Overly irreverent. Manchurian Lunatic
?
Jon Stewart does the ((JS)) mockery again, only to misguidedly repeat, news and logo
gimmicks for over 18 mos. will hold 3 million viewers, as Glenn Beck reaches 30 million individuals
each month. Just listen to the audience’s reaction to “I cannot say these things and
remain on the air.” As fake liberals tend not to care about the point, Stewart goes for the
grotesque imitation or misrepresentation of a person for a false equivalence, as if Roger
Ailes’ bunk of NPR is the left’s equivalent of the Nazis is reason to go after
somebody else. Regardless of who is right, two wrongs don’t make a right. One has a
research team, and the lawyers to make sure fact is fact, and the other just gets paid for...this
entertainment. Being used by Huffington, buying into media owned by Soros, the only workable
reason Jon could have—to defuse violence—won’t work because the obstinate
don’t listen, or dare test information (i.e., understand something!).
Either way, “guilty before innocent” projection only adds to the confusion. Only the nuts react to hidden messages that aren’t really there. Should I go on?
Beck does not believe that Pres. Obama is a “totalitarian communist,” and, again, ‘conservative’ means ‘holding back’, so any parallel between Soros-funded media and conservative media is entirely shallow. To expose a hypocrisy that isn’t really there, it has to be manufactured; details are predictably overlooked. Stewart is lucky that he’s not as corrupt as Soros.
Sources of current-day problems require the full history lesson. There is a problem with neo-conservativism; it is really progressive conservativism (pushing leftward after promoting a cover of being cautious; a preemptive authority).
To be fair, the “it’ll blow your mind” Moment of Zen didn’t go far enough. I disagree with Beck on grounds that I see no such thing as good debt. Context isn’t merely “important”—it is everything. But of what I knew would have been used—and was—I rejected because I’m not as empty as some people. You can’t defend someone by attacking the informer; the writers continue to do exactly that.
Disclaimer:
Do not treat the content here as whole; take from the original sources instead.
(Maybe instead of suing me, you could point out the error[s]? I have not been sued.)