• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jon Stewart Retires

Hatuey said:
... Lol. You've never seen his show have you? The Daily Show is a half hour, and about 15 minutes are dedicated to discussing politics. The other 9 are dedicated to his guests. So he doesn't really "pick" what to talk about, he just has 1-2 subjects he discusses and that time is split between him and corresponders. So he, in his monologues, talks politics for maybe 8 minutes during the entire show. As for not going after Democrats...

Jon Stewart Rips Obama For Appointing Campaign Bundlers to Ambassadorships | Video | RealClearPolitics
Jon Stewart Rips Obama & NSA: "If You Like Your NSA Spy, You Can Keep Your NSA Spy" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Jon Stewart Rips Obama For Prosecuting Whistleblowers And Not Bankers | RealClearPolitics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5QXeukCz94
"Daily Show" Rips Obama For Not Living Up To Promises | RealClearPolitics
Jon Stewart Rips State Of The Union: "Who's Running This Sh*thole?" | RealClearPolitics
Jon Stewart Rips Obama, Republicans For Scandals, Not Getting Anything Done | RealClearPolitics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgil5gKBwWE
Click to expand...

When I say a half an hour, I'm talking about back to back shows. So I've seen all those videos from mediaite. But yes he does choose what he's going to talk about, just like O'Reilly does on his show or Hannity on his show and so on and so forth.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Oh please, I've seen plenty of Democrats do stupid stuff to never be brought up on the Daily Show. Stewart's got an hour if I recall, so you have to pick and choose what you're going to talk about. It's the same thing for every other news show on TV, there's just not enough time to cover everything.
Click to expand...

Actually, The Daily Show is neither an hour nor a news show. It's half an hour, the last ten minutes or so being taken up by interviewing someone who just wrote a book or put on a TV show. There's not much time for political humor, so he has to pick and choose.

Unfortunately, lots of people do seem to get their news from it.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
When I say a half an hour, I'm talking about back to back shows. So I've seen all those videos from mediaite. But yes he does choose what he's going to talk about, just like O'Reilly does on his show or Hannity on his show and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

The difference is that O'Reilly and Hannity aren't on Comedy Central. Perhaps they should be.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Actually, The Daily Show is neither an hour nor a news show. It's half an hour, the last ten minutes or so being taken up by interviewing someone who just wrote a book or put on a TV show. There's not much time for political humor, so he has to pick and choose.

Unfortunately, lots of people do seem to get their news from it.
Click to expand...

Back to back. That's how I've seen the shows when I watched the whole thing. That was where the hour came from.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
When I say a half an hour, I'm talking about back to back shows.
Click to expand...

Back... to back... shows? What are you talking about? The Daily Show's production run is one episode... per day. Have you ever watched the show? They literally tell you what day the show is produced for at the beginning.
 
Hatuey said:
Back... to back... shows? What are you talking about? The Daily Show's production run is one episode... per day. Have you ever watched the show? They literally tell you what day the show is produced for at the beginning.
Click to expand...

It must be hard to concentrate while running round and round on that little wheel.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It must be hard to concentrate while running round and round on that little wheel.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what he's talking about. First the Daily Show is an hour long, then he says they're back to back shows. That means they're most likely reruns. I've never even seen 2 Daily Show episodes produced for the same day.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Maybe it did.

I wonder if anyone will be able to fill the vacuum? Maybe John Oliver?
Click to expand...

I thought oliver did rather well, perhaps just as good as Stewart. I'm not sure everyone would agree with me though.
 
Hatuey said:
I honestly don't know what he's talking about. First the Daily Show is an hour long, then he says they're back to back shows. That means they're most likely reruns. I've never even seen 2 Daily Show episodes produced for the same day.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Back... to back... shows? What are you talking about? The Daily Show's production run is one episode... per day. Have you ever watched the show? They literally tell you what day the show is produced for at the beginning.
Click to expand...

I know what I've seen, it's been super late at night. They weren't of the day if that clears it up for you.
 
Methinks the right wing talk radio hacks doth protest too much.
 
Helix said:
i agree that the two party system is ****, and i think it might actually ruin the country in the long term. i don't agree with you that a bare bones sink or swim system is the ideal solution, though. i would fix the country by getting out of the war business completely, ensuring that everyone has debt free access to college, hiring people to work instead of paying them not to, and making sure no one goes broke just because they or one of their family members got sick. these are things other first world countries are doing or have already done, and it's time for us to do the same.
Click to expand...

Such plans onky wrk as long as someone else can pay for it...
 
Helix said:
i agree that the two party system is ****, and i think it might actually ruin the country in the long term. i don't agree with you that a bare bones sink or swim system is the ideal solution, though. i would fix the country by getting out of the war business completely, ensuring that everyone has debt free access to college, hiring people to work instead of paying them not to, and making sure no one goes broke just because they or one of their family members got sick. these are things other first world countries are doing or have already done, and it's time for us to do the same.
Click to expand...

Im not referring to a bare bones system, but rather a 50 state system. It can be bare bones in MY state and full on socialist in your state. Rather than a one nation system where your states forces my state to be like your state because you have more congressmen.
 
Hatuey said:
I honestly don't know what he's talking about. First the Daily Show is an hour long, then he says they're back to back shows. That means they're most likely reruns. I've never even seen 2 Daily Show episodes produced for the same day.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion here. I haven't watched either show for quite some time now, but I do know that both Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are halfhour programs that play one after the other (back to back) late-night and reruns the following day. At one time Stephen Colbert followed the Daily Show, but now I think its been reversed.
 
pbrauer said:
There seems to be some confusion here. I haven't watched either show for quite some time now, but I do know that both Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are halfhour programs that play one after the other (back to back) late-night and reruns the following day. At one time Stephen Colbert followed the Daily Show, but now I think its been reversed.
Click to expand...

The Colbert Report isn't on anymore.
 
jonny5 said:
Im not referring to a bare bones system, but rather a 50 state system. It can be bare bones in MY state and full on socialist in your state. Rather than a one nation system where your states forces my state to be like your state because you have more congressmen.
Click to expand...

so how will the bare bones states be handling issues like poverty? right now, some of the states most likely to do that are fairly dependent on federal tax dollars.

Which States Depend The Most On The US Federal Government?
 
I think Jon Stewart should take over for Brian Williams.
 
MrVicchio said:
Your point being?
Click to expand...

my point is that people with more education draw less public assistance. an initial investment has the potential to save money in the long term, and the benefits wouldn't just be financial. we would all benefit from an educated society.
 
Helix said:
my point is that people with more education draw less public assistