I’ve never been as impressed with him as I’m supposed to be.
Here’s a long explanation why:
Was Jon Stewart being a dick when he was subjecting Jim Cramer to enhanced interrogation? Sure he was. He was also being a dick when he called Tucker Carlson a dick, and when he was preaching to Chris Wallace. But here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter. What matters is that even when Stewart’s a dick, he is never the dick. It is Stewart’s unique talent for coming across as decent and well-meaning when he’s bullying and hectoring and self-righteous. And this is because his talent is not just for comedy and not just for media criticism or truth-telling; it’s for being — for remaining — likable.
I think it’s a travesty that so many young people get their news from him and think they understand what’s going on.
And this is because his talent is not just for comedy
I think most anyone who saw “Death to Smoochy” or that lame dave chapell movie “ever seen bugs bunny? ON WEED?” that movie, whatever it’s called, would likely disagree with that statement.
He’s really quite bland, his direct stuff is rather weak and unimpressive. He’s basically a prop comic, only his props are news clips.
Your mention of prop comic lead me to Harpo Marx and Susan Fleming, much more upbuilding than Jon Stewart… so thank you.
That Stewart would be considered a serious source for news pretty well sums up the problem with todays America.
It really seems like adults have abdicated their responsibilities in this country. Allowing the idiots to rule the message isn’t the idiots fault.
This is a major reason why we need lady Sarah in the white house. We will then for sure see if any gentlemen still exist that would defend a ladies honor.
Zell Miller is an example that comes to mind when he defended Malkin from Mathews.
One of the things I used to like about Stewart was his ability (unlike Bill Maher) to always remember that he is a comedian, not really a pundit or journalist. That appears to have been a pose on his part. Deep down he really believes he’s as knowledgeable and wise as anyone he’s ever likely to interview. A shame, because (like Maher) he used to be funny.
Stewart skewers Fox for bias but he is biased. He rails against the distortion of the truth for political purposes yet all he does is distort the truth. He has said the best way to combat people you disagree with is to mock them. Stewart is nothing more than a high school bully. When the basis for comedy is malice, it ceases being comedy.
Stewart skewers Fox for bias but he is biased.
Only one of these two claim to be practicing journalism.
Perhaps Fox is biased towards the Right, Jim, or perhaps it juse seems that way because they aren’t as biased towards the Left as the rest of the Press. As someone said of Fox – they discovered a niche market which was half of the country.
How about this: you can have Fox news, but in exchange we get CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC the New York Times, Washington Post, and damned near every other paper in the country plus Time, Newsweek, et al. Would you be willing to make that trade?
I think it’s a travesty that so many people get their new from Fox and think they understand what’s going on.
The main problem I have with Stewart is that he never stands behind what he says. When he gets criticized for statements, he holds up his hands and says “I’m just a comedian, don’t take me seriously”. Then, in the next minute, he’s telling anyone who will listen that he’s the voice of sanity and everyone else is wrong.
He’s a coward who hides behind ‘satire’.
Ken Anthony, I agree that there aren’t enough gentleman who will defend a lady’s honor. But since when is that grounds for putting someone in the White House?
Palin lost me when she jumped on the antivaccine train. Between Lancet and Louis Pasteur, I’ll take the latter as a source, thank you.
The issue is not the effectiveness of vaccines. The issue is should the government force it’s citizens, taking away their freedom of choice? It’s a legitimate argument. For you to say she lost you over this one issue and deny how right (and write) she is on so many more means you are not serious.
Sorry to break it to ya kid, but that’s juvenile thinking.
Sorry, KA, I’m not going to side with cervical cancer. I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for superstitious weirdos who think preventing disease is “unnatural,” because they might, heaven forbid, need to request a waiver.
There are plenty of things government “forces” people to do. While I’d like to stop that, protecting hippies’ “right” to subject their children to disease ranks far down on my list. Why aren’t you opposing, say, school nurses? Answer: because that doesn’t involve those Big Pharma created frankenfoods with the secret additives that will keep us from questioning authority. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic).
As for how right she is on other issues, in what way is she more right than Rick Perry, or even Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum for that matter?
I think it’s a travesty that so many people get their new from Fox and think they understand what’s going on.
They’re a lot better off in that regard than people who get their news from CNN, MSNBC or the networks.
I’m not going to side with cervical cancer.
Who’s asking you to? Do you understand the principle of informed consent? Do you agree with it or not?
in what way is she more right
Did you mean more correct or more to the right of?
If the latter, I could give a rats ass. If the former, try critical reading of her commentary without realizing she is heads above those others. If you can’t, that a defect you should try to rectify.
I understand informed consent, and since the Gardasil (or as you call it, Liquid Whore Retardation Poison) had an opt-out for parents, it falls under that category.
And as far as her commentary goes, what I’ve seen of it is pretty standard political commentary. Like most GOP candidates, she puts in a certain amount of non-controversial conservative positions, like support for the military’s efforts and opposition to taxes. Also like most of them, she hedges her bets by some lame attacks on big business. (How dare those robber barons at Merck sell products that save lives!)
What you seem to miss is that she’s leading you on. She keeps hinting that she’ll jump into the Presidential race and then not doing it. Meanwhile chumps like you keep buying her books and movies. What do you think she wants: (a) a Republican President who will then become the party leader and end her whole reason for being; or (b) a second term for Obama, so that she can continue to Fight the Good Fight (but she can’t do it without your help and your contribution of $25, $50, $100, or $200)? The answer is painfully obvious.
Jim Says:
“Only one of these two claim to be practicing journalism.”
Bias exists everywhere. Fox is pretty upfront about theirs and so is MSNBC, the other outfits not so much.
Just because Stewart is a comedian/commentator hybrid doesn’t mean isn’t a hypocrite.
Is this a new crazy Ken or the old crazy Ken?
Ken,
Yes, Sarah has a scheme going, one so convoluted and nefarious that not even Columbo or Sherlock Holmes could fathom it. The depths of her dark soul can’t be plumbed by conventional means or questions in any languages other than Latin and Aramaic. Though she looks and talks like a conservative brunette hottie, she’s probably a machine crated by the Daleks.
Nobody takes the crazy crown from ken (yeah, that’ll clear it up!…)
what I’ve seen of it is pretty standard political commentary
Which means you haven’t engaged your brain. Try again, only be more critical (rather than just assuming the media is correct in labeling her a dummy. You miss a lot of fact if you believe the media.)
Another way to approach it would be to remove anything you think is standard and carefully look at what’s left. If nothing’s left, again, you aren’t paying attention. Neither are her potential rivals which is a good thing for her.
She’s not a moron or a genius. She’s just a person that has noticed some things others haven’t, plus her history has prepared her for this day. You could say Obamas history has prepared him as well, which explains a lot.
If you can’t figure out what’s different about Sarah you have a severe perception problem, similar to those that elected Obama or the other standard pols.
There is a chance she will not enter, but I only see that if she thinks she has no chance. She has organization in every state even if it can’t be seen. Watch it emerge once she announces.
George, what makes her hard to understand is everyone else is building on a different set of premises. They don’t believe what she believes. They will never understand her. They will only be able to project their own reasons which are not hers.
She doesn’t need politics. Which makes her the first candidate qualified for the job since George Washington.
She doesn’t need money, but like most people, isn’t going to throw it away if handed to her.
She may not share my understanding of economics (not to suggest either of us is more in tune with the facts than the other) but she does believe in small business being the backbone of this country as do I.
She fought and won against state corruption. No other candidate in recent times has that on their resume. NJ Gov. perhaps, but he has other serious problems. The next president is going to have to clean house in the most corrupt environment our country has ever seen. Eight years will not make much of a dent, but can make a good start.
I don’t know if she’s learned to pick good people, but they will certainly be better than those actively trying to destroy this country. Hopefully we shall see.
Going after crony capitalism and corruption is a winner that will take in both left and right. She has been vetted as nobody before her, including all her emails, and has come out squeaky clean. I doubt there’s another politician in the country, left or right, that could do that. The media has nothing but blanks left and she’s completely inoculated.
She will beat them in the primaries and will win in the general. I could be wrong, but keep your eyes open…
opt-out is not informed consent.