Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly got together for a debate for charity, and while comedy was expected, Jon Stewart walked all over Bill O’Reilly in a debate that morphed into a serious discussion.
In the first question of the debate Bill-O was asked if voters are going to make their decision based on the economy. In typical Republican fashion, O’Reilly disagreed with Mitt Romney and said that only 20% of Americans are slackers. O’Reilly also claimed that Obama has spent more money than any president since World War II, a talking point which has been proven false. O’Reilly also told Sandra Fluke to buy her own birth control.
Stewart responded by saying, “Bill O’Reilly is full of sh*t.” Stewart then said that Republicans are living in alternate reality, then talked about the fact that they live on bulls**t mountain. He said there they believe that a Kenyan Muslim is president, they built all their success without any help, and that Christmas is under attack. Stewart said that we have to agree on reality, and got a shot in at Romney for claiming that we can solve the debt crisis by killing Big Bird, and told O’Reilly to talk to his people.
Bill-O groused about NPR, and moaned about income redistribution. Stewart fired back by asking O’Reilly whether Exxon should be forced to compete on their own, and Bill-O agreed with him. O’Reilly claimed the economy is so bad because small business is afraid of Obamacare. The problem with his reasoning is that small businesses actually support Obamacare. Stewart said the things O’Reilly was suggesting are not things that Obama brought. He then highlighted how Bush turned a surplus into debt. O’Reilly’s reply was the typical right wing answer, “Bush is gone.” O’Reilly said that it doesn’t matter what Bush did. It is Obama’s job to get it under control. (Bill-O was suggesting that it is Obama’s job to clean up Bush’s mess.)
Stewart explained why Bush’s debt matters, because Bush loaded up the country with debt. O’Reilly again refused to defend Bush and the GOP.
The debate contained a surprising amount of substance. O’Reilly brought his Fox News talking points, and Stewart brought facts. As O’Reilly and Stewart battled over entitlements, The Daily Show host asked why it is okay for a businessman to take advantage of tax break, but poor people can’t take advantage of program that will give them something they need? Stewart pointed to the connection between government investment in infrastructure and the success of the country.
After questions about the Middle East, the discussion turned to media bias. Stewart said he doesn’t believe that the mainstream media networks are activist organizations, but Fox News is an overreaction to perceived media bias. Stewart compared Fox News to Lupus. O’Reilly launched the standard defense of Fox News being the conservative equalizer. Stewart answered that anytime you have audience where more people believe the president is a Muslim than believe in evolution, you have a problem.
When the question of the War on Christmas came up, Stewart said that the area outside of Fox News looks like Santa exploded in December, and called the War on Christmas insanity. O’Reilly responded by saying, “I know,” and then he claimed that they won the War on Christmas.
O’Reilly and Stewart took questions from the Internet and audience, and O’Reilly admitted that he didn’t think the US should have gone into Iraq. O’Reilly also predicted that a third party is going to rise up. They were asked who they would save if the Earth was burning. Bill-O chose Oprah, and Stewart chose his family.
In response to a question about what they would do if they were the supreme ruler for the day, O’Reilly said Stewart would make everybody socialist, and Stewart replied that O’Reilly supports Social Security, so he is already a socialist like the rest of America, and we are all arguing over shades of red.
When they discussed healthcare, O’Reilly gave the standard conservative position about buying insurance across state lines, and Stewart argued for single payer.
Jon Stewart was really on his game with his messaging. O’Reilly seemed to be there to play his foil, and offer up the standard conservative/Fox News talking points. There were long stretches of the debate that were lacking in jokes, but heavy on substance. Stewart was intent on calling out the b.s. of the right and especially the right wing media.
The comedy weight was on Stewart, and it turns out, so was the intellectual burden. O’Reilly was in full bloom, and playing his Fox News character. Bill-O was there to represent the right, and he put their flimsy arguments and talking points on full display. It is clear that Stewart and O’Reilly personally like each other, but they also have some big political differences.
I am going to take a wild guess and say like the audience attending the debate, most of the Internet viewers shared Stewart’s point of view. As a cultural exercise, this debate put the gap between the right and rest of Americans who live in reality on full display.
Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart put on a good entertaining evening that was well worth the $4.95 PPV price, especially with half the money going to charity. The audience came armed with serious questions, and O’Reilly and Stewart, well Stewart at least, provided thoughtful answers on a regular basis. O’Reilly had his moments, especially towards the end of the debate when he admitted that many talking heads in the mainstream media don’t believe what they are saying and are making it up. The program ended with a proclamation that they both are winners, and all in all, this is an event that is worth watching.
PoliticusUSA
G+
Facebook
NVL
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
It was a really, really good debate and I think the largest take away was something Stewart tried to convey, looking at the scope of the state of the country in a larger context that this past 4 years and really remembering that the policy of a president, or the effects of his presidency outlast the time he is in office.
loading...
Ilene Flannery Wells
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
The line about buying insurance plans across state lines struck me. There is a problem with that, and i can’t remember what it is. I know the talk is something along the lines that it would encourage competition and lower costs, but it is a ruse…and there is a catch I a forgetting about. Someone help me out.
I am in full support of HR676…Medicare for All..
loading...
William Carr
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Here’s how it works now.
National insurance companies have satellite companies in every State, and the State laws apply to protect their citizens.
The idea of “buying across State lines” is to escape the State Regulation.
You know that they did this with Corporations, and now almost all Corporations are registered in Delaware?
Same deal. The State with the weakest regulations would end up having all the Insurance companies, and they’d merge, so there would be only one.
No choice, no competition, high prices.
loading...
Natalie
Oct. 8th, 2012 at 1:15 am
Even though people keep using the “across state lines” arguement about health insurance it really isn’t the issue. With health insurance there is no customer so it will never be a free market anyway. If health insurance chooses to breach it’s contract and not cover a treatment, which they do often, there is nothing you can do. Legally you can not sue them because there is a federal law that states you can not sue health insurance companies they are protected from this.
The only thing you can do is contact the insurance commission who really can’t do anything either. Also if that particular insurance company has a government contract then it is out side the jurisdiction of the insurance commission and then who you are told to contact is that health insurance company’s customer service department.
Health insurance companies give bonuses to their claims department employees for denying claims and fire those who do not deny enough claims. They also make it so complicated to process a claim it is very difficult to get claims processed.
The primary reason for the high cost of healthcare in the US is the health insurance companies. If we did not have health insurance companies the cost of healthcare would drop by at least 50%, this is based on the average collect rate being 40%.
Until Americans realize this it is going to remain a problem. Even many physicians don’t realize this because they do not file their own claims.
loading...
Sally
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Don’t you love how the right ignores the fact that BUSH was the one who spent more money than any modern President, and Obama has actually spent LESS, but we aren;t allowed to mention Bush’s failures that led to the problems we have, and instead, are supposed to blame Obama for not fixing every one of them with no help from Congress and no money to fix anything with. Bunch of idiots, Bill included. Thank you, Jon Stewart, but being the adult in the room, and one of the few in the nation, it seems.
loading...
Patrick
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:16 am
There is a problem with your theory. During president Obama’s first two years in office both houses were controlled by a democratic majority. You are right that he had no help from congress but it was his own party that was not helping him.
loading...
Your Humble Narrator
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:56 am
No they weren’t. Stop being an ignorant asshat and look it up.
loading...
Darcy C
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:58 am
It takes 60 votes to pass something in the senate, so to say that just because there was a democratic majority means Obama controlled the senate is not accurate. If only he controlled it, the US would be much better off.
loading...
shirley
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:02 am
Actually, your premise is flawed. While in theory Dems had 60 Senators and “controlled”both houses, in actuality, due to death and illness, there were only 56 – 59 actually sitting until the last four months of 2010. Considering they took a month off before the election, he only had both houses for three months, not two years. The Senate Republicans racked up the most filibusters in years – possibly ever -stopping passage of anything that would help the economy, etc, because you need 60 votes to stop them. That is another canard the Right uses, but is NOT based on fact.
loading...
Gwen Hoffman
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Shirley–Thank you. Your numbers are accurate. There was actually only 24 “Working Days” on the floor of the Senate. Their deceatful claims that the Democratics controlled both houses are only accurate for the numbers. It has been nothing but tryanny of the Majority, by the Minority in the Senate. The GOP has held up or stopped legislation, with at least 241 fillabusters.
loading...
dodgegirl1030
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Gwen, yes you are correct on the filibusters. One was to stop Obama from giving tax breaks to companies who supported American jobs. The Republicans believed it was wrong to only give tax breaks to companies who kept jobs, or brought jobs back to the US.
Basically it applied the rule that the greater portion of a company or companies you had in the US, the more tax breaks you received.
loading...
Bob
Oct. 9th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Ahhh, wait a minute. President Obama was elected in 2008. Took office 1/20/09. You claim he only had the Congress for “3 months, not two years”. Did the Congress not meet for the entire year of 2009?
loading...
stoner
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Obama has spent more money on education than anyone else.
Obama has spent more money on immigration control than anyone else.
Obama has spent more on the military.
Obama has spent more on alternative energy.
Obama has spent more on the EPA.
Obama has spent more on infrastructure.
Obama has spent more on “jobs”.
Obama has spent more on Police and Fire control.
Obama has spent more on EVERYTHING than anyone else.
Hey, wait a minute, what about all this massive deficit spending?
Oh yea, that, thats the Republicans fault.
look it up
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Link to all you say. Bush was at war for 6 years and Obama has spent more?
Fox News or breitbart?
Basically your lying because the House hasnt passed any of Obama’s jobs bills.
“Obama has spent more on infrastructure.” Good
“Obama has spent more money on education than anyone else.” Good
“Obama has spent more on alternative energy.” Good
“Obama has spent more on Police and Fire control.” Good
“Obama has spent more money on immigration control than anyone else.” Good
Face it rookie. Bush raised the debt by 85%. Obama has raised it by 35%. Lets see your facts
loading...
doc4600
Oct. 14th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Where are your facts. All you have are , talking points, no facts to back them up.http://thedailybanter.com/2012/05/obama-spending-vs-bush-spending/?fb_action_ids=4294090723512&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
loading...
Cheryl
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Does anyone know if this will this be televise at a different time?
loading...
Arelius705
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 10:56 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P5tIxg4VDg
loading...
fredric
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Would have been neat if Stewart asked O’Reilly about his idiot Christian Creationist rightarded lunacy “Tide goes in, tide goes out,” as well as his freakish sexual problems using telephones. That’s the real O’Reilly.
loading...
Yellow Dog Yankee
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Ilene: Insurance across state lines would be an enormous boondoggle for insurance companies because they would be able to locate in the states with the least strenuous requirements just like credit card companies do today. For example, Massachusetts has a law called mental health parity which means that mental and emotional illness must be covered within a policy to the same extent that physical illness is covered. You can bet no insurance company would headquarter in that state when they can go someplace that has no such requirement or maybe even no specific requirements at all for what they must cover.
loading...
Mary
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I hope that President Obama has time to watch this debate and take some pointers for the next debate with Romney, including some of the humor!
Jon Stewart is well versed and have a good command of the real substance of the choice we have in this election.
I hope that this is televised to a wider audience. Let’s push for ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc to televise this debate!
loading...
Bob
Oct. 9th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Jon made good points. You mean like when Bill had to explain the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt?
loading...
honeybabe
Oct. 6th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
jon stewart is a national treasure and should get the title “vice president of explaining”.
loading...
lbarnett
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 12:20 am
My only question is why did these two millionaires give only 1/2 of the money to charities?
loading...
kevin Richards
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 7:17 am
Stewart mentioned on the daily show on Wednesday that all of his share was going to charity, unlike O’Reilly. That would be half.
loading...
Althea Lewwis
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 12:33 am
John Stewart, one of the smartest people on television..Bill O’Reilly, not so much!
loading...
Michael Gartman
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:34 am
Here’s a little bit of a different perspective from a young Christian libertarian who can’t stand Bill O’Reilly and likes Jon Stewart (though a bigger fan of Stephen Colbert):
Granted, I didn’t see the debate, I did read the article and can tell this is a left-leaning site and the writer is clearly liberal.
But I’ll put that aside, since I really can’t stand either side (Republicans or Democrats). O’Reilly was more reasonable, than, well, ever, though that’s not saying too much because he always acts like he knows everything and anyone who doesn’t share his outlook doesn’t know anything.
That said, Stewart should start embracing more of the ideas that he’s discussed with recent guests on his show like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Rand Paul and start to find more common ground.
Newsflash: Just because you are critical of the president doesn’t mean you’re a far-right, uninformed Republican who wants to have a huge military presence overseas and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about poor people.
On the flip side, just because you’re against the Republicans, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be open-minded to calling out the commander-in-chief when he doesn’t follow up on his promises, like putting an end to the PATRIOT ACT, all of the undeclared, unconstitutional wars and then signing the NDAA.
Just take these ideas into consideration.
loading...
Your Humble Narrator
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:00 am
Libertarianism is sort of a silly, adolescent male fantasyland. You live under the delusion that if you do away with government that you YOU will be empowered by your new freedom. It is folly because without government you will simply be subject to corporate feudalism.
loading...
Jamal Igle
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Anyone who really thinks libertarianism needs to go on Netflix or Youtube today and watch the following films:
Rollerball, Robocop and the Incredible Shrinking Woman.
loading...
D Lyttle
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:48 am
OK Michael, so waste your vote on Paul or Johnson, and in effect, vote for Romney.
loading...
Bob
Oct. 9th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Or, put another way, waste your vote on Paul or Johnson, and in effect give another vote to Obama.
loading...
Tyler Kinsherf
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
I agree completely with you. I just watched the debate it was highly entertaining and I enjoyed both Stewart and O’Reilly’s points. I think it was a good debate and a lot of stuff was talked about. This article made it seem like O’Reilly was a baffoon and Stewart was a sharp blade of justice.
loading...
Lydia R
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:38 am
The insurance companies can in essence pick and choose what conditions will, or will not be covered; as well as which states they will, or will not cover on any condition. This is the problem with buying health insurance across state lines.
loading...
Bob
Oct. 9th, 2012 at 11:29 am
So if a company in Nebraska had a policy that sucked, why would I buy it? Wouldn’t I buy a policy from a company that had a product that fit my needs?
BTW, large corporations get around this already. A friend of my works at a local hospital in Massachusetts. The hospital is owned by a conglomerate with hospitals in almost every state. Their insurance policy is from a company in California.
loading...
Scott Brody
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:44 am
Only half of the money went to charity because they still had to pay for the use of the school and auditorium and the streaming company and people and the advertising and all of the other things necessary to make it happen. I don’t think either of the two millionaires made money or got paid for the event. Thing it shows most of all no matter which side you are on is that you can have good debates and discussions among the 2 parties and we need to work together to solve the problems. Yes, Bush may have started and caused the mess (he had some democratic congress help too) but Obama did take on the job saying that he would fix it and cut the debt in half and have unemployment at 6% and if he couldn’t do it by his first term he didn’t deserve a 2nd one. When he boasted about this was mostly after he knew how bad the problems were, so the blaming Bush is understood, but Pres. Obama must also be held accountable for the claims he made and his failure to produce those results. The leader needed is someone who can get all of these politicians to focus on the needs of the country and its well being and not their individual or party political gains and gamesmanship.
loading...
skyblue
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:16 am
Pres. O’bama also didn’t count on a congress that would vote against their own jobs bill to make him look bad… If ANY of those jobs ills went through where would the employment rate be then??
loading...
Fran Donovan
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:21 am
There’s absolutely no way that President Obama could have know that the House Republicans would vow obstruct everything he wanted to do. Of course he wouldn’t have expected their full cooperation, but the extent of their obstructionism is mind blowing. They care more about getting the black man out of the White House than they cared about finding compromises to move this country forward.
loading...
Berny
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 5:02 am
“Accountability, one concept completely missing from any “Republican. I”m not going 2 correct everything u said, bec. your talking pts are like O”Reilly”s – made-up. “But, 6% ah”? PBO said less than 8%. OMG, it is. It”s 7.8%”! I tell you what though, it would be in the mid 6% area if Repug congress passed PBOs Jobs “Act instead of messing around taking away womens rights & suppressing the votes. 4 More for 44 “AND “Dems back in charge will ensure further decreases in unemployment “AND deficit.
loading...
CG
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 5:56 am
Just out of curiosity Scott, have you ever made promises but were not able to keep due circumstances? Oh and by the way, Politicians make promises all the time, can you honestly tell me you believe everything they say? With the opposing forces in congress & the main goal was to make President Obama a 1 term president, can’t keep a promise when opposing party is standing in the way.
loading...
Sandra
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 11:34 am
You’re on the ball there CG, the Republicans ran on jobs, jobs, jobs, in 2010 and todate they have created how many? 0, nil, nada, zilch. They have vetoed two jobs bills under Obama. The last one earlier this year, that the CBO and other organizations said would create upto 2 million jobs. Despite their obstructionism, PO’s policies still created 5+ private sector jobs since 2009 while Republican Governors have been firing public sector workers thus keeping the unemployment #s high thinking noone will notice what they are doing.
BTW, JS did a masterful job of taking down BO as usual.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Actually Scott, Obama never said he would have unemployment below XXX%(it changes with who you are talking to). 2 people who went through his plan much in the way all the candidates plans are gone through and evaluated said his plans would.
Heck I remember John Boehner saying he got it in 2010, his only primary job was to create jobs, then the first thing they try to pass is an abortion bill and not a job plan since.
loading...
labman57
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 1:47 am
O’Reilly’s thought bubble: “Why the hell did I do it LIVE???”
