Reply With Quote
Thanks, that's been posted before, but it's always fun to see Stewart make the boys from Crossfire squirm.
This is older, and I don't know if this was posted before, but here is a link to a video of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire on CNN.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831
Thanks, that's been posted before, but it's always fun to see Stewart make the boys from Crossfire squirm.
I think his whole argument was assinine. Crossfire is a commentator/editorial type of program.
GMAFB! IT's crossfire not ing 20/20 or Nightline.
You are going to have strong oppinions and crossfire reflects the debate in our present country which comes off as a hostile type of debate. Too many people are way too passionate about issues these times and for good reason. What Jon Stewart did took no balls. It's not like the crossfire host were hot celebrities and taking them on would of been a monumental task that would of warranted criticsim towards you and would of required you to be a principled person. No, rather it was the other way around. Jon Stewart was the liked celebrity who chose to take on people who were below him in popularity, attack them with adhominem attacks, and baseless expectations of a debate show.
HE attacked Carlson and begala for being very partisan, but if one was actually paying attention, Stewart was more aiming his attack on conservative Carlson.
Has anyone seen Carlson's show? HE in no way comes across as partisan. His guest are always 75 percent liberal. And he in noway is a cheerleader for the Iraq war.
It was the induction of Begala and the other hayseed that made the show way too hostile and childlike.
Jon stewart only included begala because he didnt want to come across as partisan himself.
Seriously Jon stewart is just another bag celebrity, a funny one at that.
Well, I'll go on record here as not liking either party. I think we as a people should never align with a party. Once you do, you start to see everything is a black or white frame of mind. i.e. I'm a republican, the liberal democrats are always such hypocrites who are unamerican and want to see out country fail. *or* I'm a democrat, the ultra conservative republicans are out to make this a christian based government where they hold down all the poor and minorities.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Both of the above statements hold true for some party members. But to always hold one side as right and one as always wrong (or majority of the time wrong) is a big problem.
back to the issue-
I think Stewart was foucsued on Tucker more because Tucker was engaged with him in discussion. Begala really sat quietly during the time and that is why Stewart didn't really speak with him much.
That said, I do enjoy listening to Tucker much like I enjoy listening to Bill Maher. I don't always agree with either one (nor should anyone), but I respect that fact that they're not afraid to take on issues and have open discourse. Plus, they are both able to question either party, though they do tend to side more often than not with the same one.
I think as long as we as a people tolerate the style of debatee we seem to have now (make your point real loud, ignore what the other guy is saying and wait for your turn to pick one thing wrong or out of context that was said and then begin to beat a dead horse) we will not grow as a people like we should.
Damn. Sorry for sounding preachy. I really just wish people could have a debate and come away with a better understanding of the opposing arguement or even allow themselves to let their mindset change and adapt.
Well not everyone is a moderate or "moderate in temperment" aswell. Many people are attached to issues that they will not budge on.
American debate has always been partisan and hostile. There has always been extremes. The day we become less passionate about our beliefs would mean we no longer care and therefore we'd all resort to having a good discussion.
But human nature wont allow all of us to be passive in ideology.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be passionate. I'm just saying that I think people shouldn't make up their minds because of party affiliation because it impedes progress. Let's take for example the wire tap situtation with Bush. How would the Republicans who are defending him have acted if this was Clinton in office? I don't believe that they would respond the same way. This is what I'm talking about when I get upset with the aligning one's self completely with a party. People are becoming less passionate about issues and more about protecting a party's intrests/agenda than our nation's interest.
Last edited by Jamtas#2; 01-15-2006 at 12:48 PM.
If you don't agree with Gtown, you are bag. Plain and simple.
Worst take of the month. If that were true, there would be no states of Missouri and California. Ever hear of that thing called the Missouri compromise?
Passivity is for reality.
Roe v Wade has my back.
There's been civil liberties broken by democrat administrations against foreign enemies in which republicans just stood by and took it, Roosevelt and Kennedy come to mind. And no, republicans would of supported clinton had he done wiretapping to terrorist, theres no discussion on that. I would of supported clinton if he was tough on terrorism.
NOt necessarily, seems to me you take it as "If you dont sac ride the daily show and jon stewart, then you're not cool."
but thanks for the zero insight.
That's ok, you're way off on my point. I didnt say we dont need moderates, just that we dont need everyone to be moderate.
<rhetorically>Ask MLK if we needed moderates in his day, and see what he'd say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
