[pman68]

He was on last night. What a freakin' boob! He actually said he goes after the neo-cons just as hard as he goes after liberals. Stewart's mouth dropped and everyone laughed. Priceless! Stewart asked him why he always seems angrier with Cindy Sheehan and France than he did with the administration and the whole "weapons of mass destruction." good point.

Stewart = 1
O'Reilly = 0

[Dakar]

I can't get over the fcat that he told some guy in the crowd, "I'm coming up for you." Geez.

[smacintush]

I didn't see it but Jon Stewart is just as big an ass as O'Reilly. Just because he's funny doesn't make him right.

And don't even try to give me that "The Daily Show is a comedy show Stewart is supposed to try to be funny…" or whatever. As long as he has serious guests and wants to talk serious topics like war he can't hide behind the "it's a comedy show" crap like he did on Crossfire.

He is funny at times, but he's a total dick.

[Stradlater]

(context:

Stewart [after asking Bill why he's even bothering with France and his boycott]:
"If this were the Peanuts series, France is Marcie. Every now and again she shows up, she's standing next to Peppermint Patty, but nothing's happening with France. You know who's the problem? F*$%ing Lucy, she's the problem! Go after Lucy! Get Lucy! You can do it, go out and get her!")

[pman68]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I didn't see it but Jon Stewart is just as big an ass as O'Reilly. Just because he's funny doesn't make him right.

He is funny at times, but he's a total dick.

whoa. You're kidding right? O'Reilly is a much bigger dick than Stewart. I just wish someone would post the Bill phone calls he made to the woman he paid off. Ahh, shades of Pat O'Brian.

[pman68]

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by pman68

whoa. You're kidding right? O'Reilly is a much bigger dick than Stewart. I just wish someone would post the Bill phone calls he made to the woman he paid off. Ahh, shades of Pat O'Brian.

I was referring to their respective demeanors when on their shows.

Jon Stewart is a smug little prick, I'd like to bitch slap him.

[mojo2]

My 2¢...

I enjoy Stewart even though MOST OF THE TIME I disagree with him. Even though MOST OF THE TIME I AGREE with Bill O'Reilly, I sometimes find him a bit much.

I admire Stewart for having Bill on the show. It shows class and an intellectual courage that makes him worthy of my respect even though he is WRONG MOST OF THE TIME.

You gotta admit NO ONE ELSE has done it. NO ONE ELSE has a show whose reason for being is to mix humor and politics and current events and satire and celebrity interviews and not as a side dish.

Once again, I advise and invite ALL the leading conservative commentators in this country to get yourself a suitably anonymous nickname and sign up as posters here at MacNN. The quality of your debate will improve IMMEASURABLY in less than 6 weeks.

[OreoCookie]

O'Reilly is a terrible host, independent of his views. Sometimes he doesn't stop short of insulting his invited guests. That's simply not a good manner of conduct.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

O'Reilly is a terrible host, independent of his views. Sometimes he doesn't stop short of insulting his invited guests. That's simply not a good manner of conduct.

Yeah it was classy of him to call Stewart a pin-head as a guest.

[paul w]

Difference between the two:

Stewart invites conservatives guest on all the time. He's pretty respectful of them, let's them voice their views, injects humor to ease tension, etc. I mean he had Rick Santorum on, and allowed the guy to explain his views to what was clearly a hostile audience. There was actual reasonable debate there. I haven't seen Stewart be a "dick" to his guests though.

O'Reilly? He does everything short of punching his liberal guests in the face.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by paul w

O'Reilly? He does everything short of punching his liberal guests in the face.

Not just liberals, he isn't much nicer to some conservatives he doesn't agree with either. And I remember him boasting in one show about it, that some conservatives won't even talk to him (in his show) anymore.

[besson3c]

You can see the interview here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...ws/index.jhtml


Re: him being smug... his whole show is based around sarcasm. Sarcasm involves being smug, that's how it works.

Re: Mojo disagreeing with him... not surprising. Is there anything in the world that can be said that would get you to think twice about your narrow viewpoints? Your mind is clearly made up, and you are nearly impossible to talk to about anything that you disagree with. I guess you just like to state the obvious in expressing your discontent with somebody like Stewart who clearly doesn't bat for your team...

P.S. do you get paid to endorse the Republicans?

[thunderous_funker]

This thread is such a great example of the myth of "objective reality". People obviously see and hear exactly what they want to see and hear.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

This thread is such a great example of the myth of "objective reality". People obviously see and hear exactly what they want to see and hear.

Right, which is why I take an issue with somebody (e.g. Mojo) who disagrees with "most of what Stewart says".

John Stewart's show is a form of "metamedia" - media about media. When you can't step back and look at politics through the lens of the Daily Show without knee jerk reactions and worrying about whether you "agree" with whatever political viewpoints are implied, perhaps you are too emotionally invested in your "team"?

The Daily Show is not a left-wing or right-wing talk show like other shows, it is a show about other talk shows (yes, the Daily Show has even made fun of Sheehan, and regularly unravels the Democrats too). If the Democrats were in power, I'm sure the format of the Daily Show would be no different than it is now. This isn't just my wild theory, but a pretty solid assumption based on the basic formula and design of the show.

Really, as far as I'm concerned, people who take issue with the political content of the Daily Show are just upset because their beloved politicians are being casted in a non-flattering light.

One of the few things that I agree with O'Reilly on: politicians are in it for themselves.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You can see the interview here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...ws/index.jhtml


Re: him being smug... his whole show is based around sarcasm. Sarcasm involves being smug, that's how it works.

Re: Mojo disagreeing with him... not surprising. Is there anything in the world that can be said that would get you to think twice about your narrow viewpoints? Your mind is clearly made up, and you are nearly impossible to talk to about anything that you disagree with. I guess you just like to state the obvious in expressing your discontent with somebody like Stewart who clearly doesn't bat for your team...

P.S. do you get paid to endorse the Republicans?

Are you so "Canadian" that you have no idea of what it means to come to an informed decision? Where you are certain you have thought out the decision and while you will LISTEN to debate, the more you hear the more you realize there has been no arguments, and there is unlikely to be any arguments that are compelling enough to make you change your mind?

Or is EVERYTHING negotiable to you?

In my world there are certain things that are negotiable and others that aren't.

When you are asked the name of your country and someone says, "Canada," do you ask them to come up with a different answer?

Sometimes when you are right you are right.

Not ALL the time, but when you are, you are.

I'm regularly open to changing my mind but the reason I entertain new information is so I CAN reach an informed conclusion and once there not have to give it more than a few moments consideration to allow that a newer, better truth should be embraced.

In regards to Iraq, I see and hear no newer, better, truths from anyone here.

So, I remain of the same opinion as I was.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Right, which is why I take an issue with somebody (e.g. Mojo) who disagrees with "most of what Stewart says".

John Stewart's show is a form of "metamedia" - media about media. When you can't step back and look at politics through the lens of the Daily Show without knee jerk reactions and worrying about whether you "agree" with whatever political viewpoints are implied, perhaps you are too emotionally invested in your "team"?

The Daily Show is not a left-wing or right-wing talk show like other shows, it is a show about other talk shows (yes, the Daily Show has even made fun of Sheehan, and regularly unravels the Democrats too). If the Democrats were in power, I'm sure the format of the Daily Show would be no different than it is now. This isn't just my wild theory, but a pretty solid assumption based on the basic formula and design of the show.

Really, as far as I'm concerned, people who take issue with the political content of the Daily Show are just upset because their beloved politicians are being casted in a non-flattering light.

One of the few things that I agree with O'Reilly on: politicians are in it for themselves.

Your political barometer doesn't reflect an important distinction here.

I am one of the few Republicans who will admit to watching the show and finding it enjoyable.

Most others, I would guess, have FAR less complimentary things to say about it and some may not even watch it at all.

So, maybe this info will help you more accurately calibrate your sense of frustration about MY reaction to Jon Stewart's show.

I'm a FAN of his work and his talent.

Just not his politics.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Haha made me laugh. I don't know these guys (although I think I've seen mr. Stewart once in some interview). Of course the guest in an interview is always at the mercy of the host. If mr. Stewart wanted to make fun of O'Reilley then the latter couldn't have done a thing about it.

At least he got his book advertised.

cheers

W-Y

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Are you so "Canadian" that you have no idea of what it means to come to an informed decision? Where you are certain you have thought out the decision and while you will LISTEN to debate, the more you hear the more you realize there has been and there is unlikely to be any arguments that are compelling enough to make you change your mind?

Or is EVERYTHING negotiable to you?

In my world there are certain things that are negotiable and others that aren't.

When you are asked the name of your country and someone says, "Canada," do you ask them to come up with a different answer?

Sometimes when you are right you are right.

Not ALL the time, but when you are, you are.

I'm regularly open to changing my mind but the reason I entertain new information is so I CAN reach an informed conclusion and once there not have to give it more than a few moments consideration to allow that a newer, better truth should be embraced.

In regards to Iraq, I see and hear no newer, better, truths from anyone here.

So, I remain of the same opinion as I was.

Like anybody else, there are many things I have absolute opinions on that are very difficult to change.

However, on subjects where there is an overwhelming and vast array of differing opinions, perspectives, information sources, and ideology I aim to remain open to influences and potential change.

These are subjects like:

- religion
- the meaning of life
- political issues
- social issues
- historical interpretation

etc.

This is called being open-minded, open to learning and growing. I even have strong opinions in many of these areas, but I acknowledge and listen to differing opinions when I'm able to.

You, on the other hand, are closed and dogmatic. Every thread in here seems to involve you lecturing the Mojo way of looking at the world, and you have great difficulty having an actual discussion over something that challenges your viewpoints.

The end result is that your thinking is so heavily self-absorbed that you have a hard time recognizing how your own viewpoints can be unravelled (believe me, several of us here could unravel your viewpoints). Everything becomes a matter of reinforcing your pre-existing beliefs rather than challenging yourself to reexamine them.

I understand that several issues are so deeply personal to the heart that many people do not WANT to re-examine them. I honestly think that your mind has reached an unhealthy balance if to you, politics is something this deeply personal to the point where you can't help taking challenging opinions personally. Unless you are a politician yourself with a reason to be so deeply entrenched and self-absorbed, why make politics your life's work, or something so deeply personal that you are unable to reexamine your beliefs from time to time?

The fact you have shut several of us down from the process of reexamining your beliefs indicates that you do have a rather intense connection to your own beliefs.

If you have decided that this is something that you don't consider to be a problem, why are you wasting your time writing to us? Are you trying to convert people? If your mind is so made up, why do you bother sharpening your beliefs, what is there to sharpen? Why do you need to be right in debating with other people? Why not just be comfortable in your own beliefs?

[besson3c]

BTW, cut out the stupid pot-shots, like asserting that my beliefs are special "Canadian" beliefs.

Ditto for left/right labels and all variants. I really identify myself as having disparate beliefs from any particular party, I don't like them being categorized and labeled.

Restrain yourself. We are all individuals.

[mojo2]

I miss "pupster."

[BRussell]

I just can't get over "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids."

[besson3c]

Another shutdown, no response from Mojo.... yeh Mojo! He's just about the best thing in the world...



O'Reilly Factor for Kids... I've thought about browsing through his book just to see what it is about. Perhaps that is where most of his sales come from. I can't imagine any parent thinking of O'Reilly as a moral authority, and being excited about kids reading his book.

Maybe Ann Coulter should write a "how to conduct civil conversation" book?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Like anybody else, there are many things I have absolute opinions on that are very difficult to change.

However, on subjects where there is an overwhelming and vast array of differing opinions, perspectives, information sources, and ideology I aim to remain open to influences and potential change.

These are subjects like:

- religion
- the meaning of life
- political issues
- social issues
- historical interpretation

etc.

This is called being open-minded, open to learning and growing. I even have strong opinions in many of these areas, but I acknowledge and listen to differing opinions when I'm able to.

You, on the other hand, are closed and dogmatic. Every thread in here seems to involve you lecturing the Mojo way of looking at the world, and you have great difficulty having an actual discussion over something that challenges your viewpoints.

The end result is that your thinking is so heavily self-absorbed that you have a hard time recognizing how your own viewpoints can be unravelled (believe me, several of us here could unravel your viewpoints). Everything becomes a matter of reinforcing your pre-existing beliefs rather than challenging yourself to reexamine them.

I understand that several issues are so deeply personal to the heart that many people do not WANT to re-examine them. I honestly think that your mind has reached an unhealthy balance if to you, politics is something this deeply personal to the point where you can't help taking challenging opinions personally. Unless you are a politician yourself with a reason to be so deeply entrenched and self-absorbed, why make politics your life's work, or something so deeply personal that you are unable to reexamine your beliefs from time to time?

The fact you have shut several of us down from the process of reexamining your beliefs indicates that you do have a rather intense connection to your own beliefs.

If you have decided that this is something that you don't consider to be a problem, why are you wasting your time writing to us? Are you trying to convert people? If your mind is so made up, why do you bother sharpening your beliefs, what is there to sharpen? Why do you need to be right in debating with other people? Why not just be comfortable in your own beliefs?

I'll negotiate all the other stuff with you except those things where I believe I have found THE answer. I might even be open minded about things that you have definite opinions on.

IMAGINE THAT!

In fact, I would say I am more open minded and flexible than the average non-Republican. (I'm trying not to use those BAD words you don't like.)

But when the security and strength of this country is at risk and there's a threat to the continuance of our way of life, that's when I get really serious.

Women and children can afford to be light hearted and philosophical and explore new ideas and all but men must make sure that the family is protected.

Once the danger is past then it's back to fun and games.

If one of you, if ANY of you were able to accurately assess the situation as I see it, THEN I might be able to meet you half way and from there possibly look at other possible answers.

But none of you have shown me you GET IT!

Here, let's try this.

I'll argue YOUR side and then you argue my side. Let's see if I get understand it from your position. OK?

I'm going to PM it to you because I don't want some jerk using my text to say, LOOK WHAT MOJO SAID! EVEN HE AGREES WITH US!

I know you have integrity and will keep this info out of sight of the pages of MacNN.

Expect a PM, any minute now.

Then, when you are ready, IF you want to and IF you can, you send me a PM with my perceptions and let's see who understands the ENTIRE issue. Any critiques and criticisms can/should be done in this thread for everyone to enjoy.

[besson3c]

Jesus Christ Mojo, what is with this "men must protect America" **** while women can just flitter about their daily business?

Do you have any idea how incredibly sexist this sounds? You just destroyed ALL of your credibility as far as I'm concerned. Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the fact that we aren't living in the stone age.

This explains a lot though.. your posts are extremely stereotypical male. A ton of posturing, alpha male crap, etc.

Do you have a wife or girlfriend? If so, does she inflate or have an on/off switch? I wonder who is the dominant one in your relationship.

How old are you?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Jesus Christ Mojo, what is with this "men must protect America" **** while women can just flitter about their daily business?

Do you have any idea how incredibly sexist this sounds? You just destroyed ALL of your credibility as far as I'm concerned. Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to the fact that we aren't living in the stone age.

This explains a lot though.. your posts are extremely stereotypical male. A ton of posturing, alpha male crap, etc.

Do you have a wife or girlfriend? If so, does she inflate or have an on/off switch? I wonder who is the dominant one in your relationship.

How old are you?

See, I KNEW you couldn't understand the situation from the other side.

Point made. Case closed.

[besson3c]

For all those watching: Mojo just emailed me and asked for me to acknowledge his opinion in return for him acknowledging and responding to mine.

For all those watching: you'll have realized that I've responded to and acknowledged his opinions 239048239048023948 times. So have many other people.

For all those watching: it seems like an actual conversation with this guy is a complete waste of time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

See, I KNEW you couldn't understand the situation from the other side.

Point made. Case closed.

You don't have an other side that is accepted in mainstream culture. We did away with chauvinistic societies a long time ago. I've responded to your point of view countless times.

You haven't made a point.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You don't have an other side that is accepted in mainstream culture. We did away with chauvinistic societies a long time ago. I've responded to your point of view countless times.

You haven't made a point.

You would sacrifice this nation's long term safety, security and livelihood/way of life to achieve short term cessation of pain.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You would sacrifice this nation's long term safety, security and livelihood/way of life to achieve short term cessation of pain.

Translation: you better accept my point of view, or else we won't even have a conversation. This is my ultimatum to you.


Dude, you are WAY too emotionally invested in this stuff and are behaving like a complete dick. Step back and take a breather for a few minutes.

[besson3c]

I'm having a hard time letting what Mojo said about women slide...

Mojo, do you have a girlfriend or wife? What do you really think about women?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Translation: you better accept my point of view, or else we won't even have a conversation. This is my ultimatum to you.


Dude, you are WAY too emotionally invested in this stuff and are behaving like a complete dick. Step back and take a breather for a few minutes.

Hahahaha!!!

You are cheating! Taking my PM comments to you and parading them before the readers as though I'd never said them to you.

SIGH!

I'm not the one who is emotional about it but I DO have other things to do. Why not revise your strategy, take your own advice, consider my PM'd advice to you or accept my challenge or what ever will help you come up with some way to make the country safe from long term dangers and economic disaster.

THAT is the issue here. Keep your eye on the ball.

Later.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hahahaha!!!

You are cheating! Taking my PM comments to you and parading them before the readers as though I'd never said them to you.

SIGH!

I'm not the one who is emotional about it but I DO have other things to do. Why not revise your strategy, take your own advice, consider my PM'd advice to you or accept my challenge or what ever will help you come up with some way to make the country safe from long term dangers and economic disaster.

THAT is the issue here. Keep your eye on the ball.

My response was to what was quoted, not your PM.

Your rhetoric is becoming boring, and your lectures dull... Seek balance in your life. Good luck!

[tie]

Great quote from O'Reilly:

[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you [San Franciscans] up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

(Coit Tower is a landmark dedicated to San Francisco firefighters.)