As always, the Daily Show nails it.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Pretty clever.
Seems like Stewart is being hard on ObaMao and making fun of him.
YES WE CAN…but should we????????????
Perhaps you should edit that part Goldy.
LMAO!! The end to that segment was freaking hilarious!
Heh. Silly KLOWN@1 – there goes that so-called liberal media bullshit.
The entire media saying Obama is tanking it for the Dems in November. Imagine that.
I thought KO’s tour of the area in pictures was also very effective. There’s no activity (decay) a little ways away from the WTC; and there is already a mosque directly across the street.
Apparently 70% of us don’t watch either show, including Harry Reid who should lose his leadership job over his stance on this in the next congress (assuming he’s re-elected).
Mr Cynical @ 1
Out of curiosity, how many right wing comedians (Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, Kelsey Gramer, Ted Nugent, George Will, etc) poked fun at Bush The Lessers’ hypocrisy, lies, looting, war crimes, and general purpose bad taste?
Jason–
Come now…Jon Stewart’s glancing blow at ObaMao ain’t much.
And if you watched Glen Beck, you would realize he rips Bush and the Republican establishment on a regular basis.
Establishment R’s HATE Beck.
You use the terms “looting, war crimes, and general purpose bad taste?” Lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and obvious political opinion by you. Has Olberman or MadKow ripped ObaMao? Never.
The issue is how the MSM who hold themselves out as objective news REPORTERS have performed as reporting news for R’s and D’s. The factual review of stories shows an incredible bias…by any standard.
You are tangling 2 seperate issues.
Something KLOWNS often do.
@ Mr. Cynical (all comments)
Ha. Can’t you come up with something better than ObaMao? Really. Name calling only discredits anything you have to say.
But, let’s say you are right. I hope ObaMao sends his secret terror force to your house first so the rest of us learn the lessen not to speak out against our diabolical dictator. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
[the preceding paragraph is satirical in nature. no one really wishes mr. cynical any harm. thank you, Evergreen Free-dumbed-down Foundation]
The more I read of this issue, the more pathetic, immature, and irresponsible the Rs appear. They will stoop to any depth, apparently, to try to score political points. A quarter of the world’s population is Muslim, yet these faux-patriots deem it a terrorist religion. Newt Gingrich equates Islam to Nazism. Obama said the right thing, and I’m glad he did. He has principles, unlike those who criticize him on this issue.
Mr Cynical @ 5
By comparison, you elevated the comedy The Daily Show to the role of a news organization.
I, in turn, denigrated select guiding lights from the right, spanning the spectrum of Very Serious People, by equating them to servile court jesters.
See what I did there? By mimicking you, I mocked your argument.
Which reminds me…
You once stated, emphatically, that govt’s sole roles are defense, police, and patronage. I then asked
Please know that I’m trying very hard to understand the libertarian mindset. An answer, any answer, would greatly benefit my studies.
proud @ 7
Speaking of which…
I wasn’t surprised that Dick Cheney’s number one groupie, Pamela Geller, was a prime instigator of this manufactured controversy:
How the “ground zero mosque” fear mongering began
Ace reporting by Justin Elliott, and why I continue to give salon.com money.
The success of the “conveyor belt of faux outrage” strategy is a marvel to me. The smears and lies just keep coming.
This made-up mosque controversy is the perfect example of why I don’t refer to myself as a Democrat.
It is disgusting that a party that claims to be “conservative” would use this as a wedge issue for political gain in the mid-terms, regardless of it playing directly into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists that want nothing more than a religious war with the West.
What’s even more disgusting is the totally spineless capitulation of some democrats that can’t stand up for something that is such a clear-cut example of a basic principal that our nation was founded on: The right to practice your religion freely.
Does Harry Reid really need to look at polling data to decide if he should take a stand on basic Constitutional rights…. the constitution that he swore to defend? Apparently so.
Mr. Cynical – there’s no point in trying to reason with lefties. They’re in their own little reality distortion bubble.
11
Such rich irony–you suggesting that Cynny and you can reason and that you reside outside your “own little reality distortion bubbles.”
Most don’t deny right to build mosque at that location, just think that all things considered it is inconsiderate for them to build it there considering the circumstances. It is poking the majority of Americans in the eye by building there.
Constitution goes not give rights. It tells government that it cannot infringe on those rights. Try to remember that. Apparently Harry Reid never was taught that in school and never learned it while in the Senate.
@12 Teabaggers might not get irony, but that doesn’t stop them from delivering a shitload of it here.
@14 and 12: Getting irony would require appreciation of nuance. Nuance is not a strength for wingnuts.
Just what this site needs…another Constitutional scholar.
@116
apparently he know’s more than you do.
Is it inconsiderate of Republicans to be near children?
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Pedophiles.html
@16
I do know the Constitution and I have noticed that this blog maintains a veritable vacuum of Constitutional understanding!
I can tell some get it, but just don’t like what it says and would probably give their eye teeth to change it, but most just are truly ignorant from what I read.
OK asshole…I’ll bite.
What does that dumbass know that I don’t know?
@20
see post #19.
end of story.
18
It is inconsiderate of Republicans to be near anyone who does not suffer from the illness that afflicts them. Personally, I can’t stand the smell of them.
@22
thats funny(not), because your old lady doesnt seem to mind…
THE FUCKING PURPOSE OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION IS TO DEFINE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS!
THE “BILL OF RIGHTS”!!! HELLO?????? ANYBODY HOME???? FUCK!!!!
How are you morons so stupid. Were you born this way or do you WORK at it?
Jesus…
End of your story you stupid prick.
13: “Constitution goes [sic] not give rights.”
Ah, yes, an adherent of the old natural rights school of thought. How quaint. Yet, you nonetheless claim to be a constitutional scholar. How charming.
11. Crusader spews:
I agree.
I just like to torment them with the TRUTH.
Nothing more devastating to a Leftist Pinheaded KLOWN than the light of the truth.
It burns their corneas.
They can’t handle the truth.
I’ve got the essence of ‘jesusownbutthole…mr. cynical” right here:
“More for me, less for you.”
Not hard.
Re 26
You say you’re an attorney. Riddle me this-
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..”
So the men who wrote and signed this document believed that rights are granted by the government, not natural and inalienable when they later wrote the Constitution? The men who wrote that the rights and duties in the Constitution are the sole rights and duties of Federal government, with all else retained by the state and the citizens of them?
How quaint that some backward conservatives actually believe the words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, you know, mean something.
Re 24
Umm, no, it isn’t. It is to define the role and purpose of government and the powers they have to fulfill them. It is a positive grant document, which limits government and empowers citizens by doing so.
Did you miss Civics class or just ignore it?
Last time I looked…there were 27 Amendments to the US Constitution.
The first 10 are known as the “Bill of Rights”.
Somewhere an asshole is looking for a way out of his own asshole.
lost @ 30
When the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were drafted, natural rights theories were all the rage among progressive thinkers–and I’m most certainly glad that they were. Those theories were quite an improvement over some of the divine right of kings sorts of political theory that had previously prevailed. Ultimately, however, political philosophy moved past the indefensible–if certain rights are “natural,” inherent in humanity, then why is there no agreement within a particular community, let alone across the globe, concerning what those rights are? You and I, for instance, sharply disagree on what “rights” the Constitution protects. I believe in more personal liberties than you do; you believe in more liberties in the marketplace. So, practicality suggests that “rights” are not some inherently recognizable commodity, but are what a government chooses to recognize and protect. No more, no less.
@30…
lostinhisownasshole is parsing gas.
har-har
Certainly the argument you raise has merit. Otherwise a majority could define rights. The result would be chaos and tyranny of the majority.
Except…
The Constitution doesn’t leave us guessing some of the rights which are inalienable in the view of those who wrote it. It tells us how to add the protection of government to further rights by Amendment. As Rujax points out this has been done 27 times. But nowhere does it indicate that these rights didn’t exist before.
Judge Wheeler, in his mind, is not creating a right for gay people to marry. In his mind he is recognizing a right that existed before, and should have been enforced. No matter how wrong his interpretation, the underlying principle is sound. That is, we don’t create rights in the courts, or by amending the Constitution, or by laws. We recognize those rights that the Constitution either always protected, or we amend it to do so on felt necessity.
Sorry, 35 referred to 33.
BTW, no matter how much we might disagree on personal rights in the marketplace, I suspect we largely agree on individual freedoms.
The Patriot Act is an obsenity. Wiretapping citizens without warrants, illegal searches at airports, courthouses, federal buildings and so on are borderline treason by those who mandate them. In my mind they are treason. Criminal civil rights, while protecting objectionable people, may protect me from illegal police activity someday. Even if they didn’t, the principle of justice administered fairly and by a set of established rules is too valuable to lose.
I simply believe that without economic rights, without the right to that which I produce, the other rights are paper tigers. Similarly, without basic personal rights my security in my property is a sham. Each enhances the other.