Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Blaze)   For a debate that will sure be as exciting and thrilling as a Ross Perot TV special, Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart will engage in 90-minute debate   (theblaze.com) divider line 113
    More: Interesting, television special  
•       •       •

2261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2012 at 12:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-18 12:36:35 PM  
For some reason I'm not really looking forward to this.
 
2012-09-18 12:53:50 PM  
I am, DamnYankees, they're both very intelligent men with diametrically opposed viewpoints, though they both have a decent level of respect for each other. I feel O'Reilly is more willing to be disingenuous, but Stewart has no problem in calling him on it.
 
2012-09-18 12:59:07 PM  

timujin: I am, DamnYankees, they're both very intelligent men with diametrically opposed viewpoints, though they both have a decent level of respect for each other. I feel O'Reilly is more willing to be disingenuous, but Stewart has no problem in calling him on it.


You can't explain that.
 
2012-09-18 01:00:14 PM  
I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.
 
2012-09-18 01:01:09 PM  

Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.


This.
 
2012-09-18 01:01:23 PM  
Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.
 
2012-09-18 01:01:26 PM  
Sad part is that it will be fully scripted by writers to provide the appropriate outcome. Plus, they really are friends and are unlikely to get exceptionally aggressive towards each other.
 
2012-09-18 01:01:31 PM  

DamnYankees: For some reason I'm not really looking forward to this.


It'll be boring and predictable, with both sides going for the lols rather than actually debating policy.

"You libs with your hippies and lazy"
"No, you cons with your fascism and dancing horses"
"How dare you"
"How dare YOU"
 
2012-09-18 01:02:25 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


Now *that* I would pay to see.
 
2012-09-18 01:03:03 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Sad part is that it will be fully scripted by writers to provide the appropriate outcome. Plus, they really are friends and are unlikely to get exceptionally aggressive towards each other.


What I want to see is Colbert vs Bachmann.
 
2012-09-18 01:03:05 PM  
Ross Perot might not have been interesting but he warned us what was going to happen, he was ridiculed for it, and then it happened. And still no one gives him credit.

timiacono.com
 
2012-09-18 01:03:35 PM  
I think debates are useful when it comes to actual, controversial issues. And when I say "controversial", I mean both supported by evidence but lacking enough evidence or data to make side "final" or not.

In this case, however, we're going to hear a right-wing blowhard argue right-wing talking points over and over against a comedian who tends to present rational, supported points when it comes to policy and outcomes -albeit with a side of humor and sarcasm.

Long story short: Billdo's idea of conservatism doesn't work, hasn't worked, and it's farking annoying to keep hearing people support it.
 
2012-09-18 01:04:03 PM  
Oh, hellz yeah.

It will be closer to an actual debate than most people have seen in a while is my guess.

*checks popcorn suplies* 

/Can we get Maddow v Coulter next?
//Cos that would seriously rawk.
 
2012-09-18 01:04:36 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2012-09-18 01:04:57 PM  
I accidentally some words on this tiny phone keyboard.
 
2012-09-18 01:05:57 PM  

canyoneer: Ross Perot might not have been interesting but he warned us what was going to happen, he was ridiculed for it, and then it happened. And still no one gives him credit.

[timiacono.com image 526x377]


Unfortunately, you (and the cartoonist) are correct.
 
2012-09-18 01:06:09 PM  
I saw this last night on TDS. Haven't we talked these issues to death? Is the debate between Obama and Romney not enough? Can we stop giving O'Reilly more airtime?

Let's be honest, there are no happy endings here:

1) O'Reilly will hold his own w/Stewart because he's a paranoid journalist. Stewart will agree with some of O'Reilly statements and O'Reilly will occasionally act childish and accuse Stewart of hiding behind his comedy.
2) Stewart will own he guy and Bill will get angry and leave the debate early.

In the end, nothing of real substance will be added to the debate. O'Reilly is a smart guy and has had years of avoiding being hemmed in on discussion points. Stewart is a smart guy but he's never been able to launch a full-throated attack at the right. He's been on several news programs over the years and while he's had some good moments nothing has actually changed in the news world, if anything it has gotten worse.

Either way, both sides will claim victory and O'Reilly will get some nice well-edited talking points for his next segment of the Factor.

You ever talk to a Teatard? In the end you get nowhere, the person just shrugs it all off at the end with a 'Harrumph', and you just feel stupider for having come down to their level to discuss things. It's all appeals to emotion and logic has nothing to do with it. This is O'Reilly's bread and butter.
 
2012-09-18 01:06:14 PM  
John Stewart is lowering himself by even acknowledging this philandering douchenozzle of a FAIL in journalism.



All will be forgiven if he can manage to mention Andrea Mackris and/or Scott Roeder, but I know Stewbeef is too milquetoast to not toe the "both sides are bad" line.
 
2012-09-18 01:06:36 PM  

Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.


Hannity is an total airhead. Ever try to read one of his "books"?

