Is Barack Obama a "radical"?

[werepossum]

Even if I agreed with you about the radicalness of Hilcare, which was certainly to the left of Obamacare, a POTUS isn't defined by a stance on one issue. Clinton was a moderate.

Oh, and no way is Obama a "black Bush."

I don't see how you can argue that Hillarycare was not radical. You have the federal government literally seizing the power of life and death over every single citizen and resident. If under Hillarycare government decided it's not economically practical to treat your condition, you were expected to quietly die, and if you dared spend your own money on health care you could be jailed. How much more radical can one get? In Obamacare he advocates end-of-life counseling to reduce big spending that does not materially extend or enhance quality of life, but there is no prohibition on spending that money, just a suggestion that doctors discuss it with elderly and very ill patients. Remember, I wasn't arguing that Clinton was a radical, merely more radical than (i.e. to the left of) Obama. I'm perfectly willing to accept both as moderates, along with Bush. Er, white Bush. Um, white Bush II.

As far as Obama not being "black Bush", how is he fundamentally different? Obama seized control of health care for the federal government; Bush had Medicare Part D, similarly a huge financial black hole and extension of federal reach. Outside of his initial apology tour, Obama's foreign policy has been virtually identical to Bush's; his coolness toward the UK and Israel have not materially affected his policy. Bush invaded Afghanistan; Obama invaded Afghanistan more. Bush invaded Iraq; Obama bombed the shit out of Libya and Syria. They are both big spenders and big deficit spenders, albeit Bush because of tax cuts and Obama because of redistribution. Certainly they are more alike than not. They even had similar problems getting into the White House - although granted, Bush's problem was the door was locked whereas Obama's problem was the door was a window.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The mandate has elements that are appealing and appalling to both the left and the right. It gets more people insured (left-good) but it feeds money into corporations (left-bad). Similarly, it takes people off the free ride (right-good) but uses a government mandate to do it (right-bad? maybe.) Remember, much of the right thinks the government can coerce people with respect to their reproductive choices. Tell people they can't have an abortion or go to jail=good, but tell people they have to buy health insurance or pay a small penalty=bad.

I don't see the mandate as clearly left or clearly right. You said it yourself, conservative favoritism of the issue was to oppose a liberal healthcare initiative. What makes you think their opposition to it now isn't for the exact same reason?



I don't quite understand the question. First of all, what do you mean "insufficient funding to finance Obamacare." Please source that so I understand the issue better. Your question about "coercion" seems awfully broad.

Don't have the link on my phone but there are three related problems. First is that exchanges aren't being set up as expected. Second is that those who are high consumers of health care are signing up, but younger people aren't going to and had rather pay the penalty. That means money going out but less coming in. Premiums will consequently rise more, probably much more rendering it non viable. That means further coercion for compliance is needed. What will the limits of that be? Will Congress just say it had the power to force people to buy insurance or be criminals or face ruin? What remains that can be used? What limits?

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't see how you can argue that Hillarycare was not radical. You have the federal government literally seizing the power of life and death over every single citizen and resident. If under Hillarycare government decided it's not economically practical to treat your condition, you were expected to quietly die, and if you dared spend your own money on health care you could be jailed. How much more radical can one get? In Obamacare he advocates end-of-life counseling to reduce big spending that does not materially extend or enhance quality of life, but there is no prohibition on spending that money, just a suggestion that doctors discuss it with elderly and very ill patients. Remember, I wasn't arguing that Clinton was a radical, merely more radical than (i.e. to the left of) Obama. I'm perfectly willing to accept both as moderates, along with Bush. Er, white Bush. Um, white Bush II.

You're going to have to validate your allegation of the death panels in Hilcare with a reasonable source. I can't find any verification of that after 3 pages of a Google search, but then details of Hilcare are sparser than you might expect as of 2013. I certainly remember the employer mandate being its centerpiece, and the objection that it would hurt small businesses.

As far as Obama not being "black Bush", how is he fundamentally different? Obama seized control of health care for the federal government; Bush had Medicare Part D, similarly a huge financial black hole and extension of federal reach. Outside of his initial apology tour, Obama's foreign policy has been virtually identical to Bush's; his coolness toward the UK and Israel have not materially affected his policy. Bush invaded Afghanistan; Obama invaded Afghanistan more. Bush invaded Iraq; Obama bombed the shit out of Libya and Syria. They are both big spenders and big deficit spenders, albeit Bush because of tax cuts and Obama because of redistribution. Certainly they are more alike than not. They even had similar problems getting into the White House - although granted, Bush's problem was the door was locked whereas Obama's problem was the door was a window.

That's a trick question because you could ask similar questions about comparing Clinton to Bush 1 or 2. That is because ideologies differ more than actual governance due to the compromise/obstructionism inherent in our process. Nonetheless -

Obama was opposed to invading Iraq going all the way back to when it happened. Limited bombing of Libya is a foolish comparison that you're making in order to try to win a debate point. Supporting limited airstrikes /= supporting a long term occupation of a country.

Obama supported comprehensive healthcare reform. Bush did not. He got passed a new entitlement to add prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare.

Obama wants cap and trade to lower carbon emissions. Bush opposed it. Obama may never get it, but that isn't the point.

Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. Obama strongly opposes this.

Bush argued that water boarding was legal. Obama ended it.

Bush didn't support gays in the military. Obama did and got the policy changed.

Bush wanted lower taxes on the wealthy, and passed 2 tax cuts which lowered taxes in general but disproportionately benefited the wealthy. Obama only supported lowering taxes on the middle class, and only temporarily as stimulus. He just cut a deal to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Bush supported qualified amnesty for illegals. Bush did not. Legislation is pending on this one.

Bush limited public funding of research on embryonic stem cells to existing cell lines. Obama ended the restriction.

Bush botched the Katrina relief by appointing an unqualified crony to head up FEMA. Obama's FEMA handled Sandy well and, in spite of some early criticisms, also handled the gulf spill reasonably well.

I just came up with these in 5 minutes off the top of my head, without the use of Google. I'm sure more extensive research will yield a much longer list if you really want to play this game.

 

[BigDH01]

Don't have the link on my phone but there are three related problems. First is that exchanges aren't being set up as expected. Second is that those who are high consumers of health care are signing up, but younger people aren't going to and had rather pay the penalty. That means money going out but less coming in. Premiums will consequently rise more, probably much more rendering it non viable. That means further coercion for compliance is needed. What will the limits of that be? Will Congress just say it had the power to force people to buy insurance or be criminals or face ruin? What remains that can be used? What limits?

What we ended up getting was pretty much the worst solution to any problem regarding healthcare that I can imagine. Healthcare as a resource doesn't necessarily lend itself to efficiency from market forces for a couple of reasons, but the hybrid we got is worse. The outcome we are seeing was clearly inevitable. The healthy are needed to subsidize expensive healthcare for the sick, even if it means that the healthy can no longer afford healthcare for themselves. No legislation that I saw made a real attempt at reducing the cost of healthcare because that would ultimately mean that it would need rationing, and that's one of those words that people are terrified to throw around.

It was something we were going to have to look out for before Obamacare regardless. Typically, a market can price ration but healthcare is one of those resources that people have difficultly refusing to the sick. For market-based healthcare to function efficiently, especially in the face of an aging and increasingly unhealthy population, providers have to be able to price ration or to tell those who can't afford healthcare that they aren't going to get it. Once you set a minimum level of care that will be provided at the hands of the state, prices will increase for everyone who was paying and more of them become marginal. When those people start complaining you end up socializing more of the resource. There are really three paths to a healthcare system from what I've concluded (which obviously isn't necessarily accurate), none of which are very stomach-able to most people. One: a market-based system in which we allow the market to price ration itself. Yes, this means people who can't afford healthcare and go to the emergency room with a terminal, yet treatable, affliction will die (assuming they can't get private support). Two: the state provides minimum level of service with market forces acting upon anything more than that. The externality of government intervention means those who could just barely afford their healthcare before can now not afford it and higher costs for everyone who can. This is basically the path we have been taken but those who are losing healthcare are obviously and perhaps justifiably unhappy. Three: fully socialized medicine. There still has to be rationing here in the end (yes, death panels) but care may be rationed based on some metric other than money. We have a large portion of the population that doesn't want price rationing (poor people die in the ER) and a large portion that doesn't want state rationing (death panels). So we have a system where costs are exploding and we are heading to failure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What we ended up getting was pretty much the worst solution to any problem regarding healthcare that I can imagine. Healthcare as a resource doesn't necessarily lend itself to efficiency from market forces for a couple of reasons, but the hybrid we got is worse. The outcome we are seeing was clearly inevitable. The healthy are needed to subsidize expensive healthcare for the sick, even if it means that the healthy can no longer afford healthcare for themselves. No legislation that I saw made a real attempt at reducing the cost of healthcare because that would ultimately mean that it would need rationing, and that's one of those words that people are terrified to throw around.

It was something we were going to have to look out for before Obamacare regardless. Typically, a market can price ration but healthcare is one of those resources that people have difficultly refusing to the sick. For market-based healthcare to function efficiently, especially in the face of an aging and increasingly unhealthy population, providerI'ms have to be able to price ration or to tell those who can't afford healthcare that they aren't going to get it. Once you set a minimum level of care that will be provided at the hands of the state, prices will increase for everyone who was paying and more of them become marginal. When those people start complaining you end up socializing more of the resource. There are really three paths to a healthcare system from what I've concluded (which obviously isn't necessarily accurate), none of which are very stomach-able to most people. One: a market-based system in which we allow the market to price ration itself. Yes, this means people who can't afford healthcare and go to the emergency room with a terminal, yet treatable, affliction will die (assuming they can't get private support). Two: the state provides minimum level of service with market forces acting upon anything more than that. The externality of government intervention means those who could just barely afford their healthcare before can now not afford it and higher costs for everyone who can. This is basically the path we have been taken but those who are losing healthcare are obviously and perhaps justifiably unhappy. Three: fully socialized medicine. There still has to be rationing here in the end (yes, death panels) but care may be rationed based on some metric other than money. We have a large portion of the population that doesn't want price rationing (poor people die in the ER) and a large portion that doesn't want state rationing (death panels). So we have a system where costs are exploding and we are heading to failure.

Health care proper has always been misunderstood or abused at the government level. Take HIPAA. The wiki article doesn't do a bad job of explaining problems and the real costs of compliance are very high. HIPAA is relatively simple compared to managing health care pepper and it appears that those who have no comprehension of the needs or complexities of the system. I proposed a means of addressing the problems but the need for absolute control by partisan forces and their adherents prevents comprehensive reform by competent people.

 

[Craig234]

I had Sean Hannity on while making dinner yesterday, and heard him refer to Obama as "radical" about 4,723.4 times, as he does most occasions when I have him on.

I just don't really see it, personally. He may have some radical views, but he seems to keep them out of his policy positions. I haven't really seen him put forth too much that looks particularly unusual, much less radical. If he's really a radical "deep down" or whatever, I'm not particularly inclined to care as long as he's keeping them to himself.

Hannity's been harping on about his "radical associations" for six years now, but that's simple, fallacious guilt by association -- and something that could be applied just as readily to Hannity himself.

Am I missing something here, or is it just propaganda? Or maybe it's just that Hannity himself is so far right that everyone else appears to him as too far left.

I am going to explain my opinion of an answer. It there's any chance you will resent that, please stop reading and take no offense.

One of the most common things for many voters is that "radical" is a bad word. So, one of the more effective things for someone attaking a politician is to paint them as radical.

Now, that's really all there is to the whole issue.

You can spend all the time you like pinpointing the definition, citing 1,000 policies from Obama and assigning points for how radical they are, to say you have the right answer.

It doesn't mean anything regarding Hannity.

Now, sometimes the word radical is justified. And sometimes, it's especially helpful, when a radical group gains power and becomes accepted as mainstream, as a reminder.

Think about it - if any group no matter how radical really becomes a dominant group in power for an extended period, people just can't keep thinking of them as radical.

"Radical" has pretty much no inherent meaning except 'radical compared to the status quo'.

Legalizing gay marriage was "radical" a hundred years ago, now it's not.

I use the same technique as Hannity, except I'm right and he's wrong, when I remind people that the current right-wing of the Supreme Court is not just the right wing I disagree with, they're radical. The federalist society has a radical agenda - but has become pretty mainstream in terms of being the most powerful and inflential society for lawyers, including right-wing Supreme Court members.

So as we all 'get used' to the idea that according to a 5-4 decision, corporations are people and can spend unlimited amounts in political campaigns, I mention that is a radical legal notion that would be rejected for most of our country's history (and was) and by most of our citizens today.

All Hannity is doing is feeding hate, giving people inclined to support him something to hate Obama for.

It's so meaningless that people sometimes apply contradictory attacks. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone call him a Muslim atheist, but commie fascist has been done.

Nevermind that communists were the first enemy of Nazi fascists - they're bad words, so throw them at Obama. That's all it is.

One side benefit - it lets people reject his policies as well. No need to ask if Obamacare is good; it's radical, so it's bad.

That's why - and this is a fact - the same poll shows people oppose Obamare but strongly support every provision in it (with one exception).

 

[TerryMathews]

Yeah, I agree. Hannity is just a moneymaker for Fox. No credibility as far as I'm concerned.

It always amuses me when idiots rail against Hannity and Rush.

They're the conservative version of Colbert and Stewart. Sometimes they cover actual news, but mostly their shows are geared towards entertainment.

Notice I did not say comedy.

 

[Craig234]

It always amuses me when idiots rail against Hannity and Rush.

They're the conservative version of Colbert and Stewart. Sometimes they cover actual news, but mostly their shows are geared towards entertainment.

Notice I did not say comedy.

We disagree. The most important difference: Stewart and Colbert are fundamentally honest, and the others are fundamentally dishonest.

Some of that is a matter of opinion (it's just my opinion Obama isn't trying to destroy the country), but it's also clear with thousands of factual issues.

Stewart and Colbert entertain to tell truths. The others entertain to tell lies. That's the big difference.

 

[bshole]

It always amuses me when idiots rail against Hannity and Rush.

They're the conservative version of Colbert and Stewart. Sometimes they cover actual news, but mostly their shows are geared towards entertainment.

The big difference being that Colbert and Stewart are funny. Hannity and Rush are not.

 

[woolfe9998]

It always amuses me when idiots rail against Hannity and Rush.

They're the conservative version of Colbert and Stewart. Sometimes they cover actual news, but mostly their shows are geared towards entertainment.

Notice I did not say comedy.

I don't agree. Colbert and Stewart are comedians who do political satire, or just comedy concerning political subjects. Hannity and and Rush are political commentators who make conservatives laugh because they say nasty things about liberals. I'm sure conservatives find them funny but they are not first and foremost comedians. If Rush and Hannity are comedians, then so is Olberman or Maddow. I'm afraid that is an overly broad definition of comedy.

 

[TerryMathews]

The big difference being that Colbert and Stewart are funny. Hannity and Rush are not in my opinion .

FTFY

The clarification is reasonable, but please do not edit others' posts. It just leads to problems. Thanks. --ck

 

[cubby1223]

It always amuses me when idiots rail against Hannity and Rush.

It's more saddening when people seem to believe Hannity or Rush, or anyone for that matter, is the defining voice of half the country.

 

[woolfe9998]

FTFY

So everyone is a matter of the opinion of the person posting it? Who knew?

 

[woolfe9998]

It's more saddening when people seem to believe Hannity or Rush, or anyone for that matter, is the defining voice of half the country.

It isn't a matter of them being "the voice" of all conservatives. The issue is that they're not really "comedians." This is an oft repeated excuse to justify their nuttiness and their popularity on the right. The notion that they speak for all conservatives is just a straw man.

 

[GreenMeters]

FTFY

Thought we weren't doing that in this forum.

OT: Every single time I load the D.C. forum index and see this thread, I read it as "Is Barack Obama a radial?" and wonder if that's some esoteric racial comment and how the post is still up.

 

[bshole]

Um.... the Daily Show has in fact won multiple Emmys and other awards for COMEDY. Rush and Hannity have not..... in fact they would probably be offended if they were nominated. I laugh my butt off watching the Daily Show. I don't know anybody (other than perhaps you) that thinks Hannity is the height of comedy.

 

[TerryMathews]

Um.... the Daily Show has in fact won multiple Emmys and other awards for COMEDY. Rush and Hannity have not..... in fact they would probably be offended if they were nominated. I laugh my butt off watching the Daily Show. I don't know anybody (other than perhaps you) that thinks Hannity is the height of comedy.

Again, for those of you with learning disabilities: entertainment != comedy.

Schindler's list is entertainment. It is not a comedy. Clear?

 

[bshole]

Again, for those of you with learning disabilities: entertainment != comedy.

Schindler's list is entertainment. It is not a comedy. Clear?

???? I made a post stating that the difference between the two shows was one was funny and the other was not (something that is patently obvious to listeners of BOTH shows). You then insulted me (leading to the inference that either the Daily Show was unfunny or that Hannity was funny). I then pointed out that the Daily Show had in fact won Emmys for comedy and Hannity had not.

You are not being clear in the least. I have no idea what your above post has to do with my assertion that the Daily Show was funny and that Hannity was not.

 

[Craig234]

???? I made a post stating that the difference between the two shows was one was funny and the other was not (something that is patently obvious to listeners of BOTH shows). You then insulted me (leading to the inference that either the Daily Show was unfunny or that Hannity was funny). I then pointed out that the Daily Show had in fact won Emmys for comedy and Hannity had not.

You are not being clear in the least. I have no idea what your above post has to do with my assertion that the Daily Show was funny and that Hannity was not.

Let me try to be peacemaker here.

Terry's point is that all the shows mentions are 'entertainment' shows, and that the word 'entertainment' sometimes means comedy and sometimes doesn't.

He's trying to make the point that while the Fox shows are not comedy, they share in common with the others that they're all 'entertainment' shows about politics.

It wouldn't hurt for him to clarify the point he's making about that, but I think that's it.

bshole seems to be saying that whether or not they're all entertainment shows, he thinks that the difference of being comedy or not is a very important difference.

So they can both be right - just making different points and not hearing each other.

For what it's worth I'll put a plug in for my position, accepting both of the above, that the important issue is which shows are telling the truth or lying.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let me try to be peacemaker here.

Terry's point is that all the shows mentions are 'entertainment' shows, and that the word 'entertainment' sometimes means comedy and sometimes doesn't.

He's trying to make the point that while the Fox shows are not comedy, they share in common with the others that they're all 'entertainment' shows about politics.

It wouldn't hurt for him to clarify the point he's making about that, but I think that's it.

bshole seems to be saying that whether or not they're all entertainment shows, he thinks that the difference of being comedy or not is a very important difference.

So they can both be right - just making different points and not hearing each other.

For what it's worth I'll put a plug in for my position, accepting both of the above, that the important issue is which shows are telling the truth or lying.

Yes, you are correct.

I will also point out that while he may not be intended to be, most "normal" republicans view El Rushbo as a characture a la Dr. Stephen Colbert esq, defender of truthiness.

 

[TerryMathews]

???? I made a post stating that the difference between the two shows was one was funny and the other was not (something that is patently obvious to listeners of BOTH shows). You then insulted me (leading to the inference that either the Daily Show was unfunny or that Hannity was funny). I then pointed out that the Daily Show had in fact won Emmys for comedy and Hannity had not.

You are not being clear in the least. I have no idea what your above post has to do with my assertion that the Daily Show was funny and that Hannity was not.

I don't know how else to help you follow this.

Comedy is a form of entertainment.

Entertainment does not require comedy.

Rush and Hannity are entertainers. Sometimes they are funny, unintentionally, depending on your perspective and political persuasion.

Colbert and Stewart are entertainers. They are intentionally comedians.

Your post was quoting mine that said all 4 shows were entertainment shows. You said that Rush and Hannity are not funny. The logical inference given your quoting my post is that you feel my point that all 4 shows are entertainment shows is incorrect and your stated reason is that Rush and Hannity are not comedy shows.
If I've misunderstood something please feel free to clarify, otherwise I stand behind my posts. No one I know of depends on Rush or Hannity as a primary news source, regardless of what Colbert tells you every night.

And to make my point CRYSTAL clear, I'm not saying that is true for the entire spectrum of Republicans. I'm sure some do rely solely on Hannity and Rush. Just like some Democrats think the Colbert Report is a serious show and not a satire.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, you are correct.

I will also point out that while he may not be intended to be, most "normal" republicans view El Rushbo as a characture a la Dr. Stephen Colbert esq, defender of truthiness.

I have known many Republicans who have listened to Rush Limbaugh regularly. I know maybe one or two of them that view him as a caricature. I am aware of no factual basis anywhere that says Republicans generally view him that way.

 

[Craig234]

I have known many Republicans who have listened to Rush Limbaugh regularly. I know maybe one or two of them that view him as a caricature. I am aware of no factual basis anywhere that says Republicans generally view him that way.

I agree with Eskimospy, in that my experiences are similar; a few do, most don't.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know how else to help you follow this.

Comedy is a form of entertainment.

Entertainment does not require comedy.

Rush and Hannity are entertainers. Sometimes they are funny, unintentionally, depending on your perspective and political persuasion.

Colbert and Stewart are entertainers. They are intentionally comedians.

Your post was quoting mine that said all 4 shows were entertainment shows. You said that Rush and Hannity are not funny. The logical inference given your quoting my post is that you feel my point that all 4 shows are entertainment shows is incorrect and your stated reason is that Rush and Hannity are not comedy shows.
If I've misunderstood something please feel free to clarify, otherwise I stand behind my posts. No one I know of depends on Rush or Hannity as a primary news source, regardless of what Colbert tells you every night.

And to make my point CRYSTAL clear, I'm not saying that is true for the entire spectrum of Republicans. I'm sure some do rely solely on Hannity and Rush. Just like some Democrats think the Colbert Report is a serious show and not a satire.

Let me support your point ina sort of backwards way.

The right-wing figures are trying to actually make serious political points to viewers. You might view them as entertainment or caricatures, but IMO most viewers listen seriously.

Stewart and Colbert are comedy shows - but they try to make serious political points too.

Ask Stewart and he'll say he's a comedian first - but he knows what he's doing, if he said otherwise it would make him a 'political commentator' with more accountability.

Look, this role of humor to puncture official power has existed since the days of kings and jesters, when no one would DARE say things that might sound insubordinate of the rulers, but jesters were given a special license to do so - there was a sort of recognition of some value to that. A comic in Egypt is experiencing that now, trying to use comedy to make recently totally banned government criticism.

And he recently went to jail for doing so - but he's out.

If someone goes on Egyptian TV and says 'our president is an idiot', they go to jail - insulting the president is a crime. When this guy puts on a funny hat like the President to mock him and laughs about it, they don't know quite how to handle it legally. That's why they say comics are some of the most damaging political opponents - it's not an equal playing field for the politicians.

I remember in the 2004 election, Jay Leno - a Republican as I understand it - had John McCain on for a very respectful interview. Then he had John Kerry on - immediately following 'Triumph the Insult Dog' puppet, and the insult dog continued to insult Kerry throughout his interview. Kerry laughed along with it - but had no choice but to look ridiculous.

Stewart could say 'Bush is an incompetent asshole', or he can make a joke that makes Bush look like an incompetent asshole; the message is the same.

Sean Hannity just actually does say things like claiming Obama wants to destroy America.

When Colbert pretend to be right wing and say facts are our enemy, he's clearly asserting that Republicans don't care about the truth, using humor.

So both sides are making serious political points, whatever the format, and influencing political opinions.

That's why I saw what I think the relevant point is, who is spreading honest political points and who is spreading points that are lies.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let me support your point ina sort of backwards way.

The right-wing figures are trying to actually make serious political points to viewers. You might view them as entertainment or caricatures, but IMO most viewers listen seriously.

Stewart and Colbert are comedy shows - but they try to make serious political points too.

Ask Stewart and he'll say he's a comedian first - but he knows what he's doing, if he said otherwise it would make him a 'political commentator' with more accountability.

Look, this role of humor to puncture official power has existed since the days of kings and jesters, when no one would DARE say things that might sound insubordinate of the rulers, but jesters were given a special license to do so - there was a sort of recognition of some value to that. A comic in Egypt is experiencing that now, trying to use comedy to make recently totally banned government criticism.

And he recently went to jail for doing so - but he's out.

If someone goes on Egyptian TV and says 'our president is an idiot', they go to jail - insulting the president is a crime. When this guy puts on a funny hat like the President to mock him and laughs about it, they don't know quite how to handle it legally. That's why they say comics are some of the most damaging political opponents - it's not an equal playing field for the politicians.

I remember in the 2004 election, Jay Leno - a Republican as I understand it - had John McCain on for a very respectful interview. Then he had John Kerry on - immediately following 'Triumph the Insult Dog' puppet, and the insult dog continued to insult Kerry throughout his interview. Kerry laughed along with it - but had no choice but to look ridiculous.

Stewart could say 'Bush is an incompetent asshole', or he can make a joke that makes Bush look like an incompetent asshole; the message is the same.

Sean Hannity just actually does say things like claiming Obama wants to destroy America.

When Colbert pretend to be right wing and say facts are our enemy, he's clearly asserting that Republicans don't care about the truth, using humor.

So both sides are making serious political points, whatever the format, and influencing political opinions.

That's why I saw what I think the relevant point is, who is spreading honest political points and who is spreading points that are lies.

I want to make sure I'm understanding your point correctly; you do recognize that these are both false positions correct?