Stewart is a comedian, and you, Tucker, are a "news" commentator. He is more informative and trusted than you will ever be. That's gotta sting. Good job losing the bow tie, though. Maybe if you continue to parrot Stewart when you speak, you will earn some credibility. It couldn't hurt.

Stewart went on the offensive a week prior to the Cramer interview, not for any of the reasons bow-tie boy mentions. Way not to appear bitter about losing Crossfire because of Stewart's actions.

That right there is nothing more than sour grapes, and nothing else.

Translated: Jon Stewart kicked MY ass on the TeeVee machine and I hate him for it. Hate him with the heat of a thousand suns...

Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

Tucker didn't even pay attention to it, he's making shiat up. John Stewart did not single Cramer out. He attacked CNBC as a whole. Cramer was one of several examples. But Cramer was the most outspoken in his taking offense, and that's when Stewart went after him. Obama's budget has nothing to do with it.

Why don't you invite him onto your show, Tucker?

Oh yeah, you don't have one . . .

Tucker who?

CheetahOlivetti: Why don't you invite him onto your show, Tucker?

Oh yeah, you don't have one . . .

And because the last person to take Jon Stewart on one-on-one lost pretty horribly.

/Watched the Cramer interview.
//The amount of backpedaling by Cramer was insane.

morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

Tucker Carlson looks like he needs a truckload of Desitin, doesn't he?

McFifenstein: morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

I'm just curious since I don't hit those politics threads that have more than 30 comments, do those opposing John Stewart have relevant, legitimate well thought out reasoning for opposition to John Stewart or is it full of deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiting?

fariasrv: Tucker Carlson looks like he needs a truckload of Desitin, doesn't he?

He DID taunt the Dynamite Monkey once...

006andahalf: McFifenstein: morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

I'm just curious since I don't hit those politics threads that have more than 30 comments, do those opposing John Stewart have relevant, legitimate well thought out reasoning for opposition to John Stewart or is it full of deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiting?

Is Jon Stewart anything more than a deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiter?
He's just a comedian, so he's pretty irrelevant, but considering the democrat tendency to try to elect comedians, maybe not so much.

... Stewart went after Cramer as soon as Cramer criticized Obama's budget? Um... what?

I think Carlson needs the bow tie back, because it was apparently slowing the flow of stupid to his head.

McFifenstein: 006andahalf: McFifenstein: morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

I'm just curious since I don't hit those politics threads that have more than 30 comments, do those opposing John Stewart have relevant, legitimate well thought out reasoning for opposition to John Stewart or is it full of deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiting?

Is Jon Stewart anything more than a deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiter?
He's just a comedian, so he's pretty irrelevant, but considering the democrat tendency to try to elect comedians, maybe not so much.

That pretty much is the point though. Stewart has been asking questions that the rest of the Fourth Estate has been hesitant to ask. The point is when a comedian can ask these questions, it makes folks wonder why the heck the professional journalists aren't.

That was the entire point of the Crossfire interview that cost Carlson his gig there. In a similar vein, Stewart put the question to CNBC about their own journalistic integrity, and their contribution to the very bubble that they helped fuel and promote.

The Daily Show exists because the media NEEDS to have a spotlight on them. If the news wasn't so laughable, there wouldn't be a show. It's called satire, and it exists to illuminate through derision.

Now then, the objects of such derision, they will call it deliberately misleading--which is what Cramer attempted to do, until he was confronted with his own words time and again.

Comedy has long led the way for social change--because people often underestimate the power of such derision. But it serves a solid purpose. If it didn't, then folks like O'Reilly and Rush wouldn't lean so heavily upon it as a cornerstone for their approach.

It's not a Left or Right thing though, I think, with Stewart, as much as it is a problem that our media has not even lackadaisical but complicit--and in an era where it is easier and easier to do fact checking and research, and still folks not just get things wrong, or are lazy, but are likewise doing the said "cherrypicking" save that as news sources, it isn't done for comedic or satirical effect, but for purposes of spin for what amounts to a client.

Highlighting that, is part of the job that Stewart has taken on.

The question shouldn't be, "Why does Jon pick on people" but rather, "Why aren't our journalists doing their job?"

McFifenstein: 006andahalf: McFifenstein: morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

I'm just curious since I don't hit those politics threads that have more than 30 comments, do those opposing John Stewart have relevant, legitimate well thought out reasoning for opposition to John Stewart or is it full of deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiting?

Is Jon Stewart anything more than a deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiter?
He's just a comedian, so he's pretty irrelevant, but considering the democrat tendency to try to elect comedians, maybe not so much.

I see. I should have mentioned that logical fallacies do not constitute relevant arguments. You did not tell me what it was that was flawed in Stewart's arguments to justify opposition, you simply said that because he works primarily as a comedian, then nothing he says can be taken seriously. By this logic, since Reagan worked primarily as an actor, nothing he ever said or did should have ever been considered any more relevant than anything said by any other actor, like Sean Penn or Lidsay Lohan. [insert 'politics is acting for the ugly' joke here]

Then you followed up with some silly blanket statement.

Every time congress makes a joke, it's a law. Every time congress makes a law it's a joke?

hubiestubert: "Why aren't our journalists doing their job?"

I asked this over and over again during the campaign, and was consistently flamed for it.

If you want facts, you go to the press (or used to).

If you want truth, you go to the comedians. It's been true since the age of court jesters, and continues through Lenny Bruce, Carlin, and Bill Hicks on to Stewart and Colbert.

Anyone who automatically dismisses them because they are comedians hasn't paid attention for the last 500 years.

McFifenstein: hubiestubert: "Why aren't our journalists doing their job?"

I asked this over and over again during the campaign, and was consistently flamed for it.

Stewart, when he went after Crossfire, he didn't go after just the Right, but called them on being hacks. Or rather, just flacks for their "team" and asked them to become journalists again--or to at least honestly debate, as opposed to being PR faces for their respective backers, and steering any and all conversations away from the inherent weaknesses of stated position.

It's sort of like the gun control debate. You see it a lot. You hear about it a lot. You see lots of inches of column devoted to it. But you rarely see anything substantive said. From either side of the argument.

Mainly because gun control is a bait and switch sort of issue.

Gun control, at its heart, is not about guns or our freedoms, but rather, about fear and safety.

No one likes to bring that up though.

Both sides of the gun control debate are concerned about the safety of the population, and the fear of being injured or killed by events beyond their control. And rather than come to a consensus where we can discuss how we can reduce fear, and increase our safety as a society, instead the debate is focused on push button topics, and easy to regurgitate verbage that does nothing but cloud the real issues.

Gun control boils down to fear and safety. Fear of violent crime. Safety of the public. How we achieve that, that is up to debate, but rather than talk about how we can reduce violent crime and preserve the public safety, we instead get a debate that is strictly regimented down simple aisle and avenues of discussion.

And there can be no real consensus on the issue, since the issues themselves are obfuscated and concealed, because there is money to be made by folks to keep the discussion on its rails.

So long as you have discussion like we have on gun control, we are going to see the NRA pumping and having money pumped to it. You are going to see gun control advocates have cash sent to them as well, and the sad thing is that both "sides" of this debate profit from it, and thus are symbiotic.

But you can't actually bring that to light--it's not allowed in the public debate, because you have to "pick a side" as opposed to realize that the argument is artificial and specious, at best.

Likewise, drug legalization is another "hot topic" that doesn't ever get down to the heart of the matter--control and public safety. Much like how the discussion on the current economic crisis was derailed with attacks on mortgage holders, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as opposed to the credit default swaps and other derivatives that BET that said mortgages WOULD fail, and how much money was borrowed to purchase these legal fictions. A great deal of time and effort has been put forward to obfuscate the real heart of what should be at the heart of any debate about the crisis.

This is the heart of the disengenuousness of the "debate" that Stewart has been holding up. That it takes a comedian who had a less than stellar movie career to ask the questions that so called "hardened" journalists are loathe to ask, and many HATE that he exposes their craven cowardice and their own hypocrisy, that is the real shame about this episode.

Not that Stewart "cherry picks" or "trolls" but that it takes someone like him to ask the questions that journalists should have been doing for themselves a long time, and failed to do.

The thing is, John Stewart is taking on the media, which is an easy target. Just like the media take on the government, it's an easy target.

What we'll never see is the media take on their corporate sponsors, nor will we see John Stewart take on his corporate sponsors.

Imagine if MSNBC suddenly went after Merril, while Merril was running ads on Jim Cramer's show? Or Stewart went after one of his corporate sponsors?

It'll never happen. Much easier for Stewart to go after Cramer, who is a douche, but who is absolutely correct when he says that the real problem is the lack of government regulations.

I don't know why anyone would trust the corporate media to report anything near the truth about their corporate sponsors.

If you want a modicum of real reporting, look at independent news agencies like the BBC, NPR, and Public Television shows like Frontline.

timmy_the_tooth: The thing is, John Stewart is taking on the media, which is an easy target. Just like the media take on the government, it's an easy target.

What we'll never see is the media take on their corporate sponsors, nor will we see John Stewart take on his corporate sponsors.

Imagine if MSNBC suddenly went after Merril, while Merril was running ads on Jim Cramer's show? Or Stewart went after one of his corporate sponsors?

It'll never happen. Much easier for Stewart to go after Cramer, who is a douche, but who is absolutely correct when he says that the real problem is the lack of government regulations.

I don't know why anyone would trust the corporate media to report anything near the truth about their corporate sponsors.

If you want a modicum of real reporting, look at independent news agencies like the BBC, NPR, and Public Television shows like Frontline.

You did not just bring up NPR as an unbiased source did you? Take a quick look at the list of corporate sponsors for NPR. They hide it better, but they are likewise just as complicit with obfuscating and dousing substantive debate.

Not because they're "Lefty" but because they are beholden, and to many of the same folks who sponsor our corporate media, thanks to defunding of public radio. They are a brand of news, just the same as Fox has theirs. But it's hardly unbiased, and it's hardly independent.

Mind you, I recognize that you did state "a modicum of real reporting" but NPR's startling lack of cojones when it comes down to Q&A time is shocking in its deafening silence. And not just on matters of left or right politics, but especially on financial matters.

timmy_the_tooth: Or Stewart went after one of his corporate sponsors?

It'll never happen.

I suspect that some people won't accept corporate sponsorship from people to whom they object. So even righteous people are vulnerable to "they never go after their sponsors" charge.

I remain stuck on Tucker Carlson's claim that he is the least partisan person he knows. Does he only know the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? He had a gig on Crossfire because he was partisan. That was his function on the show. And the partisan nature of Crossfire is what caused Jon Stewart to come on and criticize the show in the first place!

What a laughable piece of revisonism on Tucker's part.

McFifenstein: Is Jon Stewart anything more than a deliberately misleading cherry-picked hyperbolic troll-baiter?
He's just a comedian, so he's pretty irrelevant, but considering the democrat tendency to try to elect comedians, maybe not so much.

Why is it that people who so often get mad at Stewart for cherry-picking evidence for comedy prove their point by cherry-picking evidence themselves?

GAT_00: Why is it that people who so often get mad at Stewart for cherry-picking evidence for comedy prove their point by cherry-picking evidence themselves?

Oh, sure, just cherry pick that ONE comment of his to respond to.

Tucker was wrong when he said: "...It's just a matter of time before he becomes unfunny..."

That time came and went long time ago. In fact, Stewart's mugging and reacting has never been funny. Only stoners think he's funny.

Here's how the dialogue went in Tucker Carlson's head:

"Hmmmm...I am increasingly irrelevant and the only time in my career that people actually knew my name was when Jon Stewart sewed my man-twat to my face. As uncomfortable and humiliating as that was, my name was everywhere. Nobody cares about me now. Eureka! I've got it!..."

...and then this.

F*cker Carlson was an arrogant piece of shiat when he went to school at St. George's and he's an arrogant piece of shiat today.

His children will grow up to be arrogant pieces of shiat, and the cycle will begin anew.

Carlson's a joke. Cramer whined about the exposure Jon was giving CNBC and called Jon a "comedian" like it was a dirty word. That made it personal and that's when Jon asked Cramer on to talk.

Then that day the youtube tape of Cramer making those confessions about5 his own dirty dealings and Jon probably said "enough" "I was going to be a nice guy but he's gonna answer for this" and I'm going to use this event to make some points about how corrupt these farkers are.

McFifenstein: He's just a comedian, so he's pretty irrelevant, but considering the democrat tendency to try to elect comedians, maybe not so much.

And Repugnicans like to elect has been actors (Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Grandy) and folk singers (Sonny Bono). What's your point?

Who gives a sh*t.

That was hilarious.

Tucker Carlson should keep talking. Every word he says makes him sound dumber and dumber.

Confabulat: That was hilarious.

Tucker Carlson should keep talking. Every word he says makes him sound dumber and dumber.

Reminding folks that Stewart didn't just pants him like he did Cramer, but cost him a job, that's going to play well.

Because, if the American public loves anything, it's a sore loser.

Tucker's complaining that Stewart is partisan?

"I'm the least partisan person I know." FOAD, Tucks...

Who?

Ohhhh yeah...that guy who's career Stewart destroyed by pointing out how useless he was.

This is like Robin Ventura whining that Nolan Ryan was a pussy.

kronicfeld: Oh, sure, just cherry pick that ONE comment of his to respond to.

Ahahaha. Touche.

hubiestubert: Fear of violent crime. Safety of the public.

Not to threadjack, but I disagree. It's about the right of the citizenry to storm the houses of government and kill everyone in the building. It's the value our country was founded on, and we forget it at our peril.

Back on topic, I think I'm the only person that thinks Cramer came off very well in his interview with Stewart. He rolled with the punches, took it on the chin, shook hands and went home. There were no histrionics, no epic pwnage. It was a fantastic interview, and it was comedy journalism at its finest.

t3knomanser: He rolled with the punches, took it on the chin, shook hands and went home. There were no histrionics, no epic pwnage.

