Yeah, they're gonna boycott the show the same way they boycott birth control. Wait...

4/19/2012 3:58:12 AM

For page 2:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/catholic-league-promises-to-mobilize-religious-g

Quote :

"A segment of The Daily Show skewering the media fervor over the 'war on women' that recommended that women use 'vagina mangers' to protect themselves has come under fire from the Catholic League, who have promised to boycott the show."

4/19/2012 8:37:27 AM

<yawn>

4/19/2012 9:16:49 AM

I am STUNNED that the Catholic League wasn't already boycotting TDS.

I mean, it's not like they've shied away from attacking Bill Donahue.

4/20/2012 8:35:23 AM

Jon Stewart's extended interview with Edward Conard, formerly of Bain Capital, lasting 40 minutes:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-7-2012/exclusive---edward-conard-extended-interview-pt--3

6/9/2012 3:06:45 PM

We need more conversations like that. Why aren't there more people with the balls to have an actual dialogue?

6/12/2012 10:00:47 AM

I've been growing tired of Stewart's style.

He's no where near sufficiently self-critical. I don't have a problem with the fact that he's on one side of any given issue, but he almost ubiquitously fails at disconnecting (progressive govt program) != (desired outcome)

6/12/2012 10:06:22 AM

Are you equally critical of right wingers who refuse to acknowledge market failures?

6/12/2012 12:48:35 PM

brought the heat tonight

pretty, pretty, pretty great

8/15/2012 11:22:10 PM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-jon-stewart-to-go-head-to-head-in-debate-next-month/

Quote :

"On Monday night, Bill O’Reilly announced that he will be debating Jon Stewart, 'in order to illuminate the vital issues associated with upcoming presidential election.' The event, The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium [emphasis added], is set for October 6... ... The format will be the same as that of the presidential debates. $4.95 gets you live streaming of the event online, and 50 percent of the proceeds will be donated to charity... Stewart will also be on O’Reilly’s show on Tuesday."

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 1:32:32 AM

^that is spreading on facebook like wildfire

9/18/2012 1:37:48 AM

The Rumble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5RJ42K91yM

10/8/2012 12:27:42 AM

When O'Reilly isn't being a blowhard, like when he visited the daily show, he can be pretty funny (like this past week on TDS)

10/8/2012 10:44:59 AM

^^haha, that was pretty good

10/8/2012 11:45:17 AM

Brilliant show tonight.

10/8/2012 11:09:51 PM

"The Rumble 2012 - Jon Stewa..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Straight Talk, Inc./Busboy Productions, Inc..

10/8/2012 11:33:38 PM

Another link (for now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefyHZG0mw8

10/9/2012 12:27:58 AM

Watch at 2:34, major props from Stewart to the people of North Carolina. +10000000 credibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4ur8-SXYgU



[Edited on October 10, 2012 at 4:28 AM. Reason : =]

10/10/2012 4:27:28 AM

just put Huckabee through the wringer

whoa

11/12/2012 11:30:14 PM

That was awesome.

11/13/2012 9:18:33 AM

Huckabee is one disingenuous fuck. Those decades of being a southern baptist preacher just add to his sliminess. He can seem nice as hell, then go off the deep end at the drop of a hat, all while grinning right in your face.

11/13/2012 9:40:29 AM

To his (only) credit, Huckabee remained calm and even tempered through it all.

11/13/2012 1:10:24 PM

It scares me that he put all that weight back on. I mean, he kept the weight off long enough to write a lifestyle/health book, and now he's big again. It sucks.

11/13/2012 1:24:14 PM

^^^

I liked his forked tongued responses about marriage equality.

11/13/2012 2:35:22 PM

Quote :

"It scares me that he put all that weight back on. I mean, he kept the weight off long enough to write a lifestyle/health book, and now he's big again. It sucks. "

He's a gluttonous fuck, that's for damn sure. No self-control whatsoever.

11/13/2012 5:46:00 PM

John Stewart is just a product. all credibility, humor, everything else is done by an army of writers. if you are butthurt about something, you should be looking at who the senior writers are and what their agenda is. clearly, it's to make money just like rush limbaugh. Fuck these clowns and Fuck You.

go take a history class, motherfucker.

11/13/2012 7:37:19 PM

you, you're the worst

11/13/2012 11:37:01 PM

speaking of butthurt

11/13/2012 11:57:12 PM

Lmao Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh equivalence, that's a new one

11/14/2012 9:41:40 AM

I actually felt like Stewart let Huckabee get away with way too much there. Without going back over it, off the top of my head:

* The whole hell / fire / judgment thing - he let Huckabee basically say the ad wasn't about going to hell, it was about your actions being judged or put to the fire or something. Had he simply followed his point up with, "What are they being judged for?" I think his point could have been driven hime a bit better. I guess Huckabee would just keep talking around in a circle though, which is what he was doing the whole time. Maybe a simple analogy would have been good, like, "Your argument is like saying the song 'Santa Clause is Coming to Town' is about Santa's naughty or nice list, but not about getting good or bad presents"

* He didn't completely let him get away with saying being for traditional marriage is different than being against gay marriage, but he didn't point out how dumb that argument is enough...at least not to my liking...

