Chairman Mao killed. I guess since Russia is relatively peaceful today, that rationalizes the millions of ctizens of the USSR that Stalin killed.

You were doing so well up until your last sentence. I allow dissenting opinion and discussion as long as it is presented rationally and without childish insults. When you follow the rules and act like an adult, I do not edit comments. I am totally upfront with my policies. It always amazes me when someone is surprised that I enforce my rules and do the things I say I will.

If a boy could dream, that would be it.

The problem with the dimocrats is they are so filled with a lust for power they do not understand who or what the enemy really is.

The concept of a loyal opposition committed to protect & defend this country is not a part of their agenda.While no one rational wants to fight a war,we have been under attack for longer then most people realize,9/11 with 3000 deaths was just an expansion to fighting this war on our soil, not the opening battle. Those defeatist`s who now try to place western idealism to a middle east mired some 300 years in the feudal past of religious fanaticism & tribal loyalties do not comprehend the enemy for who or what it is.

The Dimocrats & their fellow sympathizer`s in the LSM, Press & Hollywood have turned their back on patriotism & honor to engage in action`s which should be considered treason of the highest order in an attempt to gain power even if it means a defeat for the United States. If this does come to pass the result will be terrorist activies on a grand scale with a bloodbath un-equaled in history with we to be the principle target.

Our real enemy is muslim fundamentalism , it matters not what country they come from as they are united in fundamentalist belief & tribal affiliation. They do consider us to be the only force capable to stop their dream`s of conquest & will not cease their efforts until they win or are dead. They do not look at this struggle as something to be won or lost according to a timetable established by the dimocrats, in fact they applaud the efforts of the dimocrats as that distracts the American people from the real agenda in place.

The sad thing is for the moment it is working all to well, as Osama stated the United States lacks the courage to fight to win. The dimocrats & their traitorous fellow travelers are doing their level best to make sure we lose & they regain political power.These people should hang their head`s in shame for what they are attempting to do......so should the idiots in this country who support them.

Denny,
Regarding jared, I owe him a sincere appology. I called him a communist, and that is entirely not true. You see, he is a weak socialist, and that is simply put, a comunist without a spine, or in his case, gonads. His sorry ass has been spaming my E-mails for a week now. Yup, I baited his retard ass too.
I got Janes tits up in all their lack of glory. Send a few people over to vote on them. Saturday boobage they are NOT. Strong stomachs only, please.
regarding Haha, and his lame comments, Killing sure worked with Bundy and Dahlmer, got rid of them permanently. It did wonders with Yamamoto, Heidrich, and the many Nazis who took one for Hitler. It continues to work its wonders in Palistine where Islam proves its ability to live in pieces and harmony with the rest of humanity. What, they are still killing each other? Good!
What do you say to the last islamonut to die for the wrong reason?
A= Thanks for making the world a better place by your departure.
Yes, I know, I'm an asshole and a half.

So let me get this straight. The US were fine with communism after WW2 because they helped us win the war. After that the US decided they were an enemy and the cold war started. We sent in troops to contain what was then the USSR in Europe. The USSR started killing their own people and people in surrounding countries. We send in troops and find out the USSR actually has nukes and we freak out. We stabalize Korea though a UN action. (not US but UN.) We kill a few 100,000 asians by this point, who really cares. Then the French (that you so loathe BTW.) Start having trouble in Indo-china. All hell breaks loose because they're "Communist, the enemy." 50,000 Americans die. Not you, because you're on a boat, and countless Vietnamese. We eventually pull out of Viet Nam and start fucking with central america. (I'm intentionally leaving out Cuba. Don't you get your panties in a bunch.) Viet Nam is settled by the late 1970's . Oh but now we have something other to worry about. It seems that we fucked Iran by not backing the right dictator. Well let's send in Saddam Hussien, he seems like an alright guy. Eight years of war nothing decided. Saddams people are starving. Shit hes attacked Kuwait. Enter the US "You can't do that! Even though we backed you before." Meanwhile all hells breaking loose in Afghanistan. You see while we were helping the mujahedeen to defeat Communism, they were looking to kick our ass too. Keep your enemies close. So you see my friends, violence doens't work. It only pisses people off. Especially when you support them one day and then stab them in the back the next. You can't have it both ways.

Haha - Let's see if I can help you out here.

