John Stewart OWNED Bernard Goldberg on July 13th

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh....

silly me. bono and mr bush are equals. clearly bono just slipped and fell or something since he couldn't stop the iraq war even with his equal power to nullify a politicians.

get real man... celebs have no real power. to even claim as such is just sad. the men with the fingers on the trigger sit in government.

pre governator arnold = jingle all the way = mr hummer = ability to spread catch phrase "i'll be back"

governator arnold = line item veto power with ability to write and change laws.

who are you kidding... who the f*ck are you kidding?

and other studies i've seen show the daily show watcher is on average more informed on the news then the average joe

You would deny the power of propaganda to shape public opinion? You would deny the power of public opinion to shape policy?

Um, OK. When you find reality, let me know...

 

[0roo0roo]

mouth peices of government have far more propaganda power then little hollywood.

haven't the last few years taught you anything?

but really, most of us base our foreign policy opinions on madonnas right? lol...not.

goldbergs book is just pure bullsh*t.

current top 5 movies in the usa
1 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
2 Wedding Crashers
3 Fantastic Four
4 War of the Worlds
5 Batman Begins

clearly mind boggling this liberal celebrity media propganda. the power is overwhelming!!
and they dominate talk radio too!! ....oh wait...

fashion/hipness is not real power.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
mouth peices of government have far more propaganda power then little hollywood.

haven't the last few years taught you anything?

but really, most of us base our foreign policy opinions on madonnas right? lol...not.

goldbergs book is just pure bullsh*t.

current top 5 movies in the usa
1 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
2 Wedding Crashers
3 Fantastic Four
4 War of the Worlds
5 Batman Begins

clearly mind boggling this liberal celebrity media propganda. the power is overwhelming!!
and they dominate talk radio too!! ....oh wait...

WTF does the current top 5 movies have to do with anything?

That you continue to deny the power of political propaganda shows you either deny reality, or are willing to do so just to win this argument.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Amused
Exactly.

And anyone who denies that (many) entertainers have as much influence and power to affect society as any politician deny reality. Those who deny this are the same people who would ban tobacco and cigarette ads because they make kids smoke and drink, yet deny that movies, TV and video games can have an effect on children (and adults alike). As if only media with an intent to sell can influence people's attitudes and opinions. Propaganda is propaganda, folks. ANY media that displays a negative as a positive will have a negative effect on impressionable people.

Stewart's Nancy Grace style slamming of the book is nothing more than self protectionism. He's selfishly and myopically defending his profession from a very valid and real attack against it. He's not objecting to the book because it's conservative, or liberal, or anything other than an attack on himself and those like him who use TV and movies to push a political agenda like so much tobacco and alcohol advertising.

And those who pooh-pooh complaints claiming that Stewart's show is merely comedy fail to realize that a large segment of society gets much of their news from him. He knows this and pushes a very transparent leftist agenda on his show. He KNOWS people are swayed by his opinions and subject matter. He's propaganda wrapped up in comedy like a poison pill hidden in a desert to make it go down easier.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/apontv.stewarts.stature.ap/

That seems a bit far fetched to me. I don't doubt that Stewart realizes the impact of his show and the views presented on it, but he also realizes that his success as a comedian depends on his politics. It's difficult to make political humor non-partisan. Why should Stewart change his comedy simply because his show is successful and he has a larger sphere of influence? Are you suggesting that shows billed primarily as entertainment should abandon their formulas for success simply because some people are stupid enough to misconstrue their views as the absolute truth?

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: 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.

No.

Goldberg didn't have a relevant point to stand on - that's why the interview appears skewed.

Oh bullsh!t. Stewart never gave him a chance to MAKE any points, relevant or not. His tactics were classic Nancy Grace.

Goldberg makes LOTS of relevant points in his books, if you'd ever bother to read them.

If he had such convincing arguments and such valid points, I'm certain he would have had the ability to express them properly. If Stewart's points were as spurious as you maintain, surely Goldberg would have been able to make his point.

