<h2>Why have a legitimate protest if all you are is a comedian not trying to be legitimate? Once again, if he didn’t go out of his way to conduct himself in a serious manner for interviews, than people wouldn’t view him as a legitimate source of news. Colbert has gotten a lot more liberal, but he at least doesn’t try to appear serious.</h2>
<p>Different parts of his shows have different purposes. Different parts of his life have different purposes. It’s not a difficult concept.</p>
<p>
So it is not okay for Stewart to present his own commentary in a serious manner? Again, you do realize that it is a satirical show, right? There is an inherent layer (however thin) of seriousness in all satire. And Colbert’s interview tactics don’t make his interviews any less serious than Stewart’s–he’s still trying to send people a message underneath all the silliness.</p>
<p>I fail to see how either Stewart or Colbert present themselves as “Legitimate news figures” (by which you mean what? Unbiased? Does such a thing exist?). I don’t see how Stewart conducting “serious interviews with legitimate persons” means that Stewart thinks his commentary is unbiased, or that his viewers think that.
Does anyone know what the actual format or content of Stewart’s rally will be? Can it even be classified as a “Legitimate protest?” “Rally to Restore Sanity” aka “Americans in Favor of a Return to Sanity or Something Like That” doesn’t really mean much in itself. Are we just assuming that Stewart is going to get up on a pulpit and criticize conservatives?</p>
<p>Okay, tiff, hun, based on all your posts in this thread, it’s not hard to see why nobody believes your IQ is anywhere near the 98th percentile.</p>
<p>For starters, no IQ “exam” can be said to accurately measure intelligence. If you were truly in the top 1% of thinkers out there, you would understand this.</p>
<p>An IQ exam only measures the aptitude of one on taking said IQ exam. A spatial visualization task only measures your spatial visualization ability ON THAT TASK. Only when certain scores covary with each other might you possibly defining that as an independent “ability.”</p>
<p>Even so, there will never be an IQ exam that measures intelligence, because it’s impossible to say or agree to what intelligence is. People might have their own definitions and measurements, when it comes down to it. Sure, we know what it is, generally speaking, but not when it comes to precise measurement.</p>
<p>It would be akin to coming up with a test, where you can fill in bubbles, and it would give your LOVE score! Well what is “Love”? EXACTLY!</p>
<p>“Our tests indicate that you and your partner have a muscular LOVE score of 127!”</p>
<p>That’s about how scientific it is. So please calm down.</p>
<p>How can anybody take this person seriously, they criticize the spelling and grammar of others while overlooking mistakes in their own posts.</p>
<p>Obvious ■■■■■ is obvious. Trollololo</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>wul that iz objec n’ pronown disagreemint right thar…</p>
<p>Jon Stewart isn’t that funny. Sometimes he forgets to tell a joke and instead just bashes conservative ideology.</p>
<p>Colbert, however, rules.</p>
<p>Colbert and Jon Stewart rock! I love that they show conservative$ true colors with their own words. It’s sad that they have to do this and the corporate media have become so slack. Murrow and Cronkite would be huge fans.</p>