digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at crooksandliars.com —

Jon Stewart’s Farewell to Mitt Romney: “F*c# Y%u

crooksandliars.com — Jon Stewart offers a touching eulogy for the late Mitt Romney.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Changa, on 02/09/2008, -18/+112Are we becoming the France of the 21's century?
    • SuperWinner, on 02/09/2008, -3/+68Better than becoming the Iraq of the 21st century.
      • Makaveli604, on 02/09/2008, -37/+9I am by no means a Mitt Romney supporter, but google search French Revolution and tell me you want that in America today.
        • fyngyrz, on 02/09/2008, -4/+21Let them be wiretapped and monitored, tortured, lose all their liberties, see the government turn into a dictatorship... but revolution is bad, right? Sometimes comfort isn't the only goal that matters.
        • pattherat, on 02/09/2008, -5/+28Ummm, that would be 18th century France...

          We entered the 21st century in 2000...(or really 2001 since there was no year 0)
          • BarrettAnderson, on 02/09/2008, -17/+3I don't understand why people are digging your comment. Nowhere in any thread or comment made by anyone did anyone imply in any way that Mitt said that we are becoming 21st century France. The "France of the 21st century" means that we are currently in the 21st century but comparing us to France at some other point in time (this point in time is never specifically stated).
          • pattherat, on 02/09/2008, -4/+5If you check the hierarchy of the threads here, you will see I was correcting Makaveli604, not commenting on the idiocy that was Romney's comment. (because the France of today (uh, the 21st century) is a real hell -hole (heavy sarcasm implied))

            Basically I was wondering why he (Makaveli) pulled out the French Revolution for his commentary. Since it is referencing events 200 hundred or so years before the period that Romney referenced.
          • Kerrigore, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4Pat, I think you missed his point. Romney didn't reference France in the 21st century: he said America might, in the 21st century, become like France... he didn't state a time period for France.
    • dsmx, on 02/09/2008, -12/+158Remind me again why it is a bad thing to become like france?
      • aliengoods, on 02/09/2008, -2/+93They use their wine and cheese to spread communism!
        • alk509, on 02/09/2008, -0/+41And they don't speak god's language: American!
          • bezshai, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Wait a second, I thought that God's language is Lojban. Yet another thing about which I am wrong. Oh well.
          • eliteeggnog, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9I thought the God's language was Lisp.
      • Drehmini, on 02/09/2008, -24/+67Because we'd build our tanks with 4 gears for reverse and one gear for forward.
        • bennyfreshness, on 02/09/2008, -28/+2what are they now like 0 and 204
      • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -43/+13dont remember where i copied this from, but it is funny.

        French history


        Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

        Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

        Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

        Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

        Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

        War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

        The Dutch War: Tied.

        War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

        War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

        American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

        French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

        The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

        The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

        WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

        WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

        War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

        Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

        War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
        • Lukesed, on 02/09/2008, -5/+26I know a quite a bit about european history up until the late 1800's and this is loaded with falsities. I'll assume the latter part is too.
          • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -13/+6show which ones are wrong
          • kirakun, on 02/09/2008, -18/+7"I know a quite a bit about european history up until the late 1800's and ..."

            Usually, anyone who starts a statement by first claiming that he knows a lot, actually turns out to know nothing.

            "I'll assume the latter part is too."

            And assumptions are the mothers of all errors.
          • Lukesed, on 02/09/2008, -3/+21"Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her."
            This is wrong, in fact France was pretty much the only one that gained anything from this war.

            You also seem to be forgetting that in many cases these wars were lost because Frace actually overextended itself - not very consistent with the whole "the French are cowards" thing I think you are going for.
          • atorch, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Okay, here we go:

            French Revolution:

            Look up French Revolutionary Wars on Wikipedia. In short: During the French Revolution, France was invaded by Austria, Prussia, Spain, England and Italy, I think -- you should double check on Wikipedia, if the article isn't vandalized. France won; I'll just cite Wikipedia here: The French Revolutionary Wars were a series of major conflicts, from 1792 until 1802, fought between the French Revolutionary government and several European states. Marked by French revolutionary fervour and military innovations, the campaigns saw the French Revolutionary Armies defeat a number of opposing coalitions and expand French control to the Low Countries, Italy, and the Rhineland.

            Napoleonic Wars:

            After defeating several counties at once (in the war described above), France goes on to conquer all of Europe. Okay, they lost eventually -- but if you actually read about the Battle of Waterloo (again, go to Wikipedia), you'll see the the French could have won that battle, despite facing a larger force (70 thousand French versus 70 thousand British & Allies *and* an additional 60 thousand Prussians).
          • atorch, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6And regarding the Hundred Years' War:

            Yes, the "British" invaded France, but many people forget the background:

            In 1066, the Normans invaded Britain; look up "Norman conquest of England" on Wikipedia. I'll cite the article to make a point: One of the most obvious changes was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. French retained the status of a prestige language for nearly 300 years and has had a significant influence on the language, which is still visible in Modern English.

            So, when the "British" invaded France in the Hundred Years' War, the "British" aristocracy was actually of Norman descent, and spoke French. They already controlled Normandy, since they were Norman, and they had many ties, through marriage (ie marriages with royal families), to other parts of France. Essentially this was the French aristocracy living in London (the people who conquered England in 1066) versus the French aristocracy based in Paris.
      • fyngyrz, on 02/09/2008, -28/+4...because we're not very familiar with surrendering?

        • dash1185, on 02/09/2008, -3/+34Haha. Do you ever wonder who this Lafayette was who saved you ass against british forces ?
        • ryanonfire, on 02/09/2008, -2/+11Fance paid for your civil war gun powder
      • xutopia, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1025 weeks of paid vacation, wine with your hour long lunch, healthcare, 2 weeks off for the father when the wife gives birth, real food and raunchy sex. What is there not to love?
      • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1Because as of late the only ones who hate the French more than we do is... The French?...
      • Sergykov, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6Because they have universal health care, and because they did not join coalition of the brainless (also known as coalition of the willing).
    • kinship, on 02/09/2008, -3/+7did he mean the 19th or 18th century of the revolution? ..i dont know..
    • echolyean, on 02/09/2008, -1/+56Perhaps we should give back the Statue of Liberty to France... I mean, if we as good citizens are supposed to hate their country and all. Maybe we could re-gift it, but that might be tough.
      • zip22, on 02/09/2008, -2/+19we said it was from both of us
        • moskaudancer, on 02/09/2008, -1/+16"Well, Japan was having a birthday..."
          • m00nmaster, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2And we didn't know what to get them.
      • dealseeker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+12Tough? Hardly.

        We'll give Iraq the Statue of Liberty. Perfect re-gift.

        We can give them the Bill of Rights, while we're at it... we don't need 'em anymore. We're PATRIOT's now :D
      • queenstarsha, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2i think many countries would be happy to take our former respect for liberty off our hands.
    • acdcfanbill, on 02/09/2008, -11/+3Well, I was going to comment on the video, but neither the quicktime nor the wmp versions would play in browser, trying to download them proved equally fruitless.
    • Maynza, on 02/09/2008, -3/+30I'm pretty sure France is the France of the 21st century.
      • JustinBaglo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Not anymore, now they're 14th century Sweden, which in turn now becomes a grizzly bear.
    • RRJackson, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6I sure hope so.
    • JettaMan, on 02/09/2008, -21/+5If Jon Stewart has a problem with Mitt Romney then I suspect Romney was probably the best one, or at least better than Obama, Hillary and McCain.
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14"Well if Jon hates Romney, Romney must have been GREAT!" Not because Romney deserves such praise, but just because the "other" guy hated him. Wonderful.
        • mhaus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10Yes I would agree, poor logic. But hey, I hear voting Republican is easier than thinking so I'm hoppin on the bandwagon...
    • Derrekito, on 02/09/2008, -2/+18If we do, I just might be able to get health insurance.
      • queenstarsha, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3yep. maybe i could stop waiting for my wisdom tooth to rot the rest of the way out, and skipping days on my antidepressants to save money.

        america!
    • GrodaSA, on 02/09/2008, -2/+11We will become the France of the 25th century, with flying, nuclear-powered Peugots.
    • njcarlos, on 02/09/2008, -4/+2Oui Oui
      • Loonacy, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2French porn is awesome, because they're always yelling "Whee! Whee!"
    • mthe0ry, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9...better that than the Germany of the mid 20th century.

      Sorry the urge to satisfy Godwin's law was unbearable.
    • zalery, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0how is this similar to any part of france's history?
      and how do you have so many diggs?
      • tanuki0, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2No, that's what Romney said in his speech.
    • dylangaine, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2with the Euro continuing to beat the dollar and China's economy continuing to be on the rise, we are becoming a second rate superpower- thanks to all you idiots in Ohio and Florida who voted for Bush in 2004!
    • fejj07, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0we will become Robofrance29
    • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Mitt, crash and burn you ***** nutcase.
  • anarchitecton, on 02/09/2008, -30/+467Mitt equated a Democratic victory with “surrender to The Terrorists“?
    ***** you Mitt.
    Good. *****. Riddance.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/09/2008, -18/+45I think he is talking about Obama in particular, cuz we know she voted for the war(s). Man thats sick, they'll do/say anything to scare people away from finally voting in a black man president, its the last gasp of racist, ignorant, religious white assholes. ***** off and eat ***** Romney.
      • sonnybobiche, on 02/09/2008, -9/+45Candidates rag on each other all the time. Assuming that it's racially motivated is YOUR doing.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -5/+26So if Mitt Romney keeps running for president, terror wins.
    • Cam_86, on 02/09/2008, -4/+22Its part of the republican play book... If you personally cant call them homosexual child predators(you use a direct mail 3rd party for that...) you instead imply that those who vote for them are in cahoots with the terrorists.
      When your campaign relies on FUD, and your opponents relies on common sense and actual facts, what have you got to lose? Its not like most Americans have smartened up and shown them that fear mongering does not work. Just look at the current, democratically elected president.(even if diebold in ohio had some effect, he still pulled in close to 50% of the voting public. Thank god he did, because otherwise Kerry might have forced everyone to gay marry each other.)
    • LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -34/+5When democrats are reduced to using the f word you know the time has come to ignore them. As if they haven't been ignored already for the last decade. I swear democrats are just about the lowest people on earth. Hypocrites masochists narcissists. Look at me I'm a democrat I like to call republicans traitors rednecks and murderers but hey its ok when I throw dirt I'm a democrat. I love dreaming up wild conspiracy theories and imagining a world where I get raped everyday by my government because actually I've never been raped but the idea really turns me on. I like mel gibson look foward to my next beating. Spank me Mr. Bush. Spank me hard. I look in the mirror and I see a good person. I say hey Im a democrat I am way more holy then the virgin Mary. Look at me I have two candidates hillary and obama who are total douches. One is basically a republican but hey its a woman, I think. The other is a guy who gets paid to do nothing. Yeah I mean he doesnt do any work really. When he gets called to vote on sensitive issues he just abstains. My kind of guy. I hope to be like him one day. getting paid by my government for doing jack. I don't care if Illegal immigrants have more power in my party then me I support anyone who keeps my burgers and fries coming cheap.
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/09/2008, -3/+14Why do you think Republicans are traitors and rednecks and murderers? The Quotation Mark, they come in pairs, and they're on sale today.

        You know why you hate democrats? It makes you feel better. You're better than ALL Democrats on the PLANET.
      • alk509, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8Learn to spell first, rant later.
      • LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -20/+1Oh I knew this was coming. As soon as the democrats have nothing to say they pull out the dictionary.
        • mhaus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+16I'm pulling out the stop being a partisan, stereo-typing *****.
      • busket, on 02/09/2008, -1/+7I think someone needs a hug.
      • mac0Fd00m, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8It was comments like Romney's that are what is ruining this country. I understand that elections are brutal, but what he was doing was continuing to pit one half of the country against the other. We are all Americans, and any terrorist attack against us is an attack on both Democrats and Republicans. He crossed the line with his comment and it was grossly inappropriate. I hope that is a more satisfactory response for you than F U.
      • Baroja1898, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6LukasSmith, what a sad, pathetic chump.
      • fmaxwell, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4But when Dick Cheney, Republican, uses the F-word, you feel that's just fine, don't you:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A369 ...

        You don't condemn him and the entire rest of his crooked, traitorous, deceitful party, do you? Bush, Cheney, and the entire Republican dream team that dumb hicks like you elected to office can lie about WMDs, send 4,000 American troops to their pointless deaths, but you get enraged because a left-leaning entertainer used the "F-word"? You are one ignorant, twisted, pathetic excuse for a human being.
      • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2The humane thing to do, folks, is leave this dweeb at +1 to suffocate in the vacuum of his own non-existent intellect. Either that, or rip the piss out of him and/or digg him down on sight, if you swing that way :) He rarely, if ever, has anything of merit to say.
      • CharliesRevenge, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Did someone lose a troll?
    • MusicalGenius, on 02/09/2008, -28/+2Sink me Digg but this is a VERY unintelligent and crude comment.

      I used to like the Daily Show. I've lost all respect for the man. This isn't just stupid, it's crude.

      Intelligent debate and discussion are not found in ridiculing and crude remarks.
      • Elliuotatar, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14Intelligent debate has done NOTHING to put a halt to the corruption and power mongering which has been going on in washington for the past eight years, and the media and politicans are to blame for that, using their soft and kind words, trying not to upset anyone.

        Democrats and the media need to grow some balls and call people out on their *****, like this waterboarding torture that's been going on. Why aren't there congressmen in the media demanding inquiries into this, and calling the oposition out on their corruption? Cause they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings? Aww...
      • rollem, on 02/09/2008, -1/+18Stewart's explatives highlight the fact that "vote for Republicans or the terrorists win" rhetoric is unintelligent and crude. It's more unintelligent and crude than the F-bomb because it causes war and erosion of civil liberties, far scary than a little foul language.
      • skaldicpoet9, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14Did you even watch what Mitt Romney said? Never mind saying *****, what that guy was saying was more offensive then what any expletive could accomplish.
    • airwalke, on 02/09/2008, -2/+33Romney's entire "farewell" speech was a parody of conservatism in itself. You may dislike Jon Stewarts use of swearing here, but had you watched the entire speech, it was very well deserved. I've never been so glad to see someone drop out of the race for president. Bush may have been bad, but if Mitt had been elected president, this country would have entered a dark age unlike anything we've seen.
      • bariswheel, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4The fact that he got close enough to the presidency still scares me.
      • dimitrisokolov, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0So you would rather have Obama giving all of your money to the poor in Africa in the Global Poverty Act? What about the poor in the US? More socialism and more government meddling in your life is not what we need. We need a third political party that has some common ***** sense. Libertarians have good ideas, but a dumb name "Libertarian" and even dumber jackass candidates.
    • MrTito, on 02/09/2008, -1/+11If he could've worked something about evolution into it, he would have had the french-surrender-monkey trifecta.

      Goodbye, scumbag.
    • Kohaxx, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Does anyone think something weird went on before that speech? I've been thinking about it and normally he was so careful about what he said, to come out and sound so absolutely crazy and spout all that ***** just seems out of character, even for Mr. Torture the panderer. He came out bloodshot, acting erratic, and shouting polarizing nonsense (even for a run of the mill republican candidate). All this after he said THE NIGHT BEFORE that he would keep in the race because he was going to do well on the west coast and especially in the Mormon heavy states. The final delegate count for Super Tuesday only had him 400 points behind McCain.

      It doesn't excuse his behavior, but this whole thing reeks of a forced bow-out, almost reminds me of Ross Pero's crazy exit, either he's been a raving lunatic all this time and felt like now was a good time to end his political career, or something much larger is going on in the Republican party.

      A lot of the republicans I know who were considering voting for him because of their hate for McCain are saying the same thing too, that his exit was suspicious to say the least.
  • vegask, on 02/09/2008, -21/+176Why did people like this guy over Mccain? He seems like a younger "douchier (new word)" version of Bush.
    • crowbar77, on 02/09/2008, -11/+123Yeah and McCain seems like an older, douchier version of Bush. 100 years in Iraq.... Good Times.
      • daliminator, on 02/09/2008, -3/+13Oh come on. It's pretty hard to be douchier than Bush. Romney maybe, McCain...ehhhhh.
    • GamerSDG, on 02/09/2008, -16/+19If i was a Republican would support Ron Paul or Huckabee. McCain has nothing over Obama or Hillary
      • Mikhail101, on 02/09/2008, -5/+8yea over hilary i think he does
      • Mikhail101, on 02/09/2008, -2/+26and big mistake supporting huckabee, weve all heard his exploits of wanting to add god the the constitution.
      • dash1185, on 02/09/2008, -3/+21If I was a Republican, I would support Obama.
        • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -18/+4Then you wouldn't be a Republican....
          • dash1185, on 02/09/2008, -0/+12That was the point. I mean you've got the choice between huckabee and mccain ? (paul doesn't really have a chance)
          • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -9/+1Are you saying Obama is more Republican/Conservative then Huckabee or McCain?
          • smthop3, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9
            ............................................________
            ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
            .............................,.-”...................................“-.,
            .........................,/...............................................”:,
            .....................,?......................................................,
            .................../...........................................................,}
            ................./......................................................,:`^`..}
            .............../...................................................,:”........./
            ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
            ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
            .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
            ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
            ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
            ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
            ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
            ............/.`~,......`-...................................../
            .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
            ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
            .....`=~-,__......`,.................................
            ...................`=~-,,.,...............................
            ................................`:,,...........................`..............__
            .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
            ........................................_..........._,-%.......`.
      • EarlOfLade, on 02/09/2008, -13/+10Yeah, it's not like Ron Paul will totally ruin this country though his ***** crazy politics. Not to mention that the idiot thinks evolution is wrong.
        • Mikhail101, on 02/09/2008, -12/+11let me get this straight, would u want to vote a man who would bomb the ***** out of the world who belives in evolution or a man who wants peace and to stabilize the economy and american standards but believes in creationism

          i you are ***** crazy you ***** retard.
        • dealseeker, on 02/09/2008, -3/+3In case you haven't left home any time recently, this country isn't exactly winning any wars.

          Starting them, surely - but it doesn't pay military defense contractors and oil interests to start wars which end.

          If you had opened your eyes before you opened your mouth (so to speak), you would have realized that - regardless of personal belief - Dr. Paul isn't interested in seeing the federal government mandate what is taught in schools or believed by individuals.

          Thank you for gracing us with your presence. You may return to watching television now.
      • blackjack75, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Huckabee should stick to what he can actually do: being a sidekick on the Colbert Report.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -4/+12Dugg for douchier. That sounds like if you defined it, it would mean "More douchey" which is just awesome.
      • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Unless it's someone who, you know, makes douches.....
      • ralphie81, on 02/09/2008, -6/+1Really? Douchier defined = "more douchey"? Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that, cuz I'm pretty sure no one would've understood it otherwise.
        • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Derpy dum negative comments, turdely tweeper tum! Tweedly tumper derple dumpling!
      • Elliuotatar, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Hey I've got a new word for you too! Douchiest! I'm not sure what that would mean if it were a real word, but I bet it would be awesome!
    • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -8/+3Well he's a lot better in economics, he's tougher on immigration and he fits in a lot more with the current conservative ideals.

      Besides Thompson I'd say he's the perfect neo-conservative.
    • Sogui, on 02/09/2008, -7/+16McCain is a decent guy, you can either base your opinion on him from 20 seconds of Youtube clips, or you can actually research the guy. Throw out your biases against him and you'll find he's a decent guy. John Stewart understands that, why can't Digg?

      "I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions."
      ~John McCain, who was also behind the anti-torture bill.
      • Derrekito, on 02/09/2008, -5/+8What was it he said about Vietnamese people again? "Gooks", was it?
      • SchmidtHappens, on 02/09/2008, -1/+10I believe he also said he would stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary.
    • CelloZach, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4Douchier has been in use for years. This is a quintessential example of its use.
    • DemDude, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Something I still don't really get about the american political system: You call the system a democracy, are so very proud of it, and then you let the people decide (well, in a best case scenario) for either democrats (those who support democracy) or republicans (those who are against it)?!

      And additionally, all the candidates you have are either the farthest right fascists in existence (republicans) or medium-right conservatives (democrats)

      What the ***** is wrong with you people?!
      • zwaldowski, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1A quarter of those that can think are under the age to vote. Another quarter is considered "too young" by those who are older than them - and they actually have ideas. The other half directs all of their thoughts to evangelicalism, world-events ignoring, anti-abortionism, and anti-Gay-marriage protesting.
      • queenstarsha, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1our "free press" is really quite expensive. its owners can't really pay their share of taxes, now can they? so the news skews towards helping the rich. a llllot.

        you sound british. ahhh, the bbc. incredible coverage of kenya lately.
        • DemDude, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, I'm german. So i have no idea what the bbc broadcasted about kenya ;-)
          And I see what you are saying about the american "free press". I have been following it a little lateley, and I think it's a disgrace to mankind how biased (and rather obvious at that, too) all the "news" are. We don't have such things here. This nation has learned the hard way. Unfortunately, should there be another republican president, the USA is on a direct way to learning the hard way, too...
      • wojtyk, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0>> democrats (those who support democracy)
        That's a misnomer. Both parties "support democracy" with equal indifference. The only difference is the way in which they want to control your lives or spend your money.

        >> medium-right conservatives (democrats)
        Wow, that couldn't be any more off the mark. Modern day democrats are bordering damn close on communists these days, a mindset that isn't exactly all that different from the fascism you attribute to republicans. There are moderates on both sides, though they aren't exactly the majority, which is why nothing really changes.
    • dimitrisokolov, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0Because Romney is a succesful business man who's actually had a job. McCain has been in DC for 20 years doing jack *****.
  • fixty, on 02/09/2008, -17/+170Mitt Romney is an embodiment of everything that's wrong with America today.
    I sincerely hope troglodytes like him die out with his generation. They won't be missed.
    • putamare, on 02/09/2008, -0/+23I used to think that exact thing about Nixon...
    • stretch611, on 02/09/2008, -2/+22Call me captain obvious, but I believe that Bush and Cheney fit the bill of what is wrong with America today.
    • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -26/+1Wants wrong with Mitt? Other than he is a closet liberal.
      • letitbleed62, on 02/09/2008, -1/+11only when it suits him
      • fixty, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14Dude. Lay off the paint chips.
        • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -10/+1Huh?
          • fixty, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8Toddlers eating flakes or chips of paint containing lead was a leading cause of infant aphasia back in the day. You've obviously gone retro.
      • Baroja1898, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2And you're a closet gay. Go tap your foot in the men's room next to some GOP senator and stop posting here, please.
    • mutagenesis, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12Believe it or not, there is hope, at least from my personal perspective. Conservatives I know are just that, conservatives. They are not religious fanatics or warmongers. In fact, when talking to my friend the other day, he said the thing he doesn't like about current republicans is that 1) Why the hell are they taking my money to kill people I don't even care enough about to waste hatred on and 2) Why do all of these sheep of the middle class keep on following these idiots and believing that higher taxes for us [the middle class] and lower taxes for rich people are actually going to make them more affluent in the long run.

      Relax, there's a reason that Ron Paul/Barack Obama would win if only people on the internet could vote... wait, that would be Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. Heck, I'm not complaining.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -0/+13Dugg for use of troglodytes.
    • Elliuotatar, on 02/09/2008, -8/+6Hillary too. She's a troglodyke!
      • nshady, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8I see what you did there.
      • SlimFastForYou, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2Aw don't digg him down that was wicked funny!
    • dimitrisokolov, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0People like Mitt Romney are the people that start and grow businesses dick head. We need more people like him.
      • fixty, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1That's a meaningless, sycophantic generalization. Romney's business - leveraged-buyouts - is not without controversy:

        "Some leveraged-buyout firms have earned reputations for stripping and flipping, getting rid of workers and assets and quickly reselling companies for steep profits. The rap on them is that they're not focused enough on community development or job creation, only on delivering returns to investors." - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/25974.html
  • thebellmaster1x, on 02/09/2008, -33/+74While we're at it, I'd like to toss a hearty "***** you" to the rest of the Republican candidates (including those who have dropped out already) as well as Hillary Clinton.
    • JoEBlack982, on 02/09/2008, -18/+11I'm an Obama supporter but what did HRC do to you again?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 02/09/2008, -4/+39Her campaign tactics are appalling and display a quality of character certainly not deserving of the office of presidency, among other things.
    • phazon88, on 02/09/2008, -14/+31Hey leave Ron Paul alone please.
    • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -14/+7Yes, lets send a big "***** you" to anyone who disagrees with our political opinion!

      That'll show them how much better we are then them!
      • proton, on 02/09/2008, -1/+16***** him. We are supposed to let them continue calling those who disagree with them "terrorists"? ***** him .
        • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -6/+2Doesn't it make us hypocrites if we're insulting someone for insulting someone else? I know this doesn't fit in with the whole digg ideology and all, but sometimes you have to be the bigger man.
        • skaldicpoet9, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1When is enough enough? How can you sit there an say that it is all right for someone to say that just because they voted Democrat makes them somehow support terrorism. Have you never be so offended by someone that the only thing that you could say to them was "***** YOU"? That is what this is all about. Why should we just continue to allow people like this to say whatever they want and get away with it?
        • NightVortez, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1You think you're changing anyone by insulting them over the internet? He also didn't call any democrats terrorists, please listen to the video, he said that since they would end up pulling out of the Iraq War we would let terrorists go free.
      • airburst, on 02/09/2008, -3/+2Rational political discourse died years ago.
      • artvandelay567, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4Yeah, a "***** you" isn't always called for, but I'd have to side with Stewart on this one. No other way to respond to such ignorance.

        My guess is Romney's heard more "***** you" more times than the average guy anyways.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -2/+21I'm sending a big ***** you out to Gerald Loyack. Yea, you thought you were hot ***** in high school, but if I ever see you, I'm gonna total you. Total? Totally.
      • GeraldLoyack, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1Bring it on sucka fish.
        • rentmitchum, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Haha someone liked my randomness. I wonder if anyone got the Breakfast Club reference. I'm sure some people did.
      • skaldicpoet9, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5lol what are the chances of that?
    • boonesfarm, on 02/09/2008, -8/+2and a hearty "***** you" to you too, bell, you partisan hack. And f-u HRC for good measure.
  • vervalsing, on 02/09/2008, -10/+128I could not have said it better myself. Until I saw this speech I had no idea the extent to which this guy is such an epic douchebag.
    • LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -27/+2ahaah. I see the Democrat liberal trash is out in force on digg.com today. And they say digg.com isnt partisan bullcocky. not.
      • EarlOfLade, on 02/09/2008, -0/+14I believe you will be a lot more comfortable among the brainiac elite over at Free Republic. There are some mental giants over there.
      • LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -20/+2Well they should at least change the name from digg.com to democratselflovinchatroom.com so a good republican like myself doesn't stray here.
        • jon30041, on 02/09/2008, -0/+11Don't like the opinions of the majority of your fellow diggers?

          You don't have to be here. The internet is a self-censoring device. You can leave any time. Seriously. That address bar? You can go to google.com. Type 'proud republican' in the search and go to whichever site that floats your boat. It ain't hard, you're young and understand computers (probably) so... really. Don't like it here? We ain't keepin ya.
        • StarlessKnight, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7A "good republican" like yourself... I doubt you even know what that means. Unless by "good" you mean stuck-up, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, with a dab of attention-seeking. No one's forcing you to read DIGG, no one forced you to read this thread, no one forced you to comment, no one's keeping you from using Google to find somewhere you'll feel more comfortable. No one, but yourself.
          • IntellEJent, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1holier-than-thee*

            Thee is the object form of thou.
        • nolesshabitual, on 02/09/2008, -0/+12really? you surpised an article titled "Jon Stewart's Farewell to Mitt Romney: ' ***** You'" is going to generate liberal replies? Really? you have to be ***** kidding me.....
        • LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1Actually I thought it would generate a rational response of outrage that ***** you Romney is a legit means of communication.
        • waynetheman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5You don't have to be a Democrat or a liberal to think Romney is lying scum.

          You've really swallowed the whole Left-Wing/Right-Wing Democrat/Republican scam hook, line and sinker, haven't you?
      • tucsonwc, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Soooo, we see the neocon evantaleban scum on the underside of the Democrats are out on digg.com today as well. Don't worry you fundi-fascist tards still have Huckleberry Hound right? Oh wait... He's next! What will you do? At least you can have solace that the earth is still flat, and the center of the universe right?
      • PunkRampant, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I agree that Digg is mostly far left, but I would hope that most sane Republicans can agree with us that Mitt Romney is ***** up. He isn't conservative OR liberal -- just crazy.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -1/+7Would a female character consider an epic douchebag a good drop?
    • artvandelay567, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Me neither. Never really heard him speak until this clip. Don't ever want to hear him speak again though.
    • daxdefranco, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3dugg for using the phrase "epic douchebag"
  • qpingu, on 02/09/2008, -15/+235I hate how a man who denounces religious fanaticism in one part of the world sees no problem with enacting it in his own country. The contradictions of his arguments are appalling, and I certainly do hope the terrorists win in 2008.
    • LBobRife, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12Well put.
    • EXreaction, on 02/09/2008, -1/+25I for one welcome our terrorist overlords.

      Oh, wait, thats about 8 years too late, isn't it?
    • jjmckay, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Thank you. Stating the obvious perhaps but that's because the advertised neocon platform is loaded with contradictory stances. Their actual not-so-spoken platform is not so contradictory as it is is insane - a fascist-like state bent on controlling the world as a means for profit. Ironically that is something Jesus denounced - the craving for money and that kind of power.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2I want to inform you that the FBI has tracked your IP address to be 355.32.6.1618883. We will survey you 13/7!
    • ICSU, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4Religion = delusion
      no logic or reason welcome
  • SuperWinner, on 02/09/2008, -14/+12I would like to 'friend' him....
  • Qtip42, on 02/09/2008, -8/+18***** Brilliant!
    • thetrunkmonkey, on 02/09/2008, -3/+0what is brilliant? where is the brilliance? It's brilliant that jon stewart went on cable tv and said ***** you to romney? Nobel prize winners are brilliant, jon stewart is not brilliant
  • Brad324, on 02/09/2008, -11/+203Thank you Jon Stewart. Thank you for shutting up those people who think Romney "respectfully" bowed out of the race.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14I could not believe that speech! I had no idea Romney was such a complete ***** psycho!
      • nsanidy, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8Could you not tell from the smile? Am I the only one that felt dirty every time he smiled?
    • stackered, on 02/09/2008, -5/+2Who else doesn't think Jon Stewart is nearly as funny any more? I find it hard to laugh more than once or twice during an episode while I laugh constantly during the Colbert Report....
  • Falldog, on 02/09/2008, -5/+58On an off note, thanks for censoring '***** you'. I might have been offended.
  • sonnybobiche, on 02/09/2008, -17/+33So is Jon Stewart a political commentator who should be taken seriously, or is he a comedian that makes funny voices and adjusts his tie for laughs?
    • nuclearpenguins, on 02/09/2008, -4/+97Yes.
    • dan222555, on 02/09/2008, -44/+8He's the latter but is taken as the former by immature and uneducated individuals.
      • Brad324, on 02/09/2008, -2/+26Exactly. The only political commentators worth taking seriously are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and Douchebag McGee. Not.

        There is more insight in Stewart/Colbert's satire than all of the mainstream media combined.
        • dan222555, on 02/09/2008, -15/+2Insight? There's insight in what they do?

          The problem is not with them, they're just entertainers trying to make a living. The problem is with ***** people like who take them as something they're not. They know no more about politics than any other Hollywood ***** nut. They're just out to get laughs. Yet you and people like you seem to think they provide some serious political "insight". That's pretty ***** sad.
          • mac0Fd00m, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You should try and find any of the interviews he has with William Kristol from the weekly standard. Funny and insightful. Not sure why he has to be one or the other.....
        • StarlessKnight, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6@dan222555: Insight? No more than any other person can. They do, however, have a tendency to cover stories, issues, or points of view the "MSM" either don't or won't touch with a ten foot pole. I don't expect them to deliver the news; I expect them to deliver snippets of the news humorously, and I certainly wouldn't rely on them as my only source of information.
        • mac0Fd00m, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Also @ dan22255. I'm sure you've seen Stewart conduct interviews with people from the political arena. He holds his own rather well and is able to formulate and ask very reasonable, intelligent and important questions. He can be extremely insightful when he wants to be.
      • tomjm5000, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2Watch the youtube video of Stewart on crossfire... the man sets out to bring political insight, and takes it seriously. And you know what? If someone makes Romney makes a ridiculous speech, one deserving of the scorn of anyone with half a brain who watches it, I have no problem with him presenting it as such.
    • jgzman, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8Why not both? Hell, with politics today, you can either laugh, cry, or grab a gun. Personally, I refuse to cry, (and when I do, I refuse to admit that I am. Even in front of people, and when I am quite obviously crying. Not sure why)
      That leaves laughing, or gunning.
    • mbelrose, on 02/09/2008, -5/+4Since satirists have never had anything useful to say about politics, I'd like to make a modest proposal that we gather them all up and use their proteins to make meat pies.
      • tucsonwc, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Sorry that already happened, and you got Mitt Romney as a result.
      • queenstarsha, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2ohh. i get it. +1.

        sad that even jon stewart fans don't know what you're talking about.
    • thetrunkmonkey, on 02/09/2008, -6/+1when stewart had his writers he could be very clever and subtle about making fun of the aristocrats. Now all he's got is '***** you'? Come on
      • tk0680, on 02/09/2008, -2/+4Way to miss the point? The '***** you' was deliberately blunt and got laughs because it was so against his usual style. Comedy is all about the unexpected.
        • thetrunkmonkey, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2It wasn't unexpected so much as just plain lazy
        • dan222555, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2That's against his usual style? That is his "style" (I wouldn't even call it that). All he does is show a video clip and then afterwards make a funny face and say something stupid. There's no real joke....no punch line. He's the Dane Cook of political humor. And you people just latch on because you're so happy he's validating your political views. So you're like "Hahhaha Jon Stewart showed a clip of George Bush and then made a funny face! ROFL!"
    • DemDude, on 02/09/2008, -4/+5While I think Stewart is one of the most hilarious guys on Television, and a great comedian, I do also think he is one of the best political commentators the USA have. You better take him seriously. He broadcasts things on his show that the regular news would never have the guts to televise.
  • GamerSDG, on 02/09/2008, -12/+47I am a Terrorists because i am a Democratic? Is that why i got the urge to fly a plane up Rommey's ass. as the words of a wise man once said "***** YOU" Romeny.
    • Trammel, on 02/09/2008, -27/+0Hey little fella! You seem to be quite inarticulate. Want to know a secret? Daddy keeps a special drink underneath the sink. It is called... lye... he hides it from you... it will give you... special... communication powers... drink it.
    • boonesfarm, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5While I could never vote for either of the dnc nominees, i am sickened by people who play the terrorist card against democrats. Frankly, it's embarassing.
    • dimitrisokolov, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0No but you are naive. Democrats don't want to check bags, tap phones, or racial profile anyone. Let's just withdraw and give up and sing Kumbaya and the world will be a better place. Hey, let's go stop the killing in Dafur instead of fighting terrorists. lol....democrats are naive. Remember all of the years that BIll Clinton did nothing while 1) World Trade Center bombing one 2) African Embassy Bombings 3) USS Cole 4) Khobar Towers bombing......terrorists were kicking our ass and Billy Boy was getting blowjobs from that fat little ho. Wake up. People ARE out to kill you. I agree that the Patriot act has gone way too far though and do agree that Iraq is a nightmare, but we cannot just wuss out like the Democrats want to do. We need to fight terrorism, but we need to protect our civil liberties even more. That is where the Bush administration has gone wrong. The problem with Democrats is that they have zero plan so far when it comes to terrorism. That scares the ***** out of me.
  • Mikhail101, on 02/09/2008, -7/+97You know who else is a terrorist, you are Mitt, ***** douche.Making people scared about nothing.
    • Comatose51, on 02/09/2008, -3/+16Isn't that pretty much the definition of a terrorist? Someone who spreads fear among the civilian population?
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12In order to cause political or social change, yes. "Vote Democrat and the Terrorists win," is pretty much a terrorist-like act only with less violence.
        • MusicalGenius, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Actually with NO violence MORON!! That's why it isn't terrorism. To just speak isn't an act of terrorism... YOU PEOPLE ARE SCREWED UP!!
    • MusicalGenius, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1No a terrorist forces it. They kill and ruin lives for it. To compare a man who is as great as Romney to that you are a disgusting pig!
  • SpookyPig, on 02/09/2008, -5/+78I'm waiting for Jon's commentary for when Huckabee drops out. That'll make for some fun.
    • nolesshabitual, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10but stewart created o'brien who created colbert who created huckabee.....
    • RoflcopterFUEL, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7Huckabee may be a religous nut, but I did notice that he's a respectfull person. He doesn't point fingers and talk trash about any candidate, on either side.
  • captoftheworld, on 02/09/2008, -2/+49That was the most confusing speech ever.
  • penguinDust, on 02/09/2008, -3/+21Noooo! The terrorists win.
  • megadan76, on 02/09/2008, -3/+18youtube link?
  • SuperMoses, on 02/09/2008, -6/+61When will these guys start using a flash movie player?
    • wafu, on 02/09/2008, -3/+6F*c# flash.
    • marnaq, on 02/09/2008, -4/+5Set up your browser. Dedicated video plugin is superior to using dirty Flash.
    • sremick, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2More things play Quicktime than play Flash.
  • TheR3dMenace, on 02/09/2008, -4/+30MADLIBS!!!