Curiously, most of the talking heads that appear on FOX News do believe what they are saying … despite the fact that they are indeed making it up.
loading...
Miriam
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:06 am
@Patrick. That is a huge lie. It was 131 days…or something in that range but it was no where close to two years. Biggest fib out there.
loading...
Andrew Rei
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 2:25 am
There’s a good reason why we call him “Billo the Clown”…you got to see it during this debate.
loading...
Fnerp
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 3:32 am
I’m a huge fan of Jon. He’s the only reasonable voice on politics these days. That being said, couple of things with this particular article.
1) The question that was asked is “If you could save one CELEBRITY, who would you save”. Bill’s answer doesn’t make sense otherwise.
2) Jon actually did keep messing up the terms “debt” and “deficit” even though we knew what he meant and his point was valid. Still. I’m sure those soundbites might come back and… err… bite him, pun unavoidable.
3) I like the bullshit mountain bit, but it is a rehash from his show. Still, it’s a good one.
4) I can’t believe Jon Stu is in favor of mandatory armed service. Didn’t expect that one. In my opinion, bringing in people who do not want to be there will only create a potentially dangerous environment for those who do.
Otherwise, this thing was well worth the purchase. Jon for President (minus the armed services thing)!
loading...
DCB
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Jon said he was in favor of one-year of mandatory public service whether in the military or the community.
loading...
bamaboy2012
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 3:47 am
I can help you out with your question. Your ideas are exactly like Romney’s. He can’t remember what he is for from day to day either. I belive that answers you question, right???
loading...
Rick
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 3:48 am
Actually the first two years of Obama’s administration, they had a “simple” majority. NOT a “Super” majority, like most uninformed Faux News watchers may think. Because of the “simple” majority, the 60-vote-filibuster rule went into affect.
loading...
ferob
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 4:02 am
We watched the debate. Well worth the money. Jon Stewart came out on top of all the questions asked. They had the questions ahead of time and Billo came prepared with placards. Jon still put him and his signs in their place.
Jon your the best!!!
loading...
Sharon O
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 4:50 am
I try to get all my political news from “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report”. These days, as Mary Poppins would say, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” But there is a more important reason, truth or as Colbert would say “truther”. On Colbert I learned how PACs and Super PACs work. Not only was it enlightening it was gratifying to get the kind of reporting I wish we could get from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc… As for the daily show I will quote myself. When the topic of politics comes up I invariably Lament how pathetic it is that, “The best political interviewer in the country is Jon Stewart, a comedian.”
loading...
caroline Good
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 5:29 am
My favorite (?) post here (that I read) is from someone, Michael Garthman, who didn’t see the event, but commented from the article that Bill sounded more reasonable than usual. I can assure you that he regurgitated his usual nonsense and as unreasonable as ever, but Jon kept coming back with such eloquence and preciseness of concepts, often in hilarious ways, cracking up even Billo.
Another commenter, Mary, said that Obama should watch this to get some pointers. True that Jon said all the things I wish the President had replied with, but the dynamics are too different. After all, the President can’t have an hilarious bit with a lift under him, to make him taller than Romney, or be as righteously blustery as Jon was. (I mean that in a good way).
It was well worth the little bit of money for so much fun and political gratification. What convinced me to go for it was that 1/2 is going to charity.
THANK YOU JON. Many more awards to you, you deserve them.
loading...
jessica
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 6:02 am
Great show. Jon was on top and in command throughout the night. Someone commented in this thread that Stewart wanted mandatory military service. He (Jon) said it would be a good idea to require one year of military or public service. That’s a lot different than bringing back the draft.
loading...
zhila
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 6:08 am
Is The Main Stream Media Biased Liberally?
Fact: Everything in the universe IS in its path of evolution.
This fact is proven by mere observation of our natural surroundings.
Fact: Humanity is no exception to this universal law.
So progress appeals as a natural and essential process to most of us with common sense.
In a free society, the public voices in main stream media naturally reflect this progress mandated by nature.
Therefore, in a freethinking society, the media must and will lean progressive aka liberal.
Hence the claim by Conservatives that main stream media is biased liberally is an illogical nonsense.
There is no conspiracy related to this fact as it is interwoven with our inherited nature of progression.
On the other hand, if a media is primarily conservative. It must have limitations and control over its broad-casted materials in order to embody its non-progressive ideology.
Hence a conservative media by default must be controlled and biased leaning toward its ideology.
