It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I used to like Jon Stewart. What happened was that I realized that despite presenting very important news stories, he trivializes every serious thing he brings up through comedy. If it were a serious program that didn't have the intent on making the audience laugh, then I would like the show very much. He himself has stated in no uncertain terms that his show is a comedy show.
GalvatronSo what does this do? It blunts the seriousness of the situation fairly effectively. Instead of getting people perturbed enough to actually act, they get a laugh out of it and the effect is reduced, even if in some cases only somewhat. The whole nature of that program is subversive. It disempowers people.
It goes something like this:
1. Present news stories fairly unbiasedly with a hint of comedy.
2. Get the audience's trust by having a notable lack of spin in the content. (The Daily Show is one of the most trusted news sources on television).
3. The audience is now used to having very serious news without spin as a source of comedic relief in their lives when in fact many of the stories should have people assembling and making good on their position as citizen.
I am firmly convinced that The Daily Show is a piece of controlled opposition of sorts. Jon Stewart Liebowitz is a pusher of apathy. I used to really enjoy that program. But it trivializes some of the most important news and issues with laughter. I think it's an incredible disservice to the audience.
In that video, notice how serious the news is that he presents then finishes by making the audience laugh. He also doesn't address the major driver of gun crime, and that is violent crime and the situations that cause violent crime.
I think the current state of mess is the mark of both parties. Based on your writings I would bet you are a democrat, or at least vote that way. Understand this now, voting for a democrat is the same as voting for a republican. Neither party has the interests of the people or the country at its heart. It is the party and their monetary backers.
I am NOT a republican and I am NOT a democrat. Both parties disgust me.
Wanna see real news? NHK. www3.nhk.or.jp...
You will not find one adjective, averb, or aggrandizement, embellishment, or anything else that presents the news other than what actually happened. Good or bad, its up to the reader to suss the truth out, rather than having your hand held and being told what to feel about a particular piece of news.
The moment you stop reading news that has strong undertones of opinion is the moment you'll start thinking critically as to what the situation is really about.
Winkler goes on to say, "Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."
The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.
Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
Fail argument is fail argument, and from videos posted above you could see why. Compare something made just to kill people with tools, cars, airplanes, bubble gum, condoms...
The fail here is your failure to adequately respond.
Is your goal to save lives?
If so, why do you even differentiate between inanimate objects with regard to intent? Is the person that is killed with a blunt object less dead than one killed with a firearm?
Your argument is just as silly as certain states that ban some knives because of how they look.
If guns were made completely illegal, and (somehow) not even criminals had access to them, there would be an increase of murders using other inanimate objects. I should think that you would want to control those inanimate objects also, if saving lives is what your actual intention is.
I await your inadequate response of 'fail'. Please note that I did not stoop to calling you a troll or make a remark regarding your intelligence.
BTW, firearms are tools. They are not usually designed to hammer nails, but they still a tool.
Good point, what made guns available in large quantities to criminals?? Surely is not well controlled and managed production and sale? DO you ever ask yourself how criminal gets to gun, made by the same manufacturer that sells you the same gun to protect yourself?! Who is only to profit in this situation?
It should be common sense by now.
That is why someone walking with bat or large knife in bar makes sense to you?!
Common sense is silly now... It is more that you are acting as some bully...
What is purpose of those tools and while you at it, what is purpose of other tools you mentioned?
Really, your comment was supposed to produce some response?
reply to post by 8675309jenny
I am not sure how long moderators will allow attacks like this. Sure, I might be an idiot just because I don't agree with you.
Firstly, to comment on guns in USA you have just to live here? Really?
I am sure that after this you will start crying out 2nd amendment and your rights... which brings me to something I was thinking about last night during ATS live. We (by we I mean you and I - folks from USA) are teaching other countries how inhuman are their laws based on 1500-2000 year old sacred texts. This include inequality of sexes, abuse and killing for minor offense etc. We are 'teaching' them that laws like that should be abolished based on common sense, yet here in our backyard we are unable to come to common sense that more guns do mean more accidents, shootings and rampage... Statistics shows that, from one I posted that compares number of guns and number of shootings, to the one that shows that kids are more likely to kill them self with handguns in houses that have guns. (nothing surprising there, is it?)
This is exactly kind of people I would love not to be able to have access to guns - bully who in absence of argument is calling me idiot, trying to discredit discussion and I am sure is easy to tick off, because he is all powerful with his guns... thank you!
You clearly aren't qualified to involve yourself in this debate.
Because much like today, the crown had passed laws that forced the citizenry to submit in the face of egregious overstepping by crown representatives be they soldiers, tax collectors, or even the aristocracy. If you dared to fight back and god forbid killed one of these people in the process of keeping yourself from being brutalized you would be punished not the evildoer.