i guess behind a closed window the guacamole was..

a point seemed to be made in 3.20 minutes though

i'm all for kids using drugs, but why the strict rules with the passing? Mellow out, ya fascists.

But seriously, how did this ever get played on the radio? Let alone on the stereo.

Who would have known coke was good for something

Incompetence? I think that explanation becomes increasingly uncredible. Stewart is funny but he has become part of the diversion. I know it's not his job, but where the humor was once funny because of the poignancy, now it becomes less so, and more and more trite. Satire turns to puns..

Our transformation into America is not one towards intolerance, its about short-sightedness, the changing of its inhabitants into fearfull consumers, and the increasing bias of the media.
Ayaan moved out of the Netherlands because she lied about her entrance to Holland, and so her political career and credibility was over. She is now exploiting her threats by posing as a heroine in America. Check her backstory.
There is mention of the Hofstad-group, of which Bouyeri (the killer) was a part. But to equate this with a large terrorist-network is like calling the trenchcoat maffia a threat to America.
Basically all our media is owned by the same people who own fox news. So i wouldnt take them too seriously, especially the feed they give the USA and UK.

It's the thing fox is good at, don't follow their lead.

" Lastly, Those same millions of other people are not so much outraged or pissed either when some infidel apostate gets a bullet between the eyes, or when a suicide bomber kills children in the "Name of the Prophet"."
That is just unfair, and untrue. Just like with other faiths and ideologies, there are people who believe in the god, but not in the literal texts. There are calls for violence in the Quran, just like in the bible, just like in many other 'sacred' texts. This doesn't mean that you can just call anyone who believes in it an accomplice. Just like with 9/11 and with van Gogh, as with the embassy-burning, there were some people who were for it, some people who were neutral about it, and people who were against it. All of them from the same faith. I think it is offensive if you just pile them all onto the guilty-pile. The are a lot of muslims who don't belive in violence, as there are a lot of people from other faiths or ideologies who do. This lack of ability or willingness to distinguish between them and just take some lable to damn them all is a very scary human trait. And we should all try to identify it within ourselves and reason against it.

" He had been reading a book that claims its the most perfect, inerroneous, FINAL word of God Himself, and that anyone who says otherwise deserve death and his killer deserve paradise. " Well I'm certainly no faith-hugger, but millions of other people also read that book, and didnt do what he did, so I would like to exclude that as the main reason. A part of freedom of speech is definitely to read religious books and say religious words. I don't why he is crazy, but I'm sure it's not a book. And crazy he is, because that's what I call people killing other people for other reasons than direct self-defense. (That means you too soldiers) Getting religion into this argument is just looking for scapegoats. This man is insane.

I have no evidence that it's economy will bring America down, just a strong suspicion. The amount of debt America has is overwhelming, and it keeps getting larger and larger.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and its sources.
And about van Gogh, he was killed by one insane muslim with a death wish. He had a low tolerance, not our society. After this mosques were burnt, the media started using muslim as a four-letter-word, and everyone was afraid to say anything (unless they were politician). I am not saying this all started after the murder, it was going on before, but as you well know with 9/11, a national scare doesn't bring out the best in people.

I'm not so sure. We are pretty much like England America's lapdog. Though maybe lapmouse is a better word. More and more we model our government,economy and justice-system on the American. We fight their wars, and we hand over 'suspects'. Our economy relies in a big way on them, and when America collapses under its debt, it will drag us down with it. The coming police state is also visible here, with implementations of id-systems, and the requirement to always wear your passport. Everything gets privatised, and it won't be long before we start enforcing drug laws. The murder of Theo van Gogh was also a blow to our multi-cultural tolerance. I'm telling you, I may be a little pessimistic, but we will be America in 5-10 years.

Well we are preventing them from suffering, not from procreating (though the effect might be the same). When i say short i don't mean 20 years, i mean more like 5. I see that the eugenics argument is based on the argument that other people decide who lives or dies, but there are ways to measure suffering that do not require written consent. If you can prevent endless suffering by ending a life, i say go for it.

Oh we talked about the suicide pill, some time ago (before 2000, not sure when). It was quite interesting, and i think it might be a good idea, i'm even increasingly thinking people should have the option to say farewell to this imminent decline. And anything should be open for discussion, anything.
What i am more offended about is that he equates euthanasia with infanticide. Like we kill kids for the heck of it. We only kill kids who have no other prospect than a short life of intense suffering. I call that humane, and this douchebag wants to see them suffering just cause he 'respects' life. That's what really got to me.

Our Queen Bea is one of the main players in the Bilderberg Conferences. She's phenomenally wealthy, and has a lot of power, just not directly through her royal title. Willem is just her douche-son. Marrying dictator-daughters, having nazi-father and in-laws. At least we make our royalties shut up politically, which sadly means they have to exert their power behind the scenes. But then again all the in-bred royal families in Europe are evil. (I'm on a roll here, but I'm just scared shitless by you Americans losing every mentionable freedom, and I see the same shit happening here!)

So because he is good at what he does and is in discussion with Chomsky (not just interviewing him) he needs to be dressed down? I don't know about his personality but his field is very interesting, and that is basically all I care about, seeing as I don't have to share an appartment with him or something. Seems to me like choggie just wants to rant, and I just want to protect my post-subjects. Poor us