Jon Stewart Knocks It Out of the Park

[pepper brooks 579]

 

good for him.  He eviscerates these losers in congress, and lets them have it on an issue that just shouldn't be an issue.  

Edited June 11, 2019 by pepper brooks

[Zonahorn 8079]

Why can’t we just make the zadroga act and it’s funding permanent?

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Because it costs money and taxes are bad.

[Todd Gack 431]

So, what's the story here?  Congress renews the Act for 5 years at a time, and makes the first responders show up in year 4 to inform them that, surprise surprise, their cancer isn't cured yet and they still need health care?  seriously wtf?!

[wildcat09 29263]

13 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Why can’t we just make the zadroga act and it’s funding permanent?

A billionaire somewhere needs a tax cut.

[RomaVicta 29797]

But...but...we call them heroes and thank them for their service. We get emotional.

Then we can't be bothered. Then some of us find a way to vilify survivors as money grubbers. Then these same people are appalled at the taxes levied on the wealthy. Idiot world.

To quote Brisket: Cruelty is our brand.

So what if they drown in fluids filling their lungs or writhe and diminish in cancer. We don't see it.

[Brisketexan 104635]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

 

So what if they drown in fluids filling their lungs or writhe and diminish in cancer. We don't see it.

They should have taken better care of themselves.  Pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  Cancer is fake news.  Etc. etc.  Don't make Trumpkins choose between their God or anything else -- their children, first responders, the Constitution, the survival of the country.....they'll choose Trumpism.  All the time, every time.  Because look at those libtears.  Buncha pussy snowflakes, shedding tears for dying firefighters and such -- SNOWFLAKES!

[Lagunamadre 1975]

Damn. That was powerful. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Would love an attendant list of who showed and didn't. And Jon is what a patriot looks and acts like. 

[David Dennison 18661]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

A billionaire somewhere needs a tax cut.

Makers always deserve a tax cut, taker.

[Bozo_Casanova 26288]

"I'm sick and tired of hearing this is a New York issue. Al Qaida didn't shout, 'death to Tribeca.'"

[pepper brooks 579]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

A billionaire somewhere needs a tax cut.

you're acting as though having the cash to fund something has ever stopped our government.  we have 20+ trillion in debt, and you act as though the few hundred billionaires could be taxed at a rate that would make a dent in 20 trillion.  it's a nice quip, and trite poke, but unrealistic, ignorant and shows  complete lack of understanding of the financial mismanagement of our government, and the vastness of the shortfall.  If you could somehow convert the fortunes of evey billionaire in the US and convert them to cash, you could not make a dent in the debt.  Them getting a "tax cut" and acting like that is the cause of the government being underfunded is a fools errand.  

 

Back to the original take, had they set a fund with 10-15 billion printed fake dolllars on the china credit card 18 years ago they very likely could have funded all these expenses on the interest over that time period, but that might require someone with an ounce of financial background, maybe someone with a background in risk management, and a few people in congress who don't live with their heads in their asses.  easy to see how nothing was done, and they require these poor guys to show up and grovel for help every few years.  Makes a nice photo op for these losers to take a picture with the first responders and report back that they helped fund their medical bills a few more years.  The whole of congress is a sickening bunch on so many levels.  we really need to raise the minimum age to 57, cut pay to expenses only, and have hard and fast term limits on these people.  

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Damn.  That was tremendous.  Hopefully, it gets some traction.

On a side note, fuck anyone who says celebrities just need to shut up.  This testimony is why that's a bad blanket policy.  As it turns out, some celebrities are smart, engaged, passionate, and . . . citizens.

[Post Oak 20187]

AmERicAn ExCeptionALisM At It'S FinEsT

[Mojo Hand 4580]

In the interest of accuracy, the empty seats were at least mostly because it was a subcommittee meeting, which is held in the fill committee room.  Every Dem on the subcommittee, at least, was present:

 

The hearing, however, had not been slated to take place before the whole Judiciary Committee — it was being held before the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The subcommittee has 14 members, compared with the full committee, which has 41 members.

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., appeared to respond to Stewart's remarks later in the hearing, according to the Hill.

