Earlier this week, I put up a post saying that while visiting The O’Reilly Factor, Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly engaged in a “love-fest.”
Well, turns out that, after looking at the entire, unedited interview, which to its credit Fox News has posted on its website, the “narrative,” as Stewart kept saying to describe Fox’s news strategy, was quite different than the one that made it onto cable TV on Wednesday and Thursday.
Stewart pretty much answered every one of O’Reilly’s charges against him and The Daily Show, and pointed out a couple of other things. Such as calling out Fox News for saying during the previous administration that it was “unpatriotic” to criticize the previous President during a time of war, but engages in just such criticism now in regard to the current President’s policy in the war in Afghanistan.
That’s right at the top of this clip, taken from the Fox News unedited version:
A bit later in this same clip — about two minutes, 38 seconds in — Stewart gets O’Reilly to admit that Bill thinks President Obama is a “socialist” and a “tyrant,” and then proceeds to point out some ways in which Obama is, um, probably not those things.
My initial review was, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced about what I saw on the TV screen. But looking at the unedited version provided by the Fox website, the broadcast was edited to tell a different story.
Agree? Disagree?
Um, as a moderate it is always fair to criticize the President whether Bush or Obama. It was great when Dems did it and great now that the GOP do it.
Here comes all the comments from both sides tearing each other up.
The point is that Fox News made a Very Big Deal about the “liberal media” criticizing Bush, saying it was an unpatriotic move, but now that a Dem is in office, Fox suddenly has no problem declaring the end of America.
The Daily Show at least consistently criticizes everyone.
I agree.
My point is both sides (liberal and conservative) are neither “sinless” and the media, liberal (NBC, CNN, MSNBC) and conservative (Fox News) are both guilty of criticizing the agenda’s of the other side. People will see what they want to see while the 5% of us who don’t care just want to throw our hands in the air.
Agreed. The problem isn’t that Fox now criticizes Obama, its that by doing so they’re being hypocritical. It was never unpatriotic to criticize Bush any more than it is to criticize Obama.
Alex, you had me until you said “5% of you don’t care” (I believe it is a bigger %). That is why there is so many liberal stations b’c too many don’t care. And that is really sad.
So. Obama made a very big deal about there being C-Span cameras during the Health Care debate. Instead there were private backroom deals for Big Pharma, Unions and various states.
The problem with fox isn’t partisan politics… its network created news. Fox doesn’t just report the news, they create it. …and when they do report it, they regularly do it inaccurately. They directly funded the tea party protests when they were in their infancy. They have used incorrect footage to report a current event while adding a slant to it on more than one occasion. They ignore civil rights related protests while reporting a nonevent, literally – a story on a protest that never occurred. Often, on screen statistics add up to more than 100%. They insert talking heads to talk over the presidential address. They cut away from the president speaking at the top retreat while every other network covered it. They are consistently wrong in their use of facts or the facts themselves.
Fox is to news as the WWF is to sports.
Oh Ken Tucker, you are exactly the a-hole you accuse Bill O’Reilly of being. Look in a mirror!
Joe, why is Ken an a-hole???
LD, something not being conservative does not automatically make it liberal.
Alex, CNN and NBC are hardly “liberal” media sources.
LD … it always amazes me how conservatives label as liberal anybody or anything (TV stations) that doesn’t agree with them. Just because someone isn’t pushing a conservative agenda, that doesn’t make them liberal. And facts are neither liberal nor conservative.
I’m glad I watched the interview for myself because reading your review did not match the actual material at all. Jon Stewart might have taken down Bill O’Reilly if you were on the edge of your seat grasping for straws, but what I saw was a legit debate where both sides made good points–but in the end, neither were wrong in their own right. Regarding the “President during war”, O’Reilly kept saying that it was wrong to attack the war effort, which he claimed they still did not do with Obama (and which I, personally, have not witnessed on the news channel). Stewart kept repeating the same thing, and O’Reilly kept repeating the same thing–it was kind of going nowhere but if you want to read it as Stewart winning, I think that says more about you than the actual interview. As for Stewart getting O’Reilly to admit to thinking Obama was a Socialist and Tyrant, once again I believe you are mistaken. He never says that, but does point out socialist policies of Obama (which does not make somebody a Socialist). Even then, however, he states that this is why people such as Glen Beck and Sean Hannity believe he is Socialist–NOT him.
Seriously Tucker, if you want to be a respectable journalist in your lifetime–try practicing a little of what you preach. If there is any narrative construction going on in the news I just read and watched, it’s what you wrote.
jordan – so Glen Beck has an ‘everyman’ perspective. O’Reilly says that and it’s indefensible. Beck is arch-right wing. That’s not ‘everyman’.
The problem is that CNN and FOX are generalized. One talk show host says something and immediately its “FOX news says this” same with CNN. that is what is formulating these extremist opinions of both sides.
This was a good debate, and honestly they seemed to respect and enjoy each other.
And if you’ve ever watched Glen Beck you would KNOW he is NO republican or democrat.
Dominic- One day I hope you realize that right-wing does not mean Republican. There are Conservative Republicans, Moderate Republicans, and Liberal Republicans–and same with Democrats. O’Reilly says that Glen Beck is not representing a party, which I completely agree with. I’m a Moderate Republican, and I find a lot of what Glen Beck says to be ludicrous. What KRibbons said is correct–if you have ever watched GB, you would (or at least SHOULD) know he is not representing either party… except perhaps the Tea Party.
Actually Jordan, this is the exchange.
Stewart: All I hear on your network is this guy is…it’s tyranny and socialism.
O’Reilly: That’s what HE believes.
Stewart: So how is Barack Obama a socialist? As far as I can see the majority of the billions of dollars he’s given, he’s given to banks. So if he’s a socialist, he’s dyslexic.
O’Reilly: I- I- don’t think he’s socialist but he believes in redistributing the income and that is a socialist tenet-
Stewart: But he’s redistributing to the banks
then it goes to a discussion of what qualifies as socialism and how Obama;s policies qualify as socialism when other policies with similar features from other presidents don’t.
It seemed to me O’Reilly was referring to Obama when he said “that’s what he believes” but he could have just been momentarily stuck on Glenn Beck who was the previous topic. Either way, it doesn’t make Ken Tucker irresponsible. If it were a mistake, it was a perfectly understandable one.
On that point though, I think Stewart was stronger. O’Reilly was surprisingly weak in rebuttal to Stewart’s arguments.
I think it’s a good debate and while Stewart obviously disagrees with O’Reilly, he also has a respect for O’Reilly’s debating acumen.
How could that POSSIBLY be read as being about anybody but Beck? They were talking about him right before the beginning of your transcription. I don’t understand what you meant by “Actually Jordan, this is the exchange”, because I still read that and (especially in context–it’s interesting that you chose that as the beginning of your transcription… leaving out everything about Hannity and Beck) know what he was talking about. I already stated I think they both were right in their own ways. And once again, I stick with my accusation that Tucker should stop pointing his finger and look in the mirror. Even the title (“Turns out, Jon Stewart DID take down Bill O’Reilly”) shows blatantly that he is just as “fair and balanced” as the channel he criticizes.
@ sweetiepie, there is no liberal media. Just MSNBC. The rest of the networks, minus MSNBC and Fox News, are fine. They don’t kiss any side’s ass
Joe,
You couldn’t have said it any better. If anyone tried to criticize, or think of criticizing , the Republican stance you were considered unpatriotic. A flag burning, American hating, third trimester abortion having liberal.
Now that President Obama is our ELECTED president, all bets are off. He stands for everything their agenda is against. The President was left with an economic holocaust. The bankers strip mining our economy to fund some of the most greed saturated lifestyles in recent times. The return of the Robber Barons.
A year into his presidency, Obama is trying to stabilize an economy that is the furthest thing from stable and an un-winnable war that is bleeding us figuratively and literally.
Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. Afghanistan could have been manageable, possibly. The only reason we may have fared better than the Russians is because we had a lot of willing and potential allies at our backs. Iraq really messed things up, bad strategy Dubya. The only real logical reason for doing something so illogical is *ahem,wall street* greed. Whether they wanted the oil for National Security, unlikely, or for Big Oil interests, likely.
With nothing but unfounded resistance, Republicans defy logic. Supported by Glen Beck’s emotional pleas to help stop the Anti-Christ that is Barrack Obama and Bill O’s tough as nails, not gonna take this lying down sluggfest. We missing anything? Ah,yes. The woman in all of us and the woman some of us want to be in. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s kryptonite.
In the end, I think what it really boils down to is transitioning into a globalized society. Republicans run off of fear, fear of something new. Something that could offer the human species a chance to rise above. Instead, FOX pits the American public against itself. Rendering our decision making capabilities incapable.
I would rather have the very intelligent, literate and engaging President Obama leading the country at this time over the Bread-Backet mentality of George Bush and his goons.
With Barrack Obama, I believe our country has a chance to bounce back. It’s up to the Republicans whether we move forward or we stumble into an endless cycle of in-fighting.
I totally agree with what Joe said above ^^^ – Fox does create the news and that is the difference. Conservatives LOVE to cite the liberal-bias of the media, but I would love for anyone to give one example of one supposedly liberal network who spent the whole first year of a Republican’s presidency “reporting” on his supposedly illegitimate election and his overall plan to turn us into a socialist Muslim nation, or whatever the ridiculous opposite claim of that would be.
Was it an official position of Fox News that it was “unpatriotic” to criticize President Bush? Who said it? Can you point me to the youtube video of it?
LOL….but it WAS the “offical” position of MSNBC right?
“How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?” — Trent Lott on Foxnews
“it’s disgusting, (Daschle’s comments) gave “aid and comfort to the enemy.” — Tom Delay on Fox
Have you seen anyone on Fox denounce the “aid and comfort” Sarah Palin (FOX Emlpoyee) is giving to Osama Bin Laden? Have you seen anyone on Fox even comment on Hannity and Rush giving “aid and comfort” to Al Queda by calling the leader of the USA an ‘idiot’ — Does that NOT “embolden the enemy”?
“offical position” — typical. Hide behind semantics.
An interesting question, which the whiners on the left can never really answer. What conservative commentators griped about was the practice of some liberals to denigrate the commander in chief as an idiot and to seem to root for more U.S. soldiers to be killed so that their antiwar views would be validated. At the same time, some conservatives (e.g. Hannity) were savagely opposed to some Bush policies (e.g. amnesty for illegal aliens) while war was going on. Just as they now support Obama on the efforts in Afghanistan, while opposing some of his other policies. It’s not as simplistic as Stewart says.
“the war is lost” is what harry reid said. how can you talk like that in the middle of a war? how can you do that? it’s dangerous. it’s stupid.
this isn’t entirely giving you what you asked, but close. It’s from the Daily Show (clipped together, of course), showing what Fox News says that “liberals” do, like disparaging the president, then clips of them doing the same things:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news–the-new-liberals
Red, your assertions about people wanting American soldiers to die, simply because you don’t agree with them politically, is disgusting. And, yes, it IS in this case as simple as Stewart says: Fox was pro-everthing Bush and is anti-everything Obama, even if they are talking about the esact same types of executive action.
Perhaps, anb, you should just google those words for yourself – I’m sure you will have enough reading to last a few nights. lol I firmly believe one of the key reasons we are still in the wars we are in was because Fox literally jumped on anyone who dared to talk against a sitting President while we were at war. Our country is based on free speech and questioning government…..except if a Republican is in charge apparently. And when a Democrat is in charge? You just keep repeating completely inane, unproven made up internet “charges” because, I guess, they are once again a “news” organization.
Agreed, even though I am liberal. XD
I have always felt that the media giants are guilty of double standard in this area.
Oh my lord – and THAT is why Fox gets away with what they are doing. Everyone now is *so* cynical and SURE this is the status quo of the news business now. But please someone cite me one ridiculous made-up story about Bush that any of the supposedly liberal-biased mainstream media beat into the ground every night. Name me one political movement (ala the Tea Party groups) that a “liberal-biased” network promoted and supported throughout the first months of a Republican president’s administration in order to circumvent an election result. You can’t do it. Fox News is NOT presenting a conservative viewpoint – they make it up as they go along. Everyone – liberals and conservatives alike – should be appalled at this latest step in the evolution of the news industry.
The issue isn’t the politicians on either side, it’s the “journalists” on either side. But why I have to respect Stewart more is that he doesn’t deny the fact that he is a comedian who spoofs the news, whereas O’Reilly, Beck and their ilk actually expect to be taken seriously (and sadly are). As a lover of journalism, I find it depressing.
Jon Stewart is so much smarter that Billo. Jon could have really ripped him, and I wish he would have…
So do I.
Stewart’s strategy worked well. He didn’t have to “rip Bill-O” to get his point across. Why resort to O’Reilly-type tactics?
i don’t see in that video stewart winning anything. he backed off global warming. he demonstrated he didn’t ask about gore profiting from it. he made a point about criticizing the war to which o’reilly clarified. o’reilly made a point about the coakley election coverage and clarified bailing for 12 min on obama coverage, to which stewart conceded. this is not winning a debate.
Yeah but having to concede a few points isn’t losing either… don’t think you can claim O’Reilly came out the clear victor.
I dont see how Jon Stewart “Took Down” O’Reilly as the title of this article suggests. Like this was some backyard brawl that everyone likes politics to be. It was a respectful debate where both sides made good points.
Even though Stewart obviously is liberal – he is concerned with issues. That makes him less like O’Reilly, and precludes getting into verbal fisticuffs.
I’m liberal, but my whole problem with both sides is this hypocritical bipartisanship. The bickering in the Capital – the substance-less swipes from politicized media – these are all done as a reflection of America as a people. We choose not to be united. We choose to accuse the opposing party of tactics we ourselves engage in. We choose to comfort ourselves in forecasting the failure of the country, as if that will somehow vindicate the correctness of our party. It’s as if we pay allegiance to our parties first, and then our country.
It’s a free country, and people are welcome to do that – but its grinding the nation to a halt and we are going around and around, with nothing to show for it but bruises. Liberal or conservative – if you don’t think your party is to blame, you are personally part of the problem.
I agree
Bill O’Reilly is ridiculous.
I’d vote for O’Reilly / Stewart 2012. Great interview, loved their back and forth, seems like they could find a happy medium between the two of them.
Yeah, only it’d be Stewart/O’Reilly.
I don’t know about running for prez, but I’d love to see these two have their own show together. It would be a million times better than Hannity and Colmes ever was.
how about a reality show where they have to live with each other for a month..that would be amazing
Raise your hand if you’re surprised Fox News edited the interview to be more favorable to its host. Anybody? To Fox’s credit, they posted the entire, unedited interview… it’s just too bad that’s not how it was originally broadcast.
Agreed.
Yeah, it was clearly edited, and unfortunately the average FOX news watcher isn’t going to want to see the full interview, but they could very easily have let NO ONE see the full thing.
Maybe Stewart only agreed to do it if the posted the full thing.
Nice thought, I doubt that Fox would let a guest set the agenda for what would be on the Fox website. Prediction: The unedited interview got posted on the website by mistake, and it will be coming down soon, now that its been pointed out that its there.
It’s nice that everyone says how big it was of Fox to post the true version, but really… shouldn’t they do that all the time, esp if they are taking liberties with editing?
Also has anyone tried to look at that “gracious post” lately? It is either down or something’s not right, because I couldn’t get it to run. Instead it kept showing pictures of Charlie Christ hugging Obama. Weird.
Fox isn’t the only news station to edit. And Stewert was on the show. The purpose of these shows is not to tell the truth, it’s to start debate and discussion. If only the “liberal” media was seen as doing the same thing in their critisism, we could have discussion of issues instead of discussion of commentators.
Whoa sorry Allie, but the purpose of the news isn’t to report truth? Interesting take. I agree with healthy debate, but editing something to fit your point of view is purposefully misleading your audience. Both sides do it, but it’s the reason no one trusts the news anymore (or shouldn’t at any rate). Hardly a good thing to be heralded.
How many of their zombies are going to go watch the whole interview? I’d guess less than 20%. They control the points of view of the people who don’t check sources, don’t crtically think, etc. Which, unfortunatly, is the vast majority of them.
With only one media source reporting the ‘biased conservative side’ and all the others the ‘unbiased’ or liberal side, why is everyone so worried? And of course the other networks NEVER edit their interviews…like for instance Katie Couric? They all edit…and they don’t all provide us later with the unedited versions either. And it is endemic in the media, right down to local levels..where I have seen them actually edit opinion letters sent into the newspaper to come out with a completely opposite opinion other than the one originally presented!! These people have no shame and they are all in it for fame and fortune. There is no (total) honesty in the media, so I chose not to believe either side…or to at least take all they say with a grain of salt. Especially when that side starts calling names and getting nasty. An immediate turn off. How can everyone be so SURE they are so completely right?
B MORE, there is no other liberal side except for MSNBC. Christ Almighty. The other networks minus MSNBC and Fox are fine
Faux News – We Distort You Comply
LOL-
You do realise that faux is pronounced foe and not fox.
it’s a written forum. Faux looks like fox more than it actually sounds like it.
I’ve seen Faux News used to represent Fox News many times before. It’s just a play on the word.
Faux (pronounced /ˈfoʊ/, like “foe”) is a French word for false or fake. I hope you finally get it??? Fox (Faux = fake) News. We’ve been on to them for years. Some people are just slow to catch on, that’s all.
Jon Stewart is right, Bill O’Reilly is now the voice of reason on fox news, and thats really scary. I want Stewart to go on Glenn Beck, because that is one guy he will destroy. Or better yet, Colbert and Stewart vs O’reilly and Beck. That would be epic
The stuff my dreams are made of, seriously.
Cream dream.
Omg, that would be hilarious!!!!!
I atperciape the mention Kate, but it’s not necessary. I’m a home cook and food hobbyist I know I can’t compare with the length and breadth of America. I do atperciape your diplomacy but recognize a bone when I’m being throw it! Arf! ARF! : ) Thanks for the mention and of course you are always welcome here.Big love – Henry, Michelle, Sadie and Lilah!
Jon Stewart is clearly a smart guy BUT he is way too enamored with Obama.
Obama is clearly a fan of BIG GOVERNMENT and personally I don’t want to give the government any more power than they already have. Stimulus is not working. Across the board tax cuts are the only way to get out economy back on its feet.
our economy
Um, actually the stimulus is working, even the American Enterprise Institute and a number of John McCain’s economic advisers agree. Without it, we might have hit 20% or more unemployment. The problem is that it wasn’t big enough. And by the way, how exactly does cutting tax revenue help with the deficit and get the economy moving? Bush’s tax cuts are one of the biggest reasons we fell into a recession. You want Big Government? Look no further than two unfunded, unending wars, the Medicare drug program (also not paid for), NCLB, torture, etc. Get your facts straight.
Thank you for saving me the time of writing almost the same thing Stella. Well put.
Stella, have you paid attention to all the wasteful spending in the stimulus plan? It’s a band-aid, not a solution…most of these jobs are temporary. You can’t spend your way out of a recession. In order to stimulate job growth you need to cut taxes and provide incentives for businesses to hire and consumers to spend. We can’t borrow any more money! It’s ridiculous. And your statement that “tax cuts are one of the biggest reason we fell into a recession” is absolutely false. The mortgage/banking crisis was mostly to blame (which was also mostly Bush’s fault).
“In order to stimulate job growth you need to cut taxes and provide incentives for businesses to hire and consumers to spend.”
Bull! After Bush cut taxes, unemployment increased and businesses were not hiring. We were in a downward spiral even after the tax cuts we could not afford. The tax cuts didn’t save the economy then and focusing mainly on tax cuts now won’t solve jack.
Janet, please explain to me how cutting taxes could have directly caused the unemployment rate to rise? That’s the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.
if you cut taxes across the board, wouldn’t that raise the deficit? Those of us in the US pay some of the lowest taxes of anybody on earth. The real problem was bad decision-making by large corporations, then a large government bailout without any strings attached. The deficit is a huge problem, and cutting taxes is definitely not eh issue. Cutting down on government spending won’t be enough, we will eventually have to pay higher taxes if we want the deficit to decrease and the economy to fully recover.
not the issue
To TJ.
