clayinaustin
Charter Member
Good stuff...
Part 1
Part 1
Headlines
Jon Stewart on the Bill O'Reilly Show
- Thread starter clayinaustin
- Start date
clayinaustin
Charter Member
Part 2 - Dennis Miller is in the middle of this clip, but they talk about Jon Stewart.
Good stuff!
Good stuff!
Last edited:
Tommy Gun
Charter Member
I saw both interviews and agree it was pretty good stuff. I'd like to see more of these type of debates between opposing personalities. I thought O'Reilly tried too hard to get his shots in and Stewart tried too hard to be funny. One interesting thing is that both were relatively civil and weren't all that far apart in their opinions. I was surprised that the only positive Stewart could come up with regarding Obama was "engagement of the regulatory mechanism" (like getting lead paint out of Chinese made toys).
Tommy Gun
Charter Member
catastrophe
Registered
Uncle Dave
New member
I think of the trio I like Miller best and the other 2 are tied for me.
You said it - Miller is so fast its ridiculous.
I remember once he referred to his audience looking like "captain pike"- and 7 guys caught it.
UD
2112
Founding Member / Contributor
LaughingCat
New member
Apparently, there were plenty of edits to the Stewart/O'Reilly dialogue. Nothing tremendous. They are available on the FoxNews website feed, unedited.
Some sample text:
I know what this is. I come from Jersey—it's the same thing: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people." [F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."
Another:
I do like Dennis Miller the most. He very well could make up half the words he uses, but he delivers them in a way that says, "You do know what that means, right? and it sure was funny."
Some sample text:
I know what this is. I come from Jersey—it's the same thing: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people." [F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."
Another:
O'REILLY: Do you know any Tea Party people?
STEWART: Yes, I do.
O'REILLY: Really? Down in Greenwich Village there are Tea Party people?
STEWART: Down in Greenwich Village? Let me tell you something, Bill—I'll give you four blocks of Greenwich Village, and I'll put that up against four blocks around your house—
O'REILLY: Levittown?
STEWART: No, your house now.
O'REILLY: Oh, Levittown is where I was brought up.
STEWART: Well, you don't live there any more brother.
I thought the interview was good. The partisan politcal world built this up like a clash of the titans. They were hospitable.STEWART: Yes, I do.
O'REILLY: Really? Down in Greenwich Village there are Tea Party people?
STEWART: Down in Greenwich Village? Let me tell you something, Bill—I'll give you four blocks of Greenwich Village, and I'll put that up against four blocks around your house—
O'REILLY: Levittown?
STEWART: No, your house now.
O'REILLY: Oh, Levittown is where I was brought up.
STEWART: Well, you don't live there any more brother.
I do like Dennis Miller the most. He very well could make up half the words he uses, but he delivers them in a way that says, "You do know what that means, right? and it sure was funny."
jayboat
Banned
Gawker rips it good...
Read the whole thing. The Gawker staff deserves great credit for, as the saying goes, watching these idiots so we don’t have to, and for exploring Fox’s bad-faith chop job at length. Comments are well worth reading, too—including, I suppose, the Fox apologist who whines “The rife condescension in this thread is exactly why more people watch Fox than the Big Three. Obviously, the bulk of Fox’s viewers don’t really sweat the fact it’s a right-leaning outlet, just like the Big Three viewers don’t sweat the left-of-center bias. Fox’s viewers watch Fox because it’s the one place in the MSM they don’t get called stupid all day long.
Read the whole thing. The Gawker staff deserves great credit for, as the saying goes, watching these idiots so we don’t have to, and for exploring Fox’s bad-faith chop job at length. Comments are well worth reading, too—including, I suppose, the Fox apologist who whines “The rife condescension in this thread is exactly why more people watch Fox than the Big Three. Obviously, the bulk of Fox’s viewers don’t really sweat the fact it’s a right-leaning outlet, just like the Big Three viewers don’t sweat the left-of-center bias. Fox’s viewers watch Fox because it’s the one place in the MSM they don’t get called stupid all day long.
LaughingCat
New member
You make a strong point. In fact, it's why I have such a problem with neo-Cons, Cheney, Palin, et al. They need you to be afraid. But afraid of what? Some towelheads from third world countries? We are way too smart for this. But I'm afraid we have enough ignorant leaders getting airtime spreading this BS propaganda. Anyone who believes we should live in fear is a fool. And fools get parted with their money in short order.
2112
Founding Member / Contributor
How about increasing the size and scope of the Government astronomically, indebting ourselves and several following generations beyond compare?
Oh, Wait we can tax ourselves into oblivion like the welfare states of Europe where by happenstance most people don't have the freedoms or the lifestyles we enjoy now. Yeah that sounds great, we can all live in tiny little city apartments and have pissy little econocars if any car at all, but wait, big brother is there to take care of us, especially those who won't take care of themselves.
Oh, BTW the ultra rich land owning class in Europe seems to escaped the costs of supporting the huge welfare state, How does that work.
.
LaughingCat
New member
Good question. It sure did suck when we waged the $1 trillion war of stupid choice in Iraq. I don't hear anyone belly-aching about the fact that when Obama got in office, he added the costs of the two wars to the annual budget, which accounts for a substantial amount of the deficit increase. Did anyone else realize that? Did anyone realize that all the years we fought the wars, they simply omitted the entire expense from our annual fiscal budget.
LaughingCat
New member
And I can tell everyone why the Republicans got much more done with a smaller majhority that the Dems have now. They passed our earmark favors like breath mints. So much political bribe money was doled out, they got all their crap passed.
The Dems are in gridlock because they are not passing out giant earmarks. Well, let's be realistic, they are spending like crazy, but they are not bribing the opposition.
There's a Rep Senator right now blocking everything unless massive earmarks are given to his state. These people are not Conservatives!
I am far more fearful of religious zealots who want power and your money to spend than any yodeling towelhead that lights his pants on fire.
The Dems are in gridlock because they are not passing out giant earmarks. Well, let's be realistic, they are spending like crazy, but they are not bribing the opposition.
There's a Rep Senator right now blocking everything unless massive earmarks are given to his state. These people are not Conservatives!
I am far more fearful of religious zealots who want power and your money to spend than any yodeling towelhead that lights his pants on fire.
2112
Founding Member / Contributor
I agree that the current republicans are not the answer and I was personally against going into Iraq. Doesn't make turning the USA into a giant welfare state a good idea. I also agree that we should not foot the world's security bill but Hell, Under the new Global Warming treaty, we will be footing the bill for all developing countries to "not use carbon".
Last but not least, As bad as the current republicans are, Who does the ultra rich wall streeters have as their favorite political target? Maybe those who will sell us down the road while bankrupting us with more welfare entitlements?
They are all corrupt.
.
Last but not least, As bad as the current republicans are, Who does the ultra rich wall streeters have as their favorite political target? Maybe those who will sell us down the road while bankrupting us with more welfare entitlements?
They are all corrupt.
.
clayinaustin
Charter Member
WOW! I just watched the entire un-cut interview. Stewart rocks! 
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
There is only one thing about that war which no one brings up. (And I was dead-set against it from before it started).
More of the money spent in that war has been spent creating war supply jobs in the US, and military jobs, than the stimulous package has created. Without it, we would be in a much worse state of affairs. Does anyone here recall the studies on the aftermath of the pullouts from Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, etc??????
If we lose all of those military jobs and supply line requirements, you can increase the unemployment in this country by an estimated 3% minimum overall are the current estimates I've read. Makes me think that is why Obama has been convinced to move more troops into Afganistan, where it is not as unpopular to do so, while trying to keep his rhetoric of pulling out of Iraq.
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
An Iraq recession?
One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war is responsible for our economic difficulties. The answer (with slight qualifications) is no.
Just to be clear: I yield to nobody in my outrage over the way we were lied into a disastrous, unnecessary war. But economics isn’t a morality play, in which evil deeds are always punished and good deeds rewarded.
The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.
Paul Krugman
A well-known liberal Nobel Prize winner in Economics.
One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war is responsible for our economic difficulties. The answer (with slight qualifications) is no.
Just to be clear: I yield to nobody in my outrage over the way we were lied into a disastrous, unnecessary war. But economics isn’t a morality play, in which evil deeds are always punished and good deeds rewarded.
The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.
Paul Krugman
A well-known liberal Nobel Prize winner in Economics.
Similar threads
