Pt 1/4 Jon Stewart interviewed on The Rachel Maddow Show 11/11/10 - MSNBC

[ConservativeAnthem]

Maddow is a garbage scow

[Mufflerb]

Jon Stewart is a godsend. Fox News gets thrashed all the time for being conservative biased, and that's true...they certainly are, but MSNBC is just as bad on the other side, and yet no one speaks out against them. Thank you Jon Stewart for shining a little light.

[393cj]

did you get his point ?guess not

[squeethehobo]

@unicorntaxi Its worth pointing out that Halliburton made a lot of money from the Iraq war, which wouldn't have happened without 9/11, so they actually did gain from it. Suggesting that they were involved is a much different assertion.

[TyrannisSicSemper]

Apparently, John Stewart is a fascist, if youtube comment threads are the gold standard in objectivity (which they clearly are).

[Quintopex]

I don't know who researchchris2, the individual who posted this, is. But I love him.

[Kreimehn]

@theleftofsatan Thank you for making the point that Stewart is fascist. Too many are far too brainwashed by the media. They cannot see the obvious. He parades about with conceit and self-righteous sanctity, despite a dire lack of substance.

[MrTadblack]

Its nice to watch two responsible grown-ups have a respectful, thoughtful conversation. When was the last time you saw that?

[Kreimehn]

Two homosexual jews. I wonder if you can smell the sulphur in the room.

[benhs1898]

@Kreimehn what a bizarre comment

[Kreimehn]

@benhs1898 Tell me what you find so bizarre about the comment.

[benhs1898]

@Kreimehn it is completely arbitrary

[Kreimehn]

@benhs1898 It sounds like you are saying that the comment is irrational, and not relevant to the video.

[DoctorDoubleX]

People who think 9/11 was an inside job are ROn Paul SUpporters.

[jimmbo13]

I respect Jon Stewart....he can attack the lunacy on both sides.

[Kreimehn]

@jimmbo13 Jon Stewart is a no-talent jew with connections that got him into show business. He has no place as a comedian, and much less as a political pundit.

[STorpedo]

@theleftofsatan Good lord man, can you not read? 'In the context of this interview'! You yourself addressed what you thought to be to 'leftists sucking each others dick'...I trust that you were addressing this interview, no? Should I take your strawman as a sign of agreement, then?

[STorpedo]

Apart from that, criticizing is different from mocking-mocking is a dismissive gesture (at least to me), which isn't productive to anyone; criticism is an objective analysis, that can help others understand more about the nature of the subject of the criticism. Assuming the subject's not perfect, criticism can chiefly help identify faults, which should be addressed. He was stating his opinion on crossfire, one, I imagine, he supplemented with criticism afterwards. I do not see any mockery here.

[STorpedo]

@theleftofsatan Frankly, I loathe that term. What does 'taking oneself too seriously' imply-thinking that you can change things for the better? That there's a chance that you might be correct in some of your notions/judgements, and that you should get out there and test your argument against those existent, in an effort to try to make the world a better place?

[STorpedo]

@theleftofsatan I don't think that what a fascist is, but I take your point; I disagree, I think this is a unique situation where Jon is tackling widely known notions where one side of the argument doesn't need to be represented as much as the other one, due to the former being more widespread. How does he mock anyone who expresses honest opinions? (we are talking in the scope of this interview, correct?) I can see criticism in what he says, but no specific mockery for an individual or a group.

[STorpedo]

@theleftofsatan Even if they do state several times that they agree about politics (the only definitive agreement I've heard is Jon remarking and relating his anguish about the 'democRAT' statement), they're hardly 'sucking each other's dicks' as it were, as I've said, in the context (!) of this interview, they're at opposing sides; they're talking about coverage, and Jon is at odds with how msnbc covers news.

[STorpedo]

@theleftofsatan I may be mistaken in my preception of the interview, but I think that you haven't actually understood the interview in the slightest-as far as I can see, in the context of this argument, Rachel and Jon find themselves at the opposing sides of the table.

[mankind2112]

MSNBC is a fuckin' joke and Rachel is a man. just sayin' the bitch ugly.

[STorpedo]

@mankind2112 I disagree, I happen to find her very pretty. Also I don't see what calling her a bitch accomplishes, other than displaying your lackluster vocabulary and inflammatory attitude. (or for that matter, what remarking upon the visuals of a person accomplishes in this context-the interview is about politics, not ideals of beauty, correct?)

[Kreimehn]

@mankind2112 Personally i think Rachel looks like Ralph Macchio.

[Dahgrostabphri]

@Kreimehn - so besides petty personal attacks, do you have any facts to bring? or are you just another right wing fool who doesn't know anything but likes to talk a lot? - hey! You're not Sarah Palin are you?

[Kreimehn]

@Dahgrostabphri Firstly, I never gave any evidence to indicate that I was a conservative. I’ve made 2 claims: 1) both are jews 2) both are gay. The evidence is obvious. There is a message in my posts. Most of the today’s news functions mainly as entertainment, as well as control. People follow facts, given by media, as well as arguments and the positions of people and groups, as if they were given information that would empower them. This is ridiculous. We will never know the nature of gov’t .

[Dahgrostabphri]

@Kreimehn You're 100% correct and I shouldn't just call people right wing or conservative without knowing the facts...especially when calling someone a conservative is about the worst thing you can say about anyone - I mean, it's kind of like calling someone the N word. So I sincerely apologize for calling you an anti-American piece of shit conservative

[Kreimehn]

@Dahgrostabphri No need to apologize. My post was not meant to chastise you about calling me conservative. I just did not want to be identified as one. I agree that the label “conservative” indeed has bad connotations. So does “liberal”, but I don’t want manipulated by the media into using their terms and the associated meanings.

[movingtodie]

Like I said on other videos.. Jon showed class and made valid point.. It is ashame she is so dismissive to the truth.

[5coloralpha]

Jon is at another level of awareness and he really is trying to illuminate his perspective for others, however, I'm not sure that many Americans can wrap their head around it without a direct statement. Our consciousness is evolving, of which politics is a facet. Continuing to adopt our polar, outdated political system is not only a futile attempt at change, the fruits of which we have all witnessed, it is preventing us from scaling the next paradigm. Failure to adapt will have dire consequences

[STorpedo]

@5coloralpha I agree.

[jumpoutatree]

Jon Stewart should go home and take a nap. I don't know what he's talking about, and you can see Maddow struggling to figure it out as well.

[thejobloshow]

@jumpoutatree He's saying News Channels are polarizing people between red and blue night after night, 24 hours, 7 days and week and turning us all into partisan hacks. Stewart is there just making fun of them.

[jumpoutatree]

Of course, what you said took about five seconds to convey, and Jon Stewart can't seem to come to the point. I'm not even sure that you're paraphrasing him correctly. My bone of contention, however, is with the idea that MSNBC is somehow equivalent to FOX in terms of polarizing the national discourse. I can't see how anyone who watches the Rachel Maddow show could come to the conclusion that she was anything other than a straight journalist and a truthteller. FOX lies, Maddow corrects.

[STorpedo]

@jumpoutatree If I had to guess, Jon attempts to point out that any bias, in small or large amount, compromises the logical process. I agree that Fox has the tendency to distort more explicitly than msnbc (for example), but the underlying notion of biased deduction is the same in both cases. Simply because one network doesn't engage in theatrics doesn't mean that the said network is more fair in it's judgement/analysis.

[unicorntaxi]

@STorpedo So illegally invading and occupying two countries and authorizing torture is no longer grounds for being a war criminal? Care to direct me to the bizzaro world in which you live?

[STorpedo]

@unicorntaxi I think you'll agree that the invasion of any country can be hard to describe in legal terms, so whether 'invading/occupying' a country's 'illegal' hardly seems to be a black/white issue (at least to me). As for being a war criminal, if directly torturing for the procurement of information counts (not trying to imply that it's an unusual definition), then yes, a war criminal Bush is. What I tried to address (in retrospect, vaguely),

[STorpedo]

was what you thought were black and white issues/notions; rarely anything but maths is that simple, and I felt that it was close-minded of you to say that since you thought the issue was black and white, and subjectively obviously so, that you did not need to meet Jon halfway. In this specific case, Jon addresses how a buzzword like 'war criminal' can kill discussion, such a move only acceptable if our terms and judgement are perfect.

[STorpedo]

If not (we aren't omniscient), discussion should be stimulated, and not with statements like 'I don't need to meet 'person A' halfway, because' effectively 'my judgement is perfect'. I'm not saying facts are incorrect, but that you should have a look at your definition of a war criminal, decide where Bush ranks in the war criminal heirarchy, rather than assuming that what is a black/white issue for you, happens to be so in actuality.

[STorpedo]

@STorpedo I apologize if I was speaking tautological, I'm running on fumes as it is, tell me what you think though.

[kaptenmax]

@jumpoutatree so you dont understand him? Try harder, it's worth it.

[NomadRepublic]

You can cut Maddow's tension with a dull butter knife. I'm sure being that Jon contacted her for an interview that she assumed it was going to be a non-stop ragfest of Republicans, Bush, Fox, the Tea Party, etc. Instead, she's coming out of her chair with all the rational fairness Stewart's throwing in her lap, LOL. "But!....But!....But!". LOL, beautiful. At least Fox brings liberal commentators and guests on CONSTANTLY. MSNBC? Never. They're a disgrace. And Maddow got owned for it.

[benympls]

#2 At least with those who argue that it isnt torture you know they are ACTUALLY against torture, we just dont see eye to eye on what its but you! you dont care if torture happens or not. Thusly making you MORE corrupt than those who believe it is not. John you should REALLY re-watch & reevaluate your morals & principals.

[benympls]

#1 Dear John Your stance on torture is DISGUSTING! And just to say "well he's no pol pot" is like saying "well pol pot was no Hitler"

and YES war criminal ARE "bad men" period, end of discussion.

If you dont believe he is a war criminal, fine i dont agree but you and cheney can tell me why. If you believe he is then he should receive the same punishment other have faced for water boarding. Your stances is the ugliest of all, COMPLETELY intellectually dishonest & morally bankrupt.

[hurley3000gt]

damnit, he's right....

[floyspudz]

I laugh as I read these comments.Almost none of these comments pertain directly to the interview. Sheeple.

[BurningOrchids]

Lie! She called it astroturf numerous times. Turns out it has completely changed the political landscape. It wasn't astroturf.

[Denshuu]

teehee, seminal thrust

[unicorntaxi]

Corruption vs not corruption is the battle, but people who suggest that Halliburton stood to gain from 9/11 are insane. So how do we win this battle again? 

[jumpoutatree]

Totally agree, but also I don't believe that corruption is nearly as big a problem as people who have sincerely-held BAD IDEAS. I agree with Jon Stewart that there's no place in news for vilification, but it's a strawman to say that both sides engage in vilification equally. FOXNews and the Limbaugh Right shamelessly lie and engage in ugly vilification every day all day. I've not seen anything remotely like it on MSNBC in general, and never on Maddow's show at all.

[unicorntaxi]

@jumpoutatree Ok... I don't particularly care to get into a MSNBC/Fox battle, my point was, while I understand what Jon is trying to say, me or anybody else don't need to meet Jon halfway on something that is totally black and white, ie- Bush being a war criminal.

[STorpedo]

@unicorntaxi Black and white to you, perhaps-maybe a display of humility is in order, no? Pride perpetuates ignorance, digging a deeper hole for the person in question.

[STorpedo]

@jumpoutatree i.e. Don't judge what the person says by how he says it, but by what the actual content is.

[ShatterNWO]

@unicorntaxi Of course Halliburton stood to gain from 911, they get defense contracts, war is big business. Halliburton is corrupt, and if u arent willing to address their practices, then u don't give a shit about corruption, ur just being politically correct and providing lip service.

[STorpedo]

@ShatterNWO Lip service to whom?

I wouldn't come out with such definitive statements as yours myself, but I agree, simply because a theory sounds extravagant doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.

[Dahgrostabphri]

@unicorntaxi - Halliburton's stock 3281% in 2004 - so whether you think people who say this are insane or not, facts at facts, and Sept 11th 2001 was a very good day for Halliburton

[theunicorntaxi]

@Dahgrostabphri I completely understand that... I was pointing out Jon's doublethink.

[Madfoot713]

@unicorntaxi That's not the argument he was making.

[theunicorntaxi]

@Madfoot713 He is clamoring for more corruption to be brought to light, yet criticizes those who point out Halliburton's billions in no bid contracts and Cheney's extraordinary conflict of interest . My point is, are we fighting all corruption, or just the corruption that StewBeef finds convenient?

[Madfoot713]

@theunicorntaxi Oh I'm sorry, are the 8 years he spent criticizing Cheney and Bush no longer relevant? Grow up.

[ProductionMarx]

@unicorntaxi Halliburton didn't get to do some profitable nation-building after 9/11 occurred? Are YOU insane?

[UrTheist]

Tribal. Wow.

[famasdan]

i dont agree with jon on everything but i have a lill respect for him after this interveiw

[famasdan]

you dont have to be a liberal to suspect 9/11

[UrTheist]

@famasdan  Just crazy

[famasdan]

@UrTheist YOUR NOT CRAZY IF YOU JUST THINK NOT EVERYTHING ADDS UP, I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING THOUGH sorry caps lock, you on the other hand  would be crazy to buy everything the media tells you out right about it.

[UrTheist]

@famasdan Debunked debunked debunked. spend less time filling your head with crap.

[famasdan]

@UrTheist debunked why wtc 7 imploded on its self? i ask questions, i dont say it was a inside job just ask why.

[AuH2O]

Great interview! Liberals, with their rabidness, holier-than-thou piousness and lack of self-knowledge and self-deprecation just don't GET what he's trying to say. And so they attack him. "WAAAH! WAAAA! ZOMG he said Keith Olbermann is just as bad as Fox!! He's a witch!! BURN HIM!"

[bollo3000]

@AuH2O Do you get what he's trying to say? Do you think part of it is about name-calling and generalisation about people because they happen to identify as liberals & conservatives?

[AndrewMann552]

So Stewart is against public protest? It's easy for him to dismiss people like Code Pink as "extreme," he makes a nice paycheck with a pretty comfortable job, the guy is completely disconnected from the real world like most elitists.

[UrTheist]

@AndrewMann552 Expecting civilized behavior. What's up with that?

[AndrewMann552]

Stewart's just some comedian, his rally was just a big joke. His point on calling Bush a war criminal is pretty hollow. Just by international law you can easily call Bush a war criminal. This sort of "centrist" posturing is only doing harm because it turns people into lazy thinkers and just gives more space to the radical right to exploit very real, popular anger.

[FinnSolomon]

@AndrewMann552 Uh, the entire point of calling Bush a war criminal is because he broke international law.

Being centrist doesn't automatically make you apathetic.