http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : i fail at forum tags]

6/7/2006 5:57:11 PM

Bennett definitely sidesteps the whole polygamist "issue"

6/7/2006 6:16:52 PM

Quote :

"Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."

Who else is part of the human condition and how can we give them marriage liscences?

6/7/2006 6:28:21 PM

pets are a part of the human condition, but livestock are a fetish

6/7/2006 6:34:52 PM

stewart pwnd bennett

6/7/2006 8:53:09 PM

^^^ Murderers. Child molesters. Neo-Nazis. Kidnappers.

And we already give them all marriage licenses.

6/7/2006 9:12:27 PM

i dont think stewart pwnt bennett, at least not for the argument.

stewart just kept tripping him up over minor points, and never game him enough time to get a coherent statement out. bennett obviously wasnt prepared to battle a quick-witted wiseguy.

and bill bennett is a self-righteous hypocritical bastard, so fuck him anyhow.

6/7/2006 11:32:46 PM

^i agree


who cares what Bennett has to say...but john stewart is a moron

6/7/2006 11:34:56 PM

What Bennett wasn't prepared for was having his entire basis for his opinion completely undermined by someone who thinks more freely and more clearly and more rationally than he does.


[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2006 11:55:16 PM

Incest is a part of the human condition.

We should give consenting cousins the right to get married if rapists and murderers have that right.

6/7/2006 11:59:15 PM

^ As long as they don't reproduce, there's technically nothing wrong with that.

It's still really gross (although acceptable at one point) anyway.

AFAIK though too, there's not really a large group of people pushing for incest relationships, and there isn't any scientific research that says it's a healthy state of being.

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 1:05 AM. Reason : ]

6/8/2006 1:03:47 AM

incest isnt part of the human condition. its just the act of fucking your sister of cousin and is and should always be illegal.

6/8/2006 1:08:26 AM

These people care so much about what consenting adults do

6/8/2006 1:25:39 AM

i thought it was spelled jon

6/8/2006 2:58:15 AM

The lady on there was funny last night talking about waiting for the show to start.

6/8/2006 8:32:53 AM

while stewart had a few points, most of it was just cutting bennett off and saying unrelated crap to get his audience to cheer. i agree though, i didnt really care what billy had to say.

6/8/2006 8:41:53 AM

Quote :

"stewart just kept tripping him up over minor points, and never game him enough time to get a coherent statement out"

yup... he's kinda becoming more and more like O'Rielly...

doesn't matter though, because JOHN STEWART IS A COMEDIAN, not a political analyst...

6/8/2006 9:13:40 AM

To be fair, Jon has been on tv for long enough for Bill to know what was going to happen.
If you dissagree with his audience, he'll cut in and crack jokes and even argue.
If you agree with his audience, he'll let you talk until you're finished making your point.

It's just giving the people what they want.

6/9/2006 7:39:07 AM

Homosexuality IS nothing more then a random fetish. Only 3 - 4% of the worlds POP have deviant homosexual tendencies. Its a relevant as poo eaters and furries.

6/9/2006 8:16:11 AM

Quote :

"doesn't matter though, because JOHN STEWART IS A COMEDIAN, not a political analyst..."

i'm not sure if you are joking or not. Well, obviously he is a comedian, not an analyst, but about the "it doesn't matter" part.

I've said it many times before - Jon (and people like you) has to drop this "i'm just a comedian, my opinion doesn't really matter" business whenever he get's into a touchy subject. Jon has used this for a couple years now to explain his way out of situations where he feels uncomfortable. Jon obviously wants people to take him seriously - his main stream exposure continues to rise and he has very strong opinions, and clear views on what he thinks is right and wrong. But whenever he is legitimately challenged on these views, like when he was on Crossfire last year, he falls back to "i'm on after a show about puppets making crank phone calls", as if that automatically nullifies his obligation to back up what he says.

It's true that in the end, he's an entertainer. Much like Bill O'Reilly, actually. The difference is that O'Reilly views himself as a legitimate news analyst/pundit and respected journalist, while Jon views himself as a comedian who's just here to make people laugh. I think both of them would be well served to move their self views towards the middle of that spectrum.

6/9/2006 8:23:06 AM

If I remember right his defense of going on after a show about puppets was explaining why he kisses like minded people's asses on the show...pretty sure it never had anything to do with being asked to back himself up

from what Ive seen of him his views up plenty, if not more than O'Reilly

6/9/2006 10:37:46 AM

he was asked to back up his behavior of bias.

6/9/2006 1:56:15 PM

GGmon,

Isn't deviant homosexual tendencies redundant?

6/9/2006 8:32:14 PM

Quote :

"I've said it many times before - Jon (and people like you) has to drop this "i'm just a comedian, my opinion doesn't really matter" business whenever he get's into a touchy subject. Jon has used this for a couple years now to explain his way out of situations where he feels uncomfortable. "

First, I haven't seen Jon Stewart in a setting where he looked "uncomfortable." He's a comedian, used to performing before an audience, so I don't agree with your assertion at all. Second, in instances where he had to debate someone point to point on an issue Jon Stewart has held his own. He's said his piece, gotten the point across, and quite frankly out-debated people before.

He does all this with a flair of humor, which is why he's entertaining to watch. Great comedians always sensationalize and dramaticize, but there's always an underlying truth to it. However small it is, that's what makes it funny. Humor isn't the smokescreen or scapegoat you're making it out to be. It's simply Jon being an entertainer. This doesn't mean however his points aren't valid.

"I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."

This is a great point, and it has to be made because without the right grounds on which to argue, you've lost already. Stewart does it again when Bennett brings up polygamy, noting that polygamists CHOOSE to have more wives, but are not "genetically programmed" to do so. We're still evaluating the claim that being gay has to do with genetics, which is why the debate should start there in the first place.

Also, note how Jon interacts with and ends the conversation with Bennett. Yeah he cracked jokes, but he always listened and allowed Bennett to make his point. After the debate they shoke hands and appeared to end on good terms. A sharp but respectful debate between two opposite sides. This is far less than the people at Faux News can claim to do, especially O'Reilly.

Quote :

"But whenever he is legitimately challenged on these views, like when he was on Crossfire last year, he falls back to "i'm on after a show about puppets making crank phone calls", as if that automatically nullifies his obligation to back up what he says."

Jon Stewart's show is designed to entertain people. He brings in guests every now and then to bring up important issues. Crossfire on the other hand is a news show, claiming to be a true debate when it isn't. If Jon was an anchor on Crossfire, he'd act differently b/c of the objective of the show. Is he being biased on Comedy Central? Hell yes, but that's not the objective of the show. He wanted to voice his problem with Crossfire, which was that it never got the real issues. I don't care if he's a comedian, writer, or garbage man, his point is valid.


In case anyone hasn't noticed, Jon's a pretty good debater. He's also getting to the real issues, a lesson we can all learn from.

6/10/2006 4:10:02 PM

Quote :

"Only 3 - 4% of the worlds POP have deviant homosexual tendencies. Its a relevant as poo eaters and furries."

Can furries get married?

6/10/2006 4:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Homosexuality IS nothing more then a random fetish."

Are animals other than humans capable of fetishes?

6/10/2006 4:57:58 PM

^^^He's quick and he's obviously very smart and prepared, I don't think anybody will argue with that. He also makes some very valid points.

But when he interrupts his guest with random jokes that trip up and distract the guy in the middle of his point, it takes away from the debate. Especially when he's got a loyal audience that gives him a "home-field" advantage. It's a lot like "Politically Incorrect" when Bill Mahar would interject his random one-liners and soundbytes into the discussion whenever he wanted some attention. Its kind of annoying when the other party is just trying to get their point across and they get interrupted first by him and then by the audience's guffawing. And I've definitely seen him use a joke to avoid having to actually back up his point.

To turn around your post, just because he makes some valid points doesn't mean that his debating style isn't rancorous and feckless at times.

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 5:08 PM. Reason : 2]

6/10/2006 5:07:46 PM

Quote :

"AFAIK though too, there's not really a large group of people pushing for incest relationships, and there isn't any scientific research that says it's a healthy state of being."

Woo-jin Lee thinks it's pretty cool.



I'll take his word for it.

6/10/2006 10:16:05 PM

Quote :

"Are animals other than humans capable of fetishes?"

other animals engage in homosexual activities.

chimpanzees, our closest relation, routinely engage in same-sex pairing.

6/11/2006 1:34:23 AM

Quote :

"But when he interrupts his guest with random jokes that trip up and distract the guy in the middle of his point, it takes away from the debate."

Out of curiosity and, admittedly, boredom, I went back and looked at what caused applause during the video. Depending on your perspective it broke down similar to this:

Cause for Applause
good point no humor 11
good point with humor 111
random quip or joke 111
distracting quip or joke 1

Only once, maybe twice, could even try to argue Jon used humor to distract his opponent. Even then, he always allowed Bennett to finish his thoughts, He never once distracted Bennett to the point that the conversation shifted off the original point. I truly do not see where you're seeing these "interruptions."

One thing you can't argue against: Jon had a valid, well articulated response to every claim Bennett made. He also made those claims without making Bennett mad, which would be a natural reaction to someone either misconstruing or sidestepping your argument. Finally, in the end Stewart showed a willingness to continue the debate after the finish.

I think you're dead wrong in your assessment of Stewart. Perhaps other occasions have been different, but in this case you've got nothing.

6/11/2006 1:39:13 AM

Quote :

"other animals engage in homosexual activities. chimpanzees, our closest relation, routinely engage in same-sex pairing."

Right. That was the point that I was going to get to. I wanted to see if GGfag thought or could find evidence that animals other than humans engaged in fetishes since he said that homosexuality was merely a fetish.

6/11/2006 4:10:26 PM

Ya - because animals are what you should use as comparisons to try to justify your deviant lifestyle. Some animals kill, eat and even fuck their young - does that justify murder and incest? I mean, the animals are doing it - it must be "natural"

GGFAG - so fuckin clever it hurts my insides.

6/11/2006 4:34:55 PM

GGFAG is funny cause he hates the gays.

6/11/2006 5:14:56 PM

Please allow me to set the record straight here -- homosexuality is no fetish. It has a lot more to do with unconditional love than it has to do with enjoying having your colon stretched. That latter bit is just something you get used to.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 7:04 PM. Reason : uh i'm not talking about incest]

6/11/2006 7:03:00 PM

ahuh. so gay guys going to the bar have unconditional love for the dudes they haven't even met yet?

6/11/2006 7:08:44 PM

No, but they are looking for it.

6/11/2006 7:12:21 PM

Save it for the bath houses, sport.

6/11/2006 7:44:45 PM

Since incest keeps getting mentioned, I'll share my opinion...If both parties are of age, consenting, and have no intention of procreating, I don't give a fuck what they do. Get married, go on dates, live together romantically, make sweet incestuous love all night long...I don't give a fuck.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 9:01 PM. Reason : sss]

6/11/2006 8:56:17 PM

^^^ don't know many gay people huh?

6/11/2006 8:57:43 PM

^Tell us how you met your lady.

6/11/2006 9:06:18 PM

Quote :

"because animals are what you should use as comparisons to try to justify your deviant lifestyle"

I am not. You boiled homosexuality to merely a fetish. My question to you was if animals other than humans are capable of fetishes since they routinely engage in homosexuality. But perhaps homosexuality is more natural than a homophobe like you is willing to admit.

6/11/2006 10:23:46 PM

Anything that only 3% of the population engages in, by definition, is a deviant behaviour.

6/12/2006 10:24:41 AM

no it doesnt. thats not the correct definition of deviant, the correct definition is "not norm", and 3 percent of a population can do something normal, and do it exclusively.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 10:33 AM. Reason : 523]

6/12/2006 10:30:22 AM

Quote :

""Are animals other than humans capable of fetishes?" other animals engage in homosexual activities. chimpanzees, our closest relation, routinely engage in same-sex pairing."

Dolphins are pretty notorious for it, too. And blow-hole sex, as well.

6/12/2006 2:58:26 PM

^that's hot.

6/12/2006 11:33:38 PM

Quote :

"no it doesnt. thats not the correct definition of deviant, the correct definition is "not norm", and 3 percent of a population can do something normal, and do it exclusively."

logic - not your best friend.

6/13/2006 10:51:12 AM

John Stewart is a fucking COMEDIAN. He should never get one thread of credit or respect as a serious journalist. I have absolutely zero respect for any of the Daily Show's cast except purely as comedians. They are worthless for anything more than that because if anyone retorts, Stewart and his coterie can instantly fall back on "WAIT A SECOND, IM ONLY A COMEDIAN, I WAS JOKING" yet get massive amount of dicksucking for "pwning" people by young liberals.

6/13/2006 11:03:48 PM

Quote :

"^Tell us how you met your lady."

I told her I was interested in unconditional love and she sprayed me with pepper spray. We then went on dates for a couple of years before holding hands.

6/14/2006 12:34:27 AM

^^So you don't respect somebody's opinion unless it's a professional opinion? In that case what the fuck are you doing presenting yours on TWW?

6/14/2006 12:59:10 AM

how sure are you that he shows his true opinion?
he is just a comedian.
simplifying issues to get a laugh pretty much forms an opinion on its own, so to speak.

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2006 1:16:50 AM