this mosque thing is blowin up for Barry

[Nebe]

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

I bet he runs for president one day.. hopefully his script writers will be on his cabinet...

[striperman36]

Hey., Barry, STFU without a tele-prompter, didn't you learn anything watching the Bushes? Leave that to Romney and Kerry.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

Did Jon Stewart "nail it"? Or was he just, as you accuse Rush and his ilk of doing, being an entertainer prostituting himself for his sponsors (and making a bundle for himself in the process)?

It was a funny piece. But argument by humor can be deceptive. Starts out by tsk tsking Fox News (a competitor?) for its commentator saying, at the time, that no one had a problem with the mosque. Later, of course, Fox Network and News (as well as other networks who Stewart doesn't mention) had commentators discussing the "problem." As if that were some change of . . . of . . . I don't know of what. The first instance was reportage of conditions at the time. Things changed and Fox reported and discussed that. Tsk, tsk.

Stewart says he can accept the symbolic argument against the mosque being there, then trots out some false analogies that are supposed to poo-poo the objections--the most telling being the Charlton Heston NRA thing. Because the Columbine whakos used guns, the NRA was being insensitive according to the liberals of the time? And this is analogous to the mosque situation? The columbine killers also ate food and slept in a bed. So a bed and breakfast convention should not be held at Columbine? A true analogy would have been if the killers were NRA members who killed in the name of the NRA and slaughtered the disbelievers of gun rights and NRA bylaws.

It's a funny piece, as is the other U Tube video about Glen Beck Nazi Tourettes. Of course, that didn't actually discuss whether Beck was right or wrong about Beck's comparisons, just ridiculed them, not in a dispassioned, reasonable, methodical and demonstrative way (logical argument) but with great humor. Ridicule as a tactic, and feigned shock at hypocricy with facial expressions and body twitches are reminiscent of tactics discussed in another thread.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did Jon Stewart "nail it"? Or was he just, as you accuse Rush and his ilk of doing, being an entertainer prostituting himself for his sponsors (and making a bundle for himself in the process)?

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

It was a funny piece. But argument by humor can be deceptive. Starts out by tsk tsking Fox News (a competitor?) for its commentator saying, at the time, that no one had a problem with the mosque. Later, of course, Fox Network and News (as well as other networks who Stewart doesn't mention) had commentators discussing the "problem." As if that were some change of . . . of . . . I don't know of what. The first instance was reportage of conditions at the time. Things changed and Fox reported and discussed that. Tsk, tsk.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Stewart says he can accept the symbolic argument against the mosque being there, then trots out some false analogies that are supposed to poo-poo the objections--the most telling being the Charlton Heston NRA thing. Because the Columbine whakos used guns, the NRA was being insensitive according to the liberals of the time? And this is analogous to the mosque situation? The columbine killers also ate food and slept in a bed. So a bed and breakfast convention should not be held at Columbine? A true analogy would have been if the killers were NRA members who killed in the name of the NRA and slaughtered the disbelievers of gun rights and NRA bylaws.

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

It's a funny piece, as is the other U Tube video about Glen Beck Nazi Tourettes. Of course, that didn't actually discuss whether Beck was right or wrong about Beck's comparisons, just ridiculed them, not in a dispassioned, reasonable, methodical and demonstrative way (logical argument) but with great humor.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

Ridicule as a tactic, and feigned shock at hypocricy with facial expressions and body twitches are reminiscent of tactics discussed in another thread.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

Limbaugh, Beck, et al are also very straightforward. Being straightforward doesn't mean you're right--certainly doesn't mean you'll get 100% agreement.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting
misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a
detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of
rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

I didn't say "conditions ABOUT the issue" changed. The commentator on the Fox clip reported that initially there WAS NO ISSUE. There is now an issue on which Fox and other networks report and comment. That you don't like how Fox is handling it is neither surprising nor relevant. Stewart's implication that Fox somehow flip-flopped or changed their story is not true.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Other cable networks have regulars who say things that many think are stupid.

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

Two things were being interwoven in his analysis. The symbolism argument and the constitutional right. He brought up the Heston analogy, after other false analogies, as a similar occurence to the Columbine massacre where the Left demanded that the NRA not hold their convention near the sight OUT OF RESPECT to the victims and their relatives. Stewart says that this was painting too narrow a picture connecting irresponsibly the actions of two psychotics to an entire group of reasonable people expressing their constitutional rights.

It is was not only too narrow a picture, it was a totally false picture. The NRA had no connection to the psychotics or their massacre. There wasn't even a symbolic tie.

Stewart says he accepts the symbolic argument as valid. THAT IS THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST PLACING THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO. There is no argument about denying first ammendment rights by those opposed to the mosque. That is a manufactured counter argument. Stewarts analogies were somehow supposed to show how those protesting against the mosque on symbolic grounds lost his support. They don't do that. The Heston thing is a strong argument for the constitutional right to build the mosque there, but has nothing to do with the symbolic argument against it. And the analogy itself, is incompatible--false.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

He pointedly showed teeny clips out of context, not analyzing the total argument that Beck made in every case. Very easy to do with any argument to make it look silly. If the Nazi card has been degraded to a cheap commodity, it was done a long time ago by the left and right. Whether Beck's comments were shallow or untrue would have to be examined in the total context of what he said.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.
-spence

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.

[scottw]

Krauthammer nails it as usual...no comedy necessary

The Last Refuge of the Liberal - Article - National Review Online

[Bronko]

Brilliant piece. Makes Ron Paul look like he wrote his in crayons.

Love Krauthammer

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.

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.

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.

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...

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?

That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.

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.

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

[detbuch]

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.