Jon Stewart Bashes Ann Coulter, But Puffs Nader, and Eugene Debs?

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

In the November 15 Rolling Stone, the hippie mag interviews a pile of politicians, media stars, and rockers to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, was interviewed by Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer. In a strange interview he unloaded the usual criticism on Ann Coulter, but praised old American socialists Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. Coulter came up as Stewart tried to say that no one mocking the government today is a "Soviet dissident," that our discourse is free enough that "It's very difficult to shock anybody any more. I'm not even sure what the subversive edge is." This exchange followed:

ROLLING STONE: Ann Coulter suffered repercussions from calling John Edwards a faggot.

JON STEWART: As a businessperson, she has made a choice: "Even if I narrow my audience to true believers, there’s enough money there. I have to keep pushing until it’s just me and one other crazy person with a lot of money." Maybe she’ll be hired by a crazy billionaire, just her and him, and he’ll go, "Say something about lesbians! Heh-heh! 9/11 widows! Gimme another!"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ROLLING STONE: So you don’t think her brand of extremism represents the future of politics?

STEWART: What you generally get from politicians is "Vote for me or we shall all perish!" In a puff of smoke, or rising waters. You know, 19 guys with box cutters brought down the Twin Towers. Are we supposed to go to war until there’s not 19 guys who want to do damage to us?

Stewart isn’t really against extremists. He cheers the Socialist Party presidential candidates who mainstreamed the New Deal:

ROLLING STONE: I read that one of your childhood heroes was Eugene Debs, the five-time Socialist Party candidate for president in the early twentieth century.

STEWART: Yeah, baby! Actually, more Norman Thomas.

ROLLING STONE: Six-time candidate for president, after Debs, and a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Are there still characters like that around?

STEWART: Ralph Nader is a character like that. Back in those days, a guy like Norman Thomas was viewed as a corroding member of society. But if you look at almost every aspect of the New Deal, that’s where it came from. It just had to come through a process of mainstreaming before it could be accepted.

ROLLING STONE: Conservative ideas have been mainstreamed during the past thirty years.

STEWART: You know, the wonderful thing about conservatives and government is they seem awfully interested in running a thing they despise. The president is very fond of saying "I don’t trust the government to keep money. It’s your money." As a matter a fact, isn’t it all our money? Not just the one tax rebate. Pretty much the whole f—ing thing is ours, isn’t it? [Emphasis in magazine.]

Conservatives have this idea that you can trust government to protect national interests overseas militarily, but not to pass out cheese. It’s this idea that corporations function well, but governments can’t. But they’re made up of the same atomic material, are they not? Isn’t government us?

Stewart also bashed conservatives early in the interview. He tried to sound optimistic notes, or at least ameliorate the idea that America is a hopeless police state. He said for the most part, America is an "incredibly civil society," prompting the Nazi talk:

ROLLING STONE: Germany in 1932 was an incredibly civil society.

STEWART: I’m not saying we’re not one economic disaster away from being demagogues. Or that the line between acts of madness and acts of goodness isn’t tenuous. But people’s general tendency is to not want trouble. If you were to give Iraq a choice right now between the freedom to assemble and the ability to shop without shrapnel going through their skull, my guess is they’d give up freedom of assembly. Freedom is overrated. I’m a law-and-order guy. I’m not anti-authority. There’s a big difference between not trusting institutions blindly and just being against authority. Some people believe we’re going after conservatives on our show just because they’re conservatives. That’s idiotic. We go after what we think is absurd.

If it sounds weird for Stewart to suggest he’s Mr. Law and Order, there’s also a passage where he seems to praise Fox News boss Roger Ailes. Asked about what’s wrong with TV news, Stewart says it should be a public service with different rules.

STEWART: Roger Ailes has shown that you can exercise editorial management over the process. I may not agree with the way Fox is exercising it, but it shows that it can be done. News should function as our digestive system.

ROLLING STONE: That sounds disgusting.

STEWART: It is disgusting. What I’m saying is that they should take the fruit and entrees that are presented by the politicians and the corporations that process it, and come up with turds of wisdom, as you will. You either bring clarity or you bring noise. The media should be filters, and they can only be that if they exercise editorial judgment. It infuriates me when people say, "That’s elitism." No, it’s not. That’s expertise. That’s like saying to doctors who diagnose people, "you’re being elitist, telling me I have heart disease. I don’t want to hear that. I want to eat cake and ice cream."

Stewart doesn't consider the idea that doctors have specific scientific expertise, and journalists often don't have solid expertise in anything. Are they the "doctors" who can explain the physics of climate change? Are they the "doctors" who can diagnose recessions? Are they even the "doctors" who could tell you Hillary's health plan would pass?

Stewart is fighting a straw man. It would be nice if journalists could achieve expertise, and many do. (But often, they parachute in on stories and tell us what they've learned in the last four hours.) He's not getting that what's "elitist" is the idea that the news media is an intelligentsia that breathes rarified air and that whatever it prescribes for more government control is in the public interest -- and of course, that it thinks the average American doesn't have the brains to know what's in his or her interest, so the media has to educate them.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Freedom is overrated???

Well then I can think of some places you can go if you think freedom is overrated. China, Iran, Venezuala. Jeez they live on another planet.

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

"You know, the wonderful

"You know, the wonderful thing about conservatives and government is
they seem awfully interested in running a thing they despise."

I was surprised Stewart said this. The thing I immediately thought about was the Assault Weapons Ban written by democrats (likely not gun owners) and it's completely absurd and arbitrary. It's incredibly easy to see how the people who wrote that ban had no real grasp of how to apply a good intention into a law.

The rest of that quote (beyond what I quoted) from Stewart just sickens me.

Lastly, the thing about news media being the organ to filter events into easily-comprehended nuggets is just stupid. What happened to letting people decide? Stewart just wants everyone to think what the media tells them to think in a force-fed manner.

I'd be embarassed to give an interview with that sort of substance.

"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote

Stewart just wants everyone


Stewart just wants everyone to think what the media tells them to think in a force-fed manner
. LighthouseJ

I agree. Stewart says:

The media should be filters, and they can only be that if they exercise
editorial judgment. It infuriates me when people say, "That’s elitism."
No, it’s not. That’s expertise.

He neglects to tell us how the media come by this "expertise." What makes them more qualified to evaluate the fruit and entrees that are presented by the politicians and the corporations that process it?

So in a debate about free trade and tariffs, the media is supposed to decide which view is correct, and present that one to us? Where do they get their expertise in international trade?

Stewart gives himself away with this gem (emphasis added):

Some people believe we’re going after
conservatives on our show just because they’re conservatives. That’s
idiotic. We go after what we think is absurd.

So they go after conservatives because their ideas and opinions are absurd. 

And there you have it: liberal elitism on stilts.

Wow, Jon-boy really bared

Wow, Jon-boy really bared his clueless, socialist soul in this interview.  Freedon is overrated, eh?  Translation = I'm a coward and wouldn't fight for my freedom, let alone anybody else's.  I don't really care what Jon-boy thinks, but the fact is, we hear this kind of un-American talk more and more these days.  There are too many people out there that would lay down rather than fight for their own freedom.  Had he said this on his own show, he would have received all kinds of applause. 

 

THE DAILY SCHMO...

 Give Stewart a break, he's a comic/"newsman", not a historian.  BTW, Jon-boy, your not a news anchor either. No Rolling Stone puff piece can change that, you are a comedian.

 "Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Give Stewart a break, he's

Give Stewart a break, he's a comic/"newsman", not a historian.

That is the excuse that Stewart uses to rationalize. He feels free to play fast and loose with facts and make outrageous claims that he can't prove or validate, and then says, Hey, it's a fake news show!! Well then, he should stick to fake news, not current events.

Michael Moore did the same thing: taking credit for a "documentary' then claiming, when he got caught on inaccuracies, that it was an editorial, a satire, a "work of art."

They can't have it both ways. 

Stewart doesn't make

Stewart doesn't make documentaries, though. He's not claiming his show is 100% factual.

Stewart alternates between

Moore never actually "claimed" that his movies were 100% factual, either, but he allowed them to be called "documentaries," and allowed that perception (that they were factual) to lie out there unchallenged, until he got caught.

Stewart alternates between straight stuff and satire, editorializing and comedy. He does political interviews, and then says it's a fake news show. True, he doesn't claim to be 100% factual, but you know he says some stuff that he's dead serious about, mixed in with the comedy.

If he wants to be a political commentator, he should stand up and take his lumps; not use the "comedy" or "fake news" thing as a cover when he gets blasted.

"A cover"? I haven't seen

"A cover"? I haven't seen him using his show as a cover. 

I GET IT...

