1. Comment #48307 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 11:35 am

Funny & sad at the same time.

And still about 50% of the voting electorate will vote for one of these clowns. All they have to do is preface every sentence with the magic two words "I believe..."

"I believe..." reverses human history almost 2,500 years to the time before Socrates - you no longer have to justify any position.

So what IS the difference between the candidates? Bush only has a 30% approval rating, and they still can't distance themselves or critisise the Iraq war. That's just counter-intuitive.

Some of them didn't even make sense.

Good joke about 20/20 hindblindness, or 20/20 blindsight.

Hitchens, Chomsky, Harris and Nader should been asking the questions. That would wake them up.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #48311 by ksskidude on June 7, 2007 at 11:43 am

I'm embarrassed for Americans, me being one of them. It really saddens my heart that 10 men in the year 2007 believe that Gays should not serve in the military.

That 3 of them don't believe in evolution, and all of them are -so-called christians. It makes me embarrassed to be from America when watching thses dweebs represent out country.

I apologize to everyone who is not American for our idiotic leaders.

Other Comments by ksskidude

3. Comment #48313 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 11:49 am

>I apologize to everyone who is not American for our idiotic leaders.

Many non-Americans can't understand why these leaders keep getting elected. Reagan and Dubya got four terms between them and they were both obviously retarded. So to what extent is it the leaders' fault? The system? The media? The people? Groupthink? Everything?

To be fair, it's not just the USA. What's the difference with Republicans and Tony Blair or John Howard or any of the Democrats? It might be more obvious that "somebody's home" upstairs, but the policies are the same.

Another way of looking at it is.... with the Republicans at least, what you see is what you get, while what passes for the "left" are more dishonest. At least the Republicans don't pretend to stand for progressive issues.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #48318 by alovrin on June 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I apologize to everyone who is not American for our idiotic leaders.

No apology necessary my friend, there are other countries leaders and would be leaders as woefully ignorant.
This impasse it seems was always going to arise. When morality stagnants, when education and healthcare has a price tag put on it, when profits rise and wages remain static, when sound criticism either falls on deaf ears or incites rage, when ego protection becomes more important than introspection and when our leaders worry about opinion polls rather than where we are headed Sheez I could go on, but you get my point I hope.

And of course religion and its minions are culprits in this as well.
Once standards start to fall its like a house of cards.
Sorry for gettting on my soapbox.

Other Comments by alovrin

5. Comment #48332 by konquererz on June 7, 2007 at 1:22 pm

The problem is that rational atheists in america are so freakin tame and "polite" about everything when we need to be out voting our asses off! Instead of complaining about it, we need to get out and vote. In order to make a difference and force people like Bush out of the public realm, we have to CONSISTENTLY get out and vote in numbers equal to the evangelicals. That means a higher percentage of us have to vote than them because there are more of them!

but i do love jon stewart, dead on and hilarious as usual!

Other Comments by konquererz

6. Comment #48360 by MIND_REBEL on June 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm

All morons. I'd vote if we could actually get a rational canidate to run. Otherwise, whats the point.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

7. Comment #48370 by _J_ on June 7, 2007 at 3:37 pm

MIND_REBEL,

Spoil your paper, at least. That way, they know you're disgusted rather than apathetic.

Other Comments by _J_

8. Comment #48389 by MIND_REBEL on June 7, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I'm going to vote. It's important. I do think religion is a delusion, but it's still possible to be a good leader and religious. I'd rather vote for a fellow freethinker, but understand things are getting better slowly over time. Baby steps.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

9. Comment #48402 by k1mgy on June 7, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I had avoided watching or listening to the "debate" for the very thinks that Stewart so skillfully brought out. I avoided watching or listening because I knew that doing so would bring on sadness, depression, or rage.

Now I feel all three.

Sorry. I realize this is not a forum where emotional outbursts ought to have a home, but I do hope my comment as to the "debate" will stand:

WHAT A BUNCH OF RETARDS.

Other Comments by k1mgy

10. Comment #48417 by THorsman on June 7, 2007 at 8:59 pm

As a Republican, I must admit that it is rather sad that this is all we have to chose from. I am, however, a fan of Mitt Romney, it's just tough to get past his devout Mormanism.

Other Comments by THorsman

11. Comment #48443 by jaydon64 on June 8, 2007 at 1:39 am

I think compulsory voting could be an effective tool against radical religious groups in America. As an Australian i am lucky to live in a country where the entire population is forced to vote or fined. As a result radical groups that make up a minority of the population have next to no influence or power in politics, thats why they call Austalia the lucky country :)

Other Comments by jaydon64

12. Comment #48478 by MIND_REBEL on June 8, 2007 at 6:03 am

Ron Paul?

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

13. Comment #48481 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 6:10 am

I'm an Australian, so it doesn't count for much - but I will only be satisfied with Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or maybe Mike Gravel in the White House come 2008. Nothing else is acceptable. All else are dinosaurs and schmucks. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

14. Comment #48483 by anotherclinton on June 8, 2007 at 6:18 am

Mitt Romney? Seriously? You like Barack Obama and you prefer Mitt Romney to Rudy Giuliani? I need some reasoning here.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

15. Comment #48485 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 6:29 am

I admit, if I had to order my preference it'd be Obama, Paul, Gravel, and Romney last. However:
Romney's reputation as a 'flip-flopper' (changing your mind is a bad thing, apparently) is encouraging.
Furthermore, I think a Romney administration has a better chance of reforming American foreign policy than a Giuliani one. Mormon views about the end of the world don't seem to be tied to specific prophetic events relating to Israel and violence. The foreign policy of a Mormon president then, is one that is not particularly concerned with the imaginary theological implications of conflict in the Middle East, and more than likely concerned with the suffering it causes. That's not what's putting him ahead of Giuliani, who is quite a secular Christian - it's what pushes him above the rest of the Republicans (not including Ron Paul).
As conflicting as the situation is, I understand there are good reasons to suspect that leaving Iraq is not going to make the world a better place, and Romney's stance on Iraq is one of regional stability. Then again, I support Paul, Obama and Gravel's wish to withdraw, because America's economic stance is at risk if it does stay.
..it is complicated. :|

On the other hand, Giuliani is an aggressive, fear-mongering, pig-ignorant weasel and I hate his stupid face. :P
His progressive domestic stance is as nothing compared to his dangerously vengeful, foolhardy and intimidating foreign stance. It will bleed America dry, and plunge it into poverty. Then I'll have to either learn Chinese or submit to the global Islamic Caliphate. (I actually wouldn't mind the former, but seriously..)

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

16. Comment #48512 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 8:11 am

Interesting how all the Christian Republicans conveniently ignore all the passages about helping the poor in the New Testament.

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #48516 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 8:20 am

What is the Bewler reference he makes about. Not living in the USA that passed me by. Can any americans not hiding from shame enlighten us.

Other Comments by the great teapot

18. Comment #48520 by Murray Keedis on June 8, 2007 at 8:40 am

Jon Stewart has a wonderful way of making us feel everything is going to be alright, because at least we can laugh at rampant and unyielding stupidity.

In Canada, one's political career was in ashes if one invoked religion. When Stockwell Day, leader of the uber-right-wing Alliance Party (now the Conservatives and Canada's "new" government) said that he believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old, he was destroyed in the media. He's now a cabinet minister in Canada's minority Tory government.

The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has taken to ending his speeches with "god bless Canada". He's surrounded himself with evangelicals, holds court with religious fanatics and is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion rights and stem cell research - hard-fought victories that distinguish us from our brothers and sisters to the south (sorry Americans, no offence intended).

For some interesting reading on the infiltration of the religious right in Canada's government, check out this article in the Walrus:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/

Other Comments by Murray Keedis

19. Comment #48525 by heathen2 on June 8, 2007 at 9:14 am

Teapot,
Regarding your question, the Bueller reference is from a movie called Ferris Bueller's Day Off (from the 1980's I think). Ferris cuts class all day in the movie. I think this line is a part when the teacher is trying to get a response from the classs, and no one is responding.

Same as the response to the question in the dabate. Silence. Funny in the movie, pathetic in real life.

Other Comments by heathen2

20. Comment #48527 by nrvous on June 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

#17

Teapot -- Like my username, it's a reference to the great '80s teen comedy flick Ferris Bueller's Day Off. (Specifically, to a scene in which a dull-voiced teacher, played by Ben Stein, is taking attendence and each time he comes to the name of a student who is absent, he just keeps repeating the name with the same droning, faintly quizzical intonation, rather than marking them absent and passing on to the next name on the list.)

So it's a pop-culture-y way of drawing attention to the total silence that greeted the question. And it's, "Bueller? Bueller?" (as opposed to Bewler)

Other Comments by nrvous

21. Comment #48534 by Tumara Baap on June 8, 2007 at 9:37 am

"And still about 50% of the voting electorate will vote for one of these clowns."

These clowns are a source of unbearable embarrassment to us, and no doubt fuels anti-american rant and mockery. The reality is we are in the midst of a bitter culture war. Other rich countries also have their morons but they no way share our plight. Seth Shulman's excellent critique of Republicans, "Undermining Science", highlights the extent to which stupidity has been institutionalized. It is one thing to have a president with faulty grammar. It is another to sabotage scientific findings and purge the judiciary, FDA, EPA, and just about every other agency and institution of people who can think clearly with foaming-at-the-mouth ideologues and religious fundamentalists. I'll go as far as to say these clowns are an anomaly in Western civilization. If someone were to poll the Republican base on general questions about non-abstinence measures for STD management, gay rights, evolution, belief in angels, God's role at the helm of law and nation, or whether cruelty should be allowed as a means to a just end, they would tally well with a sample of Taliban sympathizers. The Republicans may treat women better and may not wear turbans, but they are, deep down, the same animal. Whereas the taliban only blow up old Buddha statues, the Republicans are doing a stupendous job of blowing to bits the enlightenment. (er...what? missed it on Fox News? see Michael Specter's report in The New Yorker, March 13 2006 issue, or Chris Mooney's contribution to Harper's June 2007 issue).
A dichotomy of the warring parties is demonstrated by an interesting statistic. Amongst Harvard's faculty, for every dollar in donation that went to Bush, fifty went to Kerry. There is a serious cultural war underway; an exquisite one between America's intelligentsia that has shaped the most advanced civilization in history on the one hand, and the thrumming of the stupid on the other. It's the price of democracy that the latter have been in the ascendancy.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

22. Comment #48544 by Ragnar0kk on June 8, 2007 at 10:28 am

When will you all realize that Giuliani, Romney, etc are all fascists! Ron Paul is the only republican candidate with half a brain and the media treats him like he has leprosy (because he doesn't advocate pre-emptive nuclear war). If another republican like Giuliani get's in office you can kiss the rest of your freedoms good buy!

Other Comments by Ragnar0kk

23. Comment #48547 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 10:36 am

If humans were rational, these clowns would be in an asylum for sociopathy. Instead they're running for office with a 50% chance of getting elected to the most powerful position in the world.

We get the politicians we deserve. All an American politician has to do is keep chanting "God Bless America" and "I believe we're fighting for the freedom that is America's God-given Right" or variations on that theme, and the zombie voters will do the rest.

Democracy - tyranny by the majority.

Other Comments by Rtambree

24. Comment #48640 by Salvatore on June 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Well, if it makes you feel any better, current betting odds against Giuliani and Romney are something like 10:1. The other Republicans much higher against.

… Except for a recently-announced Fred Thompson, a film and television actor and U.S. senator whom voters find impressive because he drives around in an old red pickup truck. He's ranking just below Clinton and Obama.

Res ipsa loquitor.

Other Comments by Salvatore

25. Comment #48732 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Ragnar0kk said:

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate with half a brain and the media treats him like he has leprosy (because he doesn't advocate pre-emptive nuclear war).

I really like Ron Paul (even though he's a pro-life obstetrician). But the problem isn't just with his treatment in the media, which isn't entirely negative by any means other than confirmation bias (I also don't agree that it's because of his nuclear stance - he's been having trouble before making that stance clear). The problem is that he is also seen as bizarrely non-mainstream in the GOP. Chances are that his own party would not endorse his candidacy should he pull closer to the lead nearing the primaries.

Which is a real shame. I think Gravel would face the same problem, even if all the college students in the country supported him. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

26. Comment #49289 by Shigawire on June 11, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Ghouliani is an obvious fascist fearmongerer, and should be tried for obstruction of justice for clearing the crimescene of the World Trade Center, and FEMA barring BPAT (Building Performance Assessment Team) access to the building's materials.
Also dumping the human remains on a garbage dump was a despicable offense. 70% of NYC firefighters hate Giuliani's guts. Anyone who believe him only believe in him due to the media cult around his faux-pas "911-hero" image.

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton would be horrible presidents for their tacit support for the continuance of the Neo-Con agenda. They consider Iran a threat. Always looking for the next monster to club into submission. If no monster can be found, create one!

Chances are that his own party would not endorse his candidacy should he pull closer to the lead nearing the primaries.

California Republicans Endorse Paul
Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jesse Benton
May 22, 2007 202-246-6363

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."

In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital" and recognized that:

Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:

* raising taxes;
* unbalanced budgets;
* a federal restriction on gun ownership;
* raising congressional pay; or
* increasing the power of the executive branch.



His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:

* the USA Patriot Act;
* regulating the Internet; and
* the war in Iraq.



Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC's conservative platform.

"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

Other Comments by Shigawire

27. Comment #49321 by aoratos philos on June 11, 2007 at 1:33 pm

What a bunch of disingenuous, power hungry, untrustworthy, immoral Statist assholes.

Jon Stewart is spot on as ever.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

28. Comment #49327 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Shigawire:

California Republicans Endorse Paul
Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul

That's fantastic, and I hope the sentiment spreads among the public. But this just seems to be an advocacy club. I mainly meant Republican representatives. Ron Paul claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson recently that he had been "asked to leave" by member(s) of the Republican Congress in the past. I'm just worried he won't fit in with the neocon sentiment, even if he captures the hearts and minds of Americans. :|

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

29. Comment #49367 by Shigawire on June 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Yes it's looking pretty good actually. Instead of thinking in terms of Ron Paul leaving because he's the "odd one out", why don't the Neo-Cons leave? After all, there is nothing Neo (greek for New) about machiavellian manipulation, nor anything "Conservative" about the Federalist Society's "Unitary Executive" - which Schmitt called "Der Führerprinzip" once upon a time.

In fact the Neo-Cons are more closely related to fascism/nazism via the father of the Neo-Con movement Leo Strauss.

Jeffrey Steinberg

A review of Leo Strauss' career reveals why the label "Straussian" carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany (he actually left for a better position abroad, on the warm recommendation of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt), Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. Recent biographies have revealed the depth of Heidegger's enthusiasm for Hitler and Nazism, while he served as the Chancellor of Freiburg University, throughout the epoch of National Socialism, and was the leader of a Nietzschean revival. Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi philosopher of law, was personally responsible, in 1934, for arranging a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for Strauss, which enabled him to leave Germany, to study in England and France, before coming to the United States to teach at the New School for Social Research, and then, the University of Chicago. Strauss, in his long academic career, never abandoned his fealty to Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Schmitt.

Other Comments by Shigawire

30. Comment #49920 by Mr. Grape on June 14, 2007 at 5:22 am

Why any atheist would vote republican is beyond my comprehension. The rep. party has proven time and time again that they are very much against scientific advancement and secular values. There seems to be a disgusting amount of support for mitt romney here too. Did everybody forget his speech about the 'evil cesspool of filth" at pat robertsons "university"?

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

31. Comment #50216 by Shigawire on June 15, 2007 at 6:48 pm

As an Atheist, I agree that the generic Republican structure has these kinds of people. I think there are far more important factors to take into consideration than religion, when you elect the next president.

Voting for ANY OTHER of the Republicans would be totally unacceptable to me. Mor(m)on Mitt Romney, political chameleon John McCaine, Rudy Ghouliani, etc etc.. All of them except Ron Paul. I don't discount them because they are religiously retarded, I discount them because they are militaristically insane. For this very same reason, I disqualify most of the Democrats as well. Obama wants to bomb Iran, Hilary Clinton and John Edwards competed for AIPAC's favor..
All crooks.

Only rational choice is Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich would be a close second, but don't address the monetary issue.

Other Comments by Shigawire

32. Comment #50217 by k1mgy on June 15, 2007 at 6:57 pm

>>Only rational choice is Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich would be a close second, but don't address the monetary issue.<<

Ron Paul has a difficult past with right-wing extremist groups which causes me to lean away. He has not addressed his past. He also leans a bit too far into Libertarian territory. There are things that government ought to do to help its citizens. Paul would rather people help one another. Nice, but not practical.

Ever heard of Democratic Senator Mike Gravel?

http://www.gravel2008.us/

He wants to do much of what Paul asserts. Gravel would claim that Ron Paul could help to stop the war right now by virtue of being a member of congress. Gravel ended the draft by fillibuster and released the Pentagon Papers. Worth a look perhaps?

/m

Other Comments by k1mgy

33. Comment #51218 by RobertlewisIR on June 22, 2007 at 1:44 am

Of the major party candidates, Ron Paul's my first choice. Kucinich (not sure if I spelled that right, and I'm too tired to look it up) would be second. I don't think I would vote for any other major party candidate (if one of them isn't on the ballot). But I'm a card carrying Libertarian, so what do you expect?

The rest of these guys just scare the living Zeus right out of me.

Other Comments by RobertlewisIR

34. Comment #72366 by adimon on September 20, 2007 at 8:56 pm

In response to Comment 30 by Mr Grape

"why would any atheist vote GOP?"

A: because I don't want Billary fucking Clinton to be president! and because atheism doesn't mean you can't be pro-life.

Agreeing with most here, Ron Paul is top choice, then Duncan Hunter, then McCain.

Other Comments by adimon

35. Comment #75236 by Matt7895 on October 2, 2007 at 5:12 am

He forgot to mention that 4 of the candidates raised their hands to say they did not believe in evolution... which to me is nearly as offensive as saying gay people cannot serve in the armed forces.

Other Comments by Matt7895