He didn't.

He drowned in his own bullsh!t.

His list is completely irrelevant and totally inconsequential.

Here's the list, BTW (it's laughable):

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall
Paul Krugman
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean
Judge Roy Moore
Michael Newdow
The Unknown American Terrorist
Lee Bollinger
James Kopp
Dr. Martin Haskell
Paul Begala
Julian Bond
John Green
Latrell Sprewell
Maury Povich
Jerry Springer
Bob Shrum
Bill Moyers
Jeff Danziger
Nancy Hopkins
Al Franken
Jim McDermott
Peter Singer
Scott Harshbarger
Susan Beresford
Gloria Steinem
Paul Eibeler
Dennis Kozlowski
Ken Lay
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters
Robert Byrd
Ingrid Newkirk
John Vasconellos
Ann Pelo
Markos Moulitsas
Anna Nicole Smith
Neal Shapiro
David Westin
Diane Sawyer
Ted Field
Eminem
Shirley Franklin
Ludacris
Michael Savage
Howard Stern
Amy Richards
James Wolcott
Oliver Stone
David Duke
Randall Robinson
Katherine Hanson
Matt Kunitz
Jimmy Swaggart
Phil Donahue
Ward Churchill
Barbara Kingsolver
Katha Politt
Eric Foner
Barbara Foley
Linda Hirshman
Norman Mailer
Harry Belafonte
Kitty Kelley
Tim Robbins
Laurie David
The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
The Vicious Celebrity
The Dumb Celebrity
Chris Ofili
Sheldon Hackney
Aaron McGruder
Jane Smiley
Michael Jackson
Barbara Streisand
Kerri Dunn
Richard Timmons
Guy Velella
Courtney Love
Eve Ensler
Todd Goldman
Sheila Jackson Lee
Matthew Lesko
Rick and Kathy Hilton

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Amused
Exactly.

And anyone who denies that (many) entertainers have as much influence and power to affect society as any politician deny reality. Those who deny this are the same people who would ban tobacco and cigarette ads because they make kids smoke and drink, yet deny that movies, TV and video games can have an effect on children (and adults alike). As if only media with an intent to sell can influence people's attitudes and opinions. Propaganda is propaganda, folks. ANY media that displays a negative as a positive will have a negative effect on impressionable people.

Stewart's Nancy Grace style slamming of the book is nothing more than self protectionism. He's selfishly and myopically defending his profession from a very valid and real attack against it. He's not objecting to the book because it's conservative, or liberal, or anything other than an attack on himself and those like him who use TV and movies to push a political agenda like so much tobacco and alcohol advertising.

And those who pooh-pooh complaints claiming that Stewart's show is merely comedy fail to realize that a large segment of society gets much of their news from him. He knows this and pushes a very transparent leftist agenda on his show. He KNOWS people are swayed by his opinions and subject matter. He's propaganda wrapped up in comedy like a poison pill hidden in a desert to make it go down easier.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/apontv.stewarts.stature.ap/

That seems a bit far fetched to me. I don't doubt that Stewart realizes the impact of his show and the views presented on it, but he also realizes that his success as a comedian depends on his politics. It's difficult to make political humor non-partisan. Why should Stewart change his comedy simply because his show is successful and he has a larger sphere of influence? Are you suggesting that shows billed primarily as entertainment should abandon their formulas for success simply because some people are stupid enough to misconstrue their views as the absolute truth?

Absolutely not. I do not support censorship of any kind. Stewart is free to push whatever propaganda he chooses. And Goldberg is free to write books exposing it for what it is.

My beef in this thread from the beginning was with the myopic people who felt Stewart "owned" Goldberg... When, in fact, he proved Goldberg's point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And comedy CAN be non-partisan. You can equally ridicule both sides, or all sides of the political coin.

 

[Argo]

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.

