Who said you needed to agree with him? Nobody is forcing you to tow the line for Jon Stewart.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aw - he took off his clown nose. :yack: Am I supposed to agree with him when he wipes his face-paint long enough to wag his finger at the media he's a part of? If he equally targeted the left and right then he might have had a point. Sadly, he's just another left-wing apologist who uses sarcasm instead of shrillness. He isn't deep enough to be profound, and IMO he isn't brave enough to be an commentator. He's a coward who slaps his clown mask on as armor the second that specifics come up. Otherwise he'd actually have to STAND for something, and that wouldn't much appeal to his audience of self-congratulatory faux-hipsters. Such mealy-mouthed, small-minded twerps find actually taking a position to be distasteful because then it requires them to actually THINK about what they believe in. Rather than go through such a difficult exercise, they are content to point fingers at others who are more intelligent and courageous than themselves and point out THEIR flaws. Natually Stewart appeals to such people, because he reflects their cowardace and smallness.

Aw - he took off his clown nose. :yack: Am I supposed to agree with him when he wipes his face-paint long enough to wag his finger at the media he's a part of? If he equally targeted the left and right then he might have had a point. Sadly, he's just another left-wing apologist who uses sarcasm instead of shrillness. He isn't deep enough to be profound, and IMO he isn't brave enough to be an commentator. He's a coward who slaps his clown mask on as armor the second that specifics come up. Otherwise he'd actually have to STAND for something, and that wouldn't much appeal to his audience of self-congratulatory faux-hipsters. Such mealy-mouthed, small-minded twerps find actually taking a position to be distasteful because then it requires them to actually THINK about what they believe in. Rather than go through such a difficult exercise, they are content to point fingers at others who are more intelligent and courageous than themselves and point out THEIR flaws. Natually Stewart appeals to such people, because he reflects their cowardace and smallness.

As far as crowd sizes go? I've seen vids of both the Restoring Honor and Restoring Sanity crowds. They were roughly analogous in size.

So Beck was only 87K but Stewart was 215K...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/10/live-video-stewart-colbert-rally.html

Baloney. Regardless, the stupidity of this argument between the left & right over crowd sizes is ridiculous. Both crowds were huge, and well into the 200,000+ range. Quit arguing over your epeen and just be glad people showed up. One was a 'church meeting' and the other was a Halloween party.

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

I wish our blind dog could enjoy herself that much too. But her hearing is not the best anymore either.
It always hurts me to see how passive she has become, while she was extremely active when she could still see.
She even turns away when our other dog (who is deaf btw) comes close to her and wants to "socialize", because she cant see the wagging tail and thus doesnt know what her intents are.
The doctor could try an eye-surgery on her, but that would have a very high probability of her not going to survive, because her liver is bad too...

That is great. Wag my tail? Not good enough - Freedance!

Anything Lieberman does is at the direction of Israel. Look at the mess they are in after they killed the humanitarian flotilla people, and the whole episode was posted on the internet. The Israel/US relationship really is the tail wagging the dog.

>> ^Sagemind:

This video serves as a good warning for people with pets.
Pets and wild animals don't mix.
Someone should have seen that coming and removed the pets from the scene.


Good point. Looked like the dog wasn't even paying attention. If it had, it would probably have been wagging its tail eagerly to welcome a new friend. The owner(s) should have gotten their pets to safety, or had them leashed or in a fenced yard.

Somewhat disappointing that it cuts away (unless it gets worse). I was hoping to see the deer move on and dog get up.

Its similar to the way that dogs will wag their legs if you scratch them on the belly, the cat is used to having its hind legs in that position when its head is that low to the ground. The leg automatically jumps up over its head.

I always thought a great name for a band would be the "Poor Sodden Wags."

well because personally I cant go and rail on my "brother in law " whatever the fuck that is. Some guy who married my sister. Aint no brother of mine. heh. But you are right, the parents are completely need a finger wagged at them and "for shame for shame " being said. I really have a problem with girls acting like whores, when I was in high school in 1996-2000, thats when the zoologist started shifting, first it was the skin tight black pants with or without the flared ankles, and then It just progressed from their. Teens now dress like wannabe strippers and It pisses me the hell off that parents allow the young ones to listen to lady gaga and beyonce and all this other tripe that passes for music. Those girls are nothing close to role models for children.


I wish I had a wooden train whistle, I would love to blow my horn, WHEWWWWWW WHEWWWWWWWW !

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
How about beating the fuck out of the parents? I saw an interview with one dad and he didn't see a single problem with it. I heard someone give the excuse of "oh, well the costume is designed so that the judges can more clearly see the lines of movement blah blah blah" So why the fuck can these girls NOT wear a fucking leotard instead? something a little less sexually charged than a two piece that looks like it came off the design table of Victoria's secret? At the VERY least, why isn't the top piece more covering? that thing is barely thicker than duct tape. Might as well have used pasties. Not to mention the knee-high fuck-me boots.

And that doesn't even cover the dance moves. Any instant you have booty-popping in a dance routine, an 8 year old should NOT be doing it.

>> ^lavoll:

finger wagging duly noted


You're ON NOTICE!

You have been wagged upon, son. Go now, and sin no more. *return

finger wagging duly noted

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is an infraction, but we unashamedly give lattitude to members who have earned their rank. If you were a P you would be banned. Consider yourself finger wagged.