[donotwant]
 
2012-09-18 01:06:51 PM  
Roll 210
 
2012-09-18 01:08:36 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


Winner of the debate (chosen by a team of winner-choosers - rhetoricians, political analysts, fact-checkers and Cee-Lo Green) gets to moderate a presidential debate at primetime Monday night, 3NOV. At this debate, the moderator will have real-time fact-checks, and be empowered to cut off a participant if the fact-check returns an unequivocal "pants on fire".

// and I will watch this debate from underneath a pile of Scarlett Johanson, Kate Beckinsale and Drew Barrymore
// and my (new) gf - it's still new enough
 
2012-09-18 01:09:13 PM  
Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.
 
2012-09-18 01:09:46 PM  
I hope it isn't scripted. Their previous on camera affairs have been great.

www.csmonitor.com

Both Jon and Bill are at their best off script, when they are speaking their mind. They are intellectual equals on opposite sides of the table who both have respect for each other and their efforts to bring some manner of civility into the conversation.

also Jon doesn't need to dismantle Hannity for the crowds enjoyment, the looming fear that Jon could break him in a single conversation enough to keep Herr Helmet in his place.
 
2012-09-18 01:11:25 PM  
First there was The Thrilla in Manila

then The Rumble in the Jungle

now - The Lamers Quote the Framers
 
2012-09-18 01:12:06 PM  
O'Reilly vs. Stewart is like the Yankees vs this year's Astros.
How about a fair fight.....Charles Krauthammer vs John Stewart? I'd even go for Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter vs John Stewart. O'Reilly? Lightweight.
 
2012-09-18 01:13:52 PM  
So it's a debate between a bad co median who has sold out to an ideological agenda and poses as a news anchor versus Jon Stewart? Should be funny, if nothing else.
 
2012-09-18 01:14:11 PM  
I'd rather see Rachel Maddow debate him
 
2012-09-18 01:14:58 PM  

CPennypacker: I'd rather see Rachel Maddow debate him


Who? Jon, or Bill?
 
2012-09-18 01:15:17 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


(/ ̄(エ) ̄)/ \( ̄(エ) ̄)/ ヽ( ̄(エ) ̄)ノ
 
2012-09-18 01:16:00 PM  

Cythraul: CPennypacker: I'd rather see Rachel Maddow debate him

Who? Jon, or Bill?


bill

or anyone really

i like her
 
2012-09-18 01:16:00 PM  

Cythraul: CPennypacker: I'd rather see Rachel Maddow debate him

Who? Jon, or Bill?


Honestly, Id rather see her debate Jon.
 
2012-09-18 01:16:20 PM  

timujin: I am, DamnYankees, they're both very intelligent men with diametrically opposed viewpoints, though they both have a decent level of respect for each other. I feel O'Reilly is more willing to be disingenuous, but Stewart has no problem in calling him on it.


I've noticed that as well, they don't agree on anything yet seem to have genuine respect for one another and rather than getting angry they just enjoy debating one another. I have a long-time friend like that, honestly the only conservative I will talk politics and religion with. Looking forward to this debate very much!
 
2012-09-18 01:20:26 PM  
The only thing better than Jon Stewart being funny, is Jon Stewart being serious.
 
2012-09-18 01:20:27 PM  

timujin: I am, DamnYankees, they're both very intelligent men with diametrically opposed viewpoints, though they both have a decent level of respect for each other. I feel O'Reilly is more willing to be disingenuous, but Stewart has no problem in calling him on it.


It's not that O'Reilly is disingenuous, it's that he's an egotistical bullshiat artist. Yes, O'Reilly has an MPA from Harvard. He's smart when it comes to public policy and talking head rhetoric. But when it comes to anything outside of policy, which is most things, he often comes off as a loudmouth moron.

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.

Video
 
2012-09-18 01:21:18 PM  

DamnYankees: Cythraul: CPennypacker: I'd rather see Rachel Maddow debate him

Who? Jon, or Bill?

Honestly, Id rather see her debate Jon.


Although I wouldn't call it a debate, she had a discussion with Jon on her show before. Or maybe it was a special. Not sure. And Jon played the centrist and said that MSNBC was almost as bad as Fox news.
 
2012-09-18 01:22:32 PM  
Hey, I voted for Perot. You know, he had a good idea spending some of his own money to explain his ideas and conventions to the public. Why doesn't Romney do the same? Oh wait, spend money Ha ha! Romney only spends other peoples money, amirite? And he would need to scrape up some ideas and convictions..
 
2012-09-18 01:22:49 PM  
O'Reilly v Franken

/the Jew in 2!
 
2012-09-18 01:22:57 PM  

Kome: So it's a debate between a bad co median who has sold out to an ideological agenda and poses as a news anchor versus Jon Stewart? Should be funny, if nothing else.


5/10. Stewart has no problems going after the left for stuff. He points out the hypocrisy of the news media more than anything. And lots of people who love watching his show would tend to disagree with you about his comedy, buddy. Comedy is hard, and it's very hard to be consistently funny just about every night. I would argue he's one of the best comedians ever for his ability to put together topical comedy on a daily basis (and yes he has a writing team to help him but like I said - the show is consistently funny to a lot of people).
 
2012-09-18 01:24:05 PM  
shiat, go ahead and laugh at Ross Perot but unlike Mitt Romeny ol' Ross was actually good at something outside of government. And his running mate was a retired admiral who won the Congressional Medal of Honor. Paul Ryan on the other hand was voted biggest brown noser by his high school class.

Am I saying Ross Perot's the best choice now? No, but I am saying he's light years better than Romney/Ryan
 
2012-09-18 01:25:27 PM  
Oh shiat, subby you had my hopes up.

I thought this was going to be a 90 minute primetime special infomercial on the state of the economy since 1996. Hosted by the Man himself.

fantasyracingcheatsheet.com

Now...the economy is like the crazy aunt down in the basement...
 
2012-09-18 01:26:05 PM  

Expolaris: They are intellectual equals


Really? Listen, if you can be demolished by Al Franken when Franken isn't even trying, you"re a lightweight moron.
 
2012-09-18 01:27:30 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


Plus there's a rerun of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo on.
 
2012-09-18 01:27:34 PM  

bdub77: Kome: So it's a debate between a bad co median who has sold out to an ideological agenda and poses as a news anchor versus Jon Stewart? Should be funny, if nothing else.

5/10. Stewart has no problems going after the left for stuff. He points out the hypocrisy of the news media more than anything. And lots of people who love watching his show would tend to disagree with you about his comedy, buddy. Comedy is hard, and it's very hard to be consistently funny just about every night. I would argue he's one of the best comedians ever for his ability to put together topical comedy on a daily basis (and yes he has a writing team to help him but like I said - the show is consistently funny to a lot of people).


You need to re-read his post.
 
2012-09-18 01:28:09 PM  

lysdexic: ExperianScaresCthulhu: intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(/ ̄(エ) ̄)/ \( ̄(エ) ̄)/ ヽ( ̄(エ) ̄)ノ


I had to look that up... so .. those are japanese bears? ahhh. well, thank you for joining me in joining intelligent comment below in not thinking this is a very big deal.
 
2012-09-18 01:28:50 PM  

pontechango: O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.


28.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-18 01:29:36 PM  

DamnYankees: For some reason I'm not really looking forward to this.


I hope this is the equivalent of the Stewart/Colbert mockery of the Citizens United/SuperPAC issue, being both entertaining while also demonstrating everything that is wrong with the status quo of presidential debates.
 
2012-09-18 01:32:16 PM  
For those calling on Jon to debate other people, no. Jon vs. Bill works because they essentially treat each other with (possibly fake) respect, but its how they have handled each other for a decade. There is no screaming and frothing so they (BOTH amazingly) come out and display some very real and very honest opinions that exist on both sides of the political spectrum without making it look like two monkeys throwing shiat at each other. This would not be the case in a Jon v Hannity or Coulter debate.

Jon built his career on using his wit to hold his own and even surpass Bill and others. Without Jon Stewart, I swear Bill would have been out of work years ago. Bill knows this and doesn't try to pull the same shiat with Jon that he does with virtually every other verbal sparring partner he has yelled at. Somebody wrote an article long ago about how to "handle Bill Oreilly". You stroke his ego, point out a few facts, let him go on a bit and then compliment his argument before you continue. Like debating a child about his allowance. After that I watched a "fight" between Bill and Jon over something silly in the latest news, and Jon followed that advice almost to the letter. Bill, who usually turns red and tries to go super sayin on his verbal opponent, mellowed right the fark out. Bill never said mean shiat about Jon again, disagreed sure, but he even stuck up for him after that. It was after this period that Jon was able to start tearing apart other people like Tucker and Kramer, and was almost untouchable in return. Remember when Jon was laying the smack down on Kramer for a few weeks? Kramer was practically begging for forgiveness on camera.

Makes me wonder if Bill and Jon are weekend beer buddies when nobody is looking.
 
2012-09-18 01:33:01 PM  

DamnYankees: Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.


that's his interview mode though, which is helps get alot of politicians to come on to talk. hopefully it'll be the crossfire stewart, calling o'reilly out on everything.
 
2012-09-18 01:33:27 PM  
yeah, where is the idea that O'Reilly is smart coming from? I've never seen him exhibit a thrilling amount of intelligence and when I do see him he's usually just a smug bully who shuts down his guest's microphone if they appear to be getting the better of him. Jon Stewart, while a comedian is so witty in comparison to Bill "Where's the Harlem Boys Choir, probably out stealing your tires" O'Reilly.
 
2012-09-18 01:35:29 PM  
This seems appropriate. Thank you Mark Twain.

ethendras.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-18 01:36:16 PM  

schubie: yeah, where is the idea that O'Reilly is smart coming from? I've never seen him exhibit a thrilling amount of intelligence and when I do see him he's usually just a smug bully who shuts down his guest's microphone if they appear to be getting the better of him. Jon Stewart, while a comedian is so witty in comparison to Bill "Where's the Harlem Boys Choir, probably out stealing your tires" O'Reilly.


I was wondering the same thing after reading so many comments from people in here who seem to think he's some sort of philosopher-king.
 
2012-09-18 01:36:40 PM  

DamnYankees: bdub77: Kome: So it's a debate between a bad co median who has sold out to an ideological agenda and poses as a news anchor versus Jon Stewart? Should be funny, if nothing else.

5/10. Stewart has no problems going after the left for stuff. He points out the hypocrisy of the news media more than anything. And lots of people who love watching his show would tend to disagree with you about his comedy, buddy. Comedy is hard, and it's very hard to be consistently funny just about every night. I would argue he's one of the best comedians ever for his ability to put together topical comedy on a daily basis (and yes he has a writing team to help him but like I said - the show is consistently funny to a lot of people).

You need to re-read his post.


Yep. Reading fail. (No sleep yesterday, kind of an off day today)
 
2012-09-18 01:38:14 PM  
Would rather see Colbert and OReilly debate.

Maybe Colbert gets another microwave.
 
2012-09-18 01:39:10 PM  
I'll watch it, but only if I get some of that Obama money the conservatives were saying I was gonna get. Otherwise, I'm saving my $4.95 for a down payment on a half-rack of beers.

/I am farker. Hear me roar.
 
2012-09-18 01:44:36 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


You just described all presidential debates.
 
2012-09-18 01:46:00 PM  

not5am: DamnYankees: Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.

that's his interview mode though, which is helps get alot of politicians to come on to talk. hopefully it'll be the crossfire stewart, calling o'reilly out on everything.


IDK, Stewart can get agitated. He had one of these debates with Tucker Carlson I believe, and during a particularly testy moment, Stewart looked at the guy and said "you know, you are just as much of a dick in person as you are on TV".

Paraphrased, but it was almost those exact words.
 
2012-09-18 01:49:35 PM  

Zoophagous: Would rather see Colbert and OReilly debate.

Maybe Colbert gets another microwave.


While Cobert is funnier, Stewart is more versed in debate and isn't restricted by the character that Steven has to portray.
 
2012-09-18 01:49:46 PM  
I can't wait to see this. I hope Bill is able to convince some people to vote for Romney. I hope...
 
2012-09-18 01:52:26 PM  

intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.


This
 
2012-09-18 01:52:56 PM  
So it's going to be 90 minutes of O'Reilly saying flat out lies and Stewart saying, "Come on Bill, you know that's not true."

It would be more interesting if it was someone like David Frum representing the GOP. He'll tow the party line, but will at least engage in debate.
 
2012-09-18 01:53:28 PM  
Perot/Stewart 2016.
 
2012-09-18 01:53:51 PM  

darkedgefan: I can't wait to see this. I hope Bill is able to convince some people to vote for Romney. I hope...


I seriously doubt that even Bill will vote for Romney.
 
2012-09-18 01:55:03 PM  

Zerochance: not5am: DamnYankees: Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.

that's his interview mode though, which is helps get alot of politicians to come on to talk. hopefully it'll be the crossfire stewart, calling o'reilly out on everything.

IDK, Stewart can get agitated. He had one of these debates with Tucker Carlson I believe, and during a particularly testy moment, Stewart looked at the guy and said "you know, you are just as much of a dick in person as you are on TV".

Paraphrased, but it was almost those exact words.


i think that was the crossfire interview. stewart said he might as well just read a newspaper for the rest of the show since they just kept cutting him off. he also asked him to stop hurting america. iirc the show was cancelled later that week.
 
2012-09-18 01:55:20 PM  

lysdexic: ExperianScaresCthulhu: intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(/ ̄(エ) ̄)/ \( ̄(エ) ̄)/ ヽ( ̄(エ) ̄)ノ


Your repeating bears need consistency.
 
2012-09-18 01:55:47 PM  
It seems like a lot of people here have missed the fact that Stewart and O'Reilly have "debated" and talked a great many times now. Stewart brings out the best in O'Reilly, and their conversations are always incredibly interesting. I don't think it's "fake" at all. A lot of people respect O'Reilly for the empire he built and for his willingness to actually engage with people instead of just hiding as Hannity will, even if he makes things up to support his arguments (which about 99% of people on TV do, when they're cornered). They both have each other's number in a lot of areas, and they both know it. The idea that O'Reilly will "walk" is ridiculous. They're both professionals with a healthy dose of respect for the other's abilities.

I'd watch a 10 hour debate between the two.
 
2012-09-18 01:56:02 PM  
The live tickets at George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium on October 6th at 8PM are $75 to $100. The online streaming price is only $4.95

Wish I lived in DC. I think it's going to be a great night.
 
2012-09-18 01:56:56 PM  

not5am: Zerochance: not5am: DamnYankees: Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.

that's his interview mode though, which is helps get alot of politicians to come on to talk. hopefully it'll be the crossfire stewart, calling o'reilly out on everything.

IDK, Stewart can get agitated. He had one of these debates with Tucker Carlson I believe, and during a particularly testy moment, Stewart looked at the guy and said "you know, you are just as much of a dick in person as you are on TV".

Paraphrased, but it was almost those exact words.

i think that was the crossfire interview. stewart said he might as well just read a newspaper for the rest of the show since they just kept cutting him off. he also asked him to stop hurting america. iirc the show was cancelled later that week.


Yes, that was the interview wherein Stewart singlehandedly set off the destruction of CNN, and permanently injured Carlson's reputation. .
 
2012-09-18 01:59:18 PM  

FitzShivering: Yes, that was the interview wherein Stewart singlehandedly set off the destruction of CNN, and permanently injured Carlson's reputation. .


Hate to break it to you but CNN had been imploding for years.
 
2012-09-18 02:01:42 PM  
Being close to DC I was excited to hear about this, went to get tickets this morning and of course the website was farked. By the time I could get on, I couldn't get two seats next to each other that weren't in the nosebleeds (which I wasn't paying $100 each for), so I guess I'll just stream it.

Hopefully with proper moderation(Bill doesn't just shout Jon down) Jon will be able to fully explain his side of issues, as he is extremely intelligent, articulate, and clearly has a deep understanding of the issues and the facts to back up his asseritons. I'm expecting it to be a smackdown even better than when Jon had Marco Rubio(not during the RNC), Grover Norquist, or Edward Conrad on his show and pretty much destroyed their entire narratives.
 
2012-09-18 02:02:04 PM  
Will they f*cking do it live?
 
2012-09-18 02:12:35 PM  

pontechango: FitzShivering: Yes, that was the interview wherein Stewart singlehandedly set off the destruction of CNN, and permanently injured Carlson's reputation. .

Hate to break it to you but CNN had been imploding for years.


That was the fatal shot to Crossfire, though. That stupid show was on life support but Stewart pulled the plug.

I can still remember Tucker pleading "say something funny! You're a comedian...be funny!" or words to that effect. What a fkn douche
 
2012-09-18 02:16:56 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Will they f*cking do it live?


damb it... i was too slow... leaving happy though
 
2012-09-18 02:16:59 PM  
CPennypacker

I like her.

Shrill, loudmouth, condescending, out-of-context, harpie-know it alls are usually not on the likable list.
You must think nails on a chalkboard is Mozart.
 
2012-09-18 02:17:27 PM  

Aracnix: lysdexic: ExperianScaresCthulhu: intelligent comment below: Who cares? neither of them are running for office or dictating policy. Both will go on rants and O'Reilly will never directly answer tough questions. It's just a circle jerk for both sides. Get them to be moderators at a Presidential debate, that means something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(/ ̄(エ) ̄)/ \( ̄(エ) ̄)/ ヽ( ̄(エ) ̄)ノ

Your repeating bears need consistency.


t( ̄(エ) ̄)/ t( ̄(エ) ̄)/ t( ̄(エ) ̄)ノ
 
2012-09-18 02:22:01 PM  
I would rather see Stewart and O'Reilly moderate a Presidential debate, Jon Stewart asks Mitt Romney questions and Bill O'Reilly asks President Obama questions. Then I think you would get some real answers out both candidates.
 
2012-09-18 02:22:19 PM  

pontechango: FitzShivering: Yes, that was the interview wherein Stewart singlehandedly set off the destruction of CNN, and permanently injured Carlson's reputation. .

Hate to break it to you but CNN had been imploding for years.


This is patently incorrect. After the death of Crossfire, a lot of the CNN executives publicly spoke about the damage Stewart had done, and that he was right. They had been previously declining at the same rate as other comparable media outlets. They decided to take their station in a less "contentious" direction in order to gain respect back and add viewers that way. They miscalculated. FoxNews and MSNBC showed quite clearly that viewers were interested exactly in contention, at least as the viewing demographics for which they got large advertising revenue. CNN moved towards a more "centrist" less "abrasive" format almost immediately after, and then doubled-down on those changes after it became clear it wasn't working. Over the last two years or so, they tried to fix it with gimmicks and "technology" -- still missing the point.

CNN was declining at the same rate as everyone else who wasn't FoxNews prior to that occurring. Stewart's commentary was the shot that forced their hand to try something new. They tried the wrong thing.

You could confirm this by doing a bit of a research (especially given that the original interview was in 2004), but I'm guessing that you're more comfortable just "breaking random things."
 
2012-09-18 02:22:45 PM  

Vacation Bible School: Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.

This.


That.
 
2012-09-18 02:27:14 PM  

Citrate1007: Zoophagous: Would rather see Colbert and OReilly debate.
Maybe Colbert gets another microwave.
While Cobert is funnier, Stewart is more versed in debate and isn't restricted by the character that Steven has to portray.


Colbert would be good against Bill because the most damaging thing to do with a conservative is agree with him. It demonstrates how preposterous is their perspective. Jon has a tendency to be kind to old fragile ego Bill; which is fine.
 
2012-09-18 02:33:49 PM  

torr5962: CPennypacker

I like her.

Shrill, loudmouth, condescending, out-of-context, harpie-know it alls are usually not on the likable list.
You must think nails on a chalkboard is Mozart.


She's not a know it all. She's just really smart. I can see how she would seem like a know it all from the perspective of a know-nothing, though.
 
2012-09-18 02:34:47 PM  

Tom_Slick: I would rather see Stewart and O'Reilly moderate a Presidential debate, Jon Stewart asks Mitt Romney questions and Bill O'Reilly asks President Obama questions. Then I think you would get some real answers out both candidates.


Only if you could somehow keep O'Reilly from interupting the mfing POTUS every ten seconds after he asked him a question.
 
2012-09-18 02:35:15 PM  

Citrate1007: While Cobert is funnier, Stewart is more versed in debate and isn't restricted by the character that Steven has to portray.


To be fair, Colbert's character has swung majorly to the left. Its subtle, but if you didnt know he was supposed to be a right-wing idiot, you wouldnt be able to tell it...He'd just be an idiot.

Im sure they couldnt keep up with the writing.
 
2012-09-18 02:36:55 PM  

CPennypacker: Tom_Slick: I would rather see Stewart and O'Reilly moderate a Presidential debate, Jon Stewart asks Mitt Romney questions and Bill O'Reilly asks President Obama questions. Then I think you would get some real answers out both candidates.

Only if you could somehow keep O'Reilly from interupting the mfing POTUS every ten seconds after he asked him a question.



Sound proof booths and microphone off switches on timers. Each candidate has 3 mins to respond then each moderator gets one follow up question. It would make an interesting debate.
 
2012-09-18 02:37:15 PM  

not5am: DamnYankees: Jon Stewart is also not a person who's going to be good in a debate, IMO, because he tries to find common ground and doesn't like to be accusatory. He's not going to be giving a full throated defense of anything but civility. And the overton window will continue to pull right.

that's his interview mode though, which is helps get alot of politicians to come on to talk. hopefully it'll be the crossfire stewart, calling o'reilly out on everything.


There have been a few other times when john stewart was in full debate mode, he is fairly kind and open with his guests on the daily show but in a full debate he has torn people a new @$$hole
 
2012-09-18 02:38:46 PM  

Madbassist1: Citrate1007: While Cobert is funnier, Stewart is more versed in debate and isn't restricted by the character that Steven has to portray.

To be fair, Colbert's character has swung majorly to the left. Its subtle, but if you didnt know he was supposed to be a right-wing idiot, you wouldnt be able to tell it...He'd just be an idiot.

Im sure they couldnt keep up with the writing.


I argue that the Colbert character didn't swing, it is just that the right-wing of the GOP is starting to make his character seem like a moderate.
 
2012-09-18 02:43:41 PM  

FitzShivering: You could confirm this by doing a bit of a research (especially given that the original interview was in 2004), but I'm guessing that you're more comfortable just "breaking random things."


Well, I'm not just talking about CNN's ratings decline.
As a result of CNN's network-wide focus on the tastes, interests, and attention levels of American viewers, the content of news stories aired on CNN International is inevitably affected. When I started working for CNN in 1992, things were different. Those were what longtime CNN employees now refer to as the "old days" when the network was run directly by Ted Turner, before the 1996 merger of Turner Broadcasting and Time Warner. "When CNN reported to me, if we needed more money for Kosovo or Baghdad, we'd find it," Ted Turner wrote in the July/August 2004 issue of Washington Monthly. "If we had to bust the budget, we busted the budget. We put journalism first, and that's how we built CNN into something the world wanted to watch." He blames the current situation on the concentration of news media in the hands of a small number of mega-corporations, and blames U.S. government regulators for allowing this to happen. "The loss of independent operators hurts both the media business and its citizen-customers," he argues. "When the ownership of these firms passes to people under pressure to show quick financial results in order to justify the purchase, the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers."2

Veteran CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour has been speaking out on this issue for several years. "The powers that be, the moneymen, have decided to eviscerate us," she said in a 2000 speech. "It actually costs a little bit of money to produce good journalism, to travel, to investigate, to put compelling viewing on screen, and to give people a reason to watch us. But God forbid money should be spent on our news operations pursuing quality."3
 
2012-09-18 02:46:20 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: canyoneer: Ross Perot might not have been interesting but he warned us what was going to happen, he was ridiculed for it, and then it happened. And still no one gives him credit.

[timiacono.com image 526x377]

Unfortunately, you (and the cartoonist) are correct.


I get really tired of this argument. When bush came into office, the budget was _fine_. everyone acts like the government needs some radical new idea to fix the deficit.

All we have to do is not cut taxes during two unfunded wars, and invest in education and infrastructure. That's it.
 
2012-09-18 02:47:27 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Sad part is that it will be fully scripted by writers to provide the appropriate outcome. Plus, they really are friends and are unlikely to get exceptionally aggressive towards each other.


So, instead of sniping at each other, they're going to talk about issues, how and why they disagree, and how we can look at them in a way that foments actual solutions rather than platitudes and shoutfests?

Sounds like a damn tragedy in the making.
 
2012-09-18 02:58:58 PM  
BTW, I like how, in the comments section, most of them are saying 'Who cares?' and 'Why bother?'

So, you know...thanks for reading.
 
2012-09-18 03:07:10 PM  

Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart a brick vs. Hannity.


FTFY
 
2012-09-18 03:08:15 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: For some reason I'm not really looking forward to this.

It'll be boring and predictable, with both sides going for the lols rather than actually debating policy.

"You libs with your hippies and lazy"
"No, you cons with your fascism and dancing horses"
"How dare you"
"How dare YOU"


Have you ever watched the Dailyshow?
 
2012-09-18 03:12:22 PM  

Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.


i280.photobucket.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-18 03:18:44 PM  
No jokes about huge sucking sounds? LAME.

There will be a huge sucking sound, and it will be from Bill O'Reilly's chair.
 
2012-09-18 03:29:11 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Sad part is that it will be fully scripted by writers to provide the appropriate outcome. Plus, they really are friends and are unlikely to get exceptionally aggressive towards each other.


I expect that while the questions will be scripted, the responses will not. And they are not friends, they are opponents who respect each other. Getting "exceptionally aggressive" is not a good thing in a political discussion. I think it will be refreshing to have an actual civilized debate where both sides of an issue are presented in a conversational tone of voice and rebutted on higher-than-kindergarten level.

It's a shame we have to stage a debate between the hosts of two fake news shows to get that kind of discourse. This debate will be more informative and have a greater chance of changing any individual viewer's opinion than any conversation between Romney and Obama.

bdub77: Stewart is a smart guy but he's never been able to launch a full-throated attack at the right. He's been on several news programs over the years and while he's had some good moments nothing has actually changed in the news world, if anything it has gotten worse.


He got Crossfire taken off the air. That was a definite improvement.
 
2012-09-18 04:02:15 PM  
So Oreilly, the guy who doesn't even know why tides go in and out is going to take on J-Stew?

All Stewie has to do is ask him stuff like how many times does the Earth go around the sun per year, or who is buried in Grant's tomb.
 
2012-09-18 04:16:49 PM  

Citrate1007: Madbassist1: Citrate1007: While Cobert is funnier, Stewart is more versed in debate and isn't restricted by the character that Steven has to portray.

To be fair, Colbert's character has swung majorly to the left. Its subtle, but if you didnt know he was supposed to be a right-wing idiot, you wouldnt be able to tell it...He'd just be an idiot.

Im sure they couldnt keep up with the writing.

I argue that the Colbert character didn't swing, it is just that the right-wing of the GOP is starting to make his character seem like a moderate.


I...I...shall have to ponder this on the tree of woe...
 
2012-09-18 04:23:24 PM  

timujin: I am, DamnYankees, they're both very intelligent men with diametrically opposed viewpoints, though they both have a decent level of respect for each other. I feel O'Reilly is more willing to be disingenuous, but Stewart has no problem in calling him on it.


That's an interesting point of view.

I, however, feel like O'Reilly is NOT a particularly intelligent man and often fabricates things and bloviates to bully his better informed opponents in to silence.

He is also a raging jackass.

If they really have a well controlled debate I guess we will find out which one of us is right....
 
2012-09-18 04:43:56 PM  

bdub77: DamnYankees: bdub77: Kome: So it's a debate between a bad co median who has sold out to an ideological agenda and poses as a news anchor versus Jon Stewart? Should be funny, if nothing else.

5/10. Stewart has no problems going after the left for stuff. He points out the hypocrisy of the news media more than anything. And lots of people who love watching his show would tend to disagree with you about his comedy, buddy. Comedy is hard, and it's very hard to be consistently funny just about every night. I would argue he's one of the best comedians ever for his ability to put together topical comedy on a daily basis (and yes he has a writing team to help him but like I said - the show is consistently funny to a lot of people).

You need to re-read his post.

Yep. Reading fail. (No sleep yesterday, kind of an off day today)


Happens to the best of us, man. No harm. Although, I was trolling a little bit because of my description of Bill. I actually like him the second best out of all the talking heads at Fox. Shepard Smith beats him out by a wide margin, but O'Reilly at least gives me the impression that he's trying to make a point, just in the dumbest possible way. Even when I agree with him (which happens from time to time, and more frequently than most who know me well would assume, I'd wager) I still tend to think his reasons for having the same opinion as I do on X, Y, or Z topic are stupid or misinformed. That said, the honest part of my description is that he poses as a news anchor, when the heads of FoxNews have said that his show (and others, like Fox and Friends) aren't part of their "news block" and are more entertainment programs. That their viewers see those shows as the hard hitting news shows just makes it worse, but according to Fox's own releases on the matter, Bill isn't a news anchor, he just plays one on TV.
 
