E
Element 117
after that fantastic magical month, disappointed.
- Status
E
Element 117
Want an even bigger dissapointment?
Wink wink.[/QUOTE]
disappointment requires anticipation, and maybe desire, not apathy.
Also, I can't legally endorse killing anyone, but hey, wouldn't you have to kill Stewart's wife too?
Keith Olbermann rolls out the whaaambulance with a series of twitter posts complaining that Fox's brand of over-the-top isn't the same as his.
There is a reason why some pundits were featured multiple times and some not at all. Those who weren't featured don't tend to make ridiculous assertions about those who have different political views.
Which apparently irritated people, to whom he responded with:Keith Olbermann said:
andKeith Olbermann said:
See, Keith, what you are missing is Stewart wasn't saying one side is as bad as another, or they do it the same amount, or even disagreeing is wrong. It's the language used (like your Worst Person in the World segment) that goes way over the top in demonizing people who have different opinions than you.Keith Olbermann said:
There is a reason why some pundits were featured multiple times and some not at all. Those who weren't featured don't tend to make ridiculous assertions about those who have different political views.
Rachel Maddow > Keith Olberman by far.
I'm ok with extreme polarization. Stewart even said we have very different ideas. It's the vitriol and the painting people who disagree as un-American, evil, suspicious, dangerous, and unstable that he was trying to get across at the rally and wanted to bring attention to.
I'm ok with extreme polarization. Stewart even said we have very different ideas. It's the vitriol and the painting people who disagree as un-American, evil, suspicious, dangerous, and unstable that he was trying to get across at the rally and wanted to bring attention to.[/QUOTE]
No, extreme polarization means no compromise, without compromise no one advances. The heart of Stewart's speech is the Lincoln Tunnel analogy... no matter how much you may agree with Olbermann, he's part of the problem. If we were to adapt the pundits to the tunnel analogy, O'Reilly and Olbermann would block the entire tunnel trying to cut each other off and not letting the other one go first, ever.
That is what's hurting the US.
I'm ok with extreme polarization. Stewart even said we have very different ideas. It's the vitriol and the painting people who disagree as un-American, evil, suspicious, dangerous, and unstable that he was trying to get across at the rally and wanted to bring attention to.[/QUOTE]
No, extreme polarization means no compromise, without compromise no one advances. The heart of Stewart's speech is the Lincoln Tunnel analogy... no matter how much you may agree with Olbermann, he's part of the problem. If we were to adapt the pundits to the tunnel analogy, O'Reilly and Olbermann would block the entire tunnel trying to cut each other off and not letting the other one go first, ever.
That is what's hurting the US.[/QUOTE]
When did I say I agree with either of them? I don't think you've been reading my posts.
Gah, I knew I was doing something wrong!Whoa, we're supposed to read each others posts before commenting? What the hell kind of internet is this?
I'm ok with extreme polarization. Stewart even said we have very different ideas. It's the vitriol and the painting people who disagree as un-American, evil, suspicious, dangerous, and unstable that he was trying to get across at the rally and wanted to bring attention to.[/QUOTE]
No, extreme polarization means no compromise, without compromise no one advances. The heart of Stewart's speech is the Lincoln Tunnel analogy... no matter how much you may agree with Olbermann, he's part of the problem. If we were to adapt the pundits to the tunnel analogy, O'Reilly and Olbermann would block the entire tunnel trying to cut each other off and not letting the other one go first, ever.
That is what's hurting the US.[/QUOTE]
When did I say I agree with either of them? I don't think you've been reading my posts.[/QUOTE]
I never said you said you did, my post was responding to your "I'm fine with extreme polarization" and "even Jon said we can have different ideas".
You need to brush up on YOUR reading comprehension
Sorry, Calleja, I just can't accept that. The idea that there is no compromise because of polarizing views is a near impossibility. Eventually, if there is civil debate and discussion, there will be a breakdown and there will be compromise.
No matter how polarized the views, there will always be a commonality somewhere which can be worked on and expanded on.
No matter how polarized the views, there will always be a commonality somewhere which can be worked on and expanded on.
E
Element 117
Gah, I knew I was doing something wrong![/QUOTE]Whoa, we're supposed to read each others posts before commenting? What the hell kind of internet is this?
[STRIKE]HOUSE[/STRIKE] KRISKEN IS BACKKK! YAAAAAAYYYYY!
C-SPAN Video Player - Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Today in Washington
First hour is missing, but everything w/ Stewart & Colbert is there.
First hour is missing, but everything w/ Stewart & Colbert is there.
QQ some more, angry liberal talking heads.
- Status