| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Scorn in the U.S.A. | ||||
|
||||
Jon Stewart tells us that the soul of America has been awakened by Eric Cantor’s battle cry. Americans are being pitted against Americans. Who are we up against? University professors who can flunk you for beng too openly conservative at Fictional U! Go fighting figments of your paranoid imagination!
There is a long list of enemies. Can you list them? You might have to listen more than once. I did.
There is a little math involved and even a Venn diagram.
Get some skin in the game!
Oh BS. Take the country back from the existing leadership, NOT from other Americans! Huge difference in what is being referred to. The Right’s cause is against government, the OWS crowd is against wealthy American citizens. Stewart has it all backwards.
I believe I have heard some of those politicians naming those who are unacceptable to them.
Why were those politicians even naming people and groups? Who does ERic Cantor want to take America back from?
Are the investment bankers and stock brokers the good guys? Who are the bad guys?
Seriously? Do want to have a real discussion? Or am I going to be offending people if I start listing groups working together, link to evidence, point out connections, etc?
You know what? Forget it.
Never mind.
Glenn Beck’s already done it. With with “twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows”, and chalk boards, links, etc. He’d make Arlo Guthrie proud.
Is it 2008 again? Obama has been running around the country spouting off about how bad everything is as if someone else has been in charge for the last three years. I just want to smack him and say, Dude, you’re the one that’s been at the top for the last three years. Bush left long ago, so giving you another four years is going to improve things how?
The Tea Party Repugs have also been in office for nearly a year now, and what do they have to show for their efforts? A whole lotta people outta work, that’s what.
The OWS want a restoration of middle class prosperity, which would be compensation for the trillions of dollars of wealth they have been systematically screwed out of by banksters and Wall Street shysters.
And politicians who support them, or so it sounds. I don’t think they have hero politicians.
@Cargosquid
Now Cargo, it wasn’t all that innocent of a remark, despite your best efforts to make it so. It was pretty much the same list Jon Stewart read off. At least you aren’t alone.
Did you watch the skit and did you think it was funny? The following skit was fairly good also, the 99ers.
Sorry, 99%
Here you go. It makes a subtle point.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_1
So you still watch Glenn Beck? I watch Jon Stewart. I wonder which of us laughs harder.
@Moon-howler
If that’s what you want to believe, I can’t stop you. We’ve already gone through that unproductive spin cycle, so why repeat it.
Yes, I watched it. And he did have some funny bits and some good points. But, you asked a question. As for the “Fictional U”, there have been cases where students have been penalized for expressing a conservative opinion or disagreeing with a liberal professor’s opinion. So, you asked a question. I was going to answer it. Then I realized that you wouldn’t care what I wrote. The answer would not be valid because its coming from conservative sites, or because it offends you, or you would just ignore it like you did my other comments explaining what I wrote and asking you why you weren’t offended by certain things.
So, what’s the point? Why answer your question? Recently, I’ve written things that used terminology that was taken directly from sources and described actual events. I offended you. You ignored my statements as to what I was doing. You had no concerns for the actual event, just my portrayal.
I use self-described labels and mention that groups are associating. I’m told that I’m smearing people and being offensive.
I post a link to a veteran who re-defines 1% on HIS terms. Elena finds that offensive.
If I argue about a point ore repeatedly ask for an answer on how I “offend”, apparently I’m bullying. From what it appears, I’m the most prolific commenter. Because I have the free time. I’m not picking on anyone.
Its a shame, really, because, previously, we had great discussions. I’ve recommended this blog to many conservatives as a place to visit, that its unique in its civility and willingness to have wide-ranging, in depth discussions.
Now, I don’t know what I’m able to write about. I consider you guys friends. Its your blog, your rules. But now…what are the rules? They appear to have changed. If you don’t want to defend your statements, ok…but that’s not a discussion. That’s arbitrarily insulting your readers.
I’m sorry if I’m thorough and willing to back up my opinions with evidence or further argument from those more informed. If you make a statement about something…that makes a blanket statement on a blog, I’m assuming that you want discussion.
So, do you want me to discuss and argue like before, or for us to just enjoy the posts and be silent? Discussion or echo chamber.
As for being offensive? Please explain to what level of offensiveness is allowed. I’ve been offended by many things on this blog. Its part of the deal when you open things up to discussion. If I’m ever intentionally offensive, you’ll recognize it.
As for Glenn, he did it on his FOX show. And it was information, not comedy.
I thought Glenn Beck WAS comedy relief!
Cargo,
Interesting question you asked “what has changed” from what you use to post and what you post now. Maybe because you are not on the outside looking in, from our (moon and I)vantage, you have become extremely strident. Anything Obama does you find fault. We aren’t the right blog for that kind of generalization about the President and that is where things have begun to quickly go down hill.
If I backed up information from any random blog or website, I would not expect people to give any credibility to my statement as fact. From what I have seen AND lived, reality, these days, is in the eye of the beholder.
Have opinions Cargo, we all do, its that you deign to suggest everything you write is factual and we are always wrong.
See…this is where it gets sticky.
One) I’ve given credit where its due on Obama.
Two) I’ve never changed my position or how I talk about Obama’s policies. Previously, we had discussions on things that you support and Isupport.
Three) This USED to be the blog for discussion. I’ve never hidden my biases. Nor do I “generalize” usually. Its about specific policies.
Four) Backing up information that shows evidence, video, more cogent argument, etc…is wrong just because its a blog? Or a media outlet? Or what? What is supposed to meet your requirements for evidence. And its never “random.”
Five) I’ve never said that my opinions are factual without providing evidence. I deign that my arguments are right. That’s what a discussion does. One presents a theses and argues for it. I then provide evidence. Reality is NOT in the eye of the beholder unless one wishes to live in a fantasy. Policies have demonstrable effects. We each point to them and say, SEE. And then we discuss. But lately, instead of responding, you guys just blow off EVERYTHING that comes for any “non approved” source as being biased. Have we ever blown off your sources, other tha Maddow or Olberman, that is. And even then, I would present evidence.
Elena, you present opinion all the time as fact. Many times you present facts alone.
Is discussion of politics verboten? Can I not criticize Obama’s policies since they will impact me and my family? How many times have I agreed with Moon’s and your opinions on Republicans. Many times.
I do my best to stay intellectually honest and consistent. To do otherwise is hypocrisy. I point out double standards and hypocrisy in politics and the media and movements.
I’m sorry if that offends you.
Cargo, it is impossible to tackle the points when there are 20 of them.
Secondly, you have gotten much more strident and angry. You are citing far right sources as fact. There are sources and blogs I just don’t think prove a point. In fact, I would rarely use a blog to back up facts.
Most importantly, you need to throttle back. This is a bi partisan blog. There is a difference in a little good humored nudging and jabbing (and there isn’t much of that any more) and needling and lumping democrats and progressives in with communists and God knows what else. All thinking people know that this will either piss people off or offend them.
I feel I am not welcome on my own blog and that I have turned on Fox News. That is no longer fun. Keeping a blog is too much work to not want to log on it.
There are plenty of blogs where people can bash democrats and the president until they are mush. This isn’t going to be one of them. Feel free to discuss policy. If someone thinks the president ought not to be going on a bus to convince people of his jobs bill, I can have a discussion about that. I can’t when he is called an incompetent slob or whatever else has been said about him.
I have explained my feelings to you. You say I haven’t. That simply isn’t true. Do you think maybe you have gotten in too deep? There is life beyond the tea party and your dislike of democrats and Obama.
I do not think we have changed. If we have it is in the direction of responding to people who complain about what goes on here.
@CArgo, if WHAT is what I want to believe? On this post, I offered no opinions. I was parroting Stewart. I asked about the different groups.
Cargo said:
Yes, insisting someone take their time to asnwer you is bullying. It is too instense. It is attempting to force discussion.
I don’t care if it is at me or at someone else.
Insisting someone agree with you is bullyingm perhaps not in the traditional sense of the word, but yes, it is still bullying.
Cargo,
Your recent attack on Obama was over an apology he never made! Give me a break. Maybe this just isn’t the right blog for you. I also have never had any interest in having a debate to prove I am right and you are wrong. I am much more interested in finding solutions and common ground than I am in finding things to fight about.
@Elena
My recent attack on Obama? I brought up the Wikileaks thing. And then I never mentioned after it was revealed that I was wrong.
If I might make a suggestion: Let’s all pause for a minute and take a really deep breath. As a matter of fact, everyone take two or three. I am reading a lot about the taking and offerring “offense”. The natural reaction is to become “defensive”. A couple of things I think we can all agree on:
-Things don’t seem right with the country.
-The electorate is polarized at best. I’d go so far as to say it’s “balkanized”.
-With the approach of the elections, passions are running high, and the collective media is feeding their respective audiences a steady stream of info intended to keep passions and tempers high.
Now we may disagree on “where the blame lies” and what the “way forward is”, but I think we all need to be a bit less, oh what’s the word?…hypersensitive. Look, I could get offended when people post comments here bashing Christians, Conservatives, The TEA Party. I’d become really offended if the comments were directed squarely at me, ie. if someone wrote “Steve, you are wrong because you, like all Christian/GOP/TEA Party/Male/…/… don’t know what you are talking about…”, because they would have made it personal. But when someone calls Republicans “Repugs” it does offend me. I know they are trying to be cute, by shortening the word “Repugnant”. Same with “TEA Baggers”. Again, folks trying to be cute. But I try to let it go. Much as I let it go when I am speaking with someone who has to drop the “f-bomb” every other word. They do this for lack of verbal communications skills. Same with the “repugs” comments. Insults are a sign of a weak argument. Personal attacks are the last bastion of the failed argument. Does that mean they are factually or logically wrong? No. It means they have failed in the execution of their argument.
Another thing regarding sensitivities: Let us gather on an Autumn morning. Some will think it too cold, others not cold enough, some just right. Let’s look at “bullying”. If someone makes a gratuitous assertion, intended to inflame the sensibilities of a segment of the readership, it is to invoke a response. When the response comes in the form of a challenge to the gratuitous assertion, like “prove it. Cite examples, give sources or supporting info” the issuer of the original gratuitous assertion has an obligation to answer the challenge. If they repeatedly refuse to do so, then their assertion has been proven gratuitous, by default. This isn’t “bullying” IMHO. This is debate. Now, if the challenge is peppered with personal attacks, then this indeed would be bullying.
Just to wrap up my thought: People here have strong opinions. The very fact that they are willing to express them on a blog is testament to this. What you might find offensive, may not be apparent to me. It really does matter “whose ox is being gored”. However, if the debate gets too hot, you can always leave the field of battle. However, in doing so, you leave your opponent the victor. Lesson here? Yes: Don’t make gratuitous assertions. Understand that in any debate, contest, dispute, political campaign, case of law, war, or any other adversarial interaction, both sides believe in their cause. I think the challenge at hand is to keep a debate, well, a debate, and not let it escalate into a civil war. Civil Wars ain’t. At the end of the day, we have to live together. Part of doing so is keeping our personal emotions AND sensitivities in check.
Thanks for your input Steve. I feel that this entire issue has been escalated to the point that I simply don’t have the energy or desire to even put up a new topic. It seems to me that if Elena or I say we want less intensity, that’s all it should take.
I am the one getting the email from a couple of people who just say that what used to be fun has just gotten too intense and they feel like they are on the dark screen. If they say what they are thinking they are ridiculed. I don’t point any one person out for this.
People coming to this blog simply can’t come on like this is a dedicated leftist or right wing blog. No balls to the wall debate here. There are people of all stripes here.
I just want the unpleasantness to stop and people to think before they go charging ahead.
Meanwhile, I might be calling you on how to report a real harasser to his company or to his internet provider. I know you know all the tricks of the trade. This is someone who is not allowed to post here. We are an obsession of sorts.
One last thing, bullying on a blog is also just not dropping something. Bullying is no longer just stealing someone’s lunch money.
Again, thanks. I have to go pick someone up from the airport, put dogs away, and do something with gkids. Life goes on past the blog.
Here is the deal, I feel very good about my belief system and I am not interested in trying to change others. I have this conversation in my private life, what makes this country great is the very idea we can have divergent views.
At the end of the day, we all have to build a strong community in order to ensure we ALL survive and leave this planet as good, if not better, than when we took our first breath.
Therein lies the condumdrum. It is the HOW we create that “community” that causes such aingst.
We also all have different personality traits that come with strengths and weaknesses. When have an exchange that actually demonstrates a real listening component, I am thrilled.
All that seems to be happening is arguing about arguing. No one has the same world view, our life experiences shape our perspectives, the most we can hope for, in my opinion, is to have a better understanding of one another.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, although I disagree with you on most issues, I appreciate your comments and have learned from them. Having said that, Beck is funnier than Stewart.
boo hiss! I guess it doesn’t matter that Beck isn’t trying to be funny and Stewart is? bwaaahahahahahahaha