Motherbelt, I know that is how Stewert would play it, I agree with you. However, he is taken seriously by many people as a news source. Many of them are younger, but not all of them.

If you look at the "news media" held in very high esteem, you will find 3 comics...Stewert, Colbert, & Maher, throw in Rosie & you get 4. Then throw in a bunch of people who worked for high profile dems...Mathews(who worked for Carter & Tip O'Neal), Russert(who worked for Daniel Patrick Moynahan),Curious George( Bill Clinton), & you can include Mika(her old man worked for Carter) if you want.

Then  we come to a guy who should go back to ESPN & do his little catch phrases on SportsCenter, everyone's favorite BathTubBoy.

I don't take Stewert too seriously, my problem is that many do, as well as the sorts of corrrpted media figures I just listed. That bothers me, then those who think these are credable, balanced news people want shut down talk radio because it is biased, & there are morons on Capital Hill who will try to that when they get the chance.

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

However, he is taken

However, he is taken seriously by many people as a news source

Exactly, danybhoy. And sometimes he allows that perception to prevail.

 

 

"Translation=I'm a coward

"Translation=I'm a coward and wouldn't fight for my freedom, let alone anybody else's" Translation2= I really wish I was a Frenchman or an Italian for that matter. (Spanish too! When confronted with terrorism it only took at least 30 seconds for them to cave in)

JON STEWART: ...Maybe

JON STEWART: ...Maybe she’ll be hired by a crazy billionaire, just her and him, and he’ll go, "Say something about lesbians! Heh heh!..."

JOHN KERRY: If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian...

Heh heh.

Forget 911, I dial 9MM.

This scenario has already

This scenario has already happened.

Crazy billionaire = George Soros

Paid mouthpiece = MoveOn.org, CodeStink, KOS, DNC, etc.

"Go say something evil about soldiers, say something evil about General Petraeus, say something evil about conservatives, say something evil about Christians, say something evil about America, say something evil about Bush..."

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

Wasn't The Daily Show at one

Wasn't The Daily Show at one time a frequent YouTube clip favorite of the right-side blogosphere?

You are correct. It wasn't.

You are correct. It wasn't.

LOL free... nice

LOL free... nice grammatical pickup.

Forget that unfunny shill Stewart. Watch the scatalogically funny RED EYE.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Jon, I thought you were clever?

The media should be filters, and they can only be that if they exercise editorial judgment.

 Come on Jon, they are filters. And you elitist dont think they have gone far enough.

I recieved a "free" copy of RS the other day, the artical they have on Mit is ridiculous. They suggest all kinds of nasty things about him, without giving a single clear reason for any of it. No proof what so ever. Elitist,,,,what else could it be?

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Ken, I don't really think

Ken,

I don't really think Rolling Stone is a hippie mag anymore and it hasn't been since the 80's.

I would argue that most of the musicians they cover are not hippies. 

Your right Leon. RS is not

Your right Leon. RS is not a hippie mag anymore. However it is the rag of the hippie wanna be, I missed the movement and I want to bring it back crowd. Problem is, they promote socialist ideas and is run by old hippies.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, They promote

Bass,

They promote socialist ideas?  Oooook. 

The rag of the hippie wannabes?  So fans of Velvet Revolver or 50 Cent or Carrie Underwood or any other major  pop stars are hippie wannabes?  

I don't think so. 

Leon, I wasent really

Leon, I wasent really speaking of who they interview. Was speaking more to the staff. Perhaps I wasent very clear on that point.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

How do you know about the

How do you know about the staff?

Aside from Jan Wenner, who do you know?  And what do you know about them?

 

Don't be absurd

I know someone who works there. He is a self-described liberal and would never deny they are predominantly liberal.

Matthew, Sure there are

Matthew,

Sure there are liberals, but that's not what bass said.

He said socialist hippies. 

 

Leon, liberals AND socialist hippies?

Apparently, you feel there is a distinction here that, quite frankly, I am not seeing.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to what, exactly, that distinction actually is?

Hippy is a matter of perception

And speaking of that word, it is a phrase that my friend has used speaking of the staff in the past. There's not anything necessarily wrong w/being a hippy.

I'd rather someone be a hippy than be a socialist.

Matthew, Perhaps, but the

Matthew,

Perhaps, but the point is Bass claimed that the staff were hippies and socialist.  My only point is that this is simply 1)  Not true 2) even if it was, he sure as heck wouldn't know.

That's all.  Of course the RS staff is liberal leaning.

The term hippie is tricky b/c if you go by the actual definition of hippie, you're not going to find very many in America. 

Sure Dave, 1)  Hippies

Sure Dave,

1)  Hippies are characterized by opposition and rejection of conventional standards.

Maintaining a full time job & paying taxes do not fit this definition.

2)  Liberals aren't socialists, they're liberals.  Socialists are socialists.

I'm liberal and I love the free market.  I love getting paid.  So am I a socialist simply b/c I'm liberal?  NO.

The distinction is clear, but nice try with your same old tired rap.

Repbulicans and RACIST REDNECKS?   Apparently, you feel there is a distinction here that, quite frankly, I am not seeing. 

That's what you're trying to do.  Not working here though.

Matthew and Leon,

I guess the problem I have seing any real diffrence between "hippies" and "socialists" is that my interaction with self-described hippies has always left me with the impression that they have a decidedly leftist outlook on things.

Admittedly, I was born in '64, and by the time I reached my formative years, the hippy movement had pretty much run its course. I guess I missed out on all the fun, as the area I grew up in (north Atlanta) wasn't exactly a hotbed of hippiedom.

I have read that the original hippies were decidedly anti-establishment types, but my perception is that this didn't last very long. Perhaps it was they who changed, or maybe they allowed their "movement" to be co-opted by outsiders, but it seems to me that in the years since, the hippies grew up and, to a large degree, became the "establishment" they once claimed to shun.

I am referring to their inroads into academia, the media, as well as government. Left-wing institutions all, hence my difficulty seeing much of a difference between hippie and socialist.

BTW, Leon:

Repbulicans and RACIST REDNECKS? Apparently, you feel there is a distinction here that, quite frankly, I am not seein

Nice try. Problem is, the "racist rednecks" to which you refer (as in the founders of the KKK and such) were staunch democrats.

Just ask that Robert Byrd guy. :-)

 

 

and also, Leon...

1) hippy

=

2) racist redneck

?

Leon, are you my brother? He'd throw this same it's-all-relative/equivalence thing at me as well.

One is a type of person we think is out of touch on issues and living in some romantic, glorified past. The other is a really horrible thing to be -- a) the word "redneck" is a white-implied thing, so that's an awful thing to be called regardless, and b) being labeled racist, which is so "in" now and being recklessly thrown about (more than the word "genius" I think :p), is the worst of the worst things to call someone, unless they've truly done or said things that show they hate another race, and won't/can't bend in their hatred/belief.

We'd all take being called 1) over 2) any day.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

DaveR, Good post,

DaveR,

Good post, interesting background.  That hippy movement that you knew is long dead.

Most of the hippies (or people that labeled themselves hippies) that I've ever known were just lazy rich kids that didn't have to work and got money from their parents so they could sit around all day getting high and going to concerts. 

They were the exact opposite of what the hippie movement was about aka self-reliance.

The media???

Rolling Stone interviewing Jon Stewart is akin to The View panel interviewing Rosie. Ironically, the stupidity of this media crap is a direct result of the freedom Stewart so blithly overrates. By the way, those young people who are putting their lives on the line for your "overrated" liberties might have a thing or two to say about your remark, Stewart. YOU are overrated, especially in your own mind. Grow up -- you spoiled, immature, ignorant jackass!

 ( Stewart ( a pseudonym ) is a former(?) stand-up comic. I wonder if he and Colmes played the same gigs? Most likely.)

 (BTW, Of all the Jewish people I know personally, only one (a veteran) supports the war in Iraq. What gives?)

 

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Are we supposed to go to

Are we supposed to go to war until there’s not 19 guys who want to do damage to us?

These oh, so cool, snarky guys like Stewart and Olbermann think they have a clear logic that no one else uses. Logic like this is disingenuous and deceptive. Surely, Stewart must know that organized terrorism is not limited to a handful of men. No one ever suggested that all individual acts of terrorism will cease when Al-Quaeda and other terrorst organizations are destroyed.  He looks stupid trying to be clever with words.

Stewart--stupid?

"He looks stupid..." An understatement,Chris---but right on. I'm sure millions of people just laugh at the fools who haunt the airwaves these days. It is not because of their jokes, but because of their "court jester" smugness. They might as well paint their faces and put on the tights. They are the personification of arrogant ignorance. Stewart, Colmes, Olbermann, Maher, Rosie (imagine her in tights!), Behar, the Hollyweirds, et.al. It's the shame of the times in which we live. Unfortunately, it's also reflective of the Fall of Rome and other empires. 

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Hippie Dippy

Rolling Stone is a "hippie mag"? I hope Mr. Graham is being facetious. It's been a few decades since we've had hippie periodicals in this country. Rolling Stone is a mainstream, advertising heavy commercial magazine that happens to maintain enough of a progressive slant to suggest its roots.

Jon Stewart isn't very

Jon Stewart isn't very funny without those writers!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone is "mainstream". I don't doubt it. See what I mean about the Fall of Rome.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

The politics of "fear"

Once again, Stewart, like many smug liberals, fails to understand that fear of undesirable outcomes is not exclusive to the right. On many issues, the left is always trying to scare people: Going to Iraq makes more terrorists who will attack us, global warming will kill us all, Bush is taking away all our rights, all guns must be banned to protect "the children," American fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as wahhabists.

And that's just to name a few.

It's sad that no liberal media types are able to recognize this fact.

Matthew, Can it truly be

Matthew,

Can it truly be described as fear-mongering if it's true?

That's the difference.  Everything you've listed above is true.

1)  Global terror attacks have increased significantly since we invaded Iraq

2)  Global warming wont' kill us, it will kill our children's children

3)  Habeas Corpus, Domestic Spying, etc. etc.

4)  Guns kill children - true

5)  American fundamentalist Christans can be just as dangerous as wahhabists - i.e. John List, This Guy, Matthew & Tyler Williams, the Army of God etc. etc.

That's your opinion

A lot of times liberals--because you guys so dominate the cultural institutions of the U.S.--have trouble realizing that what you perceive to be "facts" are really just opinions.

On every one of those issues, the "truths" you believe are considered "falsehoods" by people who are not liberal.

Guns kill children? How

Guns kill children? How come I never see a Colt 45, or a 9mm on a Wanted poster in the Post Office? 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

I don't know CT, Why

I don't know CT,

Why don't you ask the families of the thousands of children that are killed by guns each year in America?

Because guns don't kill any more than

Cars kill. Guns are just tools, and they're less-dangerous to children than swimming pools whether the moronic left likes it or not.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Leon, when was the last

Leon, when was the last time a gun killed someone? Any one? I carried one for years, but in all my time while carring one, never once did it jump up and kill anyone. I had to point it, and squeeze the trigger, the gun fired, and I had killed someone, using the gun.

A gun is a tool, just like a hammer, a knife or a chain saw. All dangerous when used in a careless manner.  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass, LMAO!

Laughing so hard I can barely type....

Hey, I think you owe sarc a bit of an apology here.

I mean, calling someone Leon who isn't is like, well, really bad. LOL.

Bass, If there were no

Bass,

If there were no guns in the whole wide world, would anyone ever be killed by a gun?

All you're arguing is that people are stupid and dangerous and as a result shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

 

Leon,


I
f there were no guns in the whole wide world...

Leon, honestly, this is getting into pipe dream territory. It's the same argument made be the anti-nuke crowd back in the eighties.

Even if you could round up all the guns and destroy them (which you can't) you cannot destroy the technology that allowed those guns to be made in the first place.

Same as nukes.

 

That doesn't change the

That doesn't change the truthiness of my statement.

 

 

that would be...

Trolliness, not truthiness. Colbert is entertaining. And the truth is, lefties want all guns in government hands because they're control-freaks who don't trust free people. Just like too-many on the right, come to think of it...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

"thousands of children killed by guns each year"

is another false anti-gun liberal statistic.   The only way they were able to reach that number is to include the older teens and young adults...and the great majority of them are killed in gang related murders, not accidental deaths.

When you use 14 and below, the number of accidental deaths is closer to 100, and suicide doubles that.

RJ, I'd be interested to

RJ,

I'd be interested to see those stats.  Could you back up that 100 claim?

I'm sorry, but this isn't something where we can just take you at your word.  You put forth the stat, which must mean that you read it somewhere, which means it shouldn't be hard for you to find it and share it with the rest of us.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort.

Can you back up yours, Leon?

Since you first repeated the liberal anti-gun figures, I'd like to see why you believe them.   Do that, and I'll be happy to provide a rebuttal.

 In a single year, 3,012

  •  In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002 (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
  • America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
  • In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
  • The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
  •  LINK

    This document is from 2001 so the numbers are most likely higher now, but in 2001 2,911 children were killed, 494 of them were under the age of 15.  Which would make your number 80% low and quite wrong.

    LINK

    Now go find the article that backs up your claim of 100. 

    From your own link, Leon

    I said: "When you use 14 and below, the number of accidental deaths is closer to 100, and suicide doubles that."

    Your link backs up my numbers, but the larger point is that the scare number of nearly three thousand per year consists primarily of gang-related deaths and older "youths."   Indeed, half wer homocides by those older youths (i.d. gang related).  However, the anti-gun forces portray them all as "children" at the mercy of just being around guns. 

    I have to go, but I'll check later to see if you have other links.

    Wrong RJ, Mine says 494

    Wrong RJ,

    Mine says 494 under the age of 15.

    How does that back up your number?

    You were 80% below the truth.

    You said 100 under 14.  Unless you made it up you should have the stat.  Show it to me.  Come on.  Stop being lazy

     

     

    Go back and read what I originally said, Leon

    ...instead of what you wish I said.   If anything, I understated the figures, and your link backs me up.   It's you who are too arrogant and lazy to read what has actually been said.   ;^>

    How many of these are

    How many of these are 'children' and how many are 'teens'?

    Of the 'children' how many are adolescents/pre teens who are also gang members?

    Of the 'teens', how many were ghetto gang bangers and drug dealers preying on their communities?

    How many of these 'children' and 'teens' were shot while they themselves were committing a felony crime? 

    Last, but surely not least, how many of these persons were shot by themselves?

    Your "statistics" don't address these issues at all and are therefore, at best misleading, and perhaps not even relevant to the discussion.  Any person, adolescent, teen or otherwise, who is shot while committing a felony is not a victim.

    Since Bass replied to my post (calling me "Leon" -- ugh!)

    I'll give you the swimming-pool vs guns data before you ask. And no, this danger doesn't mean I'm for swimming-pool control regulations. Life is not a risk-free proposition.
    JMR

    Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

    Sarc, Who the hell cares

    Sarc,

    Who the hell cares about swimming pools? 

    The existence of other or greater danger in no ways negates the danger of guns.

    What a stupid argument. 

    But Leon, something MUST be

    But Leon, something MUST be done about the killer swimming pool problem!!

    "There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

    Leon,

    Guns don't just go off all by themselves. It takes a person pulling the trigger to fire one.

    Now, if you are afraid of guns and prefer to dial 911 and put your safety, as well as that of your family, in the hands of the government (praying all the while the cops arrive in time), that is your business.

    I just don't want you making that all-important decision for me.

    DaveR, If there were no

    DaveR,

    If there were no guns people wouldn't be killed by guns.

    Indisputable.

    Would you agree that many Americans are irresponsible and stupid? 

    It doesn't scare you that these people that can barely tie their shoes or feed their kids are allowed to own an item that can kill?

    That's so bizarre to me.  I'd be fine with guns if a majority of Americans weren't brain dead.

    " If there were no guns

    "
    If there were no guns people wouldn't be killed by guns."

    Leon, how do you propose to get rid of all the guns in the world? No answer? Then why try to argue about a problem you can't solve?

    "There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

    He won't answer you...

    Because the only answers possible are 2:

    1. Un-invent the gun. This is what they'd like to imply is possible, but we all know it's not, which is why the conversation has stopped.

    2. (and this is their real-world goal, but BOY, to lefties hate to admit it!) Give all means of self defense to big government. Because that's worked so well for the UN-dictator-club producing immense prosperity and joy for "the people" in places like Pol Pot's Cambodia or pretty much ALL of Africa.
    JMR

    Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

    "Would you agree that many

    "Would you agree that many Americans are irresponsible and stupid?"

    That's sort of Jon Stewarts take, that the many masses are all irresponsible and stupid -- and he, deep-down, gets off on this perception, for his ego... like so many of them.

    That's Hillary's take.

    That's the MSM's take.

    and so forth...

    The left.... not encouraging personal responsibility and independent thinking.

    The left.... condescending to just about everyone.

     

    "MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

    MrShy, That's also

    MrShy,

    That's also Newsbusters take.

    They obviously think people are too stupid to detect bias for themselves. 

    Well, but Leon... you just

    Well, but Leon... you just made a broad, sweeping statement that most Americans are irresponsible and stupid.... period.

    Not about certain things, but they are just .... that: irresponsible and stupid. (End of discussion, in other words.)

    As if, that's their permanant state and there's nothing we can do, except help them along, make good decisions for them...

     

    "MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

    That's baloney. Stewart

    That's baloney. Stewart pokes fun at things that they find absurd. Nowhere do they take the stance that "We're all geniuses and you're stupid." In fact a lot of what he does is self-deprecating.

     

    Leon

    You're evil... you're turning me into an off-topic NB'er!

     

    "MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

    MrShy, Generally, my

    MrShy,

    Generally, my first couple of posts are well on-topic.  It's those that reply to me that drive the conversation off-topic in their desperate attempts to prove me wrong.

    This happens every time.  You claim I'm always off-topic.  But that's simply not true.

    Hey Leon

    You're being off-topic.

    Now stop it.

    :p

     

    "MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

    Leon, true enough.

    I could make the same argument about cars, as far more people die in cars than from guns each year.

    Yes, many Americans are irresponsible and stupid. I know a few myself, but that doesn't mean we should surrender our freedoms due to the actions of a few idiots.

    I mean, I could kill a lot of people with a few chains, a half gallon jug of gasoline and a $0.59 lighter, but does that mean chains, jugs, gasoline and lighters should be banned?

    Look, this country isn't perfect, and people do die, and sometimes it is due to the actions of the stupid, be it with guns or a sixteen year old driving a 500hp automobile.

    That is part of the price of living in a free society, which is far prefferable to the alternative totalitarian one.

    Do you really want to live in a country in which only the government has guns?

    Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

     

    If there were no guns

    If there were no guns people wouldn't be killed by guns.

    Indisputable.

    Way is it so hard to grasp the concept the guns don't kill, but people do?

    If there were no murders not only would people not be killed by guns, but they would not be killed by knives, ropes, lead pipe, or candlesticks.

    Now that is indisputable.

    Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns

    So why all the stupid lefty-hysteria over guns

    And none over swimming pools? And I care, that's who, so it's not a stupid argument. It's a smart question you don't wish to answer honestly.

    The far-greater danger of swimming pools, which is ignored by a biased media that's focused on reinforcing the political left's irrational hoplophobia, doesn't HAVE to negate the danger of guns, as if I ever said it did. It does handily illustrate leftist dimwittedness regarding priorities and some truly-massive bias in the media, though, doesn't it? If not, why??
    JMR

    Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

    Dont worry Sarc

    Once they get rid of the gun's they will turn their attention to pool's and such. Just be patient.

     

    "Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

    Fundies are just as

    Fundies are just as dangerous as wahhabist's?

    When was the last time you heard a fundie say a country should be wiped off the map? 

    Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

    Let's not get into specifics

    This thread is not about those issues but Stewart's presentation of them.

    Fair Enough Matthew, My

    Fair Enough Matthew,

    My apologies for going off course.

    Matthew....

    Leon, Bal, JasonC...

    They're notoriously not on-topic people. They like to junk things up, as it were.

    Now back to Jon:

    So he wants the media to be more of a filter ??????? !!!!!!!

    I won't even start, because I don't know where to start. Jon, the fine liberals at RS (I know one who works, or worked, there too... an older ex-hippy liberal guy) and all the others we name frequently, are really living in their own la-la land in how they perceive the media.

    To use their favorite word, but with some real meat to it, there is a serious DISCONNECT happening here. I mean it.

     

    "MY end justifies THAT mean." - me, on surfing (erps, "wateboarding")

    All media serves as some

    All media serves as some kind of filter.

    Matthew... I complied

    Matthew...

    I complied with your request, but I seem to be the only one. 

    Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

    "somebody pay attention to

    "somebody pay attention to me please??? Matthew, I did sooo good, can I sit in front of the class?  Oh God, just let me wash your feet."

    CT

    CT, Every heard of Little

    CT,

    Every heard of Little Green Footballs?

    Apparently not.

    And you're joking right?  There are a plethora of examples of fundies proclaiming their desire to nuke the mideast.  Hell, I just saw one last night when Borat went to the Rodeo.

    Jon Stewart has the intellect of a paper clip.

    Freedom is overrated.

    Interesting concept there. Says a lot about him.

    Jon Stewart is a typical limo-lib hipocryte. Overpaid and clueless.

     

    Sad but predictable

    Jon Stewart is an overrated insecure shmuck. He must really be annoyed that Colbert has been getting more love and attention than his stale Daily Show has been lately from the MSM