Daily Show heads up

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Sherry Darling

New Yorker
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,857
Location
Virginia
Ya'll remember Rev. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners? He was on with Tim Russert, and folks here thought well of him, if I remember right. He's the "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat" guy. He's apparently on the Daily Show tonight with my future husband, Jon Stewart. :p Just a heads up.

Peace,
SD
 
Love the Daily Show or as I call, it the only source of sanity in this country.
For humor I like to watch FOX news.
They have the best writers.
 
The only source of sanity? It's a freaking comedy show. I guess you would have to live in a parallel universe to think of it that way.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The only source of sanity? It's a freaking comedy show. I guess you would have to live in a parallel universe to think of it that way.

Some people find sanity in comedy. Who are you to judge?
 
I was pleased to see him on Washington Journal this morning. God I love working form hom ewith the computer in sight of the TV. Watched all on Condi's hearing, shew 9 hrs. Course I cooked, did laundry, ate, helped with homework at the same time.

He has a new book, "The Right is Wrong and the Left doesnt' get it. I find him very reasonable and inspirational.

Thanks Sherry.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Some people find sanity in comedy. Who are you to judge?
I just think it's a little silly that some find the Daily Show an alternative to network news, whether it be CNN, Fox, whatever.
 
Love the Daily Show or as I call, it the only source of sanity in this country.
For humor I like to watch FOX news.
They have the best writers.
That's what I got out of it.
 
I love the daily show, but I did not make it past the first ten minutes. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz
 
Mrs S--I believe they repeat the previous episode at 11:30? Right? You could catch it then. :)

More Rev. Jim Wallis, for those of us who enjoy his message.

# Tonight, January 18, Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 11 p.m. EST
# January 19, XM Satellite Radio (XM Public Radio Channel 133, 8-8:30 a.m. EDT)
# January 19, NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross (check local listing)
# January 19, PBS's Charlie Rose Show (check local listing)
# January 20, NBC's Inauguration Coverage with Tim Russert (10:05-11:05 a.m. EDT)
# January 21, Air America's Al Franken Show (check local listing)
# January 21, MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 7 and 11 p.m. EST
 
Wallis was impressive (and towards the end, i wanted to start chanting "Wallis! Wallis!" Braveheart-style). finally, a breath of fresh air for American Christianity -- i wish him the best of luck.

and he's 100% right: how abortion and gay marriage trump the elimination of poverty as "moral values" demonstrates that the Christian Right is neither, nor is it led by actual students of Christ's message.

not that i'm an expert on Christ, but i do seem to remember lots of words about helping the poor and such, and not a single word uttered by Christ about homosexuality.
 
I agree with what you said about helping the poor, that is a key element of the Christian Faith.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I agree with what you said about helping the poor, that is a key element of the Christian Faith.


funny how that seems to get lost in the bang and the clatter.

we'd all benefit if politically organized Christians put this first and foremost on their agenda.

but, seriously, this has me thinking: what do organized political Christians (i.e., the Christian Right) gain by preventing Gay Marriage specifically, and by voicing their opposition to the "homosexual lifestyle" in general?

i can understand the anti-choice/pro-life movement: they believe the fetus is a person, and they view abortion as tantamount to murder. i may not agree, but i can see what the issue is, and what the goal is: reducing, and utlimately stopping, all abortions.

who benefits from the public denunciation of homosexuality? what benefits does this bring to society? is the goal the eradication of homosexuality? what is the end point -- through battling the "homosexual agenda" what does the Christian Right hope to accomplish? there surely must be more than simply voicing an opinion. to those on FYM who "object" to the "lifestyle": why are you voicing this opinion? what do you hope to gain? or to change in a person?

these are not rhetorical questions; i truly am seeking answers.
 
Last edited:
Irvine--they gain political access. I'd also encourage all to ask the revserse question: what does the Republican party gain by pushing this legislation which a. is not constitutional and b. won't pass anyway. Why would one do that?

SD
 
Sherry Darling said:
Irvine--they gain political access. I'd also encourage all to ask the revserse question: what does the Republican party gain by pushing this legislation which a. is not constitutional and b. won't pass anyway. Why would one do that?

SD


i'm still not clear -- how does the public denunciation of homosexuality gain political access?
 
Irvine511 said:
funny how that seems to get lost in the bang and the clatter.

we'd all benefit if politically organized Christians put this first and foremost on their agenda.

but, seriously, this has me thinking: what do organized political Christians (i.e., the Christian Right) gain by preventing Gay Marriage specifically, and by voicing their opposition to the "homosexual lifestyle" in general?

i can understand the anti-choice/pro-life movement: they believe the fetus is a person, and they view abortion as tantamount to murder. i may not agree, but i can see what the issue is, and what the goal is: reducing, and utlimately stopping, all abortions.

who benefits from the public denunciation of homosexuality? what benefits does this bring to society? is the goal the eradication of homosexuality? what is the end point -- through battling the "homosexual agenda" what does the Christian Right hope to accomplish? there surely must be more than simply voicing an opinion. to those on FYM who "object" to the "lifestyle": why are you voicing this opinion? what do you hope to gain? or to change in a person?

these are not rhetorical questions; i truly am seeking answers.
I am glad that you believe what you do about helping the poor, and you're absolutely right. We would all benefit if we put it first and foremost in the agenda. I am glad you have an understanding to how we feel about abortion. It's very difficult to explain how we feel about marriage to a secular audience, but if a movement on pologamy were to erupt, conservatives would also oppose that without question.

When we hear activists that speak this way, we do feel a need to defend what we believe in:

"This is war, so plan accordingly"
- Chuck Norris, homosexual activist.

A major problem I have with leftist activists is that they force not only "tolerance" into public schools and churches, but they start it when the kids are too young to know who they are. They feel (and sometimes the right tends to do this as well) that it's their responsibility to not only raise kids, but to inform them that their parents are wrong, stupid, and hateful. Acceptance of homosexuals is fine, but the GLSEN's (gay lesbian and straight education network) move to target kindergarteners into not only promoting something that is not age appropriate, but for praising and encouraging an 8 year old to write an essay on parents sating that people who believe what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior are stupid, and then getting a reward for it is what is being done in our public schools, I find that over the top.

There are teachers in our public schools who ridicule students who openly oppose gay marriage. There was a teacher in Vermont who openly questioned a student's sexuality in front of the entire class for this. The student denied the accusation, stating that he had a girlfriend, and one student suggested that it was a cover up for the accused studen't supposed closet homosexuality.

I don't think we change a person significantly (at least as far as their political leanings, but we may inspire them to understand the other side better) here on FYM, but we often inform them of opposing viewpoints. Personally, I don't believe that people are born homosexual, just as they are not born a fornicator. They may feel desire towards the same sex, but I feel it is a decision to go with those feelings, just as if I was angry at someone and chose to hit them. If there was proof to back this up, I would think differently about it. My aim is not to condemn the individual, but acknowledge when asked that I feel it is a sin. I have respect for many of your opinions, and appreciate your willingness to look into both sides of the arguments. I can honestly say that you are one of my favorite people to debate with here on FYM, because you often make challenging arguments without the intention of offending people.
 
Canada's national newspaper today, the Globe and Mail, has the huge headlines saying "Block Gay Marriage, Catholics tell Prime Minister Martin." Not, "Block Gay Activists from Corrupting Our Kindergarten Kids" etc. Another opportunity lost. As people like Wallis have said, how much better if the headline could read "Canada's Cardinal Challenges PM to Eradicate Child Poverty As the Government Had Promised 13 Years Ago"?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I just think it's a little silly that some find the Daily Show an alternative to network news, whether it be CNN, Fox, whatever.

Hmm ... maybe it's not such a bad idea:
In a recent survey, viewers of Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central tested better than Letterman and Leno viewers on a six-question politics quiz.

Viewers of all three shows know more about the background of presidential candidates and their positions on issues than people who don't watch late-night TV.

On top of that, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.
 
They are comparing Jon Stewart to Late Night comedians. I was comparing Jon Stewart to network news. O'Reilly won't make you a genius, he's hot-headed all too often. What about actual reported news as compared to a satirical news show?
 
Macfistowannabe said:
They are comparing Jon Stewart to Late Night comedians. I was comparing Jon Stewart to network news. O'Reilly won't make you a genius, he's hot-headed all too often. What about actual reported news as compared to a satirical news show?

Read the part I highlighted in bold text, if you please.
 
I find that a little hard to believe. I would assume a few Daily Show viewers do in fact read newspapers and watch network news. I would still question those who would watch the Daily Show as an alternative to doing either.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I find that a little hard to believe. I would assume a few Daily Show viewers do in fact read newspapers and watch network news. I would still question those who would watch the Daily Show as an alternative to doing either.

I'm just sayin' ... the evidence suggests that people get a healthy dose of news when they watch "The Daily Show".
 
Back
Top Bottom