Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart's take on the Tucson shooting (257 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sick of Stewart's contortions... (10+ / 0-)

    ... to achieve some sort of balance.

    His arguments are practically incoherent. First he says that he can't see a connection between the shooting and the vitriolic discourse. Then he says it's horrific "when actions match the disturbing nature of words." Match, Jon. Match. Can't get more connected than that, but it's a connection you apparently believe is just an unfortunate coincidence.

    In all, his sermon was a lot of high-sounding words that when you look closely at them amount to nonsense.

    "Let's hope we never become numb." Jesus Christ. Now that's a great goal. Let's hope.

    "Boy, would it be nice to be able to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible, because then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this, the horrors will end." Is there really anyone who suggests the horrors might end, Jon? But wouldn't it be nice if there were maybe fewer of them? Could we hope for and work toward that, Jon?

    Then he has on that phony, joke-stealing Leary.

    It was a pretty disgusting show.

    •  Really! Really! Jon spoke the truth to power! He (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in RI

      didn't hit any of the rights buttons to make them go off. They have nothing to say against this.

      It thus is a great piece of political rhetoric that cannot be refuted.

    •  Exactly! (6+ / 0-)

      His core assumption, that everybody (except for him, of course) is a wreckless idealogue, left him with nowhere to go in the wake of the Tuscon event.

      So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

      by illinifan17 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:13:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (9+ / 0-)

      He resorts to vagaries about process, image, and presentation.  He really lost me in his interview with Rachel Maddow where he said that while it may be "technically true" that Bush was a war criminal, it was still extremist rhetoric and was a roadblock to nice etiquette-proper, pleasant conversation as of course defined our new Miss Manners of the 1st Amendment--Jon Stewart.

      The moral implications of the war criminal statement was to quite frankly marginalize it because it is just extremist talk.  I can't imagine at any war crime trial, some statement "Well yes while the prison guard is technically a war criminal, this should not be held against him as you know, our conversations would be very unpleasant."

      •  I think what Jon was getting at is that (0+ / 0-)

        while we on the left believe Bush is a war criminal, how does calling him that get us anywhere politically?  I know many on the right that sincerely believe Obama is a socialist, but calling him that just makes us angry and unwillingly to try to take their perspective.

        To the left, Obama is only trying to save the economy.  To the right, Bush was just trying to protect America.  Reality is rarely black and white. Most people try to do what they think is right (even if it is apparent they were misguided later).  

        Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop demonizing each other.  The only way we will ever solve the problems facing the country right now is to listen to each other and stop playing Team Blue versus Team Red.  

        "Mitt Romney is a plastic man who has no brain." - Tom Woods

        by methinshaw on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 11:56:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site