Rachel is sitting down with Jon right now

interesting....

They are ideological but not partisan - WTF?????

:wtf:

see how he explains that.

Colbert is a conservative impostor and Stewart is a liberal impostor.

think they are the voice of reason. What I am hearing is let them keep on kicking your asses and both are the same. Dems should shut up.

He seems to be comparing most people who are against the right or vote Democratic to Iron planet or whatever that organization is with the nuts who jump from side to side screaming nonsense no matter who is in the whitehouse..

Maybe the President is listening to this garbage from him and others like him so he really believes that most of us think like this...

I don't get it.

end of story

The anger on my end is that George W Bush never legitimately won the either election, he lied to start a war,
and the most of the media has covered his ass.

Criminals and a corrupt system that covers up what they have done is not the same as Ed Schultz being angry
about the turning public education into a business.

but we shouldn't say it because it shuts down discourse? Which other facts do we need to leave off the table?

:rofl:

Ummmm yeah they are when their parent company donates to Republicans.

yeah to him it's not the end of the world if the GOP wins over and over with the same failed economic plans. He has a highly rated show that brings in millions to him. If his kid gets sick he can give him the best care in the world, if the country goes to 20 % unemployed... well high unemployment great for the entertainment industry. He's a liberal, but a liberal that can afford to wait it out. If you're sick and need medicare, need your Social security check to live, need your job to maintain your mortgage etc then the prospect of 2 more years of Bush economics sounds a lot more desperate.

I guess I'm used to smart people laying out a premise and going about supporting it. I'm spoiled by that.

In this interview, Stewart doesn't look like he knows how. Maybe his ideas will be clear in the end. For now, it's meandering.

I'm hanging in till the end, though.

It was all about ratings.

So if that's his message, he could have been on in one short segment. No need for this protracted interview that was given gravitas all week long.

Surely he has more of a message to warrant all this attention.

He's saying it's not about left-right, but television networks should be about corruption-non corruption.

I'm sorry, when there is an entity that wants to eliminate or destroy social security on one side and another entity dedicated to saving it, I don't call that degrees of corruption.

I wish she could make a succinct, direct argument that would shut that down.

I believe Jon wanted to be on Rachel's show because he was offended by accusations of his making false equivalancies between the left and the right. Well, the fact of the matter is that is exactly what he did and he needs to be "schooled" on this... i.e. corrected!

I so impressed with his cranky, defensive, not very logical vocabulary.

and not partisan he is making sense to me.

:popcorn:

Waterboarding is breaking the law.
That said I agree with Rachel and he concedes that he's shading the grey areas.
I understand where he is coming, from but I am not in that place and if he believes liberals can be passive and 'nice' while ReTHUGS and their hacks can lie and invent stuff, he is truly naive.


He's not a political animal...he's a comedian.

or something like that.

Water boarding is wrong and technically may be a war crime (but don't bring "evil" into this discussion)

implications lead and Jon seems to be shying away from conclusions he either doesn't want to make or doesn't want to state.

:thumbsup:

Wha?

he is a comedian..his rally which I attended was something I felt I could agree with since the theme was sanity...his words didn't change my opinion and he had a chance to voice his..

nothing more...nothing less (IMO)

Fox = MSNBC is not a true statement

The magic of the middle does not cover the very real damage done by
the current republicans* to America and the world



* Dwight D Eisenhower started the interstate highway program .... newly elected republican
governors want to kill high speed rail

I think he wants the news to sound like Walter Cronkite. And I wish that as well. But it's so divisive and partisan now.

He makes a good point. Let's not sensationalize everything in an attempt to undermine our opponent. It's noble. Unfortunately between news being big money, and conservatives being rabid, and no more Fairness Doctrine, I doubt the discourse will ever be civil.

be sides that are willing to come to the table and analyze the issues. The Dems have proposed a lot of the thing Repugs proposed during the Clinton years and now the Repugs won't support their own platforms. What the hell do you do with that?

It's why I wanted Obama. A kind and intelligent man. The stuff Jon is talking about was given birth to by things like impeachment of Clinton. I'd even go as far as to say that the KKK was not a liberal institution. The division is real. To be honest, the one thing I don't like about Obama is actually the one thing that this nation needs. His humility, where I want fire. His tone is one I thought would defuse this divisive behavior in the nation. I don't know. I honestly don't have a thing to add. I'm simply shocked at the social warfare going on in America. Jon's intentions are good. Maybe our differences aren't as big as we think. And maybe we are being coached by the media to believe our differences are big.

last week. One of the speakers had a very interesting way of looking at the world.

James R. Lucas
His premise basically went like this, "Why is "Either/Or" thinking so dangereous in a "Both" world.

The more he talked about it the more it was apparant he was on to something.

http://jamesrlucas.com/books/fatal-illusion/

Book
Broaden the Vision & Narrow the Focus: Managing in a World of Paradox

I agree that we have more in common with each other than our differences.

I think Obama has gone out of his way to try civil discourse and the Republicans have gone out of their way to avoid it, so I don't see where the false equivalency or the idea now finally Republicans will embrace civil discourse comes from.

up side. Whether they could if they wished to, we may never know.

sounds like he is doing his best to speak up for Fox and is trying to portray us as the bad guys., He says bush isn't a war criminal in so many words..

He seemed all over the place.

I think he should just say that, while there is no equivalency (moral or otherwise) between the left's media and the right's media, he does not agree with the tactics that are often used in those media.

There's definitely a difference between the two. I think the first is just fine, maybe even a good thing, whereas the second leads to dishonesty.

Whatevs.

There's no sarcasm, he's sitting a dark room, quite candid so there can be no confusion that he's SERIOUS about everything he's saying, and while he's entitled to his opinion I don't like what I'm hearing.

He's sitting there trying to talk in a diplomatic, intellectual tone of voice but then talking about how something makes him feel is more important than their goals or their motives or their methods. He lost me at "Fox news isn't partisan." He's still making false comparisons and totally dismissing things because anger, fear or passion is evident in their demeanor.

Bush committed war crimes, therefore he is a war criminal (granted, he'll probably never be tried for his crimes in this lifetime) and it's fair to say that he is. A person bringing guns to a town hall rally going on about "death panels" does NOT have as much or as little merit just because both people are angry; One can at least mention actual facts of things that happened while the other only has a theory.

An angry lie isn't the same as angry truth. Someone speaking lies in a nice tone of voice is more wrong than someone speaking the truth in that same tone.

:thumbsdown:

smarter than her guest.

Stewart also seems to have quite an absolute belief that his opinions are factual and that they shouldn't be challenged.

This is very interesting, but I was hoping for a real battle of the minds and intellectual sparring, and what I'm seeing is a brilliant reporter becoming frustrated with interviewing a comedian.

and she's giving him too much leeway with his dumb arguments.

many of her questions and probing, in an attempt to keep this remotely interesting.

He's just all over the place.

He was a reluctant interview. She wanted more than he was willing to give. It frustrated the hell out of her.

Complete waste of time.

that would better explain where both Rachel and Jon are coming from.

by the level of Rachel's intelligence. He's trying to converse and sound equally intelligent but he's not quite there. He's a smart guy. It just doesn't seem like he's expressing his thoughts very well.

more substance-based level. He simply can't match her intellect.

Smart, perhaps not brilliant. Oh well.

I don't have a cable and would love to see this interview. I'm searching all over the internet for this or a replay of this.

Though the link is offline. I'll keep an eye on political videos.

is going to be on her blog tomorrow.

Why?

Fucking WHY?

Is anyone evil? If so, then why not Bush? Seems a fine fucking candidate for the label.

WTF-ever.

He'll get black balled and he won't get any rethugs on as guests for his show?

countless cases of malnutrition and illness (not to mention specific war-related maladies), disintegration of women's rights, torture, etc. I don't get it?! Bush IS a war criminal. It is not a partisan point of view. It is fact.

I am not getting his reasoning.

:wtf:

harsh a view as others Stewart considers true war criminals, but he is only willing to use historical examples to define evil when the truth is that Bush was and is a proven war criminal who will be judged much the same when Stewart's child is a father.

Makes no sense.

Is FDR evil because he supported the Japanese internment?

you understand where he is coming from, even if you disagree with him re Bush and waterboarding. I find it refreshing to see him being serious.

the out of work, the Russians, The Chinese, etc. Doesn't Jon watch fox? He should know why FDR is evil. Duh.

Fuck FOX. There's a legit question there and you're using useful idiots to deflect it.

I pointed out why people generally don't consider FDR an evil person even if he happen to make rather poor choices during his presidency. Liberals for instance have no problem pointing out things liberal presidents do that they feel are wrong. Some liberals like Ted Rall bury FDR and his wartime choices. Funny enough I did it by making fun of Fox and their non-partisanship at the same time. A two for one blowing holes in Jon's poor arguments. Anyways J Stew's funny on his own show tonight.

People that see Bush as evil don't see him as evil because of one choice he made as president. They seem has evil because of his body of work as a whole. And more to the point the why that he did it. He didn't torture people to save Americans lives, he apparently didn't it because they weren't getting the info they need to justify their political positions. Almost as if they started a war based on lies that they knew were lies. You could go on. If someone is evil or not is of course opinion. The Bush tortured people and it IS a war crime is a fact. Bill Maher is right and Jon is wrong.

I found the interview fascinating and I disagree with him on several points but understand where he is coming from.

Reagan started off as a liberal.

Perhaps the word I'm looking for is - BORING!!

I'm asking this and I truly like Jon Stewart, so one must clearly understand how embarrassing he was pretending he's above it all with his, he's in the middle rhetoric & bullshit!

Rachel Maddow as always was entertaining, clever, sharp, gracious, polite, truthful & right to the point!! Maddow is light years ahead of Stewart.

Now he is defending fox.

Who is Jon Stewart? I'm confused.

I never really liked him, I always thought he would be the next turncoat.

Mentioning the Smothers Brothers was fine but it illustrates just how shallow Jon is compared to oh, Keith Olbermann who always goes back to people like Bob & Ray to illustrate his own history. Probably because KO has more depth in his fingernails.

:rofl:
Exactly.

hears people yelling at him that it's cracking beneath him, but still keeps trying to convince himself and others that his line of reasoning isn't cracked.

I think that when he went home to bed he had bad dreams about this interview.

You know when he gets an Emmy almost every year that at least 25 writers go up and accept the award with him....maybe more, they take up the whole stage.

Where were they tonight when he really needed them??

Don't pick on Jon. Somebody shoulda warned him about "our" Rachel..

She has a 4-people staff for an hour show based strictly on fact told humorously, and he has a l/2 show with a barnful writers, and many of their skits are't really that funny.

But true.

discussions.

which is wrong. He seems completely unaware of how much of that polarization had originally been between traditional news organizations trying to maintain both objectivity and their reputation for being objective, and right-wing media and organizations attacking the mainstream media as "too liberal" for decades in what Krugman called "movement conservatism." ("Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy." - Krugman)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

It was a very deliberate "war of ideas" launched by wealthy conservatives like Richard Mellon Scaife:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm