Then he needs to investigate how Cheney and Bush siphoned off resources from the real war on terror, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and well, since Bush let Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora, it's pretty much a war without borders, and sending more troops may well help those kids who are dying in record numbers, but it's not going to solve the problem of why kids fall prey to fun weilding madrassas.

We need to be the good guys again.
Our soldiers are shouldering the burden of being soldier, police officer, teacher, farmer, and mentor to Afghan farmers. Let's hope we can be the ones, to show them a crop to grow, other than heroin.

Soldier Seed Drive. Partner with women's groups, and Bhutto types, not Taliban violent mysogynists. The fight, for human rights, will win this time. Not violent extremism, not massive Cheney Hawk Cheney War Profiteering.

Be smart, America. Be smart, Mr. President. Send those kids out there, with a mission to defeat Al Quada by being an alternative, to Al Quada, and represent opportunity. Not just another way to make a buck, while keeping the status quo.

Thanks Jon, you really did me a favor.

The problem with that is I can do that to. "Why was Palin's daughter absent from school when Palin was allegedly pregnant? I think it was because she was the real mother of the baby. I challenge Palin to correct me! Why did George Bush Senior say he doesn't remember where he was the day Kennedy was shot? I think it was because he recruited the CIA shooters! I challenge Poppy Bush to correct me!"

See what's wrong with that? The "answers" are not supported by fact but mere conjecture. Given Sarah Palin and Bush probably will never see this post much less respond, I can claim that because no one DISproved me, that must mean that I'm right! In genuine logic, you're supposed to prove your point, not throw out an unproven premise and have it be accepted as true until someone disproves it. If someone does respond, I can allege that I must be on to something for them to bother to respond to me. I can say I have them scared and feed an image of importance. There's very little antidote to that type of demagoguery – except ridicule, which is what Mr. Stewart has applied.

"The White House has only answered him to date by firing the people he (Glenn) exposed. His critics only answer him by making fun of him. "
The White House doesn't own Glenn Beck explanations. The ridicule shows the silliness of the non-fact-based rhetoric.

I gave an example in another online forum of Glenn telling a story about some radio towers which had been "blown up" in a terrorist attack and how this was an assault on freedom of speech that "the liberals" were ignoring. The reality – i.e. all the news reports – actually said that the towers had been knocked down with an excavator, not blown up, and it was an act of vandalism over a years-long dispute about the towers being a public eyesore – it had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the radio broadcast.

Now, is it other people's job to fact-check Glenn Beck? He's gone and twisted every single fact of the story to fit his narrative. No, when this happens again and again, you employ ridicule to show that he is a nontrustworthy news source and should be ignored. Would you fact-check the Weekly World News week after week after week? Does every Bat Boy story need a debunking?

"It's pure rhetoric. What has he said that is in any way so 'dangerous'? "
See, you're doing it too – glossing over any fact that doesn't fit your narrative. You ask a question rather than say "Glenn Beck isn't dangerous because…." You don't have facts to back your supposition, and hope readers don't either or are too lazy to check.

How about one GIANT example – he put a man on the air who said the only way for this country to be saved was for Osama bin Laden to attack it again, and Beck not only didn't rebuke him, but appeared to agree with him. Ummm… I think encouraging a terrorist to attack us is dangerous, and trying to condition the public at large to think so to (so they'd be less likely to report suspicious behavior or stop it) is extraordinarily dangerous.

"Who wants groups like Acorn to commit vote fraud?"

That's one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. ACORN hasn't committed vote fraud.

" Where are the other news networks on these stories?"
It hasn't hit you yet has it – nowhere, because THEY"RE NOT NEWS STORIES. That's why CNN doesn't run "Bat Boy escapes!" headlines. They're NOT REAL.

" Who wants SEIU thugs to be free to beat up people who oppose them?"

Health care workers are not beating up people.

"What part of these stories shouldn't be told?"

That parts that aren't true, which would be all of them. You know, like how Hannity and Beck ran a tape that accused an ACORN member of having murdered her husband… the problem being HER HUSBAND ISN'T DEAD!!! See, these guys don't check facts because they're not relevant. Beck's listeners don't check them for the same reason. It's not an acceptable news model for one party to constantly lie and everyone else has to try to catch all their lies and expose them. It can be impossible at times to prove a negative. Take my Bush/JFK example above. If Bush himself doesn't know where he was, you can't know where he was, and the only way to PROVE he didn't kill Kennedy would be to put him somewhere else, then you can't DISPROVE the assertion, so I must be right! Is that the logic we should use in the arena of public discourse?

" If you deny these stories then validate your denial with evidence, not by ridiculing the messenger."

You still don't understand how science and logic work. When you make an accusation, you have to prove it, I don't have to disprove it. Otherwise blowhards can make #$#% up all day and about 10% of it will get through. It's up to you to present all of your facts and then draw a valid conclusion. Then I can examine and question those facts, whether the conclusion drawn is valid, or whether there are additional facts that refute the conclusion.

I nothing you and your comment.

Beth

I really don't know what that means, but the idea that we as a species fail miserably is a most depression outlook on life. It the only joy you get in life is at the expense of others you are making my point.

misery loves company. libs are generally appear miserable and hate anyone who isn't equally miserable.

by mark November 18th at 4:27PM

Hey mark–again–

I still nothing you

Maybe this will cheer you up:

A little song, a little dance,
A little seltzer down your pants.

A miserable lib,

Beth 8>(

I nothing you and your comment.

Beth

I really don't know what that means, but the idea that we as a species fail miserably is a most depression outlook on life. It the only joy you get in life is at the expense of others you are making my point.

misery loves company. libs are generally appear miserable and hate anyone who isn't equally miserable.

Jon, if there is a god you are one of his/her favorites because, if for no other reason, you give him/her a reason to laugh and smile between the tears. I fear we as a species mostly fail miserably.

"…can almost guarantee this comment will be ridiculed and none of the points substantively addressed.

by mark November 18th at 10:53AM"

Hey mark,

I nothing you and your comment.

Beth

Pure rhetoric? Of course, Stewart is a comedian and his job is making fun of people. Appeal to ridicule is the best tool in his toolbox.

What amazes me is how many people are willing to take that rhetoric and discredit the message of Beck based on someone making fun of how he says stuff.

I doubt more than a couple posters here have ever really watched Glenn Beck. All he does is ask questions, explain what he thinks the answer is, and challenge his audience (and the White House) to correct him.

The White House has only answered him to date by firing the people he (Glenn) exposed. His critics only answer him by making fun of him.

It's pure rhetoric. What has he said that is in any way so "dangerous"? Who wants groups like Acorn to commit vote fraud? Where are the other news networks on these stories? Who wants SEIU thugs to be free to beat up people who oppose them? What part of these stories shouldn't be told? If you deny these stories then validate your denial with evidence, not by ridiculing the messenger.

Make fun of him all you like, it's easy, it's funny, and makes good entertainment. But taking that entertainment as news is even worse than saying what Beck says is wrong only because he is an entertainer. At least with Beck you are given the context of what he is talking about. Have you seen that with any of the critics? I don't think so.

I'd be laughing right along if the comments were funny and not so full of ridicule and hate; the kind of hate that is the trademark of libs.

I can almost guarantee this comment will be ridiculed and none of the points substantively addressed.

thank you for bringing us news we can actually laugh with!
maybe when they take out his ammendix they can repair the lobotamy that went bad too!
peace
momma c