Did anyone watch Jon Stewart on Chris Wallace?

[droski]

are you serious? You said:

If you are looking for something else, try asking a specific question.

he spotlighted cobert as an idiot, not obama. is this really so complicated?

 

[droski]

Really. Didn't you say you watched both? Did you form views? Because if so, I think I see the disconnect.

Again, not actively politically is the key. The majority of people who watch those shows AREN'T politically active, and AREN'T looking for news. Ergo, trying to push an agenda would be worthless. WORTHLESS. So it isn't done.

BUT it is still as useful in highlighting ridiculousness as even South Park.

i've seen stuff on there that's made me question certain political candidates certainly. haven't you?

 

[fl0at]

he spotlighted cobert as an idiot, not obama. is this really so complicated?

Everyone knows Colbert's shtick. It doesn't mean what is said by Colbert isn't true.

There are time when Colbert is overly ostentatious about the view, with the desire to look like a fool. But. Not. Always.

Is that so complicated?

 

[fl0at]

i've seen stuff on there that's made me question certain political candidates certainly. haven't you?

No. I've seen stuff that made me LOOK UP more information on certain candidates. But I never stopped dead at what was said on either program.

Would you like to amend to the above as well, or are you comfortable with what you said?

 

[droski]

Everyone knows Colbert's shtick. It doesn't mean what is said by Colbert isn't true.

There are time when Colbert is overly ostentatious about the view, with the desire to look like a fool. But. Not. Always.

Is that so complicated?

do you believe the arguments of a fool?

No. I've seen stuff that made me LOOK UP more information on certain candidates. But I never stopped dead at what was said on either program.

Would you like to amend to the above as well, or are you comfortable with what you said?

but simply makign you think twice and look things up effects public opinion no?

why would i need to amend anything i said?

 

[fl0at]

do you believe the arguments of a fool?

Sometimes, yes. Because sometimes it takes a fool to highlight foolishness.

but simply makign you think twice and look things up effects public opinion no?

No. Unless your world view is that politics is meant for the sheep, thinking, in no way, affects public opinion.

why would i need to amend anything i said?

Because as stated, it reads that you simply take the view of another. Ie: gullible.

 

[droski]

Sometimes, yes. Because sometimes it takes a fool to highlight foolishness.



No. Unless your world view is that politics is meant for the sheep, thinking, in no way, affects public opinion.



Because as stated, it reads that you simply take the view of another. Ie: gullible.

and your belief is he generally highlights the foolishness of the left?

ridiculous. you don't have to be a sheep to be effected by other peoples opinions. that is part of the human condition.

as i said above. don't tell me all your ideas you invented out of thin air. we all are effected by our surroundings.

 

[fl0at]

and your belief is he generally highlights the foolishness of the left?

No. No, no. No. He definitely doesn't. You asked for a single occurrence.

ridiculous. you don't have to be a sheep to be effected by other peoples opinions. that is part of the human condition.

Anh. I'm reminded by some saying about "believe half of ... "

as i said above. don't tell me all your ideas you invented out of thin air. we all are effected by our surroundings.

Well, yea, if the wind blows hard, we might be pushed over. What does that have to do anything?

Unless you are saying it is "okay" to be repetitively pushed over by the wind, in which case, the definition of insanity comes to mind.

 

[droski]

No. No, no. No. He definitely doesn't. You asked for a single occurrence.



Anh. I'm reminded by some saying about "believe half of ... "



Well, yea, if the wind blows hard, we might be pushed over. What does that have to do anything?

Unless you are saying it is "okay" to be repetitively pushed over by the wind, in which case, the definition of insanity comes to mind.

and the only one you could come up with was by a characted invented to make the right look like a bunch of idiots. thank you for proving my point.


what the hell are you talking about? are you seriously arguing stewarts show doesn't effect public opinion at all?

 

[fl0at]

and the only one you could come up with was by a characted invented to make the right look like a bunch of idiots. thank you for proving my point.

Gibbs, is that you?

You asked for the last time Colbert spotlighted a lefty as an idiot, and now you are saying I can't use Colbert as the example, because he was invented to make the right look bad? It will be quite difficult, dro, don't you think, to show an example of when Colbert made fun of the left, if, at the same time, I can't use Colbert.

Maddening.

what the hell are you talking about? are you seriously arguing stewarts show doesn't effect public opinion at all?

At all? No. I just met someone who was affected by the show... Noticeably? Absolutely.

 

[droski]

Gibbs, is that you?

You asked for the last time Colbert spotlighted a lefty as an idiot, and now you are saying I can't use Colbert as the example, because he was invented to make the right look bad? It will be quite difficult, dro, don't you think, to show an example of when Colbert made fun of the left, if, at the same time, I can't use Colbert.

Maddening.



At all? No. I just met someone who was affected by the show... Noticeably? Absolutely.

is this really so hard to get? he's made to act like the fool, therefore clearly anything he says is supposed to be taken as ridiculous and false. therefore colbert flaming obama is actually BENEFITING obama.

so what's your point? if it's just comedy and there is no agenda why is it forming opinion?

 

[fl0at]

is this really so hard to get? he's made to act like the fool, therefore clearly anything he says is supposed to be taken as ridiculous and false. therefore colbert flaming obama is actually BENEFITING obama.

As I said earlier, when the statements are so ostentatious as to be ridiculed, you are correct.

However, droski. That is not always the case.

Colbert doesn't have just one setting. It isn't always the idiot far right misinformed Fox news loving conservative.

And yes, he has switched off of that quite a bit, especially lately.

When was the last time you watched The Report?

so what's your point? if it's just comedy and there is no agenda why is it forming opinion?

People are forming opinions, based on the comedy. Hell, House has formed as many opinions on doctors as Stewart as formed on politicians.

Does House have an agenda? What about M.A.S.H, or CSI:Miami?

Simply because opinions are formed, does not mean that was the goal or agenda. It just means people are gullible.

 

[KiffinKiller]

As I said earlier, when the statements are so ostentatious as to be ridiculed, you are correct.

However, droski. That is not always the case.

Colbert doesn't have just one setting. It isn't always the idiot far right misinformed Fox news loving conservative.

And yes, he has switched off of that quite a bit, especially lately.

When was the last time you watched The Report?



People are forming opinions, based on the comedy. Hell, House has formed as many opinions on doctors as Stewart as formed on politicians.

Does House have an agenda? What about M.A.S.H, or CSI:Miami?

Simply because opinions are formed, does not mean that was the goal or agenda. It just means people are gullible.

The agenda is ratings. This is obviously a sensitive subject for droski because, as he said before, he gets angry at the left leaning opinions.

 

[droski]

As I said earlier, when the statements are so ostentatious as to be ridiculed, you are correct.

However, droski. That is not always the case.

Colbert doesn't have just one setting. It isn't always the idiot far right misinformed Fox news loving conservative.

And yes, he has switched off of that quite a bit, especially lately.

When was the last time you watched The Report?



People are forming opinions, based on the comedy. Hell, House has formed as many opinions on doctors as Stewart as formed on politicians.

Does House have an agenda? What about M.A.S.H, or CSI:Miami?

Simply because opinions are formed, does not mean that was the goal or agenda. It just means people are gullible.

i haven't watched it in the past months.

house, mash, or csi doesnt' focus on politics. if you asked if the west wing had an agenda i'd argue it most definetely did.

 

[droski]

The agenda is ratings. This is obviously a sensitive subject for droski because, as he said before, he gets angry at the left leaning opinions.

fox news just by itself suggests that a liberal bias isn't required for ratings. that's an absurd argument.

 

[KiffinKiller]

fox news just by itself suggests that a liberal bias isn't required for ratings. that's an absurd argument.

He targets a certain viewership that watch comedy central - ratings are in no way absurd in this argument.

 

[droski]

He targets a certain viewership that watch comedy central - ratings are in no way absurd in this argument.

and that viewership demands a rather sigificant liberal bias? they'd notice if he gave democrats an equal slaying? you give them to much credit.

 

[fl0at]

i haven't watched it in the past months.

house, mash, or csi doesnt' focus on politics. if you asked if the west wing had an agenda i'd argue it most definetely did.

I'm not talking about on politics. I'm talking about on the audience.

Can House influence how people think about medicine? Can CSI:Miami influence how people think about crime? Can Law and Order influence how people think about crime and punishment?

You are saying that Stewart has an agenda because some people are influenced.

I'm saying people are gullible, and it doesn't matter what show is on, people will be influenced in one way or another.

 

[fl0at]

and that viewership demands a rather sigificant liberal bias? they'd notice if he gave democrats an equal slaying? you give them to much credit.

Clearly they'd notice. You noticed that he DOESN'T give an equal slaying, right?

 

[droski]

I'm not talking about on politics. I'm talking about on the audience.

Can House influence how people think about medicine? Can CSI:Miami influence how people think about crime? Can Law and Order influence how people think about crime and punishment?

You are saying that Stewart has an agenda because some people are influenced.

I'm saying people are gullible, and it doesn't matter what show is on, people will be influenced in one way or another.

we are arguing intent. i believe stewart intends of influencing people. otherwise why stick to flaming one party and why voice only those opinions? you do not. arguing about this is probably pointless.

Clearly they'd notice. You noticed that he DOESN'T give an equal slaying, right?

many clearly don't. look at this thread.

 

[fl0at]

we are arguing intent. i believe stewart intends of influencing people. otherwise why stick to flaming one party and why voice only those opinions? you do not. arguing about this is probably pointless.

Exceedingly pointless. Unless someone gets his emails or something, and he states specifically that he wants to make a show so he can bring more "over to the cause," then I don't think we can accurately gauge intent.

But, if he stuck to flaming the other side, he'd probably lose quite a bit of his demographic. Again, young, non-family individuals tend to lean left.

many clearly don't. look at this thread.

They'd notice. I notice every time Stewart or Colbert have something negative to say about 2A. Very off putting.

 

[droski]

Exceedingly pointless. Unless someone gets his emails or something, and he states specifically that he wants to make a show so he can bring more "over to the cause," then I don't think we can accurately gauge intent.

But, if he stuck to flaming the other side, he'd probably lose quite a bit of his demographic. Again, young, non-family individuals tend to lean left.

so we need an official statement from rush that he has an agenda before we say he has one?

i don't get this argument. again young non family individuals don't follow politics. i can't see them caring, or knowing, who is left and who isn't.

 

[milohimself]

we are arguing intent. i believe stewart intends of influencing people. otherwise why stick to flaming one party and why voice only those opinions? you do not. arguing about this is probably pointless.

Do you think somebody can display their own bias in their writing without the explicit intent of altering opinion?

 

[KiffinKiller]

so we need an official statement from rush that he has an agenda before we say he has one?

i don't get this argument. again young non family individuals don't follow politics. i can't see them caring, or knowing, who is left and who isn't.

Rush's show isn't comedy. I just have a hard time believing a comedy show has some agend to brainwash the youth into hating the right.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Do you think somebody can display their own bias in their writing without the explicit intent of altering opinion?

This is what I mean. The show may have his opinions - but does he want to use his show to change the world? I don't think so.