that much i will say, and i will have said enough
Stewart isn't nearly as smart as I thought he was. O'Reilly is mellowing in his old age a bit. Neither will stray from the pundit position, neither will discuss the FED, corruption or corporate masters.
This level is about as far as the average American can stretch their thought muscles. Pretty sad because people they actually think they are well informed after listening to these two.
The average American blows a fuse when you get down to the hard core issues that Ron Paul supporters openly discuss.
I got from this is that Bill is either really tall or Jon is really short. nough said
What they had just said, is one of the most insanely/idiotic things that I have ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent response were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who viewed this debate is now dumber for having watched it. I award them no points, and may god have mercy on their souls.
than the last presidential debate.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark Twain
I actually could agree with bill.....Jon...not so much..
I thought they were having a hard time, like they were nervous. Makes me wonder what they know that we don't. Maybe things are just so serious it is hard to be ha ha anymore.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Stewart thinks we paid off the debt in 1999, O'Reilly thinks Benghazi is in Egypt and we should eliminate the first amendment because he doesn't like people commenting below that he can't launch an ad hominem attack on, and both llloovvee the status quo. O'Reilly seems like he does not believe a word he's saying. He is smarter than I thought. But likewise, he is a creepy ass-wipe slut. Stewart actually believes the utter nonsense spewing forth from his big lips. Which is just really sad.
The most important part was when Stewart explained that they are both socialists, just to different degrees.
skipping this one. I give Jon Stewart a pass on the media whore bashing cause he is nice to Ron Paul, but I still don;t respect.
I can't believe any of you were expecting a serious discussion.
But I was hoping for something funny, not stress inducing.
The lift gag is funny, otherwise, blood pressure raising nonsense, intending to be humorous or not. Could Jon Stewart be any more substance-free? ETA: I should have known better than to watch this video lol
this 'rumble' is clearly "full of shit". If not for Jon's mechanical foot stool, this coulda been a, just as goofy, presidential 'Debate'.
"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina
This act between these two is getting old. I honestly hear some people who buy into thinking these two are not friends and this crap is real. The WWE does a better job masking phony 'rumbles' and truth be told gives viewers a better chance of seeing a non scripted show since backstage animosity mixed with steroids can at least give hope. lol And these two only give half of their PPV farce to charity??? The funniest line was on another blog where someone asked if these guys were going be 'in character'. lmao
this is hard to watch, not worth my time. Nothing of substance, all rhetoric.
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James
was close to Ron Paul in terms of their viewpoint. However, this debate was far more entertaining than the Romney Obama debate a few days prior. Even though I didn't really agree with either of them , I thought they at least addressed the issues more than the two bozos running for president.
These two extreme viewpoints are not grounded in anything. I thought that Stewart was grounded in at least some Liberty issues, since he seemed to agree with Ron Paul. I was much more disappointed with Stewart than I was with O'Reilly. Although very entertaining, neither one was correct about much, IMO. Pretty sad to conclude.
Like this but I think we need a 3rd party candidate in this wish Ron Paul was there to debate O'Reilly but O'Reilly would of cancelled and ran away like a coward =P.
interesting that Bill thinks there will be a rise of a 3rd party... and interesting that Stewart brought up Gary Johnson- implying that the liberty movement/libertarianism is that third party.
Surprising that John Stewart apparently doesn't understand the difference between debt and deficit.... I guess he thinks there was no debt before Bush was in office....
And shocking that Stewart advocated a draft.... not much of a discussion/no voice for liberty in this debate... the closest came from Bill O'Reilly which is kind of depressing.
it was interesting that Bill thought there would be a rise of a third party.. probably one of the most interesting parts of the debate.
out old stereotypes with little or no factual analysis. O'Reilly was better informed but extremely dishonest and inconsistent; no principles. Stewart was abysmally uninformed with the usual Progressive disdain for economics and reliance on pandering emotionalism.
Altogether a sickening display with the audience responding predictably. I never respected O'Reilly, and I lost respect for Stewart.
What both men don't seem to understand (well, maybe Jon Stewart might) is that both parties are owned and operated by the same Wall Street "bangsters" and that a vote for either party is a vote for the same owners of this country! Wake up people, our country is being taken right out from under our noses! It's a sad state of affairs when I ca't go to Walgreen's this morning and buy the kind of cold medicine I wanted because of the 47 government regulations keeping a dumb ass meth head from killing himself! How about we get the government out of our lives, let the dumb asses kill themselves and quit penalizing the responsible portion of our society! Vote Libertarian. Vote Gary Johnson!
Stewart should know this, given that his brother is the COO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Funny debate on the false left-right paradigm by two political commentators. What did not make the MSM news was that there are only two voices here because Stossel applied, but was rejected as having little support since he failed to get at least 15% in five national polls even though he was not included in those polls.
I was surprised as well how badly Stewart biffed on the debt/deficit issue, O'reily made him look dumb on that one. I laughed pretty hard about the lift the first second he used it at the beginning but he kind of overused it in my opinion. Stewart though made better points mocking O'reily on the whole promoting strength issue in the middle east, but they both basically said Iraq was bad in the end and should not have gone in even O'reily.
Also later on they both said they saw a rise of a strong 3rd party rising and Gary Johnson was mentioned which a few audience members shouted in approval. While neither gave a positive about Johnson they seemed to notice and feel the movement was pretty large. (so semi positive comments on that from both of them, they made no negative comments) but later on they also both kind implied that the two candidates we have (Obama and Romney) suck, but said those were our choices(ugh).
I was kind of surprised O'reily didn't come back about the viagra comment and say we shouldn't be funding that either instead of allowing Stewart to use it as though it was an attack on women and not about spending on others in general. Stewart is a socialist no doubt and he did get O'reily good on being a hypocrite with social security. Anyways it was a decent comedy skit O'reily playing the straight man and stewart pulling pranks.
Humorous to watch Stewart's lift antics, but they got old after awhile.
Not much serious discussion from either though. O'reilly is your standard establishment conservative neocon and Stewart your standard establishment progressive. Kinda surprised to see Stewart confuse the debt and the deficit, but since neither party thinks it's a serious problem maybe I shouldn't be surprised. O'reilly rails against emperor O's contribution to the debt but of course is completely unwilling to even scale back on the endless wars and empire building.
Woulda been much more entertaining if they had a third entertainer, maybe a libertarian like Penn Jillette who would have kept it entertaining but who would have provided more sensible viewpoints. I'll bet he would have been declared the runaway winner.
Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie
I felt the exact same way - surprised that he confused the debt and deficit. I kinda was under the impression that he had a reasonably good grasp of the issues but it's clear he needs to spend more time reading Dr. Paul and Peter Schiff. For what it's worth, I like Jon Stewart, in general, and I think he has the intelligence to really understand the issues.
I should mention that I turned that debate off shortly after that point (which was about 15 minutes in) because it was clear that it wasn't much more than a comedy debate. O'Reilly seemed to be framing the real root cause of our country's issues on the public being lazy and entitled. Meanwhile, where was his discussion about the Federal Reserve, sound currency, the size of government, the lack of following the constitution (which creates an environment where the Federal government has powers that it shouldn't, and sells that influence to the highest bidder), etc.
Now sure O'Reilly could say that medicare and medicaid are the big off-budget items that are dooming us and, to a large extent, that's absolutely true. But the fact that he's *for* (the unconstitutional) social security shows that O'Reilly is a complete phony and is merely selective in the big government programs he approves of.
The Daily Paul is a community website w