John Stewart vs Tucker Carlson

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Jiggy_12+Oct 18 2004, 11:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jiggy_12 @ Oct 18 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 18 2004, 04:06 PM
Don't cry Cow. Its okay. It must be really hard when you post months and months and months of links that YOU have swallowed hook line and sinker, only to find out their all bullsh*t and based on lies the government got you to swallow! Looks good on you, you know nothing blow hard. Have fun with your cats. You should enjoy your time with something close to your IQ level.

Personal insults make you look good.

"blow hard"?

Are you 7?[/b][/quote]
Yes he is judging by his argument.

The hilarious thing is that I could argue his position far more effectively than he could.

For example, I certainly wouldn't be be writing posts condemning the mainstream media for "lies the government got you to swallow" in the morning then turn around in the afternoon and gleefully post links from the mainstream media to bolster my anti-Bush stance, all the while pretending the enormous contradiction doesn't exist.

That's like taking a dump on your head while standing straight up . . . . seemingly impossible but apparently manageable on at least one planet unknown to the rest of us.

At least stick to the wacko left or right wing fringe sites to back up your claims so you don't automatically defeat yourself without any effort on the part of your opponents.

Whoa....

insulting Cow's intelligence? I've met the guy....a moron he ain't.

Not cool Mr. Obsessed, not cool.

Actually, I think he said the same thing about you a month ago . . . . right before and after he said you and I were people he respected for our intelligence.

Which sounds suspiciously like his bi-polar argument above.

Cowperson

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Lanny........I read most of the stuff you write on here, and it is almost always enjoyable to read. You're passionate about what you write about, and I find myself agreeing with your point of view quite often.

Personal attacks on other posters (especially well-respected posters) make the rest of your post look invalid and useless.

Too bad.........it's just so needless and uncalled for.

[Bingo]

Lanny ... enough of the personal attacks. Just read how this string started and ended and I think you'll see where you took it.

You know I hate banning or policing people, but if you can't follow two simple rules (which you never have) ...

1. No cursing
2. No personal attacks

You honestly give me no choice.

Just clean it up.

[Bingo]

I'm actually reading that Goldberg book ... good read, very thought provoking. What I like about it, at least on the surface, is that he's a lifetime democrat and a liberal thinker in almost every category, so it's not a far right smear job on the elite media.

He was disappointed in a story, didn't get satisfaction from his CBS peers when he wanted to discuss it, wrote a op-ed in the WSJ and then was basically let go.

With the recent CBS pratfall, he comes across looking pretty much correct.

He plays down the anti-Conservative conspiracy theory by suggesting it's not intended. It's just that most of these outfits hire people that think the same way to the point where they don't get a balanced opinion on anythin in their news rooms. A room full of left leaning people think they are mainstream and anything right of them is the luny right, for example.

Good read.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Venturing back to the issue of Crossfire, and the broader issue of debates in general.

I like Crossfire, but really it is more like entertainment than news. Stewart has a point, lots of these shows and even official debates do the process of politics no justice at all and actually make things worse. Debate's like Crossfire, the Presidential Debates, Parliamentary Debates in Canada, among others, go something like this:

Person 1: Allegation/question
Person 2: Avoiding allegation/question. Counter allegation/question.
Person 1: Avoiding allegation/question. Counter allegation/question.
Person 2: Avoiding allegation/question. Counter allegation/question...

'Facts' may be cited. Upon further inspection, most of these facts prove to be false or misleading. I hate how now on CNN after every presodential debate they have bring out that senior political analyst guy to tell everyone how wrong both candiates 'facts' were. Nothing is ever really proven to be true, it's just a bunch of B.S. However, because people are so divided along party lines nowadays, their candidates 'facts' are taken as sweet, enlighting truth and the oppossing candidates 'facts' are false, pretentious garbage no matter what.

Every time I read the paper nowadays or watch the news I always wonder if what they are showing doesn't have some sort of a slant to it and it's effecting what they broadcast...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I must make a public apology to Cowperson. He did not deserve the cheapshot that I leveled at him. I hope that he will understand it was out of frustration and that I did not mean anything by it. Sorry Cow.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Oct 18 2004, 05:53 PM
I hate how now on CNN after every presodential debate they have bring out that senior political analyst guy to tell everyone how wrong both candiates 'facts' were. Nothing is ever really proven to be true, it's just a bunch of B.S.

Venturing away from Crossfire...

You hate that part? I think it's one of the best parts of their coverage. It's non-partisan at least. The problem with it is that after it's all over, nobody ever brings it up again. They are caught with an outright lie or obvious misrepresentation of the facts and nobody "holds their feet to the fire" on it. That bugs me -- it's like lieing and BSing are just part of the game.

But I guess I did see some coverage today about George saying "I don't worry about Osama..." so they are still grilling him on that. That was really bad, BTW -- even I remembered he said it. He should have danced a little quicker on that one.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 18 2004, 06:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 18 2004, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Oct 18 2004, 05:53 PM
I hate how now on CNN after every presodential debate they have bring out that senior political analyst guy to tell everyone how wrong both candiates 'facts' were. Nothing is ever really proven to be true, it's just a bunch of B.S.

Venturing away from Crossfire...

You hate that part? I think it's one of the best parts of their coverage. It's non-partisan at least. The problem with it is that after it's all over, nobody ever brings it up again. They are caught with an outright lie or obvious misrepresentation of the facts and nobody "holds their feet to the fire" on it. That bugs me -- it's like lieing and BSing are just part of the game. [/b][/quote]
Okay, I should of worded that a bit differently. I like that part the best out of the debates, I just hate the fact that it has to be done. If these 'facts' that are stated actually had some truth to them, we wouldn't need people to come on afterwards and clarify everything for us.

And yeah, people seem to have come to expect this kind of stuff in politics today which bothers me too...

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 18 2004, 06:47 PM
Lanny ... enough of the personal attacks. Just read how this string started and ended and I think you'll see where you took it.

You know I hate banning or policing people, but if you can't follow two simple rules (which you never have) ...

1. No cursing
2. No personal attacks

You honestly give me no choice.

Just clean it up.

so what exactly constitutes a personal attack? flat out examples as done by lanny, or more snide ones offered up by cow and tranny that pretty much imply the same thing, but are wrapped up in a nicer package?

Im not doing this to backup lanny ( for I enjoy all three's contributions very much, and lie somewhere in the middle of them all ) but where exactly is the line drawn? Any half-intelligent person can draw conclusions when the "nicer" insults are thrown out, so shouldnt they be subjected to the same rules? or is it ok when you side with the beliefs of the message board owner?

just wondering....

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 19 2004, 12:11 AM
I must make a public apology to Cowperson. He did not deserve the cheapshot that I leveled at him. I hope that he will understand it was out of frustration and that I did not mean anything by it. Sorry Cow.

I too know the pain of frustration . . . . .



No apology necessary. I can give as good as I get.

or is it ok when you side with the beliefs of the message board owner?
If you look at it, isn't Bingo saying something in the same spirit as Lanny . . . . except from the view of the right wing? Bingo and I have argued the same topic via private e-mail.

Cowperson

[Superfraggle]

Originally posted by Table 5+Oct 18 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Oct 18 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Oct 18 2004, 06:47 PM
Lanny ... enough of the personal attacks. Just read how this string started and ended and I think you'll see where you took it.

You know I hate banning or policing people, but if you can't follow two simple rules (which you never have) ...

1. No cursing
2. No personal attacks

You honestly give me no choice.

Just clean it up.

so what exactly constitutes a personal attack? flat out examples as done by lanny, or more snide ones offered up by cow and tranny that pretty much imply the same thing, but are wrapped up in a nicer package?

Im not doing this to backup lanny ( for I enjoy all three's contributions very much, and lie somewhere in the middle of them all ) but where exactly is the line drawn? Any half-intelligent person can draw conclusions when the "nicer" insults are thrown out, so shouldnt they be subjected to the same rules? or is it ok when you side with the beliefs of the message board owner?

just wondering.... [/b][/quote]
My personal way of thinking is that, at least in this thread, the difference is that Lanny threw out an unprovoked nasty assault and the other two were putting up a defense. That may not have been the best way to do it, but I don't think it's quite on the scale of the first. As you say, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think that, had they continued with their own assaults, they should also have faced consequences. Fortunately, tempers appear to have been defused rapidly and reasonably effectively and we can hopefully put it all behind us.

[Bingo]

Lanny ... thanks for stepping up, I appreciate it.

Table ... I hear you ... it's tough to find that line. I don't mind someone being "p*ssy" in a heated debate, I think that's par for the course. But cursing and direct insults are just way over the top.

I think it's too hard to argue about things that matter to you without getting a little bent on the edges, I don't want to suck the emotion out of things.

[troutman]

http://www.canoe.ca/Television/oct18_crossfire-ap.html

"I thought that he looked ridiculous," Carlson said in an interview Monday, "and I think the tape makes that clear."

Carlson said Stewart continued lecturing the "Crossfire" crew after the show went off the air. "I wasn't offended as much as I was unimpressed," he said

Stewart wasn't talking about the confrontation on Monday, a spokesman said.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I still contend that Carlson looked like a weenie, and I think the audience agreed whole heartedly. Carlson refused to acknowledge the point that Stewart was making and that made him small IMO. Carlson then attempted to insult the intelligence of Stewart and it went down hill from there when Stewart did something that people on Crossfire just don't do, and that's stand up for themselves.

What's funny is that on Carlson's own show on CNN this past weekend, he had a woman on who refused to put up with his shizzle and belittled him as well. Carlson just manages to bring out the "best" in people lately. I think people are tiring of his act. I also suspect that Tucker Carlson was the kind in school who ratted everyone out for goofing off when the teacher returned. You can't help but love when his own people hammer him for being a goof.

[FlamesAddiction]

The audience was definitely loving Stewart's points.

Personally, I think they both kind of looked bad. I agree with Stewart's ascertations whole heartedly, but I think he did come off a little bit as a jerk - unless there is a history between them that I don't know about.

I thought Tucker handled himself well considering that I don't think he counted on having such a hostile guest. He seemed pretty professional and wouldn't be dragged into anything by Stewart. Having said that, he made no valid points against Stewart IMO, and didn't answer any of his points.

[Cowperson]

At the risk of starting a riot, here's Tucker Carlson on Jon Stewart in the gossip column in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post.

Pretty funny.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm

Cowperson

[troutman]

You can watch the clip here:

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=26...2&htv=12&htv=12

Daily Show anchor Jon Stewart browbeats CNN's Tucker Carlson over journalism ethics on Crossfire.

Jon Stewart Spins His Crossfire Appearance:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2653047

Comedy Central's self-described "funny monkey" rehashes the dressing down he gave Crossfire's stubborn hosts.