Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27074 Followers
Perfect007
2022 Followers
Kernowjourno
228 Followers
fuccitimhi
85 Followers
Arbon Tree
796 Followers
GrnDolphinLvnJan 11, 2011
Love Stewart
iriemeditationJan 12, 2011
8 people here have no love LOL
GrnDolphinLvnJan 13, 2011
No love LOL
casspaJan 11, 2011
Tag 'em
esornosoJan 11, 2011
Classic
dcjoedogv2Jan 11, 2011
Last real American, well him and me. xp
elf25Jan 11, 2011
It's up to us. The public. When "media" Talk Radio Hosts, et. al., gets out of line, we need to call, eMail and tweet and tell them "hey, tone it down a notch."
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2011
This sounds more like a cover up for the crazy accusations from the left. What happened to the tea party connection? The political motivations when the guy is independent and doesn't even vote? Now we get this from Stewart to pass it all off. Not that I don't agree with it, but we've had some very bad behavior from left wing media jumping to conclusions and using a tragedy for a political tool.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jimfeetJan 11, 2011
Excuse me?? Very bad behavior from the left wing?? But no criticism of right wing vitriolic rhetoric?
How about a little balance in your vision. I think there's more than enough reason to criticize the extreme wings of BOTH political parties but to leave the right wing out of the criticism is blind prejudice.
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2011
You may have missed the part where I said "not that I don't agree with it." , but he ignored the behavior of the left wing press in covering the tragedy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digghasnoethicsJan 11, 2011
There is no left wing press, certainly in the US.
Everyone jumped at the 'crazy gunman <> far right rhetoric' connection because the target was a democrat on a palin 'target list', and because we all think the far right are generally bats**t insane in the first place.
Kind of says something about the company you keep...
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2011
"There is no left wing press, certainly in the US."
MSNBC, The New York Times, and especially the Huffington Post are slanted left. You can't see it because you're left.
"Everyone jumped at the 'crazy gunman <> far right rhetoric' connection because the target was a democrat on a palin 'target list', and because we all think the far right are generally bats**t insane in the first place."
My point exactly.
"Kind of says something about the company you keep..."
Well, my company doesn't call people I disagree with "bats**t insane" so I figure I'm doing better than you are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digghasnoethicsJan 12, 2011
Err, nope. I call them moderate right wing because I KNOW what left wing is, and that ain't it.
And I'd suggest 'your company' doesn't call people 'bats**t insane' because you're too far gone to recognise how irrational, illogical and out of control it is.
Seriously they (you) need help.
suicideluvkittyJan 11, 2011
not to mention her office had previously been vandalized in the great teaparty backlash to the health care bill passing.
yurmutha412Jan 12, 2011
It only points out that everyone needs to settle down and not draw conclusions until they get all the information in. Relating it to some Sarah Palin map just makes people look silly. Especially the number of people that were taken in by it. Like someone said, she had a picture taken of her holding a semi-automatic herself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kinserJan 12, 2011
Oh come on. So maybe it had nothing to do with that 'map' but you know what? That map should have never existed. Palin is in the wrong with that thing no matter if it caused this or not. Its things like that from the right and the left that need to stop.
If it was a normal citizen spouting such nonsense they'd be investigated, are they investigating palin? No because she's a public figure that all of us know is full of crap.
Its not an excuse to spout hate though.
yurmutha412Jan 12, 2011
"Err, nope. I call them moderate right wing because I KNOW what left wing is, and that ain't it."
You seem to know an awful lot about things that are merely opinion.
"And I'd suggest 'your company' doesn't call people 'bats**t insane' because you're too far gone to recognise how irrational, illogical and out of control it is.
Seriously they (you) need help."
You don't really know my company though, do you? One more know it all that makes judgments without information. I'm certainly not a Glenn Beck fan, but I don't listen to Keith Olberman either. I have a conservative viewpoint. After making so many irrational and illogical comments yourself, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zirchxworldJan 12, 2011
why can't we just condemn both parties because in the end they are too similar. f**k democrats and their wasteful spending on wasteful programs, f**k republicans and their wasteful spending and saying they will reduce government. they both suck. go libertarians!!!
