More Daily Show v. Fox News

[David Holtzman]

Granted my knowledge of web hosting and the inner workings of the interwebz is pretty limited, but is something like that possible when they DOS another site? Like if they DOS FOX and FOX's provider is the same as, say, LAPD, could both go down?

I too have no idea.

Also, who's reporting crime online aside from Homer Simpson?

I know the FBI gets online crime reports. I don't know about local agencies and how much of their systems are tied into their online presence. If they keep all their reports online, for example, then denying access could result in crimes not being prosecuted. On the other hand if everything is run through paper then taking the site down probably won't much matter.

[Alaris]

I assume that law inforcement would be able to deal with a DOS attack. They do have other ways to get the job done. I also doubt that they are connected to Fox News.

[raspberry jam]

Reporting crime via web browser lol.

This guy doesn't help.

What the ****? This is on a news channel?

[Alaris]

At least he's not pretending to be fair and balanced, he says in an interview. He adds that he is an opinionated guy.

I might not respect his points of views (the few I did watch), but as long as his propaganda is clearly identified as such, that's fine by me.

[The Praetorian]

Hilarious clip again...



It almost makes me feel sorry for the Republicans... this is their forerunner, this is their hope? And second you got to love how Fox makes this about race.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2012---grope-

[RD]

LOL The allegation part.

Oh boy...

Is it just that there are no smart people left who are Republicans? How are they putting forward these candidates who are as stupid as Cain and Bachmann??? So much that comes out of these people's mouths is just inaccurate, uninformed, and it's scary that they could become president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...SlM_story.html

[Alaris]

Well, I've defended Bill Clinton, so Cain gets a free pass too in all fairness. I said it before and I will say it now, how they are in their personal life is not necessarily an indication of how they are as a politician.

That he was trying to downplay it is not honest, but it's politics as usual. I'll wait to hear about how he is as a politician before passing judgment.

edit: it does not look good on that front either...
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=Herman+Cain

[RD]

Well, I've defended Bill Clinton, so Cain gets a free pass too in all fairness. I said it before and I will say it now, how they are in their personal life is not necessarily an indication of how they are as a politician.

Can't compare the two. Clinton had a consensual, extra-marital affair. Cain (allegedly) sexually harassed employees. One of those things is illegal. Clinton lied about it, but Cain is, too.

[MixedVariety]

I said it before and I will say it now, how they are in their personal life is not necessarily an indication of how they are as a politician.

I see what you're saying, and sort of agree, but sort of not. Every aspect of a politician's life serves to define how they might behave as politicians; if they are sneaky, cheating bastages in their personal lives, how could they be trusted to uphold the best interests of the citizens they represent? Maybe they'd do a good job, and maybe not; it's an indication, though, that they don't mind taking the dark path if there's some personal gain to be had.

[Alaris]

Can't compare the two. Clinton had a consensual, extra-marital affair. Cain (allegedly) sexually harassed employees.

Oh yeah, that. Well, extra-marital was not consensual as far as the wife was concerned.

As for allegedly... keep in mind that the employee got 1 year's pay in damages. The evidence had to be strong enough to hold up in court.

Every aspect of a politician's life serves to define how they might behave as politicians (...) it's an indication, though, that they don't mind taking the dark path if there's some personal gain to be had.

I fully respect your reasoning and how it influences your vote. That's a fine way to go about it as far as I am concerned.

That's not how I go about it though. I try to judge them as politician and nothing else.

Granted, if everything else is equal (and it rarely is), I'd pick the one that didn't have a sex scandal.