So, Next time, if you heard a conservative who falsely accuses media of being deliberately liberal, remember these indisputable facts about the laws of nature and how our media is simply reflecting our natural and factual growth.
You could even invite them to join this natural law of evolutionary progress! ;)
Zhila S.T.
loading...
Naomi
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 7:55 am
I swear I think if Jon Stewart ran as a 3rd party candidate he would win! Wouldn’t he be a different kind of President? A President that doesn’t bullshit and we could trust, what a novelty!
Our system would probably change him in a couple of years, but what a couple of years it would be.
loading...
Vo Reason
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 7:55 am
Re: O’Reilly’s reply was the typical right wing answer, “Bush is gone.” O’Reilly said that it doesn’t matter what Bush did. It is Obama’s job to get it under control.
Think about Stewart’s reply; essentially excusing Obama’s mess because Bush also made a mess. That’s what a frickin’ third grader would say.
We’ve got a frickin’ third grader in the White House and Stewart thinks that blindsiding someone in a serious discussion with nasty, vitriolic sarcasm accompanied by the drooling laughter of his acne faced claque trapped in delayed adolescence makes him something other than an intellectual lightweight;.
loading...
Jamal Igle
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:36 am
No, we have a thoughtful, measured, intelligent person in the White House. Only the Tin- foil hat crowd believes that Obama, with the amount of Republican obstruction he has faced, would be able to fix eight years of damage. A record number of republican filibusters, Republicans blocking infrastructure jobs bills, Bills to give military veterans jobs when they got home, blocking anything they saw as a way to improve the economy over the long term.
loading...
Renee Edwards
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Just a side note re filibusters. dosen’t any remember how the Senate under Bush tried to pass a law against filibusters when the Democrates did it to try and block many of the ills that Bush created? Funny how they are doing the same thing but in this case just to block anything Obama wanted to put through, the jobs bill especially. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
loading...
TLH
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 8:54 am
I really want to meet Jon Stewart and shake his hand. He’s da MAN.
loading...
CC Scarbrough
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Didn’t see it. Wish I had. Love Jon Stewart.
loading...
Vo Reason
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Everyone remembers that despicable guy in high school or college who had a special way of making everyone feel bad about themselves, like calling the bright kids brown nosers or the dumb ones retards. He never amounted to anything but had that special flair for sarcasm and felt that if he cut you down he would somehow come out as superior. All the pseudo in-crowd would stand around laughing of his victims, basking in pseudo superiority of his unkind behavior. Well folks, that guy is still around, and his name is Jon Stewart, and that behavior is still called bullying. Isn’t it ironic that pseudo liberals can pay lip service to being against bullying when they applaud it when it comes from one of their own. And they can hate religious intolerance when it is directed at Muslims but applaud it when it is directed at non-Muslims.
loading...
obnostic
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 10:32 am
In my experience what you described is how Republicans act, and how they’re acting now on Fox, EIB and so on. The liberal would stand up for the victim. Confronting a bully with facts is not bullying.
loading...
fedded-up
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
You equate Jon Stewart with the class bully? If Jon is making you feel that inferior, I would suggest that perhaps your notions of life in general not only lean hard right, but are also more than a bit ‘ucked up.’ Good grief, I’ve heard of dark paranoia before, but this is ridiculous. Broad hint: there is NO ‘Reason’ to your ‘Vo.’
loading...
iunbears
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Damnit I Missed it!! Will it be on again!!
loading...
Sandra
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 11:41 am
You can watch it on youtube.
loading...
rich weber
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 10:48 am
jon brings much more than comedy to the table.he s funny and very likeable. he uses FACTS and COMMON SENSE something americans REALLY wish would come back into politics!! bill o reilly PUHLEEZE!
loading...
Anne
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 10:51 am
I don’t see Bill O’Reilly as necessarily a stupid man, but there is NO way for anyone to intelligently defend an ideology as regressive, ossified, and destructive as the right-wing ideology. Any critical examination of facts, which operate independently of ideology, tends to discredit that ideology. What folks like Bill O’Reilly do is to try to make facts fit into a dangerously flawed ideology, and it doesn’t work.
My appreciation for John Stewart has doubled as the result of this debate.
loading...
Benne the Clone
Oct. 7th, 2012 at 11:32 am
I heard about JS bringing the substance, but I couldn’t tell it from the article. While the author pointed out Bill O’s factual errors, he only described JS’s comments about such things as “bullshit mountain”. I will watch the debate for myself, but the article displays little of the reported substance.
loading...