OT: Rally to restore sanity and/or fear

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk]What’s your point CONCHO?

Are we supposed to be shocked that Jon Stewart’s brother is a corporate exec?

Not a surprise: Jon has mentioned it on his show a few times.

If you wanna aspire to be like Glen Beck – using innuendo and guilt by association to expose the enemy – you gotta do better than that.[/quote]

I’m not aspiring to be like anyone, I’m just pointing out that to believe that any of these people on TV would give a crap about regular people is silly. Like George Carlin used to say, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”

[UCGal]

We tivo’d it and watched it over the course of the afternoon (in between kid activities)

I loved watching The Roots and John Legend (I remember going to see the Roots, live, when I lived in Philly). The Yusaf/Ozzie/OJay’s thing was BRILLIANT.

It was entertaining and fun.

[UCGal]

We tivo’d it and watched it over the course of the afternoon (in between kid activities)

I loved watching The Roots and John Legend (I remember going to see the Roots, live, when I lived in Philly). The Yusaf/Ozzie/OJay’s thing was BRILLIANT.

It was entertaining and fun.

[UCGal]

We tivo’d it and watched it over the course of the afternoon (in between kid activities)

I loved watching The Roots and John Legend (I remember going to see the Roots, live, when I lived in Philly). The Yusaf/Ozzie/OJay’s thing was BRILLIANT.

It was entertaining and fun.

[UCGal]

We tivo’d it and watched it over the course of the afternoon (in between kid activities)

I loved watching The Roots and John Legend (I remember going to see the Roots, live, when I lived in Philly). The Yusaf/Ozzie/OJay’s thing was BRILLIANT.

It was entertaining and fun.

[UCGal]

We tivo’d it and watched it over the course of the afternoon (in between kid activities)

I loved watching The Roots and John Legend (I remember going to see the Roots, live, when I lived in Philly). The Yusaf/Ozzie/OJay’s thing was BRILLIANT.

It was entertaining and fun.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I understand completely. I think there are a lot of people these days going through the same thing. When you sign off, and don’t tune into this stuff anymore, you definitely sleep better and enjoy life more.

[/quote]

Another great post, eavesdropper.

My solution is not to take anything personally. I go on living my life and I sleep very well, thank you.

But then again, when I watch movies, I like European dramas with sad endings. I don’t need to watch a pick-me-upper to feel in a good mood.

[quote=eavesdropper]

But then I check back in, and find that things are worse than ever. Not with the government. That’s pretty much at its usual sub-par level. No, the panic-mongering is getting far worse. It’s absurd. You’ve got people who are absolutely addicted to spreading fear. I’m not talking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz. They get paid to do what they do, and paid very well. I’m talking about the great unwashed masses on the internet who live to find the next life-threatening world-as-we-know-it-ending thing that they can then send out to their 1764 friends on Facebook, who then immediately forward it to theirs, and before you know it, everyone is sure that Obama is personally rounding up Christians to have them eaten by lions in exhibitions on the National Mall. It’s gotten so bad that they don’t even stop to read the first sentence of these “must-read” articles that they send out. And with all the stuff that’s out there, courtesy of the television, radio, print and internet media, it still isn’t enough to satisfy the slavering beast. You’ve got everyday people making up completely false stories, trying to outdo everyone else on the panic scale. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the sweet little old lady next door, who used to give you homemade cookies on your way home from school, talking about strapping on an AK-47 and mowing down all the godless liberals down at the senior center.

[/quote]

I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations.

In my opinion, those masses of idiots are destroying our democracy. They are acting to their own detriment and they will suffer the consequences most.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I understand completely. I think there are a lot of people these days going through the same thing. When you sign off, and don’t tune into this stuff anymore, you definitely sleep better and enjoy life more.

[/quote]

Another great post, eavesdropper.

My solution is not to take anything personally. I go on living my life and I sleep very well, thank you.

But then again, when I watch movies, I like European dramas with sad endings. I don’t need to watch a pick-me-upper to feel in a good mood.

[quote=eavesdropper]

But then I check back in, and find that things are worse than ever. Not with the government. That’s pretty much at its usual sub-par level. No, the panic-mongering is getting far worse. It’s absurd. You’ve got people who are absolutely addicted to spreading fear. I’m not talking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz. They get paid to do what they do, and paid very well. I’m talking about the great unwashed masses on the internet who live to find the next life-threatening world-as-we-know-it-ending thing that they can then send out to their 1764 friends on Facebook, who then immediately forward it to theirs, and before you know it, everyone is sure that Obama is personally rounding up Christians to have them eaten by lions in exhibitions on the National Mall. It’s gotten so bad that they don’t even stop to read the first sentence of these “must-read” articles that they send out. And with all the stuff that’s out there, courtesy of the television, radio, print and internet media, it still isn’t enough to satisfy the slavering beast. You’ve got everyday people making up completely false stories, trying to outdo everyone else on the panic scale. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the sweet little old lady next door, who used to give you homemade cookies on your way home from school, talking about strapping on an AK-47 and mowing down all the godless liberals down at the senior center.

