MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

He's completely honest about saying his show is FAKE and is NOT actuall political coverage. It's satire, and he attacks whatever party f***s up. He himself may be liberal, but the daily show ridicules dumba** democrats as well as dumba** republicans.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

You mean a guy that hosts a TV show is doing something for the ratings?

Thanks for shedding the light on that one.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Oh, so you do get it. Nice to hear.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

rimshot

dub2w

haha...

Trip to the bookstore: $2
Buying a stupid a$$ book that isnt worth the paper its written on: $19.95
Watching HellaDumb get owned thoroughly time and time again: maybe not priceless, but worth a helluva lot

Unregistered

I think you're comparing a show made to make you laugh vs shows that are supposed to inform you about real news, is well just not worth arguing about. Its pretty clear what he ment when he went on that talk show and told them both off. Maybe you didn't see it?

What I ment by right direction is more open discourse and accepting good ideas no matter if they come from the right or the left. And thats what John Stewart was talking about when he went on that talk show.

Of course he has but his show is on, COMEDY CENTRAL, not a news source.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Wait, so why doe John Stewart's opinion matter? He's merely a comedian.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

If you want rely on television and radio talk shows to shape your view of the world- well, good luck.

Why bring up Rhodes? Just because there is someone doing the same thing for the opposite side doesn't make Savage's tactics any less weasly. So that comparison does nothing to uphold your agument that we should be listening/ reading his crap.

And as for the last thing you said- did you steal that quote from that fool's book? What exactly do you mean? What do liberals want that is going to ruin America? And do you think that everyone left of center wants to pull everyone to the FAR left?

Currently, from my perspective, it seems that liberals are struggling to pull the country back to center. The problem in our understanding one another, in part, is that we (and everyone) probably have a different idea of where 'center' is. Well, nearly half our voting population voted against bush- yet he is still in office, and he is getting nearly everything he wants done with the hpuse and senate majority. However, those nearly 50% of those who voted most likely disagree with many actions being taken by this admin. or the general direction they are leading the country. Therefore. I think our country (led by the gov't) is 'right' of center and moving furher right. Until the voices of the nearly 50% that voted against bush are given respect and listened to, we are in absolutely no danger of liberals pulling this country off the far left cliff, past the 'breaking point' as you put it.

Can you see my argument? If you can agree that we are currently right of center (I'd like to hear where and why if not), then wouldn't you agree that we need to move toward the left, and not further right? If anything, we are in danger of the right pulling our country to the far right, past the breaking point- given all the power they currently have. But I wouldn't make this statement, as it grossly generalizes about half our population, and uses subjective labels like 'right.'
All I know for sure is that a whole bunch of people (nearly half) voted against Bush, and that seems to have been forgotten by the bush admin., voters, and supporters. If we want to make it black and white, for sake of discussion, and say that half the population is on each side of center, then that gives Bush a few liberal votes, as he probably got. But to have bush take this as a 'mandate' is just plain silly, and comes off as arrogant and indifferent toward the huge portion of the population who voted against him.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure this is exactly what you were trying to squeeze out of one of us liberals with such a callow statement- I sure hope you aren't that brainwashed.

Unregistered

That opinion was not made on his show. It was made in a political program in a serious manner. And no matter his profession, if he makes a good point its still a good point.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Huh? So in what way is he qualified to be taken seriously?
If it's between an uneducated comedian and someone with a doctorate degree from Berkeley (and an accomplished publisher to boot), I'll go with the latter.... Michael Savage aka Wiener if you weren't paying attention.

Unregistered

So do you have a degree in politics? Have you written books that were on the New York Times best sellers list? What you haven't?! Well ****, now every single point you made in the political forums is now invalid according to you.

He is more than qualified to be taken seriously if his point is valid. Which it was. Doesn't matter if he is an "uneducated comedian" or not. His point still stands and if you like it or not, doesn't matter. Why is it so hard for you to grasp why Savage is a moron?

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Okay- here's an analagy that may help.

If I had a pustulating, multicolored, softball size legion hanging off the back of my neck, I wouldn't need a doctor to tell me I had something wrong and should seek some further medical assitance. It wouldn't matter if it was Bozo the clown who pointed it out to me- once I took a look for myself- I'd be in no position to question or verify his credentials in dermatology. I'd say- 'gee, that's an ugly one, ain't it?'- and I would be off see doc. Point is, you don't have to be revered in the intellectual community to be able to bring attention to something obvious. Irony is great at pointing things out that should not be. Stewart and the writers of that show are masteres of the art- and it comes across quite humerous- but, again, you have to see the point being made to really appreciate the humor, and many people I believe simply don't want to see the point, out of fear of being sucked in by the godless left.

Forget both savage and stewart- How about doing some thinking for yourself? But, IMHO, Stewarts show encourages more of this than Savage does. The ironic style lets the watcher come to their own conclusion- it may set it up nicely, but nothing is shoved down your throat Limbaugh-style.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Ok, well on the same level, are you going to get a diagnosis from a trained doctor, or trust Stewart's brilliant comedic style?

Common, I'd go ahead and say it has something to do with your liberalism, but I'm certainly not a doctor. Perhaps some peta freak wouldn't let companies test sun-screen on animals, so you paid the price .

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

You really don't get it? Why are you mixing the instances I used? Stewart can point out these problems- but I'm not holding him responsible for coming up with a solution that works, or allowing him to carry out the proposed solution.

So you're saying: because he is a comedian, we shouldn't take anything he says seriously, and we shouldn't give any of it a minute of thought. That may be best for you, but for those of us who are able to pull the serious points out from the ironic humor and sarcasm, his delivery style is quite effective.

Is that humor I detect? I didn't even read that, let alone think about it.

I'd go ahead and say this has something to do with your condescending attitude toward liberals. It doesn't matter if he's a comedian or not- I don't think you would give your ear to anyone who associates with the left, judging from your attitude in this forum toward everything liberal. Please try to take things for what they are- grouping people and opinions into two distict groups seriously limits your perspective, especially when one refuses to hear one entire side. If you ever watched his show- you would see that there isn't much you can really argue about- the things they poke fun at are all pretty outrageous- they just do a very good job at making things obvious and nearly impossible to disagree with.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Maybe this'll help- a television reporter (fake or real news) reports the news, period. They may point out problems going on in the country or world- but they don't go out and try to solve them. I could take Bozo's advise to see a doc, but I would let Bozo bust out his own scalpel. Likewise, I have no problem with a comedian bringing something crooked or wrong to my attention, but I'm not expecting or asking him to go solve the problem himself. So, yeah, I understand how it would irk the religious right (the butt of most jokes on the show) that he kinda has the best of both worlds. The format of the show and topics covered allows him to deal with serious issues and if he uses irony correctly, it can be quite influential to watchers. But since it is on comedy central, it's hard to compare his reponsibilites as a news reporter to those whose job it is, allegedly, to report the news in an objective manner.

However, none of this has anything to do with the fact that anybody is able to point out something obvious, regardless of their specialization or professional 'duty.'

So stop whining, and bow down to the king of fake news.

Please stop trying to pick apart my analagy and make some kind of effort to see the point it is trying to help you understand. At this point, others reading are probably thinking 'what the hell doesn't he get'- so just give it up and listen- the analagy works.