"My subcommittee, every single member on my side, which is eight of us, have been here today," Cohen said. "All these empty chairs that's because it's for the full committee, not because it's disrespect or lack of attention to you."

That said, it doesn't undermine his point about having to go before some subcommittee in 2019 for this issue. 

 

[wildcat09 29263]

3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

you're acting as though having the cash to fund something has ever stopped our government.  we have 20+ trillion in debt, and you act as though the few hundred billionaires could be taxed at a rate that would make a dent in 20 trillion.  it's a nice quip, and trite poke, but unrealistic, ignorant and shows  complete lack of understanding of the financial mismanagement of our government, and the vastness of the shortfall.  If you could somehow convert the fortunes of evey billionaire in the US and convert them to cash, you could not make a dent in the debt.  Them getting a "tax cut" and acting like that is the cause of the government being underfunded is a fools errand.  

 

Back to the original take, had they set a fund with 10-15 billion printed fake dolllars on the china credit card 18 years ago they very likely could have funded all these expenses on the interest over that time period, but that might require someone with an ounce of financial background, maybe someone with a background in risk management, and a few people in congress who don't live with their heads in their asses.  easy to see how nothing was done, and they require these poor guys to show up and grovel for help every few years.  Makes a nice photo op for these losers to take a picture with the first responders and report back that they helped fund their medical bills a few more years.  The whole of congress is a sickening bunch on so many levels.  we really need to raise the minimum age to 57, cut pay to expenses only, and have hard and fast term limits on these people.  

My god.

[pepper brooks 579]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Damn.  That was tremendous.  Hopefully, it gets some traction.

On a side note, fuck anyone who says celebrities just need to shut up.  This testimony is why that's a bad blanket policy.  As it turns out, some celebrities are smart, engaged, passionate, and . . . citizens.

we are all citizens, even those assholes who hold elected office.  Seems the populace and those elected with representing the populace has forgotten that all important fact.  We have people who act as though our politicians are "rock stars", and politicians who believe it.  It's absurd.  they're nothing more than citizen representatives, and I think it is way past time they be reminded.  they shouldn't be treated as though they're more important than they are.  

[pepper brooks 579]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

My god.

what?  you have any rebuttal that would indicate any of that isn't factually correct? 20+ trillion.  go find that cash via the tax code and get back to me with how it works without crippling the economy.  

[wildcat09 29263]

No words. Should have sent a poet.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

we are all citizens, even those assholes who hold elected office.  Seems the populace and those elected with representing the populace has forgotten that all important fact.  We have people who act as though our politicians are "rock stars", and politicians who believe it.  It's absurd.  they're nothing more than citizen representatives, and I think it is way past time they be reminded.  they shouldn't be treated as though they're more important than they are.  

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point.  I was commenting on Jon Stewart's commitment to the issue, which includes a clear in-depth knowledge thereof.  

Let's be honest:  "shut up and act" (or "shut up and tell jokes") really only gets trotted out when the celebrity in question leans left of center.  For some odd reason, Chachi, Kid Rock, and Clint Eastwood escape that scolding.  Odd.

[Fondren & Main 6670]

I read this:

 

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., appeared to respond to Stewart's remarks later in the hearing, according to the Hill.

"My subcommittee, every single member on my side, which is eight of us, have been here today," Cohen said. "All these empty chairs that's because it's for the full committee, not because it's disrespect or lack of attention to you."

[F250 28693]

This has been floating around in Congress for months and hasn't received much coverage beyond local NY news. This is the kind of legislation that is easily susceptible to public shaming but it's never really received any media attention. Without Stewart doing this, most people would be unaware of the legislation not moving forward. Kudos to John Stewart for using his platform.

With that said, the media needs to spend more time covering other issues that are important but not as salacious as the daily Trump goat rodeo.

[pepper brooks 579]

Just now, F250 said:

This has been floating around in Congress for months and hasn't received much coverage beyond local NY news. This is the kind of legislation that is easily susceptible to public shaming but it's never really received any media attention. Without Stewart doing this, most people would be unaware of the legislation not moving forward. Kudos to John Stewart for using his platform.

With that said, the media needs to spend more time covering other issues that are important but not as salacious as the daily Trump goat rodeo.

but that actually might bring people together and we might find common ground, and act civilly towards one another.  The media and the two rotten to the core parties want no part of that.  

[F250 28693]

From earlier this year.

Rep. King slams Freedom Caucus congressman for asking how much NY is kicking in for 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-pete-king-911-victim-compensation-mark-meadows-freedom-caucus-fund-20190226-story.html

[wildcat09 29263]

6 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

but that actually might bring people together and we might find common ground, and act civilly towards one another.  The media and the two rotten to the core parties want no part of that.  

You may want to research who exactly in Congress held up the Zadroga Act in 2010 and opposed making it permanent in 2015.

[pepper brooks 579]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You may want to research who exactly in Congress held up the Zadroga Act in 2010 and opposed making it permanent in 2015.

Why would I care who did it?  I don't give a shit who did it, they were wrong on this issue and should be judged harshly.  primary them, and get them removed if you have to vote on a party line, vote for their opponent if you don't find that person reprehensible.  matters not to me.  

[Foosters 17734]

Just now, pepper brooks said:

Why would I care who did it?  I don't give a shit who did it, they were wrong on this issue and should be judged harshly.  primary them, and get them removed if you have to vote on a party line, vote for their opponent if you don't find that person reprehensible.  matters not to me.  

Because you're a GOP apologist who blames the dems and Obama for the nation's ills, and then turns around and asks why we can't all come together for the good of the nation?

[wildcat09 29263]

Just now, Foosters said:

Because you're a GOP apologist who blames the dems and Obama for the nation's ills, and then turns around and asks why we can't all come together for the good of the nation?

Someone give this man a prize.

[Zepol87 9172]

Damn that intense. Good job Jon

[gmr548 16518]

we really need to raise the minimum age to 57

Yes, let's raise the minimum age for Congress to the point where age-related cognitive decline has already begun, no one understands new technology, and no one has to live with long-term impacts of policy decisions. In no way could this produce bad results.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[wildcat09 29263]

3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

Yes, let's raise the minimum age for Congress to the point where age-related cognitive decline has already begun, no one understands new technology, and no one has to live with long-term impacts of policy decisions. In no way could this produce bad results.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

The thing to do is to somehow clone all the boomers and only allow the clones to be elected so that boomers can control America in perpetuity.

[SDG 3319]

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

They should have taken better care of themselves.  Pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  Cancer is fake news.  Etc. etc.  Don't make Trumpkins choose between their God or anything else -- their children, first responders, the Constitution, the survival of the country.....they'll choose Trumpism.  All the time, every time.  Because look at those libtears.  Buncha pussy snowflakes, shedding tears for dying firefighters and such -- SNOWFLAKES!

You’re letting your blind hatred of Trump cloud your judgement.  

 

[TexArcher 37524]

God damn, this is infuriating.

Anyone who stands in the way of these heroes getting whatever they need has to be voted out of office at the next opportunity.  

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

But...but...we call them heroes and thank them for their service. We get emotional.

Then we can't be bothered.

Clearly you have forgotten the thoughts and prayers.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

you're acting as though having the cash to fund something has ever stopped our government.  we have 20+ trillion in debt, and you act as though the few hundred billionaires could be taxed at a rate that would make a dent in 20 trillion.  it's a nice quip, and trite poke, but unrealistic, ignorant and shows  complete lack of understanding of the financial mismanagement of our government, and the vastness of the shortfall.  If you could somehow convert the fortunes of evey billionaire in the US and convert them to cash, you could not make a dent in the debt.  Them getting a "tax cut" and acting like that is the cause of the government being underfunded is a fools errand.  

 

Back to the original take, had they set a fund with 10-15 billion printed fake dolllars on the china credit card 18 years ago they very likely could have funded all these expenses on the interest over that time period, but that might require someone with an ounce of financial background, maybe someone with a background in risk management, and a few people in congress who don't live with their heads in their asses.  easy to see how nothing was done, and they require these poor guys to show up and grovel for help every few years.  Makes a nice photo op for these losers to take a picture with the first responders and report back that they helped fund their medical bills a few more years.  The whole of congress is a sickening bunch on so many levels.  we really need to raise the minimum age to 57, cut pay to expenses only, and have hard and fast term limits on these people.  

The “party of fiscal responsibility “ set us down this path you describe. Huge deficits under Reagan, a surplus under Clinton, huge deficits again and send the economy over the cliff under W, then a complete unnecessary give away to corporations and billionaires thanks to trump and his evil pet turtle. 

Lets try to be honest as to where the blame lies. And it’s not “everyone in congress.” 

The “party of fiscal responsibility” is the one driving the bus off the cliff. Start being honest about that then maybe we can have a discussion. 

[RPM 26230]

Jon Stewart is what a good American looks like.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Man I miss the Daily Show. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

what?  you have any rebuttal that would indicate any of that isn't factually correct? 20+ trillion.  go find that cash via the tax code and get back to me with how it works without crippling the economy.  

we make every single budgeting decision in our country under those same facts. 

 

[Brisketexan 104635]

 
You’re letting your blind hatred of Trump cloud your judgement.  
 

Administering it. Not funding it. There’s a giant fucking difference. That difference is exactly what he’s testifying about.

[pepper brooks 579]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The “party of fiscal responsibility “ set us down this path you describe. Huge deficits under Reagan, a surplus under Clinton, huge deficits again and send the economy over the cliff under W, then a complete unnecessary give away to corporations and billionaires thanks to trump and his evil pet turtle. 

Lets try to be honest as to where the blame lies. And it’s not “everyone in congress.” 

The “party of fiscal responsibility” is the one driving the bus off the cliff. Start being honest about that then maybe we can have a discussion. 

well except that whole president cannot spend thing, but if you must go there last I checked when bush took over debt was 5 trillion. when his fiscal disaster ended it was 10.  Obama took over and got us to 20.  trump is on a disastrous path as well with full acceptance from the democrat congress not known as a party that even pretends to understand fiscal responsibility.  blame whomever you want, but congress spends.  Presidents ask, congress spends.  oh, and there was never a year, ever under Clinton where receipts > spend, but if you want to believe that fallacy would the credit not go to the Newt Gingrich led congress and the contract with America?  That was the pact that saw the "projected budgetary surplus" unfold.  Oh, and bush had the same "projected budgetary surplus" too.  we know how that turned out.  

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

 

Back to the original take, had they set a fund with 10-15 billion printed fake dolllars on the china credit card 18 years ago they very likely could have funded all these expenses on the interest over that time period, but that might require someone with an ounce of financial background, maybe someone with a background in risk management, and a few people in congress who don't live with their heads in their asses.  easy to see how nothing was done, and they require these poor guys to show up and grovel for help every few years.  Makes a nice photo op for these losers to take a picture with the first responders and report back that they helped fund their medical bills a few more years.  The whole of congress is a sickening bunch on so many levels.  we really need to raise the minimum age to 57, cut pay to expenses only, and have hard and fast term limits on these people.  

I'd say we have a maximum age of 57 and double their salary. Let's get reps whose brains work and compensate them commensurate to what a successful person would earn at the peak of their career. 

[pepper brooks 579]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I'd say we have a maximum age of 57 and double their salary. Let's get reps whose brains work and compensate them commensurate to what a successful person would earn at the peak of their career. 

maybe, but if you pay them only expenses then you get guys and ladies who are financially stable, wealthy who cannot easily be bought off by lobbyists, special interests.  You get successful folks who are giving back and serving after they have made their fortunes. That was the intent by the founders.  the idea of career politicians would be completely reprehensible to them as it is to me. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by pepper brooks

[SDG 3319]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Administering it. Not funding it. There’s a giant fucking difference. That difference is exactly what he’s testifying about.

Yes, but you used Trumpism in your response which this has nothing to do with. This is on Congress....

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well except that whole president cannot spend thing, but if you must go there last I checked when bush took over debt was 5 trillion. when his fiscal disaster ended it was 10.  Obama took over and got us to 20.  trump is on a disastrous path as well with full acceptance from the democrat congress not known as a party that even pretends to understand fiscal responsibility.  blame whomever you want, but congress spends.  Presidents ask, congress spends.  oh, and there was never a year, ever under Clinton where receipts > spend, but if you want to believe that fallacy would the credit not go to the Newt Gingrich led congress and the contract with America?  That was the pact that saw the "projected budgetary surplus" unfold.  Oh, and bush had the same "projected budgetary surplus" too.  we know how that turned out.  

I wasn’t talking about the president. I was talking about the republicans.

I knew your go to but obama move would come before you even posted it. 

And are you seriously blaming the dems for what the republicans did all on their own the past 2 years? Get out of here with your disingenuous bullshit. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

maybe, but if you pay them only expenses then you get guys who are financially stable, wealthy who cannot easily be bought off by lobbyists, special interests.  You get successful guys who are giving back and serving after they have made their fortunes. That was the intent by the founders.  the idea of career politicians would be completely reprehensible to them as it is to me. 

I'm OK with term limits as well. Also, LOL at the rich reps not being beholden to lobbyist. 

[wildcat09 29263]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I wasn’t talking about the president. I was talking about the republicans.

I knew your go to but obama move would come before you even posted it. 

And are you seriously blaming the dems for what the republicans did all on their own the past 2 years? Get out of here with your disingenuous bullshit. 

Of course he is. Every republican knows that the Republican Party is never responsible for its own actions. Everything is always the fault of those damned democRATs.

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

maybe, but if you pay them only expenses then you get guys and ladies who are financially stable, wealthy who cannot easily be bought off by lobbyists, special interests.  You get successful folks who are giving back and serving after they have made their fortunes. That was the intent by the founders.  the idea of career politicians would be completely reprehensible to them as it is to me. 

Wow! Lololololol. 

Have you seen the Texas lege lately? That all by itself blows your ridiculously dumb theory out of the water. 

Let me spare you the suspense. The members of the Texas lege don’t get paid shit and it’s not filled to the brim with financially stable gents and ladies. 

[henrygandorf 29179]

14 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

maybe, but if you pay them only expenses then you get guys and ladies who are financially stable, wealthy who cannot easily be bought off by lobbyists, special interests.  You get successful folks who are giving back and serving after they have made their fortunes. That was the intent by the founders.  the idea of career politicians would be completely reprehensible to them as it is to me. 

hmm.  a bunch of older, rich people running the country.  this sounds about right.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They should have taken better care of themselves.  Pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  Cancer is fake news.  Etc. etc.  Don't make Trumpkins choose between their God or anything else -- their children, first responders, the Constitution, the survival of the country.....they'll choose Trumpism.  All the time, every time.  Because look at those libtears.  Buncha pussy snowflakes, shedding tears for dying firefighters and such -- SNOWFLAKES!

I agree that it is dumb as fuck that this is partisan at all.  We make layups the hardest shot in the game. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by slorch

[elfenix 34172]

 

21 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well except that whole president cannot spend thing, but if you must go there last I checked when bush took over debt was 5 trillion. when his fiscal disaster ended it was 10.  Obama took over and got us to 20.  trump is on a disastrous path as well with full acceptance from the democrat congress not known as a party that even pretends to understand fiscal responsibility.  blame whomever you want, but congress spends.  Presidents ask, congress spends.  oh, and there was never a year, ever under Clinton where receipts > spend, but if you want to believe that fallacy would the credit not go to the Newt Gingrich led congress and the contract with America?  That was the pact that saw the "projected budgetary surplus" unfold.  Oh, and bush had the same "projected budgetary surplus" too.  we know how that turned out.  

hey check out this guy who thinks there's no interest on the debt.

 

18 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

maybe, but if you pay them only expenses then you get guys and ladies who are financially stable, wealthy who cannot easily be bought off by lobbyists, special interests.  You get successful folks who are giving back and serving after they have made their fortunes. That was the intent by the founders.  the idea of career politicians would be completely reprehensible to them as it is to me. 

you can't be this naive