Did you...did you see a different interview???

Cramer: "I never short sold"
Stewart "watch this video"
Cramer (on video) "short selling is awesome!!"


dude. watch the video again.

what_now: t3knomanser: He rolled with the punches, took it on the chin, shook hands and went home. There were no histrionics, no epic pwnage.

Did you...did you see a different interview???

Cramer: "I never short sold"
Stewart "watch this video"
Cramer (on video) "short selling is awesome!!"


dude. watch the video again.

To be fair, that was Negative Cramer--our Positive Matter Cramer's evil twin. Filming Negative Cramer doesn't result in pwnage. It only causes mild discomfort in that Cramer didn't have the guts to smother Negative Cramer in his sleep, and that his Evil Twin wasn't able to do the same. If you are ever caught out there with a Negative You on film, it points to incompetence on both your parts, and that is the real source of discomfort. That even your Negative counterpart was too much of a pussy to kill you, and visa versa.

hubiestubert: Translated: Jon Stewart kicked MY ass on the TeeVee machine and I hate him for it. Hate him with the heat of a thousand suns...

He continued, whining, "...but it isn't going to be me. I mean, look at what happened to me the first time I tried going head to head with him. He ate my lunch, took my milk money, and beat the shiat out of me outside the girls locker room. On my own goddamned tv show. Then I got fired, my dog ran away (he's living at Stewart's), my car got repossessed, and I just found out that I have an empty scrotum. Apparently, if you wear bow ties, your 'little guys' just kind of dissolve. Who knew? Anyway, yeah. He's a big mean guy... don't tell him I said that."

I encourage everyone to go back and watch Stewart fo on Crossfire and essentially rip out Tucker Carlson's soul. I seriously would have understood if he had killed himself after that. Carlson is a child - he was getting the shiat kicked out of him by Stewart and was totally unable to defend himself, so he resorts to childish name-calling and class distinctions to make Stewart seem uppity or something.

How much cack would a CNN hack if a CNN hack hacked cack? Ask Carlson.

Step One: Attack Jon Stewart, thus paining a big bulls-eye on your chest for Stewart to fight back.

Step Two: Get your name mentioned many times on a show that has a much, much higher viewership than you've ever had on anything you've done, thus getting people to actually know your name.

Step Three: Use the new-found name recognition to get a new series, thus profit.

It's quite genius actually...except that it doesn't work since Crossfire got canceled and Mad Money's ratings are down by a quarter because both of those shows earned Jon Stewart's wrath.

Message to Carlson: Start with Stephen Colbert. If you can hold your own in a war with him or force him to break character to beat you, then maybe...MAYBE...you can handle Stewart.

I think Carlson's just trying to get in the news again. Honestly, he of all people should know not to mess with Jon Stewart.

McFifenstein: I asked this over and over again during the campaign, and was consistently flamed for it.

Because you didn't want greater scrutiny of the media. You only wanted greater scrutiny of Obama. There's a difference.

Dumbass tag is for Jon Stewart btw.

Triaxis: Dumbass tag is for Jon Stewart btw.

Is that so? For what reason?

McFifenstein: morrach: Wow. That is a level of butthurt that makes my own ass hurt. Way over here. Amazing.

what's even more amazing is the butthurt that goes on in here any time someone dare opposes John Stewart.

You don't fark with the Green Lantern!

shivashakti: I think Carlson's just trying to get in the news again. Honestly, he of all people should know not to mess with Jon Stewart.

I don't think a lot of people are going to confuse him with being a smart man.

On a side note:

FTFA:

"I'm the least partisan person I know.

On July 24, 2007, Carlson said on his show, "I'm just for marriage generally. I'm for people making a lifelong commitment. Do you know what I mean? I'm not against gay marriage, actually, and I'm the most right-wing person I know..."

So, really, what can we glean from what Tucker knows?

That gay marriage could stop him from opening his enormous mouth and shoving his feet in there...

I would be bitter too if some guy verbally assaulted me out of a job.

/Couldn't happen to a nicer person like Carlson

You can't really rip Stewart a new one.

what_now: t3knomanser: He rolled with the punches, took it on the chin, shook hands and went home. There were no histrionics, no epic pwnage.

Did you...did you see a different interview???

Cramer: "I never short sold"
Stewart "watch this video"
Cramer (on video) "short selling is awesome!!"


dude. watch the video again.

Cramer really sounded like he was about to cry, but really I did respect him for showing up. He got his ass beat, but he knew that was going to happen and he went in anyway. Jon pulled no punches, which is unusual, but Cramer didn't flip out. He just sounded like he was about to break into sobs.