Jump to content

Can you believe that anti-American Jon Stewart?


Recommended Posts

Well since you can't muster enough brain power to actually have a discourse or discussion of my thoughts

 

74381[/snapback]

 

Well, it would be easier to have discourse or discussion, of you actually provided something of substance. (Hint: soundbites do not count)

 

Show us that you are more than just a political hack, and people might be more winning to address your "thoughts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RabidBillsFanVT
It figures that liberals would object to demeaning Jon Stewart!

 

They all love their jewish God of anti-Americanism!

 

God Bless Travis Tritt, Alan Jackson, and all the real Americans.

 

Freedom ain't free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

73877[/snapback]

 

PLEASE!!

 

Lighten up, and spare us from the 'country music stars are holier-than-thou' rountine.

 

If you think Jon Stewart is anti-American, then you must not believe in the Constitution or freedom...that is more anti-American than anything JS could EVER say or do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE!!

 

Lighten up, and spare us from the 'country music stars are holier-than-thou' rountine.

 

If you think Jon Stewart is anti-American, then you must not believe in the Constitution or freedom...that is more anti-American than anything JS could EVER say or do!

75142[/snapback]

I saw the CNN interview and thought it was funny as Hell probably the best PR that show has ever got.

 

I really hope the guy was joking with the anti-american thing people throw that around waaaay too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't hate America.  He's is just another !@#$ partisan pretending not to be an !@#$ partisan.

73387[/snapback]

Actually, he doesn't pretend, he is quite honest about it. More to the point, he is a comedian. I don't think he has any obligation at all to be non-partisan. None. The job description for a comedian and a journalist are not the same. You are making the same moronic mistake Carlson was making in trying to hold a comedian to a journalistic standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Wham Rocks, I'd been looking for the clip since I read the transcript. Great sarcasm too. That stuff about "jewish god of anti-americanism", Bush being the second coming, or kerry the satanic pig has me rolling on the floor.

Especially liked the line "your either for righteousness or against it". I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who seem to take you seriously. With a name like "Wham Rocks" you would think that everyone would realize that this is all a put-on. Hogboy perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, he doesn't pretend, he is quite honest about it.  More to the point, he is a comedian.  I don't think he has any obligation at all to be non-partisan.  None.  The job description for a comedian and a journalist are not the same.  You are making the same moronic mistake Carlson was making in trying to hold a comedian to a journalistic standard.

75636[/snapback]

 

 

Sadly the description of what a journalist is has been lost completely with all of the so-called media types on the air today. They're all just Ebert & Roepers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It figures that liberals would object to demeaning Jon Stewart!

 

They all love their jewish God of anti-Americanism!

 

God Bless Travis Tritt, Alan Jackson, and all the real Americans.

 

Freedom ain't free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

73877[/snapback]

 

What?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare Jon Stewart criticize Crossfire?

 

Doesn't he know that he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

 

How could he do this to the troops?

 

Anyone who watches the Daily Show must be a member of Al Qaeda.

 

Sarcasm off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the segment and am perplexed. Jon Stewart is very intelligent and articulate but I did not get his message. He seemed to contradict himself. He was not funny at all and obnoxious as hell. Stewart came off as a pompous jackass IMO. To question stuff and dissent is very American IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, he doesn't pretend, he is quite honest about it.  More to the point, he is a comedian.  I don't think he has any obligation at all to be non-partisan.  None.  The job description for a comedian and a journalist are not the same.  You are making the same moronic mistake Carlson was making in trying to hold a comedian to a journalistic standard.

75636[/snapback]

 

As a comedian, you are correct, he has no other obligation then to be funny. You fail to see, however, that he ceases to be a comedian when he uses his show to promote a particular political agenda. Making fun of the president is one thing, "sniffing John Kerry's throne" is entirely another.

 

He cannot have a succession of Clinton's and Kerry's on his show, offer them his bully pulpit, and pretend he is a comedian. At that precise moment he became a partican promoting his own political agenda. He also became fair game in our little cultural war as just another 'hollywood' type who thinks he has a right to lecture the rest of us, and to use his celebrity in a way that was not intended or appreciated. What does that mean? That we may laugh at or with him is in no way to be construed as empowering him outside his small dominion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a comedian, you are correct, he has no other obligation then to be funny.  You fail to see, however, that he ceases to be a comedian when he uses his show to promote a particular political agenda.  Making fun of the president is one thing, "sniffing John Kerry's throne" is entirely another.

 

He cannot have a succession of Clinton's and Kerry's on his show, offer them  his bully pulpit, and pretend he is a comedian.  At that precise moment he became a partican promoting his own political agenda.  He also became fair game in our little cultural war as just another 'hollywood' type who thinks he has a right to lecture the rest of us, and to use his celebrity in a way that was not intended or appreciated.  What does that mean?  That we may laugh at or with him is in no way to be construed as empowering him outside his small dominion.

76996[/snapback]

Stewart was ripping a page right out of postmodern theory -- attacking the absurdity of the system, and "Crossfire"'s complicity as "theater" promoting the system. He pointed out the program for the spectacle that it is -- as much so as pro-wrestling. People who didn't like it are obviously too wrapped up in the idea that this is the only system that can exist and that to attack it is blasphemy. I find it encouraging that over 20 % of the young demographic is getting its news from Stewart.

 

Also note that he called EVERYONE on the show a partisan hack. On his show later on, he noted that he could have called any one of them a "dick." And he wasn't lecturing US at home, he was lecturing the media and causing an interruption in the system by not conforming to what the show expected of him, to "be their funny monkey." I thought it was beautiful.

 

Also, as regards Stewart having Kerry and Clinton on his show, he's also had Bill O'Reilly and any number of right-wingers on, to interesting effect. And he would love to have Bush on -- he mentioned this to Bush's press-secretary, whom he had on "The Daily Show" during the RNC.

 

I for one would love to see Kerry on O'Reilly and Bush on Stewart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a comedian, you are correct, he has no other obligation then to be funny.  You fail to see, however, that he ceases to be a comedian when he uses his show to promote a particular political agenda.  Making fun of the president is one thing, "sniffing John Kerry's throne" is entirely another.

 

He cannot have a succession of Clinton's and Kerry's on his show, offer them  his bully pulpit, and pretend he is a comedian.  At that precise moment he became a partican promoting his own political agenda.  He also became fair game in our little cultural war as just another 'hollywood' type who thinks he has a right to lecture the rest of us, and to use his celebrity in a way that was not intended or appreciated.  What does that mean?  That we may laugh at or with him is in no way to be construed as empowering him outside his small dominion.

76996[/snapback]

 

 

I disagree. Letterman and Leno host politicians and make nice with them, even though many people have a good sense of their political leanings. Nobody calls either of them “buttboy” or “throne sniffer” (at least for the reasons they are calling Stewart those names). In addition, Stewart showed no bias in his criticism of Crossfire, which was a comment on media and how it is manipulated by the major political parties. He makes a pretty good argument that the so-called debates on that show, and shows like it, are just talking heads from the left/right repeating talking points given to them from the national parties, rather than exhanging original views or opinions. He knows this because he watches all of those shows and observes that the talking heads all say the exact same thing at the same time. He criticizes the media for allowing itself to be used by the parties like that. The Mary Cheney thing is a perfect example. I think most would agree that Kerry’s comment was gratuitous, and, be that as it may, I think most would also agree that Kerry’s comment did not deserve a full week (plus) of news coverage. Yet the right-wing machine has deftly utilized it as a way to move the conversation away from the fact that their guy went 0-3 in the debates. The news shows have happily played along. This is just an example-- I know full well that there are many examples of the left wing machine doing the same thing, but the Cheney example is the most timely. Comedians can have opinions too, and still be comedians. See, e.g., Lenny Bruce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got a chance to watch it. I'm glad Stewart called Carlson a dick - because he was BEING one.

 

Stewart is right on indicting the media for being dishonest and for calling them on it. It's too bad they kept interrupting him and trying to demean him because he's not a "journalist". As if that means anything in the modern day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got a chance to watch it.  I'm glad Stewart called Carlson a dick - because he was BEING one.

 

Stewart is right on indicting the media for being dishonest and for calling them on it.  It's too bad they kept interrupting him and trying to demean him because he's not a "journalist".  As if that means anything in the modern day.

81855[/snapback]

 

Overall I think he was right. I just think he did a horrible job expressing himself. You don't prove the 'journalists' are dicks by acting like one yourself.

 

Blown opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...