Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 8 months ago
    Stewart's humor is part of the liberal persona. You can get away with the most vicious lies or exaggerations so long as you inject a little humor. Add to that a nimble mind and a good deal of charm and you've got our Johnny. That 's how Maher also gets away with it, only he's more hard core and less charm. They all claim to be "entertainers." Maher, Stewart, Limbaugh, Hannity - but they are entertainers with an agenda. Rational thought, however, allows me to prefer the Limbaugh - Hannity agendas over the Lib ones. As we all know, those Libs who enjoy the likes of Maher/Stewart will never be on "our side" politically except for some exceptional exceptions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
      True, Herb, but Limbaugh and Hannity only present the truth in the best light, while the likes of Stewart and Maher (and Franken) twist facts and reality to fit a narrative that they want to advance, regardless of the truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 8 months ago
        I forgot Franken. He's the worst of the worst. Got elected by cheating and became Obama's toadie. A more despicable person has rarely been seen this side of Pol Pot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
          Yes. His election in 2008 was clearly supported by fraud. Despite that, his reelection in 2014 was by a level beyond the amount of fraud, just showing that once elected, incumbent politicians are difficult to unseat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 8 months ago
    Stewart is an entertainer - like Limbaugh, or Gervais, or hell, even his cohort, Colbert. Those that thought his show was news, rather than entertainment, are the sheeple I've grown concerned about.

    I am concerned - about one thing in your post. I find your use of his non-stage name - where it's not mentioned in the article - a little disingenuous at best. No one makes a BFD about Krishna Bhanji being half white, half kenyan... Or Lawrence Zeigler, Erich Weiss, or the woman that guided generations - Pauline Friedman...

    Sorry, but that just bugs the hell out of me, people "outing" a celeb. When I see it, especially in a place like this, it makes me think the poster has an alterior motive...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
      No specific ulterior motive, other than to name him with his given and family name. One might question why he chooses to use an adaptation of his middle name instead of using his actual last name? Like Mark Levin, one wonders whether he is actually loathsome of his heritage?

      But he's made himself more than an entertainer. He uses sarcasm to shape opinion, but doesn't overtly identify it as sarcasm. He is snarky, but makes it seem that his commentary is only snarky but true, not snarky and sarcastic. Too many see this as a snarky commentary based on truth, when it is sarcastic snarkiness, which while based on truth, is really a twisting of that truth to something no longer true.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 5 years, 8 months ago
    "Stewart-ism won the day".
    Ever feel like we have the same as a snowball's chance in hell? All we have on our side is truth, and logic, and facts, and morality. Clearly a losing hand !
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
      Because he thought for the masses, thus relieving them from that chore, and made it funny. They could get the same from Rush, but have been told for many years that he is evil. For those who are not sheep-dipped in liberalism/progressivism, spending just a few days (Rush says it takes 6 weeks, but I've found that's not really necessary) listening usually gets them hooked. You do have to think some, so there's still that barrier.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo