don't get me wrong, i love the daily show. but...

there was a post on GD yesterday about how, on yesterday's daily show, jon stewart ethered bill bennett and his latest book about american values. so i made it a point to catch the rerun this morning to catch the fireworks.

okay, i don't think bill bennett, at any time during the interview, spoke more than ten consecutive words. seriously. the man would get out maybe the first half sentence of his argument before stewart would jump in with an abrupt "i already know what you're about to say because i read your book, and here is my pre-written response" interruption, to which, of course, the audience would always prolong with raucus applause and communal masturbation.

now, look, i don't necessarily agree with bill bennett or any of the other conservatives who appear on the daily show. but if you're going to interview them, it'd be nice to at least hear what they have to say. maybe even just one complete sentence of what they have to say, or what their book happens to be about. especially if you're going to continually criticize and mock shows like crossfire, which consist of a lot of shouting, debate-point-winning and applause, and virtually no real discussion.

what's funny is that stewart sometimes even has a tendency to over-interrupt someone he strongly agrees with. for example, if someone comes on the show who just wrote a book opposing the iraq war, stewart will spend the majority of the interview slobbering all over the desk about how right the book is, even if it means interrupting his guest to the point where we never really understand what the book is even really about.

and i guess that's the theme with daily show interviews. almost regardless of who the guest is, by the end of the interview, we've learned a lot about what jon stewart thinks about the topic at hand and little about what his guest thinks.

in conclusion, it'd be nice if the daily show was more about the news and less about jon stewart. cause, at its best, the show can be both wildly entertaining and frighteningly relevant. when it turns strictly into the jon stewart power hour, both of those qualities suffer. and i don't have a problem with the liberal slant (i happen to agree with most of it), but it'd be nice to see things move a little bit closer to the center of the aisle before the show completely degenerates into a real time with bill maher-style circle jerk.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

He lets his guests talk enough to embarass themselves. His questions are so damn well-written.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

I mean, he's had countless conservatives on his show and I've only seen him do it 5 times, tops. I'll admit everytime he does it that it gets cringe-worthy, but it's not a big deal.

i think he mishandled this particular interview (and he does make the same mistakes occasionally), but he's doing his best for someone learning how to be political and in a 5 minute (semi-daily) segment. my specific objections yesterday involved his talking out of his ass on the issue, but i think that's just him on the gay marriage thing...i'm not going to rehash that here, it's in activist.

in general though, not gonna hassle him too much for not listening to guys like bennett, who are clearly full of it. and, sometimes j.s.'s style is extremely effective, for example, when he pulled mccain's card a few months ago. that was extremely refreshing.

(as for colbert, sometimes his report person doesn't work with a guest. the amanpour interview yesterday was horrible.)

I actually thought he gave the interview more time and attention than usual, and I didn't notice the number of interuptions. I just think the interviews have always been just a peripheral part of the Daily Show. When you only have 5 minutes for Jon Stewart to talk to somebody, you aren't gonna get a lot of depth. Add in his need to make the studio audience laugh, and you really can't expect them to give the guest much of a platform at all. I suspect Stewart is capable of carrying on a pretty solid debate with a conservative, but I wouldn't expect to see it within the cramped forum of the Daily Show interview.

peace,
murph

unless the guest is an entertainer, they should devote *both* the second and third segment to the interview and cut out the often unfunny fluff piece in the middle. right now, they're trying to, like you said, make the interview funny and entertaining, but they also want it to be informative. five minutes isn't enough time to accomplish both of those goals.

the colbert show interviews are more effective in that respect because they pretty much throw informative out the window. colbert's one and only goal is to make the interview funny, and he almost always sticks the landing.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

they want to play by the rules and be polite.

fuck. that.

nutjob conservatives have taken control of the country by being self-centered, rude, verbose assholes and yet you want stewart to allow them to use his show as yet another platform for their ignorant bullshit?

fuck. that.

his show is about the only place these assholes get even the slightest dose of reality. and i love watching the snakes squirm.

I'm still waiting for people to get pissed off, angry, and ruthless.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

the conservatives have tapped into people's fears and phobias and have mastered the art of exploiting them (9/11 --> iraq war; gay marriage initiatives on election ballots; turning abortion into the sole criteria for judicial appointments; etc.). that's why they've taken control of the country. not because they're louder.

as for bringing conservatives on the show for the sole purpose of watching them squirm, yeah, it's entertaining (for the daily show's core audience), but what does it accomplish? nothing. it makes any conservatives watching the show more hardened and defensive, and it makes any liberals watching the show feel more superior and self-aggrandizing than they already do. and everyone in the middle is left feeling like they agree with stewart, but not knowing exactly why.

the thing is, stewart is usually very well prepared for his interviews and has a lot of great points. but he's so anxious to get them in, he shoots his load ten words into the interview, before his prepared sound bites can really be completely effective.

my point is, nobody's views are going to evolve in that kind of interview, definitely not the guest's and least of all the audience's. if stewart wants to accomplish anything, he'd be better off letting his guests have their platform. let them say their peace, let the people in the audience agree with them, and then when the rope is long enough, hang 'em with it. *really* hang 'em with it. that's when you get people to stop and say, wow, i thought i agreed with bennett, but maybe i do need to reevaluate. that doesn't happen when you're talking over someone you assume your audience already disagrees with.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

>that's why they've taken control of the country. not
>because they're louder.


or sean hannity...or rush limbaugh...or neal boortz...or tony snow...or robert novak...or shephard smith...or joe scarborough...

lemme know which one of these dudes are even-handed and let their liberal guests fully explain their platforms...

enough of this pussy-footed bullshit. right now, americans see liberals as spineless idiots with no real plan. we've tried it your way and failed miserably...and i've personally had enough.

___________________________________
"WASP of the year: even if he isn�t a WASP, Oakley. Sailing? Check. In a yacht club? Check. Used the term �summer� as a verb instead of a noun? You betcha!" -thejerseytornado

he set liberals back 15 years just by living.


---
Refusing to Let Go:
OkayBlowhards Champ 2004

---

http://www.imageyenation.com/main

and they're exactly what i don't want the daily show to turn into-- a political circle jerk. are you really missing the irony of criticizing fox news and talk radio, and then insisting we become exactly like them?

besides, every conservative talking head in the lower 48 put together don't add up to a fraction of the responsibility for the state of america that karl rove does. they're merely a by-product, a pale reflection of the current administration. where was o'reilly, where was the entire fox news channel for that matter, during the clinton administration?

you're giving these guys WAY too much credit. though i'm sure they'd be more than happy to have you and everyone else join them in a shouting match for the next six months rather than focus on anything substantial, like, oh, i don't know, the midterms in november.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

---
Refusing to Let Go:
OkayBlowhards Champ 2004

---

http://www.imageyenation.com/main

and I think Stewart was fair to him, he did take Bennett's critiscism about his Cheney argument. So it wasn't all one sided.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

I don't agree with him but Stewart's final remark wasn't really the point. Marriage has become a complete and utter joke. Bennett's point was that marriage has been compromised and to add gay marriage would pretty much be the final nail in the coffin.

I think this is a legit argument. Personally, I think you take the word marriage out of the law books. Everyone gets a civil union certificate and the word marriage is left to the church's

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>I don't agree with him but Stewart's final remark wasn't
>really the point. Marriage has become a complete and utter
>joke. Bennett's point was that marriage has been compromised
>and to add gay marriage would pretty much be the final nail in
>the coffin.
>
been compromised? how so? straight marriages end in divorce 50% of the time so I have no idea what you;re talking about.

>I think this is a legit argument. Personally, I think you
>take the word marriage out of the law books. Everyone gets a
>civil union certificate and the word marriage is left to the
>church's

ok honky/.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

>been compromised? how so? straight marriages end in divorce
>50% of the time so I have no idea what you;re talking about.

Um, yeah, that was my whole point. The institution of marriage is a complete joke right now, with or without allowing gays to marry. Bennett and many conservatives think marriage rules should be tightened and not loosened. No fault and expediated divorce are also things they'd like to do away with.

>>I think this is a legit argument. Personally, I think you
>>take the word marriage out of the law books. Everyone gets
>a
>>civil union certificate and the word marriage is left to the
>>church's
>
>ok honky/.
>

And what's your problem with that? Who cares about the word marriage? The government issue is that people are being discriminated against and losing out on benefits that other couple in a civil union get. All of the talk about morals and values only come into it because of the religious ties to the word marriage IMO. Just make it so everyone gets civil unions. The government shouldn't be involved with the whole marriage debate.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Bennett and many conservatives think
>marriage rules should be tightened and not loosened. No fault
>and expediated divorce are also things they'd like to do away
>with.

Thus restricting freedom.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Marriage is too closely tied to religion. You've got to get rid of that word from the law books. I never understand why people are so outraged by this proposition.

This entire debate is over a word on a contract. Give everyone civil unions and the debate is over. The church can have power over its sacrament and everyone can treat their civil unions as they please.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

because the piece of paper they signed said civil union? People will still say they get married. It's all semantics. Fighting for a word on a contract seems pointless to me.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

I mean you want to do away with the word right? its just a word.. why make some people not able to get it if they dont have a church? Its all marriage, forget the religious bs. you outargue yourself and you don't even realize it.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

>I mean you want to do away with the word right? its just a
>word.. why make some people not able to get it if they dont
>have a church? Its all marriage, forget the religious bs. you
>outargue yourself and you don't even realize it.

You can't say forget the religious bs to a majority of America. Marriage is a sacrament to religious people. It's more than a word to them and that's why they go crazy about it. This whole push came about just to get the religious right to the polls since it would help Bush win reelection.

Everyone deserves equal rights to health care, tax breaks, protection of assets after death, etc. That's a civil union IMO and adding marriage to the whole thing just clouds the issue.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>>I mean you want to do away with the word right? its just a
>>word.. why make some people not able to get it if they dont
>>have a church? Its all marriage, forget the religious bs.
>you
>>outargue yourself and you don't even realize it.
>
>You can't say forget the religious bs to a majority of
>America. Marriage is a sacrament to religious people. It's
>more than a word to them and that's why they go crazy about
>it. This whole push came about just to get the religious right
>to the polls since it would help Bush win reelection.
>
>Everyone deserves equal rights to health care, tax breaks,
>protection of assets after death, etc. That's a civil union
>IMO and adding marriage to the whole thing just clouds the
>issue.
>
>
oh it sounded like you were really against giving gay people equal rights. but anyways, I don't see why bush is trying to ban gay marriage, if you realize that this would only lead to banning civil unions, since it is recognizing them with the same rights as "married" straight couples. You can see where this is headed.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

>oh it sounded like you were really against giving gay people
>equal rights. but anyways, I don't see why bush is trying to
>ban gay marriage, if you realize that this would only lead to
>banning civil unions, since it is recognizing them with the
>same rights as "married" straight couples. You can see where
>this is headed.

Bush needs to get the conservatives back on his side and that was his go to issue last election. It's all a political move.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>>oh it sounded like you were really against giving gay
>people
>>equal rights. but anyways, I don't see why bush is trying to
>>ban gay marriage, if you realize that this would only lead
>to
>>banning civil unions, since it is recognizing them with the
>>same rights as "married" straight couples. You can see where
>>this is headed.
>
>Bush needs to get the conservatives back on his side and that
>was his go to issue last election. It's all a political move.
>

I just don't see how liberals can steal his thunder by changing the words around. Maybe but I just don't see most people going along with it. I don't know, who knows. its all calculated though, and the public gets strung along.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

just because it's easier than arguing with them about it.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Would you rather continue fighting this battle and likely have another republican in the White House or eliminate one of their talking points while still achieving the main point of your stance which was equal protection.

It's a compromise that works, IMO. Church gets the word marriage, gay people get equal rights under the law. I think turning down a proposition like that over semantics or because people feel they need to take a stand against religion is misguided.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

This isn't about semantics it's about keeping something recognized as an important institution from becoming the sole property of specialized organizations.

Bah, take this to activist.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Take religion out of the picture and they really have no defense of refusing gay couples the same rights and protection. Their only defense now, whether they admit it or not, is religion.

The religious right won't be for it but I think you have enough moderates that you can pass the law and guarentee equal protection for gays.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

you still never explained that. why would letting gay people marry destroy marriage? I don't get it, and you gave no reasons for your opinion.

>>been compromised? how so? straight marriages end in divorce
>>50% of the time so I have no idea what you;re talking about.
>
>Um, yeah, that was my whole point. The institution of
>marriage is a complete joke right now, with or without
>allowing gays to marry. Bennett and many conservatives think
>marriage rules should be tightened and not loosened. No fault
>and expediated divorce are also things they'd like to do away
>with.
>
so 50% still don't divorce homie. if people love each other and wanna marry then let them get married, I don't get the big deal about letting gay people get married, only if you think gay lifestyle is some fetish trend like stewart said, or you think its some gross abberation, or horrible sin, then you would ban them from getting married, otherwise I don't get it. I know plenty of happily gay couples that have the same love a happily married woman and man have. I don't get it, there's no reasons outside of stupid christian beliefs of marriage that you can give me.

>>>I think this is a legit argument. Personally, I think you
>>>take the word marriage out of the law books. Everyone gets
>>a
>>>civil union certificate and the word marriage is left to
>the
>>>church's
>>
>>ok honky/.
>>
>
>And what's your problem with that? Who cares about the word
>marriage? The government issue is that people are being
>discriminated against and losing out on benefits that other
>couple in a civil union get. All of the talk about morals and
>values only come into it because of the religious ties to the
>word marriage IMO. Just make it so everyone gets civil
>unions. The government shouldn't be involved with the whole
>marriage debate.
>
why should some people get rights and others not? because they're gay? that doesnt make sense, now you're legislating peoples sexual preference.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

>you still never explained that. why would letting gay people
>marry destroy marriage? I don't get it, and you gave no
>reasons for your opinion.

I don't think they would destroy marriage but most of America thinks that it would jeopardize the sanctity of marriage. The fact that the word sanctity is used anywhere near the law is a problem to me. Sanctity has nothing to do with the law IMO. Marriage is a farce right now to the people who hold it as a sacrament and allowing gays to marry would make it worse.

>so 50% still don't divorce homie. if people love each other
>and wanna marry then let them get married, I don't get the big
>deal about letting gay people get married, only if you think
>gay lifestyle is some fetish trend like stewart said, or you
>think its some gross abberation, or horrible sin, then you
>would ban them from getting married, otherwise I don't get it.
>I know plenty of happily gay couples that have the same love a
>happily married woman and man have. I don't get it, there's no
>reasons outside of stupid christian beliefs of marriage that
>you can give me.

And seeing that those stupid christian beliefs are predominant in the country and rousing those who hold those stupid christian to the polls means you get Bush reelected, I say you just take the word marriage out of the equation. It's called politics. The left loses this every time. If you are going to turn off people by choosing either side of the issue, why not just eliminate the issue altogether?

>why should some people get rights and others not? because
>they're gay? that doesnt make sense, now you're legislating
>peoples sexual preference.

How am I legislating sexual preference? Everyone gets a civil union. Everyone is the same. You just take the word marriage out because that brings up too much religious sentiment and I think you just clearly separate church and state and the whole issue is quashed. Fighting for a word that you don't even believe in just because it has some vague symbolic meaning seems like a mistake IMO.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>>you still never explained that. why would letting gay
>people
>>marry destroy marriage? I don't get it, and you gave no
>>reasons for your opinion.
>
>I don't think they would destroy marriage but most of America
>thinks that it would jeopardize the sanctity of marriage. The
>fact that the word sanctity is used anywhere near the law is a
>problem to me. Sanctity has nothing to do with the law IMO.
>Marriage is a farce right now to the people who hold it as a
>sacrament and allowing gays to marry would make it worse.
>

most of america doesnt think that. I don't know where you get your facts from, fox news polls I guess. but make it worse? you believing too much right wing rhetoric.

>>so 50% still don't divorce homie. if people love each other
>>and wanna marry then let them get married, I don't get the
>big
>>deal about letting gay people get married, only if you think
>>gay lifestyle is some fetish trend like stewart said, or you
>>think its some gross abberation, or horrible sin, then you
>>would ban them from getting married, otherwise I don't get
>it.
>>I know plenty of happily gay couples that have the same love
>a
>>happily married woman and man have. I don't get it, there's
>no
>>reasons outside of stupid christian beliefs of marriage that
>>you can give me.
>
>And seeing that those stupid christian beliefs are predominant
>in the country and rousing those who hold those stupid
>christian to the polls means you get Bush reelected, I say you
>just take the word marriage out of the equation. It's called
>politics. The left loses this every time. If you are going
>to turn off people by choosing either side of the issue, why
>not just eliminate the issue altogether?
>
you cant eliminate the issue though. it aint liberals bringing it up, its conservatives doing it. bush brought this shit up in 2004 right before the election and hes bringing it up right now right before the 06 elections for the gop to keep its base. they gonna continue to hammer it, liberals aint bringing it up, I guess you need to watch more news.

>>why should some people get rights and others not? because
>>they're gay? that doesnt make sense, now you're legislating
>>peoples sexual preference.
>
>How am I legislating sexual preference? Everyone gets a civil
>union. Everyone is the same. You just take the word marriage
>out because that brings up too much religious sentiment and I
>think you just clearly separate church and state and the whole
>issue is quashed. Fighting for a word that you don't even
>believe in just because it has some vague symbolic meaning
>seems like a mistake IMO.

its too late to eliminate the word marriage and make it all civil unions, could you imagine the outrage? I got married, now wait, I just got a civil union. Its too ingrained already in our phsyche and this country's language to just eliminate it. Nice try, but not gonna work.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

>you cant eliminate the issue though. it aint liberals bringing
>it up, its conservatives doing it. bush brought this shit up
>in 2004 right before the election and hes bringing it up right
>now right before the 06 elections for the gop to keep its
>base. they gonna continue to hammer it, liberals aint bringing
>it up, I guess you need to watch more news.

Bush has nothing to bring up if you remove the word marriage. Eliminate the word, you eliminate the issue and Bush has one less speaking point to try to rally the conservatives. Who brought it up is pointless. They didn't conjure this out of thin air. You get rid of the word marriage from the law books and the only thing Bush can fight against is giving all couples equal protection under the law and that fight is a lot better for the democrats than getting into a thinly veiled religious dicussion.

>its too late to eliminate the word marriage and make it all
>civil unions, could you imagine the outrage? I got married,
>now wait, I just got a civil union. Its too ingrained already
>in our phsyche and this country's language to just eliminate
>it. Nice try, but not gonna work.

But it's not too late to redefine marriage as more than a man and a woman? "I just got a civil union"? Would people really think that? How many people define their vows by the piece of paper they sign? The battle to take the word out of the law books is a lot easier and cleaner. You put the sanctity of marriage in the hands of the church to fight over. The government should get as far away as possible from that discussion and just make sure everyone gets the same benefits from the contract they signed.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>>you cant eliminate the issue though. it aint liberals
>bringing
>>it up, its conservatives doing it. bush brought this shit up
>>in 2004 right before the election and hes bringing it up
>right
>>now right before the 06 elections for the gop to keep its
>>base. they gonna continue to hammer it, liberals aint
>bringing
>>it up, I guess you need to watch more news.
>
>Bush has nothing to bring up if you remove the word marriage.
>Eliminate the word, you eliminate the issue and Bush has one
>less speaking point to try to rally the conservatives. Who
>brought it up is pointless. They didn't conjure this out of
>thin air. You get rid of the word marriage from the law books
>and the only thing Bush can fight against is giving all
>couples equal protection under the law and that fight is a lot
>better for the democrats than getting into a thinly veiled
>religious dicussion.
>

bush is the one that brought it up though. he would still ban gay civil unions if we took the word marriage away, hes gotta have some platform to get all these fat republicans reelected.

>>its too late to eliminate the word marriage and make it all
>>civil unions, could you imagine the outrage? I got married,
>>now wait, I just got a civil union. Its too ingrained
>already
>>in our phsyche and this country's language to just eliminate
>>it. Nice try, but not gonna work.
>
>But it's not too late to redefine marriage as more than a man
>and a woman? "I just got a civil union"? Would people really
>think that? How many people define their vows by the piece of
>paper they sign? The battle to take the word out of the law
>books is a lot easier and cleaner. You put the sanctity of
>marriage in the hands of the church to fight over. The
>government should get as far away as possible from that
>discussion and just make sure everyone gets the same benefits
>from the contract they signed.

good luck with that one. seriously, you're an idealist.
>

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

Are you saying gay people wouldn't try to get married if Bush didn't bring it up? And if marriage is out of the books, how much worse does Bush look? He has no ground to stand on.

Getting rid of the word marriage strengthens the democrats stand and Bush can't bring this up anymore without clearly stating that it is his belief that homosexuals don't deserve the same protection under the law. No cloud of religion and sanctity and he can't bring it up anymore.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>Are you saying gay people wouldn't try to get married if Bush
>didn't bring it up?

uh how do they get married if its not allowed? you lost me.

And if marriage is out of the books, how
>much worse does Bush look? He has no ground to stand on.

whos gonna take marriage out of the books? and what books are you talking about? the constitution? so we'd change the constitution to read civil unions can be had by all people whether gay or straight? but marriages will only be recognized by churches and not the state or federal government? huh? good luck getting that one through.
>
>Getting rid of the word marriage strengthens the democrats
>stand and Bush can't bring this up anymore without clearly
>stating that it is his belief that homosexuals don't deserve
>the same protection under the law. No cloud of religion and
>sanctity and he can't bring it up anymore.

I still don't see how you do this.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

IMO the show has been lacking for years.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

i enjoy colbert much more.

daily show went from a comedic, not-that-serious, poke-fun-at-everyone comedy hour to an extremely one-sided mess of entertainers suddenly taking themselves far too seriously with a crowd of gen-x lemmings who bitterly cheer far more than laugh.

>daily show went from a comedic, not-that-serious,
>poke-fun-at-everyone comedy hour to an extremely one-sided
>mess of entertainers suddenly taking themselves far too
>seriously with a crowd of gen-x lemmings who bitterly cheer
>far more than laugh.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

I made a post quite similar to this last summer. Good luck getting anywhere with it.

go watch o reilly if you wanna hear some raging dumbfuck conservative give his donkey ass opinion about how the white straight male is losing this country! you're fucking dumb, bennet was saying how gays shouldnt be allowed to get married but they are human? and stewart was clowning him saying thats the ceiling of gay life-being a brother or sister? he was saying how cheney changed his opinion because of his daughter and bennett had no response to that, he just went off on his "preserving marriage" conservative bs rant.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

i'm on your side, dumbass.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

the shows always been the same, its thrived on his humor. I don't see how the show has "changed in any way." if anything theyve added more reporters, which arent john stewart. he was giving him like 2 separate parts of the show, the dude was saying some outrageous dumb shit, the got like 5 minutes each time to interview, hes gotta throw in some humor, dont be mad because he got an opinion.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

It's almost unrecognizable from where it was 5 years ago. Most critics tend to like it (probably because TDS wasn't on their radar back then) I don't.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

shit. its different, ya, shows always change, its the natural progression of life homie, get over it, sometimes stewarts schtick goes a little overboard, the tightening of the tie with the "oy yikes" responses, ya he interrupts his guests, but shit, its a fake news spoof show, what the fuck do you expect? stop watching it if you hate john stewarts comedy so much. write a letter or something.

http://myspace.com/bambumusic

www.individualsole.com

http://www.individualsole.com/?p=5256

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGH3OuP9Sek

.....TAKE THIS SHIT TO ACTIVIST!!!!





Thank you.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil