Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Just because you're a comic shouldn't forbid making a statement, and the use of humor doesn't mean your point is any less valid. In the end it's simply a matter of the point ringing true.
Who's forbidding? I didn't say using humor is less valid. Validity requires more than "ringing" true.
This is quite different than what you usually get on Rush or Beck IMHO. They are very quick prey on stereotypes, fear, manipulation (in the name of argument) and gross insensitivity often at the expense of others (Club Gitmo anyone?). Are Rush and Beck so successful because of their message or because they titillate? I'd argue it's really more of the latter.
Then argue. So far all you have done is say or accuse. You give opinions.
Rush of course laughs it up as part of his product, but his listeners seem to take him oddly seriously. As a note, I listened to Rush every day for years. Certainly there's bias everywhere, but there's also quality...
So your opinion is that Stewart's show has quality (whatever that is) and Rush's show doesn't. whoopee.
Stewart didn't "attack" FOX for flip flopping (although I do think Laura Ingram did), the bigger issue he was highlighting was that this story has been around for a while and wasn't a big deal...until what changed?
You put "attack" in quotes. Who are you quoting? What changed is that it became a big deal. You're certainly implying that it became so because of Fox. So if Fox would not report the groundswell of opinion, or if some commentators on Fox after reflection would not have an opionion on the matter, then there would be no controversy. Ignorance is bliss.
That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.
Is this argument or insinuation?
Additionally, I'm not sure you can charge he's taken anything out of context...unless you know the context. Does Stewart have a history of fabrication? I didn't think so.
Don't know what you're referring to here.
As for Heston (now understanding your point) and the idea the NRA analogy is invalid...I don't agree. There is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers...they both own(ed) guns...that's exactly the point.
-spence
|
No. The valid analogy was to the NRA's constitutional right and the Muslims constitutional right. As for the the analogy between the NRA members and the Columbine killers both owning guns, it stops there. There is no connection between their owning guns and their use of those guns. The direct links between NRA members and the Columbine psychos and the rest of us is legion. We all eat, sleep, hopefully love, walk, drive, think, have opinions, likes, dislikes, and on and on . . . None of these, including owning guns (most gun owners are not NRA members) are a direct link to the psychotic act of the Columbine killers. The analogy would have been valid if the killers had specificaly stated that they killed in the name of the NRA against those who were against the NRA and its mission.