I never said it directly caused unemployment, IDIOT. Cutting taxes didn’t solve the problem then and it is definately not the main solution to any of our problems now. It just so irritating to see you dumbasses act like cutting taxes will fix everything just because Faux News told you so.
Reagan and Bush Sr. demonstrated that if taxes are cut across the board there is indeed economic growth. But the cut in revenue resulting from the tax cuts forces massive borrowing by the government and continued borrowing the government. clinton left a surplus which initially Bush Jr.’s tax cuts wiped out, folowed by the need to increase borrowing made worse by war. it was bush who called for the bailout of Wall Street and the Banks (“not only necessary but essential.) The GOP or the Tea Party may promise tax cuts and spending cuts (which would require major cuts in social security, among other programs) but if such policies were implemented then the Democratic landslide in the following election would provide them with a 2/3 majority or higher.
There were tax cuts in the stimulus bill. They were put there to appease republicans, who of course didn’t vote for it anyway.
Whoa Janet…getting very defensive. Name calling is the first sign of a losing argument.
I also never said that tax cuts will solely put the economy back on track. We need to decrease the annual budget (Obama’s proposed $3 trillion is absurd) and stop borrowing in order to stabilize the value of the dollar. I’m simply stating that cutting taxes increases consumer spending and hiring…and therefore cutting taxes across the board is a good way to stimulate growth in our economy.
No, name calling is a sign of frustration with people who lack common sense. Obama cut taxes but there is still so much more meed to fix the problem. I’m so sick of all these stupid talking point that you republicans put out that sound good on paper but are just not practical. You can demonize the stimulus and recovery act all you want but at the end of the day they were very necessary but the propaganda news network aka fox news will never explain the fact to people who don’t know better. Again, since cutting taxes will stimulate growth in our economy, why didn’t the Bust tax cuts stimulate growth? You need to look at the full picture and understand the present state of the country. I’m so happy we have a president who listens to reason and is not afraid to do what is not popular but right. Yay for common sense.
Common sense? How is a $3 trillion budget that will add $14 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years equal “common sense”? How is breaking major campaign promises “common sense” (CSPAN, transparency, lobbyists, pork)? How is spending giving terrorists civilian rights “common sense”?
And yes, the Bush tax cut DID stimulate economic growth…what brought us into recession was deregulation and the mortgage crisis. It had nothing to do with tax cuts. I’m not sticking up for Bush. He screwed up big time, but cutting taxes was one of his better decisions.
If you really think that hiking taxes on the wealthiest members of our society is going to help the economy then you’re in for a rude awakening? These are the people who create jobs and spend money…and they’re probably going to leave the country. I could care less if some banker on Wall Street is making $5 million, good for him/her. That’s capitalism. Deal with it.
GOD, you call what we had when bush left office economic growth!!!! LMAO! I don’t even know where to begin with that. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your idea of ecomomic growth is record unemployment and decreasing GDP which started in Bush’s term. That’s your idea of stimulation. This is what Fox News does. They misinform and people like you are so clueless. The mortgage crisis was only part of the problem that led to the recession but when dumb people like you buy into their fixed rhetoric, you don’t get the full picture. Bush cutting taxes is a huge part of the deficit but yet you think it was a good decision. LOL! Obama increasing deficit, Bad. Bush increasing deficit, Good. What a genius you are. When bush was spending like crazy on an unnecessary war, you guys had no problem with that. When Richard Reid was charged in the same system as the Underwear bomber, again no problem back then. Obama has made some mistakes including the CSPAN thing, but show me someone who thinks there is a president who never made mistakes and I show you a liar. But when he spoke at the GOP retreat without a telepromter and with cameras, fixed news cut the footage after it was clear he was kicking major republican butt. So much for we report, you decide. They decided the public shouldn’t get the president speaking openly in full because it didn’t fit their narrative of a naive president who is not listening to their “brilliant” republican ideas. He listened and he put them in their place.
hahahaha….that’s hysterical. I love it when people get defensive because they know they’re wrong. I can’t believe how misinformed you are and how difficult it is for you to prove a point.
You still haven’t made a case for how cutting taxes will hurt the economy….and you can’t refute the fact that up until 2006 we were in an era of economic prosperity. ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT praising George Bush. AS I SAID, I think he screwed up big time……but once again I ask, how is raising taxes on the wealthiest members of our society going to improve the economy?
You also said Obama had “common sense” and I was simply stating factual evidence of decisions he’s made that would prove contrary to your “common sense” argument….but unfortunately, you’ve been completely brainwashed by the liberal media and Obama’s superb oratory skills. I don’t think either the Dems or Repubs have had any brilliant ideas in the last decade. Your obsession with partisan politics only weakens the objectiveness of argument.
your argument
Oh TJ, why are you so dumb? Go back and read very slowly. I never said tax cuts hurt or will hurt the economy and you constantly bringing that up makes me question your sanity. How can I defend a case I never made? I never said it was the cause of the problem, I just said it was not the solution. Common sense! You are clearly lack it if you think the Bush tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit. Anyway, when you look beyond the talking points that are fed to you, the time to face reality sets in. When you cut taxes with no plans to pay for it like Bush did, that leads to trouble. I’m glad obama is not blindly following. Cutting taxes for the wealthy sound good to you but is not realistic especially where we are now as a nation. Plus, you did not respond to my last post on why was it right to charge the shoe bomber in federal court and obama criticized for the same thing. Why was cutting taxes “one of his better decisions” for Bush even though he did not pay for it. Spare me your “partisan politics” tears and go look at a mirror, hypocrite.
Janet, your logic is so inherently flawed…and when you say that I’m “dumb” it only makes you look insecure and weak.
So let me get this straight, you’d rather borrow a ton of money (mostly from China) throw it into a bunch of useless temporary jobs and raise the deficit to record highs, instead of cutting taxes, allowing entrepreneurs to create jobs and consumers to spend the extra money that they didn’t give to the government? Gee…that makes a lot of sense. Look at all of the wasteful spending in the stimulus plan. It’s insane. If we keep borrowing at this rate our credit rating is going to be downgraded and countries will stop lending us money.
Your blind adoration for liberal policy is quite pathetic.
“You still haven’t made a case for how cutting taxes will hurt the economy”
Here is an analogy to make things simpler for you. Just because I don’t think a band-aid is the way to treat a gun shot wound, does not mean I think the band-aid caused the wound. In this analogy, the band-aid is tax cuts and the wound is the problem with our economy. I have tried to bring it down to your level and can’t go lower. Sorry.
Let me rephrase my questions so that maybe you can understand it….i’ll try not to use big words….
Explain to me how a decrease in taxes paired with a lower annual budget would not stimulate economic growth, increase the value of the dollar and decrease the deficit. There’s no possible way taxes are going to cover our record debt.
Janet, spending causes deficit, not cutting taxes. Do you not understand the situation CA is in? All the rich are leaving, also in NY. So who pays, the middle class. Bigger taxes do not solve anything, show me where it has? I too am with anyone who is willing to blast Bush, he started what we have now. But adding to in in massive #’s lick they are doing now will not help.
BTW, name calling never helps anyone prove thier point. You just sink to each others level.
Thank you LD…..finally some true “common sense”.
Again stupid, I’m not dealing with theoretical solutions but realistic approaches to solving problems. Republicans talk about cutting spending, but talk is cheap. As is often said, when it comes to actually cutting programs, wasteful spending only happens outside their districts. Someone will fight for everything. What is realistic? Cutting taxes and not accomplishing enough cuts in spending to make up for it. Increasing taxes won’t cover our debt, so we should cut more taxes to add to it? Again, where was the republican criticism for Richard Reid being charged in federal court? Since you think that is such a huge mistake now. I’m so curious.
Excuse me, LD but you too are not bright if you don’t see how tax cuts contribute to the deficit. When you reduce the money that is coming into the system, you have less money to pay for your programs hence more debt. Bush did not balance the books. Common sense!
Janet, you’re missing the point. The only way we’re going to cover our debt is an increase in GDP. Do you think government spending is going to permanently stimulate economic growth? No. Look how the stock markets reacted after Obama announced his proposed budget and war against big banks….the DOW dropped 600 points in a week. The diminishing value of the dollar is one of the primary reasons investors and business owners have trepidation about the future of our economy. The only way to improve the situation is get a handle on the deficit, and raising taxing while increasing spending will do little to solve the problem.
And by the way, I was incredibly critical of the decision to have Richard Reid charged in a federal court. Any person that commits an act of terror against the country should be tried in a military tribunal. I don’t engage in partisan politics (like you do). I gather the facts and make an educated decision. Neither side (left or right) is correct all of the time.
Talk is cheap, ask any politician. A clear solution is to cut budget across the board, all programs. You cut it now, not in a year after he has jacked it up. Democrats have been in control of congress in 2007, so they could have tried to balance the budget or even stopped the war.
I am not happy with Republicans and will try to vote some out. How many Democrats will you try to vote out? Neither party is worth keeping. We need new people in that will actually try to follow the Constitution and not work for special interest groups.
Is anyone else laughing at how long TJ and Janet are arguing?
Excuse me Janet, then CA & NY should have a budget surplus as far as the eye can see. B’c they do exactly what you say. Taxing things have consequinces. Look at the taxes they put on ciggerates, then they are surprised when people quit smoking. When you tax things people look for ways to get out of it or around it, which is exactly what happened in CA & NY people & businesses leave, b’c they do not want to pay the taxes.
You are less annoying now so I can apologize for calling you names. Sorry. I don’t think high government spending is the solution to the economic solution either, but I strongly believe the government stimulus kept us from going to a dark place. As for how the big banks reacted, I really don’t care. I hope obama can usher in an era of accountablity. They took our money and they owe us fairness. I know it is against your GOP talking points but stronger regulation is what we need in this country. Wall street has shown us they cannot be trusted to protect and honor the public interest but are focused on their individual profits. As for the shoe bomber, I had no issue with charging him in federal court then and i have no issue with the same treatment for the underwear bomber and the others. You claim to be consistent with your views, but I can’t say the same with Fox Noise. They are attacking this president unfairly (though sometimes fairly) and I can’t stand the hypocrisy of it all. Things that were not an issue before are now the end of the world. It is a disgrace that anyone still considers fox news “fair and balanced”. Look at O’Reilly call Stewart out for not calling Gore out for profitting from GW. I’ve seen his Palin interview and to call it soft is the understatement of the year.
@ LD
“Excuse me Janet, then CA & NY should have a budget surplus as far as the eye can see” Why would they have surplus? They spend more than anyone even with their taxes. if you cut taxes and do not cut spending, you are still going to have a problem. Those states have problems because they can’t pay for their large budget. It is a two way street. You have to balance both sides and it is not a quick fix as “let’s cut taxes”.
Maybe I have failed to explain “WE need smaller government” I want spending stopped across the board. I do not waste my money (and have plenty in the bank) I expect the government to do the same. If they’d cut the spending (which I have said) and cut taxes we’d be better off. Raising taxes is NOT the solution. Period. If you can’t see that, then good day.
“We need smaller government” but until we get smaller government, cutting taxes across the board is pointless. What obama is doing is cutting taxes for 95% and restoring the taxes for the richest to what is was before Bush gave cuts we could not afford. I’m a realist. Cut their taxes, yes but only when you actually make productive steps to reduce government. If they, would they, should they, when you get down to it, there is someone to defend almost every spending program. Like it or not the stimulus and recovery were necessary and it has worked ever though it is part of big government. It is so easy to call for smaller government but sometimes it is necessary and this was a case. Open your eyes.
1st off I said cut spending across the board (read my emails correctly if you want to debate) We need to agree to disagree. B’c I say you need to open your eyes. Do not call me stupid for my beliefs, I have not called you that. (By telling me to open my eyes is calling me that) There is so much “WASTEFUL” spending, there is plenty of unnessasary programs that cutting would not hurt anyone (except for free riders getting paid for a rediculous job). Big gvnt gives you a wonderfully ran Post Office, which is also failing. Big gvnt is NOT the answer. The stimlus just greased hands, and they are holding on to a big part to use at election time to make people “think” it is working even more.
TJ I read your remarks regarding corporations and I think it’s lovely that people think cutting taxes force companies to spend as if they’re that altruistic. Most of them are just lookin to increase their bottom line, so if they DID get that tax cut more than likely, they’d find a way to disperse it for profit, not job creation. The real issue in this country is that we’ve gone from a manufacturing and production base-a product that requires a certain amt of labor and has real time worth, and that have true growth potential. Our outsourcing laws are BS (I’ve wrked on two outsourcing projects) and it makes me laugh when I hear “cut taxes to create jobs” as if it’s that altruistic. Whatever money you DON’T pay in taxes for federally or state or city funded projects you have to pay out of pocket for anyway. More money for better public school system would save people $5k in private schools. Ofcourse it’s the option to do so, but I’m not sure if people realize that the reason we also have so much private industry-that marginalizes those who can pay for it, vs those who can’t, is because of the notion that more money in your pocket is always goin to be spent on stimulating the economy.
I’m impressed by your writing. Are you a porefsisnoal or just very knowledgeable?
You clearly use the word clearly too much.
Clever
All you conservatives can say is tax cuts. Bush cut taxes during his term and where did we end up when his term was up? In one of the worst recessions and record deficits. All lot of good that did us. But no, tax cuts is the only answer to everything. Dumb conservatives.
Janet–
I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that tax cuts led to the current recession?
The Bush tax cut is a huge part of the record deficit that the republicans were not too concerned about until last year. The tax cuts didn’t prevent or hinder the recession or cause economic stablity. No one in their right mind will think that more tax cuts is the only solution.
Janet, while I agree that tax cuts will not get the country out of debt any faster, your partisan rhetoric is destructive to the debate. No one side is entirely correct, and for any true gains to be made on the issue, there will have to be candid (but not dismissive or rude) dialogue and compromise between both sides. Until we can achieve that, the country will continue to spiral out of control, regardless of the best actions of either party.
It took Bill Clinton his two terms to get rid of the Reagen deficit and grow us into a surplus to boot. One of the reasons Reagan got elected was by pointing out Carter’s deficits which ended up being laughably miniscule compared to the ones Reagan’s “trickle down” theory soon rained down on us all. So, Clinton gets rid of the deficit, gets a surplus and what happens? A Republican is elected again and proceeds to “trickle down” on us alllllllll over again and here we are. But of course, Republicans only care about huge deficits when they aren’t the President making them. At some point, I would love for someone – anyone – to admit that the Republicans “trickle down” (by whatever new name is used) does…not….work.
dwTpQJ I’m out of league here. Too much brain power on display!
Government bad, tax cuts good — like a broken record playing in the background. The rest is filler.
Thank you LD…..finally some true “common sense”.
you’re welcome, but you might want to repost that up in the line we’re having the debate with Janet. I know there are more of us. just too few care to debate with people who are so closed minded.
TJ–to confirm, you don’t want any Big Government So you agree government shouldn’t expand and take a role in deciding what medical procedures a person can/cannot have such as abortion. You agree that government shouldn’t expand by throwing out the budget and starting unfunded wars with no direct threat. You agreee that government shouldn’t expand it’s role in taking education control away from the local councils (you know…like Bush did with No Child Left Behind).
Why is it that the ‘Big Government’ boogy man always gets envoked the same way as those scary ‘Activist Judges’? And why do Conservatists only use both to whine about decisions they don’t like?
Hey, that’s the greaestt! So with ll this brain power AWHFY?
This is actually an awesome interview. It’s nice to see a little healthy debate without resorting to yellng and screaming. I tend to agree with Stewart more often but they both acquit themselves well here.
I agree for the most part, but it seemed that Bill, after losing a small argument (such as the debate about Jon taking him out of context), was extremely quick to change the subject. That was, in my humble opinion, the main obstacle in the way of healthy debate. Of course, the editing job that happened between the full interview and the actual show made it a farce, but it was at least nice to see effort.
I agree. The whole interview (unedited) is actually quite constructive, humorous, and healthy. I agree with Stewart more often as well, but enjoyed the difference of opinion without them resorting to yelling or absolute nonsense.
After watching this, I think it’s pretty obvious that Jon Stewart came out the winner. O’Reilly kept attacking him and he countered everything, and in the end I felt like Stewart was making a hell of a lot more sense than O’Reilly.
If they edited it to make O’Reilly seem the winner, then I feel Fox really is lying to its viewers. What happened to unbiased media?
Unbiased media? What’s that?
You mean like Katie Couric unbiased and unedited?
What’s with all the comments about Katie Couric and edited interviews? Personally I don’t remember any inuendo that Palin answered coherently and they edited it out. I do remember the complaints of ‘gotacha’ journalism and trying to pose questions to make her look like an idiot, but to my knowledge they publicized the idiot in all her glory without an deceptive editing.
And to all you Palin followers, I don’t consider asking what newspapers/outlet you follow a gotcha question. I follow the Washington Post, NY Times, UK Independent regularly…no big deal answering that one. The only way it’s a setup is if the interviewee gets her news solely from Jim Bob’s Loud and Proud Redneck blog…or if she doesn’t read any current events
I’m out of legaeu here. Too much brain power on display!
I’m sure FOX put the unedited version of the interview on their website because if anyone is going to call them out on not showing everything it would be Jon Stewart. Just wish it could have been part of the original showing, but we know that FOX is not going to let anyone on live show something or say something that is not part of their “narrative”.
Jon Stewart so damn entertaining to watch! He could read a phone book and make it funny.
In the interview, it’s pretty clear that Stewart does very well, keeps his composure, and makes his points despite O’Reilly’s efforts to rattle him.
I don’t watch O’Reilly, but I suppose it follows is his standard M.O.
The problem with judging the outcome is that many people, particularly Fox people don’t much care for composure and well-made points. What they will respond to is O’Reilly’s posturing — condescention, self identification as an authority figure and the bullying that goes with it, his physical domination of the environment, and his unending stream of put-downs delivered with no irony or apology. His ability to get away with this behavior no matter who shares the table.
His kind of performance makes authoritarian personality types wet their pants in ecstasy.
To them, it doesn’t matter that Stewart did not flinch and stood his ground; what matters is that O’Reilly will not be touched by any argument and will ALWAYS be the bully. This is the big turn-on for his base – people who wish to dominate as he does, or those that wish to be dominated by men like him, perhaps in exchange for some sense of security they obtain from his virtual presence. He’s the strong daddy.
Yeah, it’s a cliche but it’s true: these folks deeply messed up in the heads, responding more from their brain stems than from logic. Dominance and submission; if you haven’t appeared to dominate you haven’t “won”, and in the end nothing else much matters to them. No matter how well Stewart does objectively, he’ll do badly with the Fox audience.
No matter how well a Beck or an O’Reilly would do on another network, thier viewers would see it badly also. It goes both ways.
That’s a very astute assessment. And, on Stewart’s show the next night, he showed a clip of O’Reilly bringing in a body language expert to make pretty much the same point lol. I find it maddening but it’s true and it’s why the right-wing has been so successful. People don’t respond to logic, they respond to emotion, and rather than encouraging people to look more deeply, they play on that first burst of emotion to get votes.
PSFVRC AFAICT you’ve covered all the bases with this answer!
Ken,
Love your television show reviews and comments. Please stick to those. Comments on this and the Tebow ad over the course of just a few days is too much. It’s nice that you have your own TV blog, but it doesn’t mean you need to not-so-subtly reveal your political leanings to us, your readers.
Thanks.
You’re the one projecting your political leanings, not Ken.
Because I stated that I don’t like politics on my favorite entertainment site you assume that I don’t agree with what he said. Knee jerk.
If you don’t want to read about political commentary and all that goes with it, then simply don’t read the article. It’s not like Ken lured you in with “Review of LOST!” to get you to read an article about Jon Stewart and Bill O’Rielly, who both star in political themed shows. Or do you simply protest the existence of this kind of article on an entertainment website?
My problem with the interview is not the ideas each of them have, it’s the fact that O’Reilly trys to match wits with Stewart. Let Jon Stewart tell the jokes, because he IS funny while O’Reilly THINKS he’s funny.