John Stewart OWNED Bernard Goldberg on July 13th

[0roo0roo]

it was like the cross fire thing. slaughter

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

he didn't have to. its obvious what goldberg was going to say, the same old tripe thats been said time and again. its nothing new, and it deserves to be knocked down. stewarts wise cracks were meant to show no matter what goldberg said, it was all bullsh*t. an undefendable position.

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Grr.. Slow download.... 20 KB/s. Weird.

 

[ironcrotch]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
All Stewart did was crack wise ass remarks, which I agree he is very good at and is funny, even when taking swipes at liberals. Stewart never lets Goldberg complete a single thought without cutting him off using a wise ass remark for the sake of entertainment, which makes Goldberg's positions seem incomplete and broken. At which point, Stewart takes the liberty of saying his peace without the incessant interruption Goldberg is forced to deal with.

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

Well put.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
All Stewart did was crack wise ass remarks, which I agree he is very good at and is funny, even when taking swipes at liberals. Stewart never lets Goldberg complete a single thought without cutting him off using a wise ass remark for the sake of entertainment, which makes Goldberg's positions seem incomplete and broken. At which point, Stewart takes the liberty of saying his peace without the incessant interruption Goldberg is forced to deal with.

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

Stewart has said loudly and often that he isn't interested in getting real debate or real interviews on his show - its on comedy-fvcking-central - he just wants entertainment. But he says the people that claim to offer real information and are really just selling entertainment need to get their act together.


edited for sleepiness.

 

[gopunk]

never heard of goldberg, but it didn't look to me like stewart 'owned' him. stewart was trying to be funny, succeeded, and rightfully so, but they both had good points. and i'm nowhere near conservative on social issues.

 

[HermDogg]

Yeah it didn't really go over so well. I'm usually a Stewart fanboy, and it just seemed like he totally side-stepped the issues that goldberg brougth up and said "HAHA REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID HAHA GOVERNMENT BAD *WISE-ASS REMARK*"

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: gopunk
never heard of goldberg, but it didn't look to me like stewart 'owned' him. stewart was trying to be funny, succeeded, and rightfully so, but they both had good points. and i'm nowhere near conservative on social issues.

actually, stewart owned him, both comedically and he destroyed goldberg's talking points.

 

[MrCodeDude]

There were three conservatives in the book and one of them shot an abortion doctor.

 

[dudeman007]

Yeah I just saw that. John Stewart kicks ass.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: gopunk
never heard of goldberg, but it didn't look to me like stewart 'owned' him. stewart was trying to be funny, succeeded, and rightfully so, but they both had good points. and i'm nowhere near conservative on social issues.

actually, stewart owned him, both comedically and he destroyed goldberg's talking points.

goldberg is not on that show as a comedian, so to say that stewart 'owned' him comedically is pointless.

as for the talking points, there's a difference between showing that a point is wrong and pleasing the crowd. stewart did the latter, which is his job... and he did a great job at it, but the conversation simply did not reach the depth required for either side to 'own' the other.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
All Stewart did was crack wise ass remarks, which I agree he is very good at and is funny, even when taking swipes at liberals. Stewart never lets Goldberg complete a single thought without cutting him off using a wise ass remark for the sake of entertainment, which makes Goldberg's positions seem incomplete and broken. At which point, Stewart takes the liberty of saying his peace without the incessant interruption Goldberg is forced to deal with.

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

Word. If the crowd didn't start cheering every time Stewart opened his mouth Stewart would have been owned. I really can't stand his interviews.

 

[franksta]

marked for when I'm on a computer with speakers

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: gopunk
never heard of goldberg, but it didn't look to me like stewart 'owned' him. stewart was trying to be funny, succeeded, and rightfully so, but they both had good points. and i'm nowhere near conservative on social issues.

actually, stewart owned him, both comedically and he destroyed goldberg's talking points.

goldberg is not on that show as a comedian, so to say that stewart 'owned' him comedically is pointless.

as for the talking points, there's a difference between showing that a point is wrong and pleasing the crowd. stewart did the latter, which is his job... and he did a great job at it, but the conversation simply did not reach the depth required for either side to 'own' the other.

Exactly.

To say Stewart "owned" Goldberg is to sink to the level of the middle school play yard where those with the best put-downs win the arguments.

 

[Steve]

In for later

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
While we're at it, anyone got a link to the infamous "Jon Stewart on Crossfire" cap? I've never seen it...

I've still got the crossfire clip (.avi) if someone wants to host it. PM me for a place to upload.

 

[imported_Reck]

Bull****. Goldberg tried to play it like he wasn't a partisan hack in front of the crowd when he obviously is. All of his points pwned.

 

[40Hands]

Stewart just pointed out the obvious bias and the stupid choices the guy made for the people that are ruining our country. Honestly I listened to what the guy had to say and it was comical by it self. Stewart just added his own style to make it even more funny. After all it is his show and the guy must have known what he was getting into.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Reck
Bull****. Goldberg tried to play it like he wasn't a partisan hack in front of the crowd when he obviously is. All of his points pwned.

Owned how? With pointless jokes and no facts or valid counterpoints?

Like I said, in the land of the schoolyard, he was "owned." Anywhere else and Stewart just looks like an immature brat.

And to say Goldberg is partisan without saying Stewart is just shows a complete lack of objectivity.

 

[Skiguy411]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Reck
Bull****. Goldberg tried to play it like he wasn't a partisan hack in front of the crowd when he obviously is. All of his points pwned.

Owned how? With pointless jokes and no facts or valid counterpoints?

Like I said, in the land of the schoolyard, he was "owned." Anywhere else and Stewart just looks like an immature brat.

And to say Goldberg is partisan without saying Stewart is just shows a complete lack of objectivity.

:thumbsup::beer:

 

[vi edit]

I have to chime in with the "Stewart didn't win anything but the crowd"...err...crowd.

I haven't read the book that was being discussed, but just from the context of the conversation, John was completely ignoring (not countering) the points that Goldberg was trying to present.

Regardless of what John thinks (or at least says in that clip), the way a culture acts is a very important makeup for a country/community. Not politics. Yes, politicians in Washington set rules. But that doesn't mean that certain cultures/demographics follow them.

What Washington does has next to zero impact on poor and urban areas. The crime and murder that happens in those areas is completely cultural. No law in the world will stop that. It's simply a mentatlity that is learned.

Laws don't make people. Cultures and the environments they grow up in do. This is exactly what Bill Cosby is trying to point out.

John Stewart makes for an entertaing interview in this situation. But to say he "won" or "pwned" is simply childish.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: tcsenter
All Stewart did was crack wise ass remarks, which I agree he is very good at and is funny, even when taking swipes at liberals. Stewart never lets Goldberg complete a single thought without cutting him off using a wise ass remark for the sake of entertainment, which makes Goldberg's positions seem incomplete and broken. At which point, Stewart takes the liberty of saying his peace without the incessant interruption Goldberg is forced to deal with.

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

Word. If the crowd didn't start cheering every time Stewart opened his mouth Stewart would have been owned. I really can't stand his interviews.

I have to agree here even though my own views coincide with Stewart's. I saw this interview on TV last night, and I was irritated with Stewart for not giving his guest a chance to finish a sentence, let alone defend himself. The whole performance seemed out-of-place in a supposed comedy show. I guess that you could say that Stewart "owned" Goldberg in the sense that he worked the crowd better than Goldberg did.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: tcsenter
All Stewart did was crack wise ass remarks, which I agree he is very good at and is funny, even when taking swipes at liberals. Stewart never lets Goldberg complete a single thought without cutting him off using a wise ass remark for the sake of entertainment, which makes Goldberg's positions seem incomplete and broken. At which point, Stewart takes the liberty of saying his peace without the incessant interruption Goldberg is forced to deal with.

Stewart is like the forum moderator who participates in the debate while controlling the forum to the advantage of his side and to the detriment of the opposition. Humorous, yes, but principled it is not. Stewart didn't touch a thing Goldberg says because he never allows Goldberg to say his peace or explain his position without constant interruption and wise-ass upstaging, Goldberg being too classy to give Stewart a taste of his own medicine.

Word. If the crowd didn't start cheering every time Stewart opened his mouth Stewart would have been owned. I really can't stand his interviews.

I have to agree here even though my own views coincide with Stewart's. I saw this interview on TV last night, and I was irritated with Stewart for not giving his guest a chance to finish a sentence, let alone defend himself. The whole performance seemed out-of-place in a supposed comedy show. I guess that you could say that Stewart "owned" Goldberg in the sense that he worked the crowd better than Goldberg did.

Stewart took a lesson from Nancy Grace on how to interview people he doesn't agree with.

The sad part is, people fall for this crap.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Amused
The sad part is, people fall for my crap.

fixed

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Reck
Bull****. Goldberg tried to play it like he wasn't a partisan hack in front of the crowd when he obviously is. All of his points pwned.

Owned how? With pointless jokes and no facts or valid counterpoints?

Like I said, in the land of the schoolyard, he was "owned." Anywhere else and Stewart just looks like an immature brat.

And to say Goldberg is partisan without saying Stewart is just shows a complete lack of objectivity.

Yes yes we know you don't like Stewart. Explain how he looks like an immature brat. Its his comedy show. Thats his style. The guy knew what he was getting himself into and he was obviously not prepared. So sad....

Everyone knows Stewart has his opinions and they obviously lean to the left. DO we need to say this every time we discuss a guest on his show? The above poster said "partisan hack" which I do not think Stewart is.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Amused
The sad part is, people fall for my crap.

fixed

Wow. You "owned" me Stewart style!

You go, boy!

:roll: