Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Rape Amendment

It's good to admit it so that he's stuff can be used correctly.

So he's a news source?

Yes, he's a news source, reporting the lack of integrity of modern day 24/7 'so called' news. He excellently exposes the short comings of the programs, which are promoting themselves as 'fair and balanced', when in fact they are neither.

Do you admit that Acorn is bad? Hypocrisy can cut both ways on this one.

As for Jon if he's not a news source then he's invalid.

Is he a news source?

No we don't have to admit ACORN is bad. If a few bad apples ruins the whole company, Halliburton and Blackwater should be gone! Are they? No!

All the 'admit ACORN is bad' is bull shit! Spinning ACORN in the conversation with voting against rape amendment, is just crazy talk, trying to distract from the conversation at hand.

Few maybe, but there isn't just a few.

And you know this how? What you have been told by MSM?

When you find a FEW bad apples then there are more. When you find one bad apple or a couple then maybe that was all.

But a few? If you're going to use the phrase bad apples then you'll have to remember the rest of the saying "ruins the WHOLE barrel" otherwise don't use the saying.

Well J_Jammer, then you think almost all, if not all, corporation in America should be gone. From what I have seen corruption in corporations who deal with government contracts is more the norm, than the exception.

How many military contractors have been 'found guilty' of corruption? They are still operating with no consequences. Why pick and choose who gets punished. ACORN has not been 'found guilty' of anything. Someone set out to smear the organization and were successful in doing so. That's not justice, that's group rule mentality.

If anything we should start with corporations who have been 'found guilty' of violations. Cut off their cash cow. Stop giving them our tax dollars. Until that is done, throwing stones at ACORN is just that, throwing stones.

If anything....

corruption is corruption and badness is badness. Starting with who you like least and justifying it doesn't make it right.

With Acorn this is only the beginning.

Is he a news source?

I think Jon Stewart is a 'news un-spinner'. He illustrates to his viewers, how the news has been spun, complete with pictures. And yes, when MSM doesn't cover something and it takes a comedian to expose it, I think he is a news source.

When all of MSM are using the same 'talking points' and he points it out, he is the 'only' real news source. We can no longer count on MSM for 'real' news. They pick and choose, which spin they will use, which will cause the least harm to their sponsors, or the powers that be. That's not news either. That's what's called 'propaganda'. Propaganda is not news. It's spun 'bull shit' being passed off as news. That's not funny, that's sad.

As long as people state that he is a news source, then he's segments are valid no matter if they are funny or not.

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about validity. His comments are definitely valid. Many are profound summations of things gone wrong in America. I don't watch Jon Stewart for his humor, yuck, yuck. I watch him for his political commentary. No body exposes spin like Jon Stewart. Politicians and MSM are making Americans dizzy and he shows us the spin they are using to do it.

By spinning you in a different direction.

Any commentator is trying to get you to see the world as he sees it. Not to just see it differently or from a different perspective for a moment.

He is no Thomas Paine.

How do you explain Democrats hiding high taxes in the Health care bill?

Speaking of morally bankrupt.

I usually do not respond to you JJammer, but I will only say that I am happy to be on the side that endorses civic duty rather than the side that endorses the cover up of rape. Reply if you wish, but I will not respond.

Too late you already did and as it was pointed out before this isn't an endorsement of rape.

Jon Stewart, no matter how funny he is, isn't news and neither is anything he speaks about. He's just a man looking for you to laugh, not think.

I think I need to save this photo for future use.

Calling people one is more like being one.

And that counts as a reply. That makes two.

J_Jammer's grasp of logic is simply astounding. time and again.

Over use of sarcasm is rather unique.

So the Republicans are really defending how Haliburton handeled this and your defending them. locking her in a storage container and losing the evidence is really great

i don't see what's so bad about this. it's an issue of workers' rights. they aren't legislating on the right of the company to impose such arbitration clauses, they're just saying if you as a company decide to do so you won't be able to receive federal funds/contracts. which, granted, is a pretty big incentive against such clauses. but really the question comes down to, do you believe in workers' rights? if you do then this shouldn't seem so offensive to you. If you don't then you'd better be a CEO, or else you just seem ignorant. and if you're a small business owner, it's very doubtful you're getting government contracts anyway.

"In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.”"

and you say: "the corporation did not rape this poor woman and yes those involved should be prosecuted."

it would seem from the above statement that the corporation was at least knowledgeable and complicit about what happened.

i guess you're kind of right when you say this vote isn't about rape. but actually you're not, because workplace sexual harassment (and specifically the failure of the company to address it, or in this case it's role in actively covering it up) is exactly the type of employer negligence that this amendment aims to prevent.

so my question, again, is what do you find so offensive about workers' rights?

How about you try telling any and all that apply (wife, daughter, mother, grandmother, niece, aunt, sister, female cousin, teacher, co-worker, neighbor, etc) that it is ok to have zero employee or human rights if they are mistreated, abused, harassed, raped, etc. Despite the clause, the company was complicit and inhumane. I don't want my tax dollars to help make them rich. But, it sounds like you do.

The Amendment in question would only pertain to claims arising from Title VII of the civil rights act and Sexual assault and/or Harrasment and False Imprisonment. I am not so sure why people would be AGAINST this issue. Hey, if you want to sign that contract to go work at Microsoft..fine..but when you are taking MY money (as a tax payer) I have every right to dictate the terms under which you have to operate. Don't like it....go get a Contract from somewhere else.

agreed!

you had to say something slick u faggot, its about these senators worrying more about corporations making money then people having rights

plusaf, good answer. Thanks!

Then he can't be used as anything important.

YOU will never be used for anything important, because your hater.
how would you feel if you were gang raped and striped of your rights to do anything about it.

J_Jammer, that's the point, he's not being 'used' by anyone. He's trying to show us how we are being used!

Yeah poor play on words. Don't try that again.

You cannot state that he's not a news source or not someone that informs you on the situation then come to current and post it as if you found gold, because unless he's a creditable news source then what he has to offer is less than, is it not? Commentators are not important. If that is the case then you best state it and understand that when you state you're including all commentators including the ones at Fox.

This isn't a pick and choose situation. He can't be right and they be wrong.

Do you know why? Because the only reason he would be right and they would be wrong is because you agree with him....and that, dear person who is trying to weave and dodge your way out of admitting this, is not god enough.

He uses actual video to make his point! Not just spin, which can not be verified.

And editing.

All opinion is spin. You're spinning right now to make it look like Jon has zero faults.

Zero faults? Who said he had zero faults? Do you know anyone who has zero faults? That's just crazy. No one has to be free of fault to have an impact. What Jon Stewart does is an art form, which should be copied by others. Expose the crap being passed off as politics and news. Politics and news have both become something less than what they should be. Why? Corporations are controlling the spin of both. Profit before people.

JJammer: are you saying those Republicans did NOT vote no on that Amd?

What faults does he have if he has any? no one has ever mentioned he had faults.

Stating that it's obvious isn't an answer.

----------

I'm stating that no one is for rape. That's like saying someone is for abortion.

Nice try with that trick question.

All of them also white males. All of them douche bags.