    ***** Owned
    • Brad324, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah, that game was the greatest apple to ever skip the musical rape-kit.
  • BannedTwice, on 02/09/2008, -63/+10Not that mitt was good, but stewart is the biggest tool of current media. ***** him and his followers
    • hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -3/+16And thus, once again, one of Digg's very most obvious trolls fails embarrassingly.
    • ZombieSociety, on 02/09/2008, -3/+3Wait, Jon Stewart is Bill O'Rilley?
    • BlackKatanas, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0Perhaps the third time will be the charm.
  • elliotys, on 02/09/2008, -6/+45"Mitt Romney ran for president, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"
  • rentmitchum, on 02/09/2008, -13/+5We sure had some funny named runners this time. Mitt Romney sounds made up, like I made up Rent Mitchum (i get mail as him sometimes haha). Luckily no one hearts Huckabee! Or would we rather have the Huck over McCain? (not saying I would vote republican, I mean if Obama can't pull it out) I dunno. Hope for Obama, it's all that's left.
  • RedSaber, on 02/09/2008, -3/+21Wow, that felt good.

  • mcool119, on 02/09/2008, -3/+60http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXprBVS02vE
    • heartsblood, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4thanks the site wouldn't let me download the clip.
    • FTLJohnson, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6This IS the full video. Digg ++
  • Emrtr4, on 02/09/2008, -55/+7Mitt Romney has done a hell of a lot more for America than Jon Stewart ever has-so I say, "***** you Jon Stewart!"
    He is a genuine man who gave up his lucrative career in the private sector to make a difference for his country. He is a good conservative who has great ideas on foreign policy (I am studying international relations and I supported him because of his robust plans for US diplomacy) and who would have embraced the free market. Additionally, Mitt is right-a retreat from Iraq is just that-surrender. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you want to get out or not-if you do want to leave just have the guts to call it what it is; surrender to the Iraqi insurgency. Of course pulling out now is the dumbest thing we could do since we have defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq (different than Al-Qaeda) and because of the Sunni Awakening; the surge is working and we are finally making progress. In another year we could pull out a significant portion of our troops while still maintaining security, but that is only if we stay valiantly committed for the next twelve months.
    • bearpigman, on 02/09/2008, -2/+22I'd say it was the other way round. Jon Stewart has given comic relief to anyone with half a brain cell witnessing the tradgically hopeless situation of the American political system. Romney on the other hand... is just a douche.
      • ImperialSoren, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3I dont agree put but dugg for a well thought out argument
    • LBobRife, on 02/09/2008, -1/+16Stay in school.
    • Qtip42, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12we won the war a few weeks after it started...if you missed that. We're occupying now and nation building which is not war. So there is no surrender, there's just "lets go home" .....You're way off base. Of course idiots like you can't differentiate between war and strategically placing ourselves between the middle east and oil.

      You probably think Al-Qaeda is a million man army too. They're a small militia IF that, please get your facts straight. Then tell me if you can justify spending hundreds of billions (not counting lives) trying to smoke out the hundreds (maybe a thousand) Al-Qaeda that exist in iraq...
      • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Which, by the way, had no public existence in Iraq before we brought them in. Saddam had one of the most secular governments in the region and dealt with terrorists effectively, even if he did commit war crimes during the Iraq-Iran war.
    • FTLJohnson, on 02/09/2008, -1/+17Emrtr4 - I'll buy your plane ticket to Iraq, I'm sure some other diggers will pitch in to make sure that you get to the front lines since you care so passionately about this conflict. (after all, let's be fair, it's not actually a war)
    • theuber1337, on 02/09/2008, -2/+8I'd say you're a bit delusional, but in America thats A-OK, we even have a party for you!
      Just follow the red elephant to room 303. Thank you and God bless America.
    • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Read carefully, out loud if you have to:

      There is no such thing as surrender when you are the invader. There is just quitting and going home. If the Iraquis quit, that's surrender, because they live there. They surrender their sovereignty to the foreign forces who are occupying Iraq.

      Whatever else you think about this war, these are simple concepts that anyone should be able to grasp.
    • boonesfarm, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2If nothing else, I'll echo the "***** Jon Stewart". Conan made him.
    • ZombieSociety, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2You lost me at "Mitt Romney has done."
    • licnyc, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Total crap. Surge is not working. Shia have taken over the south and now the Iraqis are stuck with something that resembles what the taliban was. Sunnis were the ones that were shooting at us a few years ago and now we are perpetuating their civil war by opposing the government we installed. On top of all of this there still isn't electricity water ect. in a lot of these places and over 1 million refugees. So why don't you save it and have the guts to call it what it really is. A complete ***** disaster thanks to total incompetence at the highest levels. We are all done listening to people like you and Romney who have ***** it up for the past 8 years. Sit down- your turn is over. Thanks for the mess, you can keep the bravado patriotism- its meaningless.
    • MusicalGenius, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Digg is full of Bias. Romney gave up his own benefits for the U.S. Anyone who can't see that is ignorant.
    • xxdesmus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You had me "He is a genuine man". You must be as ignorant as Romney is a douche bag. Open your eyes!
  • ekravchenko, on 02/09/2008, -2/+18Here is a youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoGv--wr6V0
  • EvilJelloMan, on 02/09/2008, -1/+24mirror straight from the source: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
  • cdcr28, on 02/09/2008, -58/+8Jon Stewart isn't funny, it's not funny when you're rooting for one side or the other. The only humor comes from denigrating the right and the left. That's why Colbert is the only one worth watching.
    • LBobRife, on 02/09/2008, -1/+22Stewart focuses on who is in power. If a democrat is elected he will go back to telling jokes about them. When democrats took (slight) majority in congress he started "denigrating" nancy pelosi and their seeming unwillingness to do a thing. It's just been a while since a democrat has been in power, and I doubt you watched the Daily Show back when Clinton was in office.
    • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Wait... Stewart only attacks one side and Colbert attacks either one equally?.... WHAT?
    • ZombieSociety, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5PSST - Colbert does the exact same thing!

      Go figure something out.
  • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -65/+7I thought leftist liberals were suppose to be politically correct.
    I thought liberals manifesto was to be tolerant/peaceful to all no matter religion/race/etc but obviously you've all proved that wrong.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.
    • LBobRife, on 02/09/2008, -2/+22You must have misunderstood WHY Steward was saying "***** you." Hint: it was because Romney was being ridiculously intolerant.
      • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -18/+1Exactly. My point as a liberal everyone should be tolerant of everyone regardless of their views. And again "***** you" is not politically correct.

        You're either tolerant or your not. As soon as you are intolerant of one person, you cross the line. You're either tolerant or you're not, no in betweens.

        Moron.
        • hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14You are the moron, I'm afraid. You completely lack any understanding of what is meant by "tolerance." No one is obliged to tolerate stupidity. There is a massive difference between tolerating someone for the things they cannot help (e.g. skin color, nationality) and tolerating any idea or statement that they may spout, no matter how idiotic or hateful.

          The mental disorder we observe at work here is called "confusion" or "ignorance," and it is seen in your distortion of what liberals believe about "tolerance" which self-servingly creates the pathetic strawman that is the failed only hope of your shabby "argument."
        • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -11/+1Maybe there is a difference but if there is it didn't stop your 'friends' from tolerating controllable things. I can give you lists but I don't think that'd help.

          I mean how can a liberal tolerate any politician who votes down laws to check citizenship status before voting. It easy to see why democrats vote down those laws, because it takes votes out of their pocket. What other legitimate reason could there be?

          In the end we know you and many others will vote for who promises the most handouts and says the most grandiose things.
        • nolesshabitual, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6talk to me when you aren't just blindly following the words of Michael "Savage" Weiner. i'd recognize that blind hate of liberals anywhere
    • theuber1337, on 02/09/2008, -2/+14What the hell are you going on about? Oh... oh.. I'm sorry sir, I didn't realize you were drunk.
    • FTLJohnson, on 02/09/2008, -0/+17Ok Mr. Savage. Why don't you go ***** yourself while REAL conservatives vote for Ron Paul and join Jon Stewart in saying "***** YOU!" to war mongers.
      • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -5/+0Ron Paul has no hope. The media is clearly biased and is now pushing the most liberal republican, Mr McCain.
        • proton, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Oh yeah, the "liberal" media voted for McCain.....
        • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Proton,

          Stop being a moron, pushing != voted
          • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4I believe he was trying to illustrate that most Republicans have voted for McCain thus far...
    • EXreaction, on 02/09/2008, -1/+10Yes, freedom is a mental disorder. Please be a good sheep and go watch some more Fox News, or maybe you could look up the definition of Liberal in the dictionary.
    • lalilulelo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Damn, I've never seen someone comment back on their own comment to save face this much before. It's a bit fun to watch someone crash and burn.
  • veruus, on 02/09/2008, -31/+4That Jon. I tell you. He's one classy gal.
  • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -38/+8xe·no·phobe = one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.


    Is it Xenophobic to want to maintain ones standard of living? Here are some facts from our goverment. With these number, tell me why I should want illegals here. I wonder why John Stewart see Mitt as Xenophobic?

    The numbers that I have often heard throw around is that 85% to 93% of illegal immigrants are low income earners.

    I have also seen figures saying these people earn on average $9,000 to $15,000 a year depending on which numbers you choice to believe.

    Other numbers they receive between $27,000 and $32,000 in governmental handouts.

    That means, if you take the best numbers, the average illegal immigrant earns $42,000 with almost 64% being a handout of some sort.

    We have a poverty rate of 12.6%, if not for illegals; the poverty rate would be much lower, may be as low as 6% or even 5%. The war on poverty would be a success if we would stop importing more poor people into this country.

    I have heard democrats say we have 40,000,000 people without health care. How many of those are illegal's? What number could we lower this to if they were gone? Not only that, be it has been proven that Low income American citizens would earn 10% to 30% more. Case in point, there has been over 5 meat packing raids in the past 8 months. For those plants to replace the workers, they had to raise pay an additional 3 to 6 dollars per hour. How many of these workers can now afford health care?

    I have also heard that 70% of Mexico population would cross the border tomorrow if they could do so. So the question is "Why is Mexico such a crappy place to live?"

    Also 35% of all illegals are not from south of the border. They need to be sent home too.


    • LBobRife, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10Let's visit your question. Should we not try and help our neighboring country to the south, helping to make it be a place where people will not want to flee from?
      • philipl411, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1I pay my bills, I raise my family, I take care of my wife. If I try and take care of my neighbors bills, kids,and wife, i will only make MY situation worse. Please remember only 65% of low income workers are from south of the border. Mexico has wealth in abundance in natural resource. It's their attitude that keeps them poor. They should see us as an example, not as a crutch
        • adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Well, you both use each other as crutches actually. Where else are you going to get stuff done so cheap?
          • philipl411, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1It is a prov-en fact that illegals artificially keep wages lower. so am one that hies them is really and truly STEALING from his neighbors
    • theutopian, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4It's patently absurd to say that an illegal immigrant gets $42,000 in handouts from the government a year. There aren't even enough programs to leach off of to take that much money. And don't you remember that there are limits on how much welfare and other handouts you can get?. Clinton dismantled the welfare state. Don't know where you were 15 years ago. Paco is not taking any money out of your pocket or taking a job away from you. You are a xenophobe and that word has a negative connotation. You send every illegal immigrant home, it would destroy this country. But hey at least we'll all be all white! I suppose you think blacks should be sent back to Africa, too? And those pesky Asians, they need to go back to China. ***** grow a cerebral cortex. Show the actual proof of your figures or STFU. Adolf Hitler called, wants to know what you're doing this weekend. Wanted to catch up on Jew hating with you. OOooo the illegal immigrant boogeyman is going to destroy us all!!!!! Sounds eerily familiar.
    • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Every one of that 40 million number are citizens... I believe they were citing census data...
  • minox, on 02/09/2008, -27/+7I must thank Mr. Stewart for his insightful commentary on this piece of political news. What I liked about it especially was that it was surprising. I never would imagine that he'd blast Romney. But I guess he has to get around to picking on the right sometimes. Normally he's just excoriating the left wing. But it's good that he mixes things up now. Otherwise his commentary would become trite and predictable. But rather than devolving into rote repetition, he challenges his audiences rather than repeating insipid phrases that cater to their lowest impulses.
    • rgov, on 02/09/2008, -1/+12Stewart has been asked before why The Daily Show has an anti-Republican slant. He denies it, saying that it's just because they're in power, and further stresses the fact that it's a comedy show.

      I think it's hard to deny the fact that the Republicans have earned to ridicule lately, but I expect things to shift a little come January 2009.
      • minox, on 02/09/2008, -8/+4I'm not denying the fact that he is making fun of the Republicans because they are in power. What I am somewhat puzzled by is his popularity. Because it just seems so trite since he happens to be making fun of the Republicans most of the time. It just makes the show seem stale to me. I did actually used to be a fan of it. He just seems to go for such easy sure-fire jokes that appeal to the lowest in his partisan audience. As innocent as his commentary seems, I believe it contributes to the divisive political atmosphere that he is supposedly parodying.
        • proton, on 02/09/2008, -4/+11The man (Romney) equated voting for Democrats as supporting terrorism. I'm sorry, but that should be open to ridicule. The so-called "liberal" news media glossed over that comment and simply stated that Mr Romney bowed out gracefully. Stewart is a satirical comic who points out the idiocy of the "liberal" media and politicians. The rest of us are supposed to sit back and take this "you're a terrorist if you don't agree with us" *****? Besides, we learned that "***** you" is valid political commentary from Cheney.
    • theuber1337, on 02/09/2008, -1/+7Not only is he making most of this off the top of his head, but he's also a COMEDIAN! On COMEDY CENTRAL! His job is not to give people a fair and equal look at everything in the news, but to MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH. And I think he is doing his job just fine. Funny how, even though all this is true, he's still better than all the major news networks.
    • Wosat, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1Jon is going down the same road that Bill Maher and Al Franken went down -- sacrificing their universal effectiveness as comedians in order to better advance their leftest ideas.
      • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Please tell me one political position that Jon Stewart holds... Without looking it up.