2012-09-18 05:15:18 PM  
Many in this thread have commented (and I agree) that debates and conversations with Stewart and O'Reilly tend to be cordial discussions between adults espousing informed opinions.

The problem with this is that O'Reilly tends to completely abandon his on-screen Fox persona when he comes onto the Daily Show for an interview. Or on Colbery, where he (iirc) spent time explaining that his 'persona' was just that, and was not supposed to be taken seriously.

That's disingenuous at best. Either come to the debate as the same blowhard that you play on your show, or tell the people that watch your show that you don't mean it.
 
2012-09-18 06:46:08 PM  
CPennypacker
She's not a know it all. She's just really smart. I can see how she would seem like a know it all from the perspective of a know-nothing, though.

Is that all you got? Too assume I'm a know-nothing?
Pfft.....amateur.

The fact is, she is really smart, and that's part of her problem; she is always trying to show how smart she is. Like most arrogant know-it-all's, she makes the false assumption (like you) that no one could possibly know as much as she does. About anything. A large part of what she learned in academia is how to manipulate any argument in her favor by leaving out facts if they conflict with her point of view, or take things completely out of context to fit her narrow, liberal narrative.

But by all means, insult me for being a "know-nothing". No one who could possibly disagree with Rachel's rhetoric could ever have a brain.
 
2012-09-18 07:07:51 PM  
CPennypacker
She's not a know it all. She's just really smart. I can see how she would seem like a know it all from the perspective of a know-nothing, though.

Is that all you got? To assume I'm a know-nothing?
Pfft.....amateur.

The fact is, she is really smart, and that's part of her problem; she is always trying to show how smart she is. Like most arrogant know-it-all's, she makes the false assumption (like you) that no one could possibly know as much as she does. About anything. A large part of what she learned in academia is how to manipulate any argument in her favor by leaving out facts if they conflict with her point of view, or take things completely out of context to fit her narrow, liberal narrative.

But by all means, insult me for being a "know-nothing". No one who could possibly disagree with Rachel's rhetoric could ever have a brain.
 
2012-09-18 07:09:18 PM  
protip: double posting that made you look even stupider than just posting it once.
 
2012-09-18 08:30:12 PM  

canyoneer: Ross Perot might not have been interesting but he warned us what was going to happen, he was ridiculed for it, and then it happened. And still no one gives him credit.

[timiacono.com image 526x377]


Carter warned us about a lot of stuff too, but I bet you're one of the short bus candidates who thinks he was a loon.
 
2012-09-18 08:32:04 PM  
i.chzbgr.com 

No one warned Stewart???
 
2012-09-18 08:38:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // and I will watch this debate from underneath a pile of Scarlett Johanson, Kate Beckinsale and Natalie Portman



Fixed for accuracy
 
2012-09-18 08:39:37 PM  
And personally I would rather Sean Hannity finally be waterboarded like he volunteered to have done to him long ago. Live on primetime tv.
 
2012-09-18 09:55:43 PM  
Waiting for O'rly to cut his mic.
 
2012-09-18 11:09:52 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Vacation Bible School: Gotfire: I would rather see John Stewart vs. Hannity.

This.

That.


Whiffleball bat.
 
2012-09-18 11:14:44 PM  

torr5962: she is always trying to show how smart she is.


And have you seen the way that biatch eats crackers?

Like she owns the damn place!

*blink*
 
2012-09-19 08:21:18 AM  
i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-19 12:43:11 PM  
quatchi:

"Sigh". You neatly grabbed that out of context. Good job. You should work for the current administration.

Rachel is too busy showing us her smarts and manipulating numbers instead of allowing the numbers to point her toward the facts. She is a partisan robot, every bit as douchey as Hannity.
 
2012-09-19 01:51:52 PM  

torr5962: "Sigh". You neatly grabbed that out of context. Good job. You should work for the current administration.


Welcome to Grey 5, short-bus rider.
 
2012-09-19 02:29:10 PM  

torr5962: A large part of what she learned in academia is how to manipulate any argument in her favor by leaving out facts if they conflict with her point of view, or take things completely out of context to fit her narrow, liberal narrative.


Interesting, I didn't realize that it took a college degree to learn how to lie by omission. You wouldn't think it would take four years of college tuition to learn how to do something that every five year old does instinctively.
 
2012-09-19 03:27:53 PM  
pontechango
Interesting, I didn't realize that it took a college degree to learn how to lie by omission. You wouldn't think it would take four years of college tuition to learn how to do something that every five year old does instinctively.

Some things we do instinctively as toddlers need to be perfected in our adult years. One of these things is lying while making it look like we're telling the truth. I was speaking in general terms and I was speaking of an advanced Law degree. Everyone knows undergrad is about drinking and pussy. Cmon.


James F. Campbell
You are one, angry atheist. You are as angry as a an Islamic zealot.
 
Displayed 113 of 113 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report