I don't know if the US was fine with communism. I know that the New York Times was (and probably still is). Walter Duranty pretty much sanitized Uncle Joe's starving of the Ukranians. The US was essentially isolationist altho' FDR was supplying arms to Great Britain. So, should we have supported the USSR, Germany or stayed out of the war after we were attacked? Those are your choices. Those are your only choices.

At Yalta, I think FDR gave away too much to the USSR. BTW, he was a Dimocrat. After the war, when we saw the real Stalin and the threat of communism, the USSR became our enemy. Shit happens. Were we supposed to sit by blindly and let Stalin take over the rest of Europe? We sat by blindly and watched him crush the Hungarian revolt in the 50's.

North Korea. The only reason we were even allowed to aid South Korea, was because the USSR was boycotting the United Nations and was not able to assert its veto in the Security Council. Yes, the UN went into Korea, but the United States provided the majority of the forces and the supreme commander was MacArthur who just happened to be an American.

We've covered Viet Nam before, but let me point out that more people died after we left than when we were there. Viet Nam and Korea were both proxy wars fought against the USSR and Red China. Korea was a tie and South Korea became a prosperous country while the North became the Third World shithole that it is now. Viet Nam was a loss. To you Viet Nam is a success story because it is, to you, a successful country. Sorry, Viet Nam is still a Third World shithole. It still has rampant poverty and essentially slave labor, just like China. Comnpare it to South Korea.

Yeah. We really fucked up Central America. To you, everything the United States does is a failure. You really hate this country don't you? Did you learn that in the gummint school system? From your parents?

Now let's talk about Iraq and Iran. I've covered this before many times, but every few months I attract another liberal and I have to explain yet again how the world works and how the world has worked since the beginning of civilization. It is a simple concept known as changing alliances. Like in WWII, we allied with the USSR because it was a lesser threat than Germany. In the early 80's we helped Iraq against Iran because Iran was our enemy. Do you remember when they took our diplomats hostage during Peanut's administration in violation of international law? We were pissed off at them. So yeah, we helped Iraq out. I was all for it. When Iraq, invaded Kuwait, the rules changed. We should have finished the job during GWI, then a lot of Iraqis and Kurde would still be living.

As to your simplistic violence never works canard,
I'll once again bring up WWII, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. Sometimes war is forced upon us.

Changing alliances? So are you saying it\\\'s OK to be morally corrupt, unscrupulous, and a \\\"flip flopper\\\" if it serves a greater good?

HaHa......

Long ago I posted the need to recognize the world as it really is not as one wishes it to be. Idealism is fine for dreams but in order to function in an restless changing world , it is neccessary to be aware of everchanging circumstance in order to provide for your country & its allies the best benefit`s or advantage. This is the reason for as you postulate in your analogy for being a "flipflopper".

Have there been error`s or misjudgements? hell yes! In fact our dimocratic house & senate are poised to do just that with a politically motivated but not strategic cut & run in Iraq just as Osama Bin Laden predicted. The fallout & future consequence will be enormous & tragic.

I know you attempted to draw a comparison to John Kerry with your post,but it does not wash as John Kerry never has had less then two positions on any issue including whether he believed in flipflopping in the first place.

In the real world this country needs a leader who is willing to make the hard decisions for difficult choices not a politician driven by polling data or even popular ideas given stature by the LSM.There is too much history for the failure of appeasement & populist decisions as opposed to acting for the best interest of the nation which would substantiate the dimocratic defeatist position`s.

The dimocratic party is a party of liberal self glorification driven by political motivation for the assumption of parlimentary power even if it means defeat on an international scale for the best interest`s of the United States.Given the nature of muslim fundamentalism , this is a recipe for global confrontation in the near future to determine whether or not western civilization will survive.

Which side are you on?....... Mr HAHA!

Haha - Are you saying it's all right for us to do nothing and let our enemies kill us?

Not at all. But I\\\'m confused by the term enemies. There\\\'s been so many throughout the years, it\\\'s hard to keep track.

And what, exactly, are the United States best interests? I won't put words in your mouth, like you do. Answer me honestly. What do think are our best interests?

HAHA.......

What are our best interests?....

You are probably looking for a long list of priorities,but simply put "survival" in other words while we would prefer to live & let live, it is neccessary to be prepared to defend & protect as required where ever, however & when ever.

Teddy Roosevelt said it best," Speak softly but carry a big stick."