Uhh, there is no reason to touch on anything Goldberg says. To anyone with half a brain it's obvious how ridiculous Goldberg's ideas are. The guy's argument was pretty much - you should watch what you say and not curse. Somebody should show him the 1st amendmend. He blamed problems in america on profanities on TV and rappers. Yes, I'm sure Dr Dre is the reason we're paying $3 for gas.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: 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.

No.

Goldberg didn't have a relevant point to stand on - that's why the interview appears skewed.

Oh bullsh!t. Stewart never gave him a chance to MAKE any points, relevant or not. His tactics were classic Nancy Grace.

Goldberg makes LOTS of relevant points in his books, if you'd ever bother to read them.

If he had such convincing arguments and such valid points, I'm certain he would have had the ability to express them properly. If Stewart's points were as spurious as you maintain, surely Goldberg would have been able to make his point.

He didn't.

He drowned in his own bullsh!t.

His list is completely irrelevant and totally inconsequential.

Here's the list, BTW (it's laughable):

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall
Paul Krugman
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean
Judge Roy Moore
Michael Newdow
The Unknown American Terrorist
Lee Bollinger
James Kopp
Dr. Martin Haskell
Paul Begala
Julian Bond
John Green
Latrell Sprewell
Maury Povich
Jerry Springer
Bob Shrum
Bill Moyers
Jeff Danziger
Nancy Hopkins
Al Franken
Jim McDermott
Peter Singer
Scott Harshbarger
Susan Beresford
Gloria Steinem
Paul Eibeler
Dennis Kozlowski
Ken Lay
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters
Robert Byrd
Ingrid Newkirk
John Vasconellos
Ann Pelo
Markos Moulitsas
Anna Nicole Smith
Neal Shapiro
David Westin
Diane Sawyer
Ted Field
Eminem
Shirley Franklin
Ludacris
Michael Savage
Howard Stern
Amy Richards
James Wolcott
Oliver Stone
David Duke
Randall Robinson
Katherine Hanson
Matt Kunitz
Jimmy Swaggart
Phil Donahue
Ward Churchill
Barbara Kingsolver
Katha Politt
Eric Foner
Barbara Foley
Linda Hirshman
Norman Mailer
Harry Belafonte
Kitty Kelley
Tim Robbins
Laurie David
The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
The Vicious Celebrity
The Dumb Celebrity
Chris Ofili
Sheldon Hackney
Aaron McGruder
Jane Smiley
Michael Jackson
Barbara Streisand
Kerri Dunn
Richard Timmons
Guy Velella
Courtney Love
Eve Ensler
Todd Goldman
Sheila Jackson Lee
Matthew Lesko
Rick and Kathy Hilton

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: 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.

No.

Goldberg didn't have a relevant point to stand on - that's why the interview appears skewed.

Oh bullsh!t. Stewart never gave him a chance to MAKE any points, relevant or not. His tactics were classic Nancy Grace.

Goldberg makes LOTS of relevant points in his books, if you'd ever bother to read them.

If he had such convincing arguments and such valid points, I'm certain he would have had the ability to express them properly. If Stewart's points were as spurious as you maintain, surely Goldberg would have been able to make his point.

He didn't.

He drowned in his own bullsh!t.

His list is completely irrelevant and totally inconsequential.

Here's the list, BTW (it's laughable):

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall
Paul Krugman
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean
Judge Roy Moore
Michael Newdow
The Unknown American Terrorist
Lee Bollinger
James Kopp
Dr. Martin Haskell
Paul Begala
Julian Bond
John Green
Latrell Sprewell
Maury Povich
Jerry Springer
Bob Shrum
Bill Moyers
Jeff Danziger
Nancy Hopkins
Al Franken
Jim McDermott
Peter Singer
Scott Harshbarger
Susan Beresford
Gloria Steinem
Paul Eibeler
Dennis Kozlowski
Ken Lay
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters
Robert Byrd
Ingrid Newkirk
John Vasconellos
Ann Pelo
Markos Moulitsas
Anna Nicole Smith
Neal Shapiro
David Westin
Diane Sawyer
Ted Field
Eminem
Shirley Franklin
Ludacris
Michael Savage
Howard Stern
Amy Richards
James Wolcott
Oliver Stone
David Duke
Randall Robinson
Katherine Hanson
Matt Kunitz
Jimmy Swaggart
Phil Donahue
Ward Churchill
Barbara Kingsolver
Katha Politt
Eric Foner
Barbara Foley
Linda Hirshman
Norman Mailer
Harry Belafonte
Kitty Kelley
Tim Robbins
Laurie David
The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
The Vicious Celebrity
The Dumb Celebrity
Chris Ofili
Sheldon Hackney
Aaron McGruder
Jane Smiley
Michael Jackson
Barbara Streisand
Kerri Dunn
Richard Timmons
Guy Velella
Courtney Love
Eve Ensler
Todd Goldman
Sheila Jackson Lee
Matthew Lesko
Rick and Kathy Hilton

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

And I could just as easily create a list of people who have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a right wing agenda.

Where's Rush Limbaugh?

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

It's free speech they can say whatever the hell they want. If some celebrity using their status is enough to persuade you then I feel sorry for you. I just look at all these people and laugh, but to say that they're screwing America is kind of silly.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: 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.

No.

Goldberg didn't have a relevant point to stand on - that's why the interview appears skewed.

Oh bullsh!t. Stewart never gave him a chance to MAKE any points, relevant or not. His tactics were classic Nancy Grace.

Goldberg makes LOTS of relevant points in his books, if you'd ever bother to read them.

If he had such convincing arguments and such valid points, I'm certain he would have had the ability to express them properly. If Stewart's points were as spurious as you maintain, surely Goldberg would have been able to make his point.

He didn't.

He drowned in his own bullsh!t.

His list is completely irrelevant and totally inconsequential.

Here's the list, BTW (it's laughable):

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall
Paul Krugman
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean
Judge Roy Moore
Michael Newdow
The Unknown American Terrorist
Lee Bollinger
James Kopp
Dr. Martin Haskell
Paul Begala
Julian Bond
John Green
Latrell Sprewell
Maury Povich
Jerry Springer
Bob Shrum
Bill Moyers
Jeff Danziger
Nancy Hopkins
Al Franken
Jim McDermott
Peter Singer
Scott Harshbarger
Susan Beresford
Gloria Steinem
Paul Eibeler
Dennis Kozlowski
Ken Lay
Barbara Walters
Maxine Waters
Robert Byrd
Ingrid Newkirk
John Vasconellos
Ann Pelo
Markos Moulitsas
Anna Nicole Smith
Neal Shapiro
David Westin
Diane Sawyer
Ted Field
Eminem
Shirley Franklin
Ludacris
Michael Savage
Howard Stern
Amy Richards
James Wolcott
Oliver Stone
David Duke
Randall Robinson
Katherine Hanson
Matt Kunitz
Jimmy Swaggart
Phil Donahue
Ward Churchill
Barbara Kingsolver
Katha Politt
Eric Foner
Barbara Foley
Linda Hirshman
Norman Mailer
Harry Belafonte
Kitty Kelley
Tim Robbins
Laurie David
The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
The Vicious Celebrity
The Dumb Celebrity
Chris Ofili
Sheldon Hackney
Aaron McGruder
Jane Smiley
Michael Jackson
Barbara Streisand
Kerri Dunn
Richard Timmons
Guy Velella
Courtney Love
Eve Ensler
Todd Goldman
Sheila Jackson Lee
Matthew Lesko
Rick and Kathy Hilton

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

And I could just as easily create a list of people who have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a right wing agenda.

Where's Rush Limbaugh?

Yes, you could. However, it would be far a shorter list when it comes to the entertainers and newscasters who hold the eyes and ears of the nation.

At any rate, his list is FAR from "laughable." All those on it use their positions to push their political agendas. THAT is the point of Goldberg's book. Thanks for finally admitting it has merit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

It's free speech they can say whatever the hell they want. If some celebrity using their status is enough to persuade you then I feel sorry for you. I just look at all these people and laugh, but to say that they're screwing America is kind of silly.

"Screwing" is a matter of opinion.

However, to deny that the people on that list have the ability to signifigantly sway public opinion is to deny reality.

And of course they can say whatever they want. NO ONE, not even Goldberg himself, has advocated censorship of any kind. He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Yes, you could. However, it would be far a shorter list when it comes to the entertainers and newscasters who hold the eyes and ears of the nation.

At any rate, his list is FAR from "laughable." All those on it use their positions to push their political agendas. THAT is the point of Goldberg's book. Thanks for finally admitting it has merit.

Ludacris, Eminem, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson, Courtney Love, Rick and Kathy Hilton. Care to explain how do any of the above use their celebrity status to push their agendas. Seems to me like the book is just a stage for Goldberg to attack people he doesn't like. The correct title of the book should've been "100 people I don't like"

And of course they can say whatever they want. NO ONE, not even Goldberg himself, has advocated censorship of any kind. He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

But he does. If you listen to the interview, part if his point of view (unfortunately John doesn't let him finish) is that they should remove profanities from TV. He also blames rappers using profanities in their songs for the problems in america.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

It's free speech they can say whatever the hell they want. If some celebrity using their status is enough to persuade you then I feel sorry for you. I just look at all these people and laugh, but to say that they're screwing America is kind of silly.

"Screwing" is a matter of opinion.

However, to deny that the people on that list have the ability to signifigantly sway public opinion is to deny reality.

And of course they can say whatever they want. NO ONE, not even Goldberg himself, has advocated censorship of any kind. He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Are you trying to tell me that those individuals are honestly causing the most harm to your country?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused

Yes, you could. However, it would be far a shorter list when it comes to the entertainers and newscasters who hold the eyes and ears of the nation.

At any rate, his list is FAR from "laughable." All those on it use their positions to push their political agendas. THAT is the point of Goldberg's book. Thanks for finally admitting it has merit.

Ludacris, Eminem, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson, Courtney Love, Rick and Kathy Hilton. Care to explain how do any of the above use their celebrity status to push their agendas. Seems to me like the book is just a stage for Goldberg to attack people he doesn't like. The correct title of the book should've been "100 people I don't like"

Do you support the banning of tobacco ads?

If tobacco ads can influence kids to behave badly, what kind of effect do you think Ludacris, Eminem, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson, Courtney Love, Rick and Kathy Hilton have on kids?

Not all use their celebrity for policial agendas. Some he accuses of influencing negative behavior. Anyone who supports the tobacco ad ban cannot logically support the rights of these people to influence kids as well.

(Again, I oppose ALL censorship... even the ban on tobacco ads)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused

Laughable? All of those people have used their political or celebrity power to shape public opinion or policy towards a leftist agenda.

Again, Stewart did not "own" Goldberg. In fact, his very show and they way he treated Goldberg PROVES the concept of Goldberg's book.

It's free speech they can say whatever the hell they want. If some celebrity using their status is enough to persuade you then I feel sorry for you. I just look at all these people and laugh, but to say that they're screwing America is kind of silly.

"Screwing" is a matter of opinion.

However, to deny that the people on that list have the ability to signifigantly sway public opinion is to deny reality.

And of course they can say whatever they want. NO ONE, not even Goldberg himself, has advocated censorship of any kind. He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Are you trying to tell me that those individuals are honestly causing the most harm to your country?

Again, that is a matter of opinion. To remain objective I will not voice my opinion.

My entire point was the validity of his book. Not in whether or not they are ruining the country, but whether or not they have influence. Combined, the people on that list have TREMENDOUS political and social influence. Whether or not you think it's negative or positive is a matter of opinion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused

And of course they can say whatever they want. NO ONE, not even Goldberg himself, has advocated censorship of any kind. He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

But he does. If you listen to the interview, part if his point of view (unfortunately John doesn't let him finish) is that they should remove profanities from TV. He also blames rappers using profanities in their songs for the problems in america.

As long as the public owns the airwaves in the US, it gets to dictate what is broadcast on them. This is one of the many pitfalls of socialism.

And do you deny the use of violence, sexuality and profanity in Rap and other media influences kids?

Public censorship is ALWAYS more effective than government censorship. What needs to happen is a total rejection of that kind of media. If it doesn;t sell, it can't influence.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Like he doesn't have an agenda of his own which many myopic individuals follow. It's like a Rat calling a Squirrel a rodent.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, that is a matter of opinion. To remain objective I will not voice my opinion.

My entire point was the validity of his book. Not in whether or not they are ruining the country, but whether or not they have influence. Combined, the people on that list have TREMENDOUS political and social influence. Whether or not you think it's negative or positive is a matter of opinion.

But nobody is arguing with you on that. We all realize that people on that list have tremendous influence. As matter of fact a lot of them use it to push their agenda, and some of them are pretty bad role models. But to blame the problems in america on these people is insane. First of all, I fail to see what exactly are the problems in today's America. Like John mentioned, crime is lower, standard of living is higher.

To me Goldberg sounds like somebody who fails to adjust to today's world. Sounds like when your grandparents tell you "Back in my days there was no primarital sex". Well, this is today's world - we got rappers, sex and profanities on TV. If you have a problem with it - don't watch TV, problem solved.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Like he doesn't have an agenda of his own which many myopic individuals follow. It's like a Rat calling a Squirrel a rodent.

Everyone has an agenda. Goldberg doesn't try to hide his. That's the difference.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, that is a matter of opinion. To remain objective I will not voice my opinion.

My entire point was the validity of his book. Not in whether or not they are ruining the country, but whether or not they have influence. Combined, the people on that list have TREMENDOUS political and social influence. Whether or not you think it's negative or positive is a matter of opinion.

But nobody is arguing with you on that.

Um, back up and read the thread. Yes, they ARE arguing against that very point.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: 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.

It's been on IFilm.com for months.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Like he doesn't have an agenda of his own which many myopic individuals follow. It's like a Rat calling a Squirrel a rodent.

Everyone has an agenda. Goldberg doesn't try to hide his. That's the difference.

And what makes him different than the others? When they speak out on something political how are they "trying to hide" anything?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Like he doesn't have an agenda of his own which many myopic individuals follow. It's like a Rat calling a Squirrel a rodent.

Everyone has an agenda. Goldberg doesn't try to hide his. That's the difference.

And what makes him different than the others? When they speak out on something political how are they "trying to hide" anything?

Many on the list wrap their agenda up in movies, music, TV shows or in Stewart's case, comedy. Look at the prevailing opinion in TV shows and movies. It's passed off in everyday scenarios through this media everyday.

You can have a totally non-political show like "Six Feet Under" where, in nearly every episode, an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti Bush or anti-right wing comment is made in passing. Hell, in five episodes in a row last year, the main male character seen as the most positive, respectable person on the show made an anti-Bush comment.

And that's just a single example among countless ones.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
He is merely exposing their agendas for those too myopic to see it.

Like he doesn't have an agenda of his own which many myopic individuals follow. It's like a Rat calling a Squirrel a rodent.

Everyone has an agenda. Goldberg doesn't try to hide his. That's the difference.

And what makes him different than the others? When they speak out on something political how are they "trying to hide" anything?

Many on the list wrap their agenda up in movies, music, TV shows or in Stewart's case, comedy. Look at the prevailing opinion in TV shows and movies. It's passed off in everyday scenarios through this media everyday.

You can have a totally non-political show like "Six Feet Under" where, in nearly every episode, an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti Bush or anti-right wing comment is made in passing. Hell, in five episodes in a row last year, the main male character seen as the most positive, respectable person on the show made an anti-Bush comment.

And that's just a single example among countless ones.

I still don't see how they are trying to hide anything by your examples and I definately don't see any negative aspects of it.