        Is "That was a stupid thing to say." a leftist ideal now?...
    • jm4847, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1IS DAT SUM SARCASM?
  • motagua, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
  • KSchaff, on 02/09/2008, -52/+5Remember when Jon Stewart was funny? Now he's just a hack.
    • nogChoco, on 02/09/2008, -1/+17Remember when your comment was still on +1 ?
  • Gotar, on 02/09/2008, -4/+41Vote Terrorism in '08!
  • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -31/+2Illegal immigration is a political tool for the democrats to get the votes they want.
    Why on earth are liberal politicians voting down laws to require valid proof of citizenship when voting? It's happened time and time again.

    There's only one answer. They get the votes from the illegals.

    I'd think we should do an experiment. Lets get a bunch off people together and buy a house next to Diane Feinstein. We'll give the house to a bunch, maybe 15, of non-English speaking illegals. We'll pay their bills for a year.

    I'm willing to bet that she will show her true non-tolerant ways and do everything to get them out of there.

    Democrats have the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality. As long as they get benefits (votes in this case) with no costs, they are happy.
    • hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8So that's where all the tin foil went. Goddammit, I was going to make some baked potatoes.

      "There's only one answer." Since that's hardly ever a true statement, you should have paused there.

      The obvious, non-retarded answer is that many poor or minority *legal* citizens do not have driver's licenses, and they tend to vote Democratic by demographic. Of course part of the reason, then, is to increase Democratic votes, but *legal* ones. That may be, in part, a political motivation, but at least it preserves the right to vote for many people who should have it, but would be denied it if they lacked a driver's license.

      The Republican lip-service to "integrity of the process," on the other hand, somehow only targets likely Democratic voters, while the potentially severe wide-scale threat to the integrity of the election process posed by insecure and unaccountable Diebold machines entirely escape their concern.
      • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1Last I checked, a state ID (non-drivers license) is available from your local DMV. Nice try.
        • hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4And if you can't get to the DMV? (For example: if I had to, I could walk to my polling place; the DMV is on the other side of town.) The point is, who's more likely to have trouble getting an ID? Who's more likely to be unaware of the need to have ID to vote when they walk up to the polling volunteers? Who profits from keeping those people from voting?

          By your logic, fake IDs are also easily available to illegals, so if requiring IDs is meant to keep illegals from voting, then it's pointless. If you really believe that illegals are going to go to the trouble of committing fraud to vote, why would you believe they wouldn't take the extra step of getting a fake ID? So that argument cuts both ways. The reason I have the better of it is that I don't believe very many illegals attempt to vote in the first place, leaving suppression of legal traditionally Democratic voters as the probable outcome of the policy.
        • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0If we were serious we'd find a way. In comparison to national health care or the budget, it would be peanuts to get people on a bus to the DMV to get their IDs.

          On the fake argument, technology innovations need to be implemented...smart card w/pin and matching finger prints in a database.

          Not doing anything leaves door open to non-citizens voting.
        • theutopian, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3I don't think you quite understand what is required to register to vote. Maybe you've never done it. I don't believe the fallacy that millions of illegal immigrants are voting in our election. Millions of retards like you vote in our elections and you're probably a lot dumber than most Mexicans, yet you don't see me raising a stink.
        • wdoyle0447, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0theutopian

          Being illegal and being dumb are different things. I could be as dumb as you and it'd still be legal, get it?

          It doesn't take much to register. Maybe you haven't done it before. If your lucky enough to be in a state that requires ID you can buy someone's identity on the street and make your way to the DMV to get a license.
        • Tiak, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3At least in my state they charge for every ID issued... Now you want to add a 20 dollar fee to voting?...
        • mbelrose, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Look up the terms "poll tax" and "Jim Crow Laws." They system you're so hyped about already existed, and it was mainly used to stop black people from voting, so you'll excuse us if we don't want those days to come back.
  • etherreal, on 02/09/2008, -4/+10***** You Frank has no been replaced with ***** You Mitt! And I agree. The sad thing is, this makes a brokered convention impossible, and we are all left with the turd sandwich that is John McCain.
  • phphreak, on 02/09/2008, -28/+8no class, that Stewart.
    • xxdesmus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Mitt Romney deserves a lack of class. He is a grade A douche bag.
  • charlie55, on 02/09/2008, -24/+9you people care too much about jon stewart. kill your tv.
  • WingZero94, on 02/09/2008, -37/+8Wow, what a loser Jonny Stewart is. BIG MAN buddy, you are a farce. Jon's just a circle jerk for left wing wack jobs.
    • akinscd, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9and you obviously are a neocon
    • nolesshabitual, on 02/09/2008, -1/+7wait wait wait wait WAIT... the daily show is a farce? oh man, how did i miss that
  • glucoseboy, on 02/09/2008, -8/+22OMG. I heard the speech was bad. I had know idea how bad. What an Ass! Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The best part about it is that the Republicans are glad you're gone too.
  • akinscd, on 02/09/2008, -11/+7Would someone please make a video game where Ron Paul goes on an uzi fed killing spree at the Republican Convention? I mean seriously I am more Republican than most, but these people (Romney, Huckabee) are fascists.
    • Defuser, on 02/09/2008, -3/+2You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      • worn, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1I can't believe people are giving you negative diggs Defuser. What you said was hilarious. It's a quote from Princess Bride people! jeez.
      • akinscd, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that holds the state above all else and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. I.e. they are pushing their religious fascism on our government which is supposed to be built upon the separation of church and state... uneducated.
  • tonyram, on 02/09/2008, -9/+1Is it possible I can did this more than once?
  • jm4847, on 02/09/2008, -6/+24Mitt Romney: Yuppie, elitist, smug, disrespectful to his elders (Ron Paul), thinks he can buy a country, calls those who oppose his party "terrorists" and talks about an imaginary imminent thread (which makes HIM a terrorist for using fear to gain votes) and drops out the second he isn't number one, like a five year old would do.
    "***** you" is exactly what he deserves.
    • dglass81, on 02/09/2008, -6/+0Disrespectful to his elders? He's in a debate. He didn't call them "terrorists", he said that terrorists would win if democrats came in office. Mitt is more successful than you can ever hope to be.
      • tk0680, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Success != everything, as Mitt clearly shows in this speech.
      • jm4847, on 02/10/2008, -1/+0He laughed at Ron Paul during an interview in a disrespectful way. Oh and how mature of you to try and put me down.
  • cochese8, on 02/09/2008, -30/+6Jon Stewart is a coward behind his audience of back-patters.
    • Defuser, on 02/09/2008, -1/+14Yeah, and you're an absolute HERO, posting under a silly alias on Teh Intrawebs.
    • tucsonwc, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Wow, the truth must hurt little man.
    • thetrunkmonkey, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3***** republicans! *cheer*
    • tk0680, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3I actually wish the Jon Stewart variety of commentary were exported internationally. Might not work as well as - let's face it - US politics are notably more hilarious and absurd than anywhere else.
      • tanuki0, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Well, The Daily Show is actually broadcasted daily in France. With subtitles on a cable channel but still, we have the chance to watch it.
      • queenstarsha, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1there's a news quiz podcast by the bbc that mocks british (and american) politicians. it's like "wait wait don't tell me" if ken tomlinson hadn't put npr's balls in a lockbox at rnc headquarters.
  • noman2512, on 02/09/2008, -10/+6Can I get an Amen?
  • ryanhayn, on 02/09/2008, -6/+11YES! This made my day. Dear John, thank you.
  • caponumen, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4Pure genius.
    However you can be sure the demos will continue the adventure they helped deploy in the middle-east.
    One of two events will transpire before the last U.S. boot leaves the ground in the middle-east, the last drop of oil is pumped or hell freezes over. We should stop screwing around and offer them statehood, take a hint from the Romans and run an efficient self supporting empire or get out........
  • juicycutlets, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1mit out romney
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.