Jon Stewart's end rally speech drives the point home

[Adeodatus]

Not cooperating with evil is distinctly different from not cooperating at all.

There is just no way for any country to progress if it divides into sides that will not cooperate. Just think about it: if I had to break off cooperation with everyone who supported the things you condemn (some quite correctly in my opinion), I’d have to grow my own food, generate my own electricity, drill a well for water supply, withdraw all savings and investments and stitch up my own cuts at the kitchen sink.

Sound ridiculous? No more so than the idea of sharply polarized politics where the main aim is, not to move the country forward but to get the other side out of office. Believe me, it would not end with Obama, we would just get into another bitter round of tit for tat. That’s how you lose a country like this - not by electing a single person for one or two terms, but by abandoning the principle of cooperation that it was founded on.

We’re past the point of cooperation. Cooperation will never save any babies. They’ll continue to be heaped up in vast carrion piles while all the ‘reasonable’ people stand around and talk.

 

[rlg94086]

We’re past the point of cooperation. Cooperation will never save any babies. They’ll continue to be heaped up in vast carrion piles while all the ‘reasonable’ people stand around and talk.

Amazingly, the call for cooperation, civility, etc. by lefties like Stewart weren’t exhibited much between 2000 and 2008…wonder why that is?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Probably because the left bent over backwards for the Republicans from 2000 to 2008 in every way imaginable and they felt it was their turn for polemics, immaturity, domination, control trips, and stupidity just like the previous party-line dominance on the other side. They’re both absurd. Party politics is absurd. The fact that both the Left and Right are in it for pure power and not to better the America we all know and love is the problem—left OR right. Obama said, “we won!” and threw it in the GOP’s face. Now they’ll take over the congress and do nothing for the next few years, stonewall, protest, and suck up time till they can win the presidency back. Both Obama’s “we won!” childishness and a do-nothing congress are both unacceptable and depressing…

Amazingly, the call for cooperation, civility, etc. by lefties like Stewart weren’t exhibited much between 2000 and 2008…wonder why that is?

 

[steveandersen]

I enjoyed going to the rally
it was interesting

 

[seekerz]

We’re past the point of cooperation. Cooperation will never save any babies. They’ll continue to be heaped up in vast carrion piles while all the ‘reasonable’ people stand around and talk.

The alternative to cooperation is use of force. The response to force is more force. Is that really the way we want to go? Force is the least effective and desirable way to achieve anything socially beneficial.

There is no other way to prevent abortion than to secure the cooperation of those who think life in the womb is dispensable. Pass whatever laws you may, they still have to cooperate and in the first place, said laws will never pass without cooperation.

Short of military force, cooperation is the only way to run a nation. So refusing to be reasonable might be preventing the very thing we’re aiming at. Kind of like shooting oneself in the foot…painful and truly counterproductive.

 

[seekerz]

Amazingly, the call for cooperation, civility, etc. by lefties like Stewart weren’t exhibited much between 2000 and 2008…wonder why that is?

Maybe he was thinking your very thoughts and applying them to 1990 to 2000. Who knows, maybe things will get so bad that the children of our generation will do the growing up that we petulantly refuse to.

 

[Tom_8_0_0]

I do not think Jon Stewart ever made the claim that he was speaking for Catholics.

He has never claimed to be a Catholic.

I am still confused as to what the need to point out his real name or his jewish background was.

Sorry, I already explained this on a previous page but I guess it bears repeating.

I said he wasn’t making any particularly Catholic point because the topic poster said in the topic title “Jon Stewart’s rally drives the point home”. Since this is the Catholic Answers forum, I thought I’d point out that he’s neither coming from a Catholic perspective, nor is he making a Catholic point.

About his real name, as I explained two posts below my first post in the topic, I thought of going into the whole schpeal about his background and all that because I thought it might back up the larger point about him not being a Catholic and not having a Catholic perspective, but then I decided not to explain it, and just left that one sentence there. But I apparently can’t edit very old posts, so I will just have to keep re-explaining myself each time. That’s what I get for being judgmental.

Anyway, I did some more thinking about my point about using the rally to unite Obama voters, and I thought maybe, under that same idea of “can’t we all just get along” that a poster mentioned, this rally is to keep an audience?

It seems silly, but Colbert and Stewart are known liberals, and most of their audience are liberals who like Obama. We know his interview with Obama was to show that Stewart is one with the people, that he “understands their struggles” and what have you. But, what if the rally is to further reinforce the point to make sure he doesn’t lose his viewership? Since he mostly said non-partisan stuff, even though we all know he is a partisan guy, obviously he wants the Obama voters whom are moving to the middle, not to stop watching his show, because they might think “Well he’s in the tank for Obama!”.

So either theory works: he’s doing the rally to keep people on the left, or he’s doing the rally to keep people watching his show.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I said he wasn’t making any particularly Catholic point because the topic poster said in the topic title “Jon Stewart’s rally drives the point home”. Since this is the Catholic Answers forum, I thought I’d point out that he’s neither coming from a Catholic perspective, nor is he making a Catholic point.

About his real name, as I explained two posts below my first post in the topic, I thought of going into the whole schpeal about his background and all that because I thought it might back up the larger point about him not being a Catholic and not having a Catholic perspective, but then I decided not to explain it, and just left that one sentence there. But I apparently can’t edit very old posts, so I will just have to keep re-explaining myself each time. That’s what I get for being judgmental.

And I guess it bears repeating that no where did he claim to be making a Catholic point nor has anyone in this thread made such a claim.

As for the name thing, no one thought he was Catholic and he never made the claim to being a Catholic.

To me, and still, it appears that the name issue was to stress his jewish nature.

 

[rlg94086]

Maybe he was thinking your very thoughts and applying them to 1990 to 2000.

That makes no sense whatsoever. He was free to take the high road between 2000 and 2008, but chose to encourage his fellow lefties. He and the rest of the Left were too busy yelling and screaming (in his case, ridiculing) to take a breath and call for civility. It is only now, when they are going to lose their near-60% majority, that they all of a sudden want their opponents to tone it down. Go figure.

That’s why the chastisement rings hollow.

 

[rlg94086]

Probably because the left bent over backwards for the Republicans from 2000 to 2008 in every way imaginable and they felt it was their turn for polemics, immaturity, domination, control trips, and stupidity just like the previous party-line dominance on the other side. They’re both absurd. Party politics is absurd. The fact that both the Left and Right are in it for pure power and not to better the America we all know and love is the problem—left OR right. Obama said, “we won!” and threw it in the GOP’s face. Now they’ll take over the congress and do nothing for the next few years, stonewall, protest, and suck up time till they can win the presidency back. Both Obama’s “we won!” childishness and a do-nothing congress are both unacceptable and depressing…

And, wait for it, the Democrats will start yelling, screaming, etc. I don’t expect them to be any more civil while they are out of power than they have been in the past. Stewart will lampoon the Republicans at every chance and ignore the screeching from the Left. “Same as it ever was.”

 

[SamH]

The alternative to cooperation is use of force. The response to force is more force. Is that really the way we want to go? Force is the least effective and desirable way to achieve anything socially beneficial…

Where did you get that?

as defined:

co·op·er·a·tion:
The association of persons or businesses for common, usually economic, benefit

What part of a common benefit should I have with an abortion advocate?

 

[SamH]

Now they’ll take over the congress and do nothing for the next few years, stonewall, protest, and suck up time till they can win the presidency back. Both Obama’s “we won!” childishness and a do-nothing congress are both unacceptable and depressing… (

Actually a “do nothing” congress is what I’ve prayed for. Inaction is always better than moving the wrong direction.

 

[curlycool89]

That makes no sense whatsoever. He was free to take the high road between 2000 and 2008, but chose to encourage his fellow lefties. He and the rest of the Left were too busy yelling and screaming (in his case, ridiculing) to take a breath and call for civility. It is only now, when they are going to lose their near-60% majority, that they all of a sudden want their opponents to tone it down. Go figure.

That’s why the chastisement rings hollow.

This thread is so very American. As a Canadian I look on mostly in amusement with the occasional cringing.

So, here’s what you’re proposing. They didn’t do it in 2000-2008, therefore we’re not going to do it now, therefore they’re not going to do it in the future, and we’re not going to to it after that. Can you not see that at all? As Catholic Christians, we are suppose to be the leaders in taking the high road, not continually blaming the other side for not taking it first. We’re suppose to lead by example, not by pointing to the flaws of others.

The alternative to cooperation is use of force. The response to force is more force. Is that really the way we want to go? Force is the least effective and desirable way to achieve anything socially beneficial.

There is no other way to prevent abortion than to secure the cooperation of those who think life in the womb is dispensable. Pass whatever laws you may, they still have to cooperate and in the first place, said laws will never pass without cooperation.

Short of military force, cooperation is the only way to run a nation. So refusing to be reasonable might be preventing the very thing we’re aiming at. Kind of like shooting oneself in the foot…painful and truly counterproductive.

I just want to make a comment on the abortion issue. Basically, what we see right now is the opposite poles “throwing each other out” every couple years. If we took that to it’s logical conclusion, then what we’re going to see with respect to abortion it it getting legalized and outlawed every 2 years in a never ending cycle.

At that point, America has become no better than some banana republic lead by some guy with a big ego this week followed by some guy with a bigger ego next week. All the sudden, you’re no better off than Europe was during the Middle Ages, and I thought that the whole the point of America was to leave that behind once and for all. I’m a Canadian, and even I realize what America stands for and I know what Americans think the US stands for, but right now the image you’re giving off is a complete gong show. Why would anyone want to be like the America you’re portraying?

You can’t both want to be a shining light for the world and not care what the world thinks at the same time.

My prediction: someone is going to quote that and say “it’s the other sides fault”. And thus the whole thing starts up again.

2nd prediction: Someone quotes this and says “How dare you criticize us because we’re American and we’re better than you”. Which only really serves to reinforce my bolded point again.

Alternate prediction: This is all ignored because self-reflection is too hard and can be quite painful.
After all, America is a nation of Enneagram type 3’s, and self-reflection is not part of what 3’s do (I would know as a 3 myself, which oddly enough also gives me the ability to be able to cut through all the ****).

 

[rlg94086]

This thread is so very American. As a Canadian I look on mostly in amusement with the occasional cringing.

So, here’s what you’re proposing. They didn’t do it in 2000-2008, therefore we’re not going to do it now, therefore they’re not going to do it in the future, and we’re not going to to it after that. Can you not see that at all? As Catholic Christians, we are suppose to be the leaders in taking the high road, not continually blaming the other side for not taking it first. We’re suppose to lead by example, not by pointing to the flaws of others.

Ah, Insight from America’s hat. No problem. We look on your politics with amusement and cringing, as well.

My point is that the taking of the high road by the Left is false…not a matter of who takes it first. The taking of the high road is just another political stunt to demonize your opponent. That’s why the high road taking is cyclical in nature. You will see the Left abandon the high road in a week or so. With a split government, there will be shrieking on both sides, and both sides will be pointing at the other to complain about their shrieking.

 

[tomarin]

My point is that the taking of the high road by the Left is false…not a matter of who takes it first. The taking of the high road is just another political stunt to demonize your opponent. That’s why the high road taking is cyclical in nature.

My analysis for what it’s worth: the rally boils down to Jon Stewart telling the loyal opposition to moderate their political demands and tone in the name of civility while at the same time goading Obama into being truer to his liberal instincts (at the interview). Moderation for thee but not for we. It’s a non-political political rally.

 

[seekerz]

Where did you get that?

as defined:

co·op·er·a·tion:
The association of persons or businesses for common, usually economic, benefit

What part of a common benefit should I have with an abortion advocate?

Definition of COOPERATION (courtesy Merriam Webster online dictionary)
1
: the action of cooperating : common effort
2
: association of persons for common benefit

The part of common benefit/common effort that is relevant here specifically, involves people of disparate views contributing to the smooth running of the nation in which they all live together.

You seem to be making the point that you refuse to cooperate with people who don’t share your convictions on abortion. I am simply extending your logic to the rest of society, including our politicians and showing you how this country cannot prosper (common benefit) if everyone would take that same attitude (abandoning common effort).

We have to be able to disagree passionately, yet find common ground where we can work together for the common good. The only alternative I know to achieve a goal, in the absence of cooperation, is through the use of force. Actually, I correct myself, there’s always the alternative of…total chaos.

 

[seekerz]

Ah, Insight from America’s hat. No problem. We look on your politics with amusement and cringing, as well.

My point is that the taking of the high road by the Left is false…not a matter of who takes it first. The taking of the high road is just another political stunt to demonize your opponent. That’s why the high road taking is cyclical in nature. You will see the Left abandon the high road in a week or so. With a split government, there will be shrieking on both sides, and both sides will be pointing at the other to complain about their shrieking.

So what if it is false? Does that prevent the ‘moral’ Right from truly taking the high road, or does someone else’s wrongdoing relieve me of my duty to do right?

 

[rlg94086]

So what if it is false? Does that prevent the ‘moral’ Right from truly taking the high road, or does someone else’s wrongdoing relieve me of my duty to do right?

Of course not. I will be the first to applaud you for taking the high road. I look forward to the day.

 

[Adeodatus]

Definition of COOPERATION (courtesy Merriam Webster online dictionary)
1
: the action of cooperating : common effort
2
: association of persons for common benefit

The part of common benefit/common effort that is relevant here specifically, involves people of disparate views contributing to the smooth running of the nation in which they all live together.

You seem to be making the point that you refuse to cooperate with people who don’t share your convictions on abortion. I am simply extending your logic to the rest of society, including our politicians and showing you how this country cannot prosper (common benefit) if everyone would take that same attitude (abandoning common effort).

We have to be able to disagree passionately, yet find common ground where we can work together for the common good. The only alternative I know to achieve a goal, in the absence of cooperation, is through the use of force. Actually, I correct myself, there’s always the alternative of…total chaos.

Right, but what does any of that do about 50 million dead babies? Or the millions more under threat?

Viva la Muerte!

 

[jmcrae]

Can I ask what the point of you giving his actual name rather than just using the stage name that everyone knows him by?

Especially since he frequently mentions the fact that he’s Jewish. He mentioned once that his wife and children are Catholic, which means that they all get to celebrate all of the High Holy days of the year, both Christian and Jewish. ( I assume the last part was a joke.)