gsydiggerJan 12, 2011
because the Republican side f**ks more people over and more harshly in general than the democrats which just f**ks over rich greedy people and people in areas which are more likely to be attacked by terrorists (not by very much though for the last one)
zirchxworldJan 12, 2011
f**ks more people over? im not going to defend either party because I despise both but your point is impossible to prove. I will say this though, the democratic party f**ks a lot of people over even (especially) when they try to help. one such example is the progressive pressure to keep pushing minimum wages up which is a good intention gone wrong because by raising unskilled workers' wages you completely cut them out of the marketplace. because companies can't afford to pay someone lets say 8.50 an hour when they don't have any experience. their gonna hire less people which increases unemployment.
gsydiggerJan 12, 2011
your example also means that more people will finish High School or get GED's or go to Community College which is a good thing.
zirchxworldJan 13, 2011
does not mean they will but certainly a motivating factor wouldn't ya think? its when government lets people sit on welfare for years that people don't look for jobs. and according to polls, when these people's welfare runs out, most find jobs right away. when times are tough people should be relying on their skill and education not government checks.
abram730Jan 25, 2011
"the Republican side f**ks more people over and more harshly in general than the democrats"
That is like, getting in a frying pan because it's not as hot as the fire.
There are two people in congress willing to cut the size of government. One is Ron Paul, the Libertarian and the other is the Socialist Berny Sanders.
What does is say of the two parties, that the actual socialist is for smaller government then them?
rudegarJan 11, 2011
ns you'd like a personal apology from left-wings ?
yurmutha412Jan 11, 2011
I think the left wing has to realize that they aren't quite as stable and centered as they think they are. There's a problem with constantly pointing at the other guy and saying there's something wrong with him. In this case, it's led to vain accusations. I don't think they should apologize. I think they should be embarrassed, and I think a legitimate satirist should say something about it, not cover it up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kinserJan 12, 2011
If they aren't quite as stable and centered then the right must be completely over the freaking cliff burning the peasants.
yurmutha412Jan 12, 2011
It's obvious you think you're better than everyone from your reply. I hope someday you find out that the people that disagree with you are just people that disagree with you.
kinserJan 13, 2011
Oh no, you completely misunderstand the comment. Its just that the right has far more hateful rhetoric than the left at this moment. Saying the two are equal is, well, very laughable.
Of course, I'm not sure how you got from my comment that I think i'm better than everyone, maybe you're just bad at insults? They write books for that, read one so you don't come across as completely lame.
yurmutha412Jan 13, 2011
The tea party movement has been one of the most peaceful movements in American history. Compare it to the anti-war movement of the 70's and there was a lot more violence back then, or demonstrations in France, which is a very left wing country in my mind. The right wing is passionate and uses passionate language. It's interpreted on the left as being violent and there are some instances, of course, where it is, but mostly it's metaphor. Like when Olbermann said 2 people should go into a room with some politician and only one person should come out. Personally, I think that was going too far, but I still wouldn't say it was calling for violence. Palin is a hunter and she put targets on the map because that's a hunter metaphor. It's interesting that the British had no problem with it when they reported about it in the Daily Mail and I consider that a very left wing country. The Left twists everything because they're left. Because someone with a gun is always pointing a gun at them and they need to ban them whereas the right wing sees a tool that can be misused once in a while, but it's not enough to take them away from everyone and have people blow each other up with pipe bombs instead. The right is the right. They're the ones that support the right to bear arms. The left wants to ban them. The left has the collectivists. A left wing gone bad is one where the rights of the individual have been swallowed by over-government. An extreme left is Russia or China. Violence isn't the problem so much although even with the loss of freedom, they still have it. Another example is Britain in my mind where they have video cameras on every street corner and speech police that make sure someone doesn't say something offensive in public. That's left wing. If they have their way people won't say anything offensive. They won't have guns. There won't be any corporations because corporations are evil. That makes the right passionate because they don't see things the same way. Of course you're going to win that argument, but it doesn't make the left anything good. Does it lead to violence, or is the left paranoid? I think, by and large, the left is paranoid.
theredwhynoJan 12, 2011
Alright. i've had it up to here with people referring to the "right wing media" or "left wing media". The mainstream media doesn't have a political affiliation; the media is corporate--these companies' only loyalty is to the almighty dollar. Yes, even Fox News' primary concern is getting the highest ratings, and thus drawing the most advertising revenue possible. One accomplishes this by seizing upon every controversial--or even potentially controversial--story out there.
"The Tea Party had something to do with the shooting of an Arizona congresswoman?" That's a veritable wet dream in terms of controversy-potential. In today's soundbyte culture, the truth takes second-stage to exposure. It doesn't matter, at least insofar as reporting is concerned, whether something has any real veracity, or even importance in the greater scheme of things; it's all about who's talking about it, and at what level. The fact that Zuckerberg came out and said that the top search on Facebook was whether Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting is precisely what i'm talking about. Facebook is a social networking site; it's content is almost entirely opinion, commentary, etc.--not objective reporting. Thus, how is a Facebook search at all relevant in terms of people seeking actual information? It's not--and that's the point. The only significance is that, regardless of any actual responsibility Palin--or anyone else other than the shooter--might have had for the shootings (in my opinion, there is little), that was where people's minds immediately went upon hearing news of the shootings.
abram730Jan 25, 2011
There are many right wing voices on the media and no left wing ones.
theredwhynoJan 26, 2011
i disagree, but that prompts a much larger conversation. 'Left' in America is a catch-all for a lot of extremely disparate ideologies. Most of the so-called 'left-wing' voices in the American media aren't truly 'left'; they're inarticulate shills for the Democratic Party, which is itself a catch-all. i suppose the same problem exists on the right, as well, which would explain why people like Ann Coulter still have jobs...
azlenJan 11, 2011
It used to be that an event like this, as tragic as it was, would draw us together as Americans and as people. We don't see that anymore.
This isn't a left or right issue, this is a human issue.
Are we so agenda focused and us/them focused that we can't take time out as people to mourn the loss we have experienced?
dcjoedogv2Jan 11, 2011
Agree with you 100%
hotleperJan 11, 2011
I agree. It's a good thing the troubled "Digg Patriots" are really easy to spot here. Those trolls never waste an opportunity to show how separated they are from reality.
universalstormJan 11, 2011
Agreed
JonathanTothfromHothJan 11, 2011
That was perfect.
bluenoseboyJan 11, 2011
Too bad Jon Stewart effectively killed the lone "debate" show on American TV (CNN's Crossfire). Sure it was too partisan, but excessively-partisan dialogue is better than no dialogue at all.
The political extremes have been getting even more radical in recent years, and lack of debate certainly hasn't helped matters.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
user500Jan 11, 2011
4 guys yelling at each other at the same time helps the nation how?
bluenoseboyJan 12, 2011
As I said in my OP, yelling is better than no dialogue at all, which is what we have now. People can more easily incubate themselves away from any opinion contrary to their own. The followers of Fox News have even less understanding than the followers of the Daily Show, and vice-versa.
Take a look at the mother-of-all-parliaments (Westminster in the UK). They yell at each other like crazy during the so-called "Question Period". If they sat seething in their chairs instead of hollering, THEN I would start to get worried.
Explain to me how yelling is worse than no dialogue at all.
sweatysackJan 12, 2011
yelling is not better than no dialogue at all. If all people see is politicians and pundits screaming at each other it hurts this country. People see that and will think that's how political discussion has to be done.
bluenoseboyJan 12, 2011
Right now MSNC (or the Daily Show) only reaches people who already agree with their editorial stance. The same is true for Fox News.
Presently, fewer Americans than ever are getting exposed to other points of view, and I think extremism such as we've seen in AZ will only get worse in the near future.
I don't think Jon Stewart (who I adore, for the record) realised what he was doing when he "shut down" Crossfire.
Now everybody is merely preaching to the choir.
bluenoseboyJan 12, 2011
...I meant to write "Followers of Fox News have even less understanding of followers of the Daily Show than before, and vice-versa."
bluenoseboyJan 12, 2011
Talk about a Freudian-slip! :D
bookantJan 11, 2011
Crossfire was no dialogue at all.
What we need isn't "debate" shows, it's "discussion" shows. Bring in a group of experts on a specific topic (economics, science, whatever) - go out of your way to find ones that have no "axe to grind" in terms of pushing a specific point of view, policy, ideology or party - and have them participate in a guided *discussion* of specific issues of the day to see what kind of objective and rational conclusions and ideas they reach. Have a moderator that also serves as a fact checker and corrects any factual inaccuracies.
This would be helpful in a way that a bunch of idiots yelling their pre-drawn and typically unsupported conclusions at each other, complete with fabrications, lies and fabricated talking points that nobody bothers to check for accuracy.
bluenoseboyJan 12, 2011
...Because it at least allows differing opinions to be voiced publicly.
I was no fan of Crossfire, but I assumed it would be replaced with something (ANYTHING!), but it hasn't. Instead we have a void of debate (not counting people anonymously flaming at each other on internet messages boards). The point remains that there is ZERO public bi-partisan debate in the US right now, and that a'int a good thing. If someone yells at me, at least I have the opportunity to yell back. That's better democracy than angry silence or preaching to the converted. Both of those just breed extremism.
entroperJan 12, 2011
Meet the Press anyone? I miss Tim Russert.
scout29cJan 11, 2011
The Monday night Daily Show reminds me of an old British show, “That was the week that was”, which was similar to the Daily Show in that it poked fun of recent events. It was sort of a combination of the Daily Show and Saturday Night Live. Anyway, they complete changed their usual satiric format the night JFK was assassinated.
While there are a lot of downers in regards to the recent shooting, here are some things it was not:
No matter what you hear, this was neither a left nor right wing radical carrying out some political agenda, conspiracy, or even a political statement.
“Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground.” If anything, this act is the price of freedom. Allowing the rationally challenged to walk around among us, unrestrained, and un-institutionalized is the sign of a free society. This would not happen in an oppressive society in which no one was allowed to be different in any way.
I wonder at the symbolism of the 9-year old death who was born on 9-11, or the army guy who was never in combat, but after being one of the people shot, tackled the shooter, or that it all happed at a Safeway, but I don’t wonder about our system of government or how American practice their particular form of democracy.
cawpinJan 12, 2011
Check out "Mock the Week." We found it when we went to Scotland for our honeymoon. It essentially a mix of Daily Show and Who's Line is it Anyway. I haven't seen much of it as of late, especially since Frankie Boyle left, but it is still a funny and entertaining show.
melthornalJan 11, 2011
American culture needs to move away from this crazy level of implied individualism and go back to a more sane community oriented atmosphere. The whole "this group is lazy," "that group is strong," "this group of weak" et cetera is ridiculous. Society exists to better the experience of the individual, not to ostracize, chastise and berate some while elevating others to some heroic, saintly, marvelous stardom.
At the end of the day, we are all human. Putting up these walls to protect egos, prey on the gullible, and to trick the misinformed isn't a valuable contribution in life. It doesn't show how clever you are, or how manly, powerful, et cetera. It shows your weakness, and societies weakness.
The greatest contribution in your life is not being a successful businessman, a clever investor, a hard worker, handsome, sexy, or any of these things. Your greatest contribution is loving your family and friends, and helping to build and protect your community. Every aspect of it. From the marginalized and forgotten to the average Joe. Helping others is your greatest accomplishment. Be it raising your children, caring for your elderly parents, or mentoring a local person who has been pushed to the side and forgotten by the system.
American society has had its priorities tossed up and forgotten for decades now. There is a point where everyone has to look in the mirror and really think about what they are doing in life. Are these ego motivated priorities really all that important? Is narcissism really something we want to facilitate? Do we really want a media landscape based on Schadenfreude, Freudenschade as opposed to mudita and honesty?
Come on, people.
kkakes33Jan 11, 2011
THANK YOU. The back and forth bickering does nothing to solve our problems in our nation and in our communities. People need to work together, not split apart into "lefts" and "rights".
seldon21Jan 11, 2011
System will continue, it will change but it will continue, those who want to keep us chatting and posting about BS will continue to stir up BS like this to make money and provide us with a waste of idle time.
purpletentacleJan 11, 2011
The clips that they took were a bit misleading. Stewart's big point was that you can't draw a direct line from political rhetoric to this shooting. It would be nice, as he says, but the system is too complex to do that. He continues by saying that we would all like think that we can get rid of these things, but "you can't outsmart crazy". In the end it's best to make it easier to spot these crazies by being more sane ourselves, (but so we can catch them not because we cause them.
seroevoJan 11, 2011
It's all because of egos, and a lack of shame in today's society.
Everyone wants their time at the mic and to be in the spotlight. Be it John McCain and Sarah Palin or Snooky and the Kardashians. It doesn't matter whether they turn themselves into cartoons or just sorry excuses for people, if it gets them attention or money or power, they'll do it.
Stupidity and inflated egos need to be called out and shamed.
ancientdinkoJan 11, 2011
Troubled individuals ARE easy to spot. They're everywhere. It's giving them easy access to guns that's the problem.
wonderchemistJan 11, 2011
No, it's turning away and deciding they're someone else's problem.
retardIQ70Jan 11, 2011
Well said.
universalstormJan 11, 2011
Agreed for sure
cawpinJan 12, 2011
@ancientdinko: He didn't have easy access to guns. He had to go through the same background check as everybody else. The failure here was that none of the doctor that treated him ever reported him as mentally unstable and got a court to say so. THAT would have prevented him from legally getting a firearm.
