• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Official Jon Stewart & Colbert will host a rally on October 30th in DC

Strange... how I could do business with Jewish folks, listen to Mark Levin... a Jew... who is the one I learned his last name from.

Nice try... you go back on your pony and keep searching.

.

It was still a suspicious method for using the man's last name. It either sounded as if you wanted to make sure people knew that you were aware of his past name (and thus seemingly irrelevant), or as if you were using that as a focal point for controversy (and thus bigoted).
 
Last edited:
Strange... how I could do business with Jewish folks, listen to Mark Levin... a Jew... who is the one I learned his last name from.

Nice try... you go back on your pony and keep searching.

.

I'm curious to know your reasoning for using Stewart's less commonly used name. Do you call Sting "Gordon Sumner"? Or Bob Dylan "Robert Zimmerman"?

I'd also like to hear why people feel the need to call Obama "Barrack Hussein Obama" in casual conversations. Do they call Bush "George Walker Bush" in casual conversations? Or how about calling Reagan "Ronald Wilson Reagan"?

I have to admit people's use of Obama's full name, or your use of Stewart's technical name, in a conversation where it is unnecessary suggests to me a more mischievous intent. But I'll wait for a rebuttal.

Any comment?
 
If we use your argument, then it's reasonable for pretty much everyone to say that the opposing party is a danger to the country.

If credible, there's nothing wrong with a side making such a proclamation.

If Republicans think that voting for Obama would lead to policies that would make the country less secure or would otherwise damage the country's situation, then that would make all Democrats a "danger to the country."

hasn't that been the argument?
 
Except it's not credible.

Why not? Hot button issues becomes the focal point of some elections... The economy/employment will be the driving force behind the up-coming November elections, and there will be those that decide a party is dangerous for the current state of the country. Based on plenty of time to observe party strategy, explain how making such a determination wouldn't be credible.
 

Yes, there is a distinction between a group of people actually being a threat to America and someone BELIEVING a group is a threat to America.

Most of us have ideas of how America should be, and anyone who disagrees or starts leading the country in a different direction is sometimes automatically labeled as a "threat to America"... depending on how dedicated people are toward their causes or how strongly people are against a different side.

Some people need to realize they aren't the only ones with ideas for this country, and should be at the very least willing to hear out the other side's arguments calmly and quietly while being mature and civil.
 
Yes, there is a distinction between a group of people actually being a threat to America and someone BELIEVING a group is a threat to America.

and the distinction is made with what I've been talking about... credible evidence to suggest an actual threat. I don't care to entertain loonies with partisan proclamations simply due to the letter next to a candidates name. I'm talking specifically about reasoned/credible arguments that suggest a candidate/party philosophy (given a political climate) is a threat to this country. That can happen. For instance: You don't go electing someone who's all for a pre-emptive military solution to threats while we're hunkered down with on-going conflicts & an economic slump. That doesn't mean the person (from a holistic view) is a threat to the country... just not the best at the current time.
 
Some people need to realize they aren't the only ones with ideas for this country, and should be at the very least willing to hear out the other side's arguments calmly and quietly while being mature and civil.
Somewhat agree... so it'd be nice if we started with the Presidential candidates. You do realize we have a resident in the WH whose ideas and background were papered over, and was eagerly defended by the press?

And Obama is deaf. After Brown's win, a signal to Obi and his two other stooges, what did they do? They forced ObiKare down our throats using bribes and without reading the bill. How civil of them.

When you have that occurrence, and the elected one begins unraveling the American Fabric, calm and quiet become replaced with anger, and resentment, and rightly so. Mature & civil... is that how Obi and his Stooge behaved during the past 2-years? Spare me.

And on another note: Liebowitz's non-political Rally... LOL... has been quasi-endorsed by Obama... LOL
Obama Backs 'Common Sense' Concept Behind Jon Stewart's 'Restore Sanity' Rally

.
 
Last edited:
I'm mostly confused why you want to take the time to use his other name when Stewart takes less effort.
 
Somewhat agree... so it'd be nice if we started with the Presidential candidates. You do realize we have a resident in the WH whose ideas and background were papered over, and was eagerly defended by the press?

And Obama is deaf. After Brown's win, a signal to Obi and his two other stooges, what did they do? They forced ObiKare down our throats using bribes and without reading the bill. How civil of them.

When you have that occurrence, and the elected one begins unraveling the American Fabric, calm and quiet become replaced with anger, and resentment, and rightly so. Mature & civil... is that how Obi and his Stooge behaved during the past 2-years? Spare me.

And on another note: Liebowitz's non-political Rally... LOL... has been quasi-endorsed by Obama... LOL
Obama Backs 'Common Sense' Concept Behind Jon Stewart's 'Restore Sanity' Rally

.

When I say "some people" I am not only referring to people on the right.

Zimmer you still have not responded to my questions on your use of Jon Stewart's less commonly used name. Unless you want people to view you as a bigot I recommend you redeem yourself.

And this rally is obviously politically motivated. What would make you think it is being marketed as non-political?
 
Zimmer you still have not responded to my questions on your use of Jon Stewart's less commonly used name. Unless you want people to view you as a bigot I recommend you redeem yourself.
Bigot? Using the guy's name? ROTFLOL... Like being a racist for calling Obi... Barack Hussein Obama? Oy vey.

And this rally is obviously politically motivated. What would make you think it is being marketed as non-political?
Thought I read it somewhere.

It is "ludicrous" to equate Stewart's "nonpartisan sanity" with Beck's "partisan madness," says Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post.
 
There's one before that on the mall too. Did you forget? Oct 2 the Ed Shultz rally? By the time we're finished talking about that one, it will be time for Stewarts. :)

They are really taking parody to the next level, and I really can't wait for it. I wish I could go.
 
Bigot? Using the guy's name? ROTFLOL... Like being a racist for calling Obi... Barack Hussein Obama? Oy vey.

I'm curious to know your reasoning for using Stewart's less commonly used name. Do you call Sting "Gordon Sumner"? Or Bob Dylan "Robert Zimmerman"?

I'd also like to hear why people feel the need to call Obama "Barrack Hussein Obama" in casual conversations. Do they call Bush "George Walker Bush" in casual conversations? Or how about calling Reagan "Ronald Wilson Reagan"?

I have to admit people's use of Obama's full name, or your use of Stewart's technical name, in a conversation where it is unnecessary suggests to me a more mischievous intent. But I'll wait for a rebuttal.


Thought I read it somewhere.
It is "ludicrous" to equate Stewart's "nonpartisan sanity" with Beck's "partisan madness," says Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post.​

I'm sure you know there is a difference between "non-political" and "non-partisan". Was there a typo somewhere?
 
They are really taking parody to the next level, and I really can't wait for it. I wish I could go.

The rally will be on Comedy Central (possibly live) so you can still watch.


Another Update: 207,000 people "attending" on the facebook page. I'm willing to bet at least half of those, plus many more who don't use the events option on facebook, will be there.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually interested to go, just go grab a camera and have some good old "liberal at a tea party" fun. How much people want to bet this "non-partisan" event can be made to look extremely partisan?
 
I'm actually interested to go, just go grab a camera and have some good old "liberal at a tea party" fun. How much people want to bet this "non-partisan" event can be made to look extremely partisan?

Well, at least you won't have to worry about getting your head stepped on there.
 
Well, at least you won't have to worry about getting your head stepped on there.

People are people, especially at a rally. You never know what kind of horrible response you may get. The head stomping incident happened as candidates were walking in to a building have a debate, an extremely calm one at that.
 
Well, at least you won't have to worry about getting your head stepped on there.

You just might get your finger bitten off, kicked or punched in the face.
 
Interesting how I heard about Beck's rally for weeks and weeks prior to the event, from both liberal leaning and conservative leaning sources. I've heard about the Stewart & Colbert rally in exactly three places... The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and here.
 
This does not bode well for Democrats. Lecturing people and making fun of the turn in the political tide during a horrible economic period does not sit well with everyday, practical people.

Tuesday is going to be a bloodbath.
 
This does not bode well for Democrats. Lecturing people and making fun of the turn in the political tide during a horrible economic period does not sit well with everyday, practical people.

Tuesday is going to be a bloodbath.

GOP takes the House, not the Senate... I think we come out 1 seat shy there.
 
Interesting how I heard about Beck's rally for weeks and weeks prior to the event, from both liberal leaning and conservative leaning sources. I've heard about the Stewart & Colbert rally in exactly three places... The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and here.

It's been all over, apparently just not where or when you've been looking.

CNN
MSNBC
Fox News
NPR
Larry King
O'reilly Factor
Oprah
David Letterman
I've heard multiple conservative pundits trying to demean it on their radio and TV talk shows.

Plus many other channels and news sites. Do a Google News search for "Rally to Restore Sanity" and notice how many news sources there are.

I've even caught a few articles in newspapers about it, so I'm sure many other newspapers around the country have been talking about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom