'Why John Stewart is an Asshole and the Daily Show is a load of (partisan) Crap'

I promised and i'll deliver:

'Why John Stewart is an Asshole and the Daily Show is a load of (partisan) Crap'.

First of all, his is a comedy show rather than political analysis, and yet it masquerades as the latter (not a crime, but a little dishonest). Secondly, it has been said of the show that many young people get their political views here. Heaven help us if that's true. I do know how weak minded Man can be at times (Never underestimate the stupidity of Humans, especially in large groups!). I don't mind left or right political shows. But what I DO mind, is if they make their points through disinformation, lies, half truths or other forms of misdirection rather than on the strength of their arguments. Such as not presenting their P.O.V in a fair and neutral manner, I.E., in a biased fashion. That bothers me, and smacks of weakness on their part in arguing their postion. An example of a GOOD Politician, left or right, is Joe Lieberman. He's a man I RESPECT. I may not agree with him all the time, but he is one of the few Democrats I like. He is a man of Honor who means what he says. And he doesn't change his opinions to suit the prevailing winds, either. He has Integrity.

Case in point: On one of JS's shows he featured an Idiot. I call him an idiot not because of his position, but because the man didn't know when to pick his fights and when to give it up. And in this lack of discretion, he became a tool of scorn to be used by John Stewart to promulgate his anti-gun bias. He was a 2nd Amendment pro-gun Libertarian who was trying to give out toy guns in NYC schools. (!) The point he was trying to make (Valid) was that guns aren't bad, it's how they're used that's good or bad. And he wanted to remind New Yorkers of their inherent second amendment birthright that has been stolen from them by the greedy power grabbing "Public Servants" through the invasive 1911 sullivan law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Law
In addition to regulating ccw permits in NYC, it also gives the city discretion to decide whether or not the average person may even own a firearm in their house, let alone business, be it long gun (rifle), pistol, or shotgun! And TRUST ME, this so called "privilege" is HARDLY EVER granted in NYC. In other words, the second amendment effectively doesn't exist there. Not unless you're rich and connected. It is a 'privilege' that you have to beg for from the city masters rather than a right of every citizen. "A nation of riflemen", indeed...! Not in NYC, not anymore. That's why I'll NEVER live in new york city. "A nice place to visit," but I wouldn't want to live there...

So back to our Muttons: This Noble (but misguided) individual was trying to tell people of their lost freedoms in the city, by informing them of their historical right to bear arms, and by handing out toy guns at a school to try and repair the damage done by such anti-gun groups as the Brady Campaign and others. But he really didn't pick his targets wisely. When I talk to someone, I listen VERY carefully to the feedback that I get from that person. EVERYONE is treated this way, friend and foe alike. It's called a "survival tactic" so I don't get in an argument that might come to blows or violence. Clearly, this man did not pick his audience well. First of all, he's talking in NEW YORK CITY (very anti-gun, and it's been bred into these people that they don't have the right anymore, nor "want" this right by the anti-gun media, the schools and the city govt. And you saw it! In the words of the woman who yelled "We don't WANT guns in our neighborhood!" at the man. In essence, they had been turned into slaves, both in their minds and by Imperial Fiat), IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL (where the "POLICY" is "guns are BAD! unless they're held by POLICE or OTHER MEMBERS OF AUTHORITY, then they become MAGICALLY GOOD! MMMMN'KAY?") and third, he's talking to inner city parents (Let's tell the truth and shame the devil here shall we? They're black, one of the groups in my opinion, that you would think would want to exercise the right of the second amendment the most to defend themselves, along with gays and others. but sadly no. They have been all for having their rights taken away in the name of security. Foolish, foolish Humans... They tried to do it in San Francisco recently and it went through, 'till recently it was overturned. Thank you Pink Pistols! AND the NRA!)

And so I watch this travesty that John Stewart and the studio audience laughs at (while he most likely has security guards protecting his person, possibly armed) as this poor schlep tries to tell inner city children and their disenfranchised parents about their stolen rights. And they YELL AT HIM, and are RUDE TO HIM, and VERBALLY ABUSE HIM, SCREAMING AT HIM while he POLITELY tries to make his point and hand out the toy guns. This was ALL caught on camera. I saw it. It sickens me to tell it to you now. A similar image comes to my mind from the book "Schindlers list". The Image of the Polish child Verbally Berating the Jews as they leave the Warsaw Ghetto to go to the death camps. And he's SCREAMING in the face of the departing Jews with such hatred and vitriol: "The JEWS are leaving! Hooray the JEWS are leaving! GoodBYE JEW! GoodBYE JEW! GoodBYE JEW..."

The same HATE and disrespect for the Jews by that Polish boy was displayed by that angry mob against the man who was trying to free their minds and make them FREE MEN again rather than the SLAVES that they were. And they didn't want it. They didn't want Freedom. They didn't want their rights back. They were happy being slaves and subjects, historically looking to the protection of their so-called "public servants" rather than taking personal responsibility for the Defense of themselves, their loved ones and family. Even though a 1978 Supreme Court ruling stated that the police have no responsibility to protect you individually...

They Sicken me.

Another thing I want to mention before I close this post for today: I can't confirm it, having looked on the internet for the proof that I saw it and not being able to find it, but I could SWEAR that I saw a thing on "castle doctrine"* on The Daily Show as well.(*"Castle Doctrine" simply states that you are not required anymore to flee from an attacker first before you defend yourself) And they presented it like this: What they were saying (literally, from their point of view, although they didn't present it as such) was that the "castle doctrine" now allowed you to KILL PEOPLE! That's how they were framing it! YOU FUCKING IDIOTS. YOU SHITHOLE LIARS! (If anyone could confirm or deny this, I would appreciate it. I may have seen this on some other news report, I'm not absolutely sure). That is not what castle doctrine is about! It just means that the law recognizes that you now have more of a right to defend yourself and stand your ground when someone tries to physically assault you. That you no longer are required to run for your life while someone could tackle you from behind, stab you or shoot you in the back before you turn around. But then again, I must be CRAZY for expecting fairness and honesty from The Daily Show. Silly Me...