11/14/2012 10:04:57 AM

I actually think Stewart was a bit wrong in his interpretation of the ad

granted I know absolutely nothing about the bible, but I did buy Huckabee's explanation

11/14/2012 12:21:58 PM

I also know nothing of the passage he was talking about. But to me it sounded like his explanation was that in that passage it says people's actions will be put to some sort of test of fire or something. So then my next question is, what is this test for?

How did you interpret his explanation?

11/14/2012 12:27:15 PM

I thought he was talking about peoples beliefs going through some sort of test and then coming out stronger than ever

11/14/2012 12:29:32 PM

That would work better for him I guess...I guess the actual answer is in what that passage in Corinthians actually says...unfortunately I can't watch the video right now to look it up

11/14/2012 12:32:22 PM

I think it was 1st Corinthians 3:13: each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done

and I do think that Stewart was wrong, and that was not supposed to be hell, because the people looked like puritan blacksmiths.... but the commercial was still infuriating to me, bascially saying in order to be a christian, the only issues you should be concerned about is voting against abortion and gay marriage, and nothing else matters.

[Edited on November 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2012 2:50:55 PM

that's exactly how I feel and I wish that was the angle that Stewart took

which he kind of did towards the end with the "isn't it the height of man's arrogance to assume that Jesus would vote along with a certain party?" (paraphrasing, of course)

11/14/2012 3:13:00 PM

Well either way, my original point remains...I didn't feel like Stewart did nearly as good a job as he has with other politicians in the past, especially considering how easy this one should have been

11/14/2012 3:44:16 PM

This was the day after the election. There is so much truth in this 1/2 hr. that it boggles the mind. No wonder Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in news (which would be sad if I didn't like him so much) ... One of the best parts is when Nate Silver comes on, especially since the best Dean Chambers (unskewed polls) could do to argue against his numbers was to say "He looks kind of gay." Who's gay now? ... It's just one lesson layered upon another:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-november-7-2012-nate-silver?xrs=share_fb

11/15/2012 4:23:28 PM

He had a really great interview with retired general Stanley McChrystal last night:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/exclusive---stanley-mcchrystal-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy

I highly recommend it. There are 2 more parts in addition to this one.

1/9/2013 2:18:12 PM

also had a great segment on gun control last night

I'd post it but I'm on my phone

1/9/2013 5:33:47 PM

My favorite part was along the lines of "Let me get this straight. It's more important that we prevent this fantasy dystopian future, than do something about the present dystopian reality."

1/10/2013 1:26:36 PM

I enjoyed the "everyone agrees the Assaut Weapons Bans don't work so rather than try to fix them, we should all just give up"

1/10/2013 6:25:34 PM

At this point in my life, my attempts to understand conservative ideology are seriously hampering my ability to get things done. I spend hours everyday just trying to comprehend how they interpret reality.

1/11/2013 9:33:56 AM

They interpret it in nano-scale packets, respond with a slogan, then move on to the next packet. Never more than one packet at the same time. This is how they can, for instance, go from "There is no warming!" to "It's the sun!" in a matter of minutes. They have the intellectual attention span of a housecat.

1/11/2013 9:38:03 AM

It can't be that simple though. I know of lots of intelligent people who are conservative. There is something fundamentally different with the way they experience their world.

1/11/2013 9:45:48 AM

Fuck you, got mine. That's really all you need to know.

1/11/2013 11:13:51 AM

That's one of the better explanations I've heard, sadly.

1/11/2013 11:25:05 AM

1/12/2013 10:01:32 AM

I just watched the last TDS, and one part stuck out at me. He played video of a conservative saying that the term "assault weapons" is a bad term because it could describe hammers. Then Stewart called the guy as dumb as a hammer. It's just saddening because it was a completely valid point.

Not once in the segment was he actually clear about what kind of weapons we should talk about banning. He mentions that we can't own tanks. That's just obtuse and unhelpful, since it's not even trying to talk about where to draw the line. He shames the other side of the political spectrum so much, but he's not doing any better.

I actually kind of wish that we had a party that was opposed to the progressives that was anywhere near responsible enough for me to identify with. It's kind of funny, since I'm actually for wealth redistribution, but I'm for calling it that. I believe that if we have redistributive policies that are called by what they really are, they won't get out of control. I also believe that we shouldn't tell people what to do, even if we think it's in their best interest. That's probably my biggest rift with the left.

Quote :

"Are you equally critical of right wingers who refuse to acknowledge market failures?"

Absolutely yes (or at least I would hope), although you probably won't like my way of doing it. What is a "market"? There are certainly bad market that we create. I think your question should have said "free market", as that's the goal of the libertarians/right. Once we've established that, then we're quibbling over application of the definition.

The free market failed? Maybe I don't think it was a free market. Believing in the free market isn't about believing in the inherent fairness and efficacy of any particular market, it's the belief that there is a set of rules and conditions that leads to the greatest welfare for all by distributed management. That's a moving goalpost, and I recognize that. The only thing the position is clearly against is command & control strategies, ergo, the idea of making government as small as needed.

1/12/2013 11:43:43 AM

Quote :

"Not once in the segment was he actually clear about what kind of weapons we should talk about banning."

He was simply pointing out that they are completely unwilling to talk about banning anything at all. Isn't clearing that off the table the first step? Why should anyone go through the process of saying what types they would like to ban if the other party is unwilling to ban anything? It's pointless.

1/12/2013 12:22:48 PM