That said, it doesn't matter what tool he used. Crazy is crazy and guns had no responsibility in the matter.
retardIQ70Jan 11, 2011
It's pretty sad that a mass murder committed by a crazy person, whose only influence was his own sick mind, has been turned into a political football. Thats the shamelessness of politics in the U.S. today and the sycophants who have attached their egos to it.
jrackowJan 11, 2011
I was watching Bill Maher talk to Anderson Cooper last night (ONLY because I was at the gym). Talk about someone who needs to tone it down. Refreshing to see Jon Stewart continue to add sanity to the issues. If he were to run for president, I'm sure he'd run under the keyword of 'sanity'.
timsmitJan 12, 2011
Can you name a single comment by Maher that promotes violence? There is a difference between showing people are stupid, and suggesting they be shot. The former is the essence of satire.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jrackowJan 12, 2011
He didn't talk about condoning violence. So no. He needs to tone it down in the extreme spin he puts on everything.
timsmitJan 12, 2011
He is a comedian. He causes people to convulse in laughter by his spin. So, if it is not violence that you complain about, give an example of something he said that should have been toned down. You can't say it applies to "everything" he says.
jrackowJan 12, 2011
Okay, sure, I said the word "everything". There's a few articles in things that Bill Maher says that are not extreme spins, and some nouns, too. Never adjectives, though.
But seriously, I would disagree with you if you think he's only a comedian. If you've seen "Religulous", you'll know it's not simply comedy. Bill would probably not want to only be known as that. He speaks because he wants people to change the way they think. He passionately wants them to agree with him.
Also, like I said, I was watching it at the gym. I was on the elliptical at the time. If you care so much about the specific words, then reply to me with the script. I'll pick out a few. Other than that, no offense, but I really don't care if you don't agree with me. This is from my comment yesterday, so not a lot of people are going to see this. I just... don't care. If you want to think Maher is not on the extreme side of the aisle, that's cool. Beck=extreme, Maher=extreme... I am willing to go both ways. Stewart=NOT extreme. That's basically what I'm saying.
timsmitJan 13, 2011
I have seen Religulous. Nothing that I recall needed to be toned down.
My point is that you are engaging in a false equivalence. Just because Maher does something that is not comedy does not mean he needs to tone it down. You say you cannot remember anything he said while you were working out, but your statement is that you would not have listened to him voluntarily, because he needs to tone it down in general, from your past experience. If you can't think of anything, all you are saying is he should not express views that you disagree with. Not worth saying.
Beck=crazed liar.
Maher= almost always right.
Stewart=pussy.
jrackowJan 13, 2011
I totally disagree. But if you didn't see the interview with Anderson Cooper, then I guess I can't understand your stance. Did you? If not, this is really silly that you've made this idea up that I was judging that viewing on my past experiences. Nay, I tell you, and I don't think Anderson Cooper agreed with Maher either. If you think Jon Stewart is a pussy, I just think we live in different worlds. You're talking about the guy who got the show Crossfire cancelled. Everything he does is in opposition to someone. I'm just saying he goes about it in a much more sane and balanced way than Maher. And perhaps the best word to use amidst that comparison is tolerance.
timsmitJan 12, 2011
Can you name a single comment by Maher that promotes violence? There is a difference between showing people are stupid, and suggesting they be shot. The former is the essence of satire.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
KatyclysmicJan 11, 2011
Didn't realize how much I missed Jon Stewart until I watched that but definitely did not forget how much I admire and respect him. I watched The Daily Show twice last night just to hear that opening again. It was perfect.
universalstormJan 11, 2011
Yes great opening got to admire his spirit
ychangeJan 11, 2011
If each side understood how to show respect for the others humanity, it would help to calm things down,
kolop1Jan 11, 2011
Guy on tv say sumthin. I is smart for following. I is now cool for listinin to guy on TV. I can't thunk fo miself. I let tv do it fo me.
Closed AccountJan 12, 2011
I'm a DP. My orders are to seek out secondary Novenator digg accounts, then report back to my handlers. I think I found such an account.
max017Jan 12, 2011
i love it
zetamaleJan 12, 2011
I was over at my parents' house watching it with my dad, and when they got to the bit with John Oliver in his pajamas and made us laugh, I turned to my dad and said "How the hell did they pull off that magic trick?" It was truly impressive that they were able to take something so horrific, say something poignant, and be funny about it without being at all disrespectful.
puddmasterJan 12, 2011
this is whole thing is so freaking sad. i believe public figures certainly need to be more careful with what they say. remember how bill o'reilly routinely called that abortion doctor a "murderer" on his show while showing his picture? the poor guy was running a perfectly legitimate and legal practice and ended up getting killed by some some nutbag extremist. you think that would have happened if o'reilly didnt publicize him like that? i doubt it. what happened in arizona is no different. palin's actions were no different than o'reilly's. a part of me wishes those two could share the fate of those who were killed due partly to their words. fortunately for them nutbag extremists tend to fall on the right side of the isle in the US these days.
oh, and in case anyone cares i'm independent and think both major political parties suck balls. i do however tend to lean to left mostly because of how bats**t insane the right has become.
Closed AccountJan 12, 2011
Why is the "solution" to these incidents always to remove a bit of liberty? To me it seems to be a bit of a stretch to connect this individual's action to politics, let alone political rhetoric. To Mr. Stewart's point, while it would be a positive change to move towards a more refined political discourse, can we really not tell the difference between Mr. Loughner and Mr. Limbaugh? To say no, I believe, is being intellectually dishonest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lyricalgiftJan 12, 2011
the greatest rap love song ever made!! new fresh talent!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rlwiCuMkpo
waltifariJan 12, 2011
Total cop-out by Stewart. No comparison between rhetoric on right to rhetoric on left in terms of violent imagery and suggestion. Time for Stewart to take a stand -- after his wishy washy "both sides are bad" speech in DC, I was hoping he would go ahead and say publicly what we all know. Too bad he didn't/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJan 12, 2011
Don't worry, there are plenty of other avenues, web sites and articles that cater to the bickering, endless and useless finger pointing and other rhetoric. You will not be denied.
waltifariJan 12, 2011
The fact that people think that a bunch of websites mostly viewed by their authors and their friends are a substitute for a platform like Stewart's is *exactly" why I am worried. And furthermore, that laying blame where its due continues to be called "fingerpointing" is another reason to worry. No this will all be swept under the rug again (largely forgotten by next Monday) because everyone is afraid of being accused of pointing a finger, when in this case its entirely appropo.
inajeepJan 12, 2011
You can not prove causation, especially since this guy is/was/continues to be insane. The murder of Dr. Tiller has a better defined causation than this according to all the information so far released. I jumped to the conclusion that palin was a large factor very easily too, but that doesn't mean we as a society should act on it without real evidence. Otherwise we would have books burned, rock music banned, violent video games banned and so on long ago. The problem with pointing fingers is that way too often it is done without real information or fact behind it.
immediateactionJan 12, 2011
I really enjoy Stewart, not only as a comedian but as a voice of reason in the realm of political insanity. I agree entirely with his statement, that if we ever hope to become a better society; to form a better world, we must never abandon our ability to be disgusted and repugned by the actions of one or multiple people who lack the ability to reason and see the consequences of their bat-s**t crazy actions.
johnny5kJan 12, 2011
This is what Jon Stewart does best - He's a sane voice in a sea of screaming insanity: "It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV." Well said, Jon. It's really unfortunate that so many people dismiss whatever he says as liberally biased, because if they actually just took a minute to listen, they'd realize it's far from it.
waltifariJan 12, 2011
The point is hardly to prove causation: I agree that Palin herself is not responsible per se, despite today's foot-in-mouth "on-the-attack" comment...And I agree with your point about jumping to conclusions...advice I always need to be mindful of). The point for me is to say: Yelling fire in a crowded theater should be condemned. I would describe myself as a first amendment absolutist to almost the nth degree, but not that far. Yet where on the left (in this era *only* to be sure) do we find stuff like Joe Wilson's "You Lie" being printed on guns: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/joe-wilson-you-lie-assault-rifle_n_807644.html. And, I still wrestle about whether the Westboro people should be kept away from the funerals, despite the deep sickness that their words and actions carry.
OverlooReviewsJan 12, 2011
We dont have to confuse comedy and tragedy, there are different things that should not be combined by personal benefits.
Check my lens, new ways to be millionaire from home, check it out!
GrnDolphinLvnJan 13, 2011
The country is so divided right now...
zirchxworldJan 13, 2011
ur mom's so divided right now... ;)
GrnDolphinLvnJan 13, 2011
Your mom is about leave my place, she wants to know what you want for dinner... lol
mentors2Jan 15, 2011
I'm going to start using this. If I hear a person expressing outrageous rhetoric, I'll ask them to try to make it clear whether they are crazy or watch too much TV.