What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
101 Comments
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+58ron paul is mr. pickles!
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40Jon Stewart doesn't report, he makes fun of stuff. Thats how the show works. Thats why its on a comedy network. The sad thing is that he does a better job of "reporting" than most news networks.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34I think some of you are missing the point: Ron Paul didn't say anything stupid. He gave TDS no material for satire.
You should consider it a compliment he didn't get roasted. Notice all of the candidates shown were shown being idiots. Is that what you really want?
What you'd ideally want is for Paul to be interviewed by Stewart, or at least for him to cover the censorship by the media. - Buckiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Senior Pickles!
- emjaymj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24It's not like he deliberately excluded Ron Paul while mentioning all the other candidates though. Not the same thing at all, and since he's not presenting the show as a reliable news source, there is no onus for him to report fairly.
- DiggCommando, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Hell no! There's too many rainbows!
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25..so, serious question. Is Ron Paul really seriously popular on Digg, or is he like "Will it Blend?", "In Russia....", "Carlos Menicia is a thief."and the HD-DVD code thing?
- spencewah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@mrlyons
They did the same thing with the democratic debate: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2850418/show/17676
The daily show is a (god I hate this term) equal opportunity offender. Politics are stupid and the show exists to point that out. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21mrlyons, Jon Stewart is there to make fun of people not to be a political hack :)
Hopefully Ron Paul is a guest on the Daily Show one time though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Everything that makes Jon Stewart Jon Stewart would be compromised if he started to use his show to endorse a specific candidate. Stewart is a liberal and a pragmatist, but he makes fun of everyone. However, being a liberal and pragmatist puts him at pretty stark odds with someone like Ron Paul who is a conservative idealist.
Now I'm sorry it may upset you guys, but there are legitimate reasons to not support Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. It doesn't make us partisans, it doesn't make us tools of the establishment, or brainwashed. We're not all stupid people who don't understand the candidates or the issues. Drop the us vs. them victimization complex and we might actually find common ground. But if you want to continue down the road of us vs. them you're no better than the blind partisans you so blithely disgust. - rebattim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Wow, Digg should really get a video section.
- ZachRetox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23YES, Ron Paul exists exclusively on Digg.
- fpssledge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"...moved in to debate their...IS THAT A PLANE!?!?"
exactly my thoughts! - jonssonar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15How do people see this as biased? I'm conservative and I was laughing my ass off. Its humor people. I really doubt that John Stewart is truly insinuating that John McCain thinks that the grand canyon was dug by monkeys with shovels! BTW, considering the current political climate, does anyone really expect a Republican president in 2008? I am just praying to god that it isn't Hillary Clinton that is our next commander and chief. *Shudders*
- PunkRampant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Both. A lot of people are serious about Ron Paul, while others just like the bandwagon.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Wow, you kinda botched that one up didn't you?
It's ok man, just get back in the game. - trollick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Ron Paul... Oh never mind. Snakes on a Plane is going to be the greatest movie of all time!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12senior pickles 08
- kh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8lisztman: If you watched the show you'd see he makes just as much fun of the Democratic candidates.
- aknappjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's Dr. Pickles. He's an OB/GYN
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While I haven't watched the clip in question... I have to agree with the sentiment of an earlier poster. Why would you want Jon Stewart to lump Ron Paul in with the rest of the roastees? If anything, the fact that Stewart ignored him as a target might imply that Stewart is NOT ignoring Ron Paul. A careful viewer might take note of the omission and wonder why it was made, thus actually calling attention to Ron Paul. Too subtle, huh? Well, I am just basing this on the comments, so feel free to rip it apart.
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The only one I'd want to get in there less than her for sure is Giuliani... and I don't believe that even he could do as poorly or worse than Bush.
- nemrel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How is it possible that porn levels can be low? I pray that day never comes!
- earthwormzim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Party Politics is going to certainly make it hard this term.
- jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sure thing buddy.
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That has got to be the corniest line I have ever heard.
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"We're watching and we're taking notes."
who? the three of you ron paul supporters are watching so you can come spam digg with some worthless insights on to why Jon Stewart doesn't look like he has a huge erection for Ron Paul?
go away spammers./ - skankyBacon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You win the prize for Least Intelligible Response. Congratulations!
- ninzoris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7emjaymj
+ 1digg for using the word "onus"
Well done good sir. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Stewart just doesn't share Digg's man-crush on Ron.
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If I agree I don't want Hillary in there as much as you don't want her in there (which I do), then will you agree that even that would still be advantageous compared to the current fellas we have in there? (Oh pretty please, it's a fair swap, honest!) ;-)
edit: Ok, maybe my statement breaks itself a little... but oh well. - Infinite84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Osama actually probably went to hell 5 years ago as Pakistani newspapers reported his death in Dec. '01 & there have been no reports of anyone seeing or hearing from him since besides fake videos that even the FBI admits to not trusting the authenticity of. McCain probably knows this & could care less about Osama or anything like that. It's about money & power & serving the interests of Israel.
- acex23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5looks like somebody forgot to take their happy pills.. tsk tsk tsk. Just say "mr. Pickles." It'll cheer you up, I promise.
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I started to think RP might be a decent prospect for a bit until I saw something about how he doesn't feel separation of church and state is useful and wants schools to use the bible as a textbook or some damn thing. Scared me away.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It''s midnight in America, Jon.
- LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Now I'm sorry it may upset you guys, but there are legitimate reasons to not support Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. It doesn't make us partisans, it doesn't make us tools of the establishment, or brainwashed. We're not all stupid people who don't understand the candidates or the issues. Drop the us vs. them victimization complex and we might actually find common ground. But if you want to continue down the road of us vs. them you're no better than the blind partisans you so blithely disgust."
No there aren't, and yes it does. Every other candidate is bought and paid for by major corporations who fund them so that they can carry out the plans that best suit the corporations, there are only 2 candidates who are actually for the people - Paul and Gravel; And a vote for any of the others is a vote to carry on in this country letting the elite 2% decide the fate of everything that goes on here instead of the majority rule. And anyone who can't see how well that's been working is a tool. - Infinite84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah well great decision dude, he's the only candidate that DOESN'T want to go to war for Israel.
- Infinite84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Label me an anti-semite if you want but did you notice how John Stewart seemed kind of uppidy about that one guy simply saying that Lieberman is a Jew? Why is it offensive, in the view of some Jewish people at least, to refer to a Jew as a Jew? You can call a Christian a Christian, Muslim a Muslim, Hindu a Hindu, etc. none of these terms are ever interpreted as derogatory so why are we supposed to feel guilty about calling Jewish people Jews?
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah. I was thinking that if the plane was facing the stage, it would be 9/11 all over again...
I wonder if they were trying to subtly remind us... nah. - ownon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4After McCain's last appearance on The Daily Show it seemed like Jon had him in his sights. He stung him on this clip.
- earthwormzim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Bandwagon or not, we need the votes where we can get 'em! Go Ron!!!!!
- DetroitAdam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, you said it well anyway. When you vote evil, you end up with evil. That's about it for this board. I appreciate your time and hopefully you appreciate mine and the group I represent. It's going to be a tough battle as the months move forward but with peace and hope we can be friends. I can't see anyone other than this guy Ron that wants to bring the Constitution, that we all used to hold so dear, back. I cry. I'm mad with the politics this country has embraced so ignorantly. I pray for the sheep. Let us be free and let us be human. If we don't agree, perhaps we do agree on changing the Constitution if we are to make changes in real law. I do appreciate your words and I wish you and yours peace and blessings. Wow.
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution..."
Adam from Detroit - CronoTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I kind of agree, but I think this sort of thing is why Jon Stewart is so reluctant to say his show is anything but a comedy show. Although the Daily Show does cut through a lot of the media's bs, it is not the answer to an actually balanced media that gives equal opportunity to political candidates so that citizens can make informed decisions.
- DetroitAdam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Indeed. You said it well. "But in reality, welfare is a total mess, cripples communities and subsidizes poverty, universal healthcare will increase the cost of health care for everyone while diminishing quality (I know I live in Quebec)...The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem is your asking governments to provide these things, and governments want power, they finance themselves through force and they don't do a good job at anything.
Every beneficiary of the New American Century brand of sociofascism stands to lose from Ron Paul getting support.
They don't want the name Ron Paul out, that's all there is to it."
We(the hundreds of thousands- truthfully millions-that have come aboard our various forums and not the spam filled DIGG internet paradigm) aim to solidify true choices and not argue about nonsense. We, in Detroit think one should always have the right to choose so why bicker and stumble upon nastiness?) Thank you for your comment on this board. Peace to you from Detroit. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Infinate84
So you don't support net neutrality? Seems a lot of Ron Paul supporters support MOB MENTALITY. There are plenty of people who support Ron Paul for good reasons, but there are plenty more who just follow the crowd. It's surprising that many Diggers support a man who likes spying without a permit and also doesn't like net neutrality. It's out of sync with the common Digg ideals. You guys raise hell about "1984" and the Patriot act, then go around sporting a candidate in favor of those points.
@Saccharin
Right on. People with ideas that aren't 'mainstream' get criticized heavily around here. I think people need to stop bashing a specific party and start looking at what really counts -- where candidates / people stand on the issues, and how to work on appeasing both ideals at once. - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree with you that the current state of goverment is bad, and actually i don't support most of the things i listed in my post above. I was simply highlighting some of the more unknown and less popular policies that traditional conservatives hold dear, as i think many people are 'jumping on the bandwagon' (to use an australian expression) without actually thinking for themselves about all the policies that this guy stands for. Okay lets shift focus here...
To highlight the problem with relying on the major parties for achieving real social change, lets look at the subsidies that farmers and other business ventures in the US are getting. Between 1999 and 2005 American cotton farmers recieved $18 billion in US subsides. Market value of the goods produced was $23 billion, so farmers were effectively subsidised 86 cents on EVERY dollar. from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0416-06.htm
If you want to tell me that Ron Paul (or any other polly) will be in a position to undermine these subsidies you are kidding yourself. The problem is not "big goverment" per se, but rather, the corporate influence over government. I think once you accept that everything the government does can be explained by either a) trying to get re-elected and b) serving the needs of their major fund sources (ie corporations) it allows you to understand the situation for what it is. All parties within the state system are required to serve the interest of major corporations, and so they will never eliminate subsidies, stop foreign wars (good for military-industrial complex), etc.
What they will do is _attack the functions of the state that do NOT serve the interests of the corporations_, and market this as if they are truly pro-freedom and small government. Welfare, health and education have absolutely no direct benefits for corporations, and so it is easy for republicans to attack these things under the banner of a small-government ideology.
Of course the dem's are equally subservient to corporate demands, so that's why we need a revolution :) - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4LOL yeah and i'm sure that the Brass writes all his scripts.
This isn't Fox News, with all the cryptic red wing memos being passed from top to bottom. - bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isn't that sentence like.... _really scary_ if you think about the likely ways it could have been meant. Was that one of the guys that admitted he didn't believe in evolution that spit that one out? edit: Oh, wait, I think it was the political correspondent there.. too late to check and fix this now. =)
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, McCain's cute little jittery smile was the perfect cap for stating that he wants to follow bin laden to the gates of hell... And like JS, I wouldn't want to follow him there. Maybe send him there. If there was such a place. But certainly not be his follower on the way there.
- iamso910, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was surprised that no one seemed to get the clear but unintended meaning of "following Osama to the Gates of Hell".
That is, that Osama will go to hell and John McCain also will go there. That they are both evil !
In that sense, I tend to think McCain was spot on. -
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is