[/quote]

I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations.

In my opinion, those masses of idiots are destroying our democracy. They are acting to their own detriment and they will suffer the consequences most.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I understand completely. I think there are a lot of people these days going through the same thing. When you sign off, and don’t tune into this stuff anymore, you definitely sleep better and enjoy life more.

[/quote]

Another great post, eavesdropper.

My solution is not to take anything personally. I go on living my life and I sleep very well, thank you.

But then again, when I watch movies, I like European dramas with sad endings. I don’t need to watch a pick-me-upper to feel in a good mood.

[quote=eavesdropper]

But then I check back in, and find that things are worse than ever. Not with the government. That’s pretty much at its usual sub-par level. No, the panic-mongering is getting far worse. It’s absurd. You’ve got people who are absolutely addicted to spreading fear. I’m not talking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz. They get paid to do what they do, and paid very well. I’m talking about the great unwashed masses on the internet who live to find the next life-threatening world-as-we-know-it-ending thing that they can then send out to their 1764 friends on Facebook, who then immediately forward it to theirs, and before you know it, everyone is sure that Obama is personally rounding up Christians to have them eaten by lions in exhibitions on the National Mall. It’s gotten so bad that they don’t even stop to read the first sentence of these “must-read” articles that they send out. And with all the stuff that’s out there, courtesy of the television, radio, print and internet media, it still isn’t enough to satisfy the slavering beast. You’ve got everyday people making up completely false stories, trying to outdo everyone else on the panic scale. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the sweet little old lady next door, who used to give you homemade cookies on your way home from school, talking about strapping on an AK-47 and mowing down all the godless liberals down at the senior center.

[/quote]

I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations.

In my opinion, those masses of idiots are destroying our democracy. They are acting to their own detriment and they will suffer the consequences most.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I understand completely. I think there are a lot of people these days going through the same thing. When you sign off, and don’t tune into this stuff anymore, you definitely sleep better and enjoy life more.

[/quote]

Another great post, eavesdropper.

My solution is not to take anything personally. I go on living my life and I sleep very well, thank you.

But then again, when I watch movies, I like European dramas with sad endings. I don’t need to watch a pick-me-upper to feel in a good mood.

[quote=eavesdropper]

But then I check back in, and find that things are worse than ever. Not with the government. That’s pretty much at its usual sub-par level. No, the panic-mongering is getting far worse. It’s absurd. You’ve got people who are absolutely addicted to spreading fear. I’m not talking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz. They get paid to do what they do, and paid very well. I’m talking about the great unwashed masses on the internet who live to find the next life-threatening world-as-we-know-it-ending thing that they can then send out to their 1764 friends on Facebook, who then immediately forward it to theirs, and before you know it, everyone is sure that Obama is personally rounding up Christians to have them eaten by lions in exhibitions on the National Mall. It’s gotten so bad that they don’t even stop to read the first sentence of these “must-read” articles that they send out. And with all the stuff that’s out there, courtesy of the television, radio, print and internet media, it still isn’t enough to satisfy the slavering beast. You’ve got everyday people making up completely false stories, trying to outdo everyone else on the panic scale. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the sweet little old lady next door, who used to give you homemade cookies on your way home from school, talking about strapping on an AK-47 and mowing down all the godless liberals down at the senior center.

[/quote]

I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations.

In my opinion, those masses of idiots are destroying our democracy. They are acting to their own detriment and they will suffer the consequences most.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I understand completely. I think there are a lot of people these days going through the same thing. When you sign off, and don’t tune into this stuff anymore, you definitely sleep better and enjoy life more.

[/quote]

Another great post, eavesdropper.

My solution is not to take anything personally. I go on living my life and I sleep very well, thank you.

But then again, when I watch movies, I like European dramas with sad endings. I don’t need to watch a pick-me-upper to feel in a good mood.

[quote=eavesdropper]

But then I check back in, and find that things are worse than ever. Not with the government. That’s pretty much at its usual sub-par level. No, the panic-mongering is getting far worse. It’s absurd. You’ve got people who are absolutely addicted to spreading fear. I’m not talking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz. They get paid to do what they do, and paid very well. I’m talking about the great unwashed masses on the internet who live to find the next life-threatening world-as-we-know-it-ending thing that they can then send out to their 1764 friends on Facebook, who then immediately forward it to theirs, and before you know it, everyone is sure that Obama is personally rounding up Christians to have them eaten by lions in exhibitions on the National Mall. It’s gotten so bad that they don’t even stop to read the first sentence of these “must-read” articles that they send out. And with all the stuff that’s out there, courtesy of the television, radio, print and internet media, it still isn’t enough to satisfy the slavering beast. You’ve got everyday people making up completely false stories, trying to outdo everyone else on the panic scale. And all of a sudden, you’ve got the sweet little old lady next door, who used to give you homemade cookies on your way home from school, talking about strapping on an AK-47 and mowing down all the godless liberals down at the senior center.

[/quote]

I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations.

In my opinion, those masses of idiots are destroying our democracy. They are acting to their own detriment and they will suffer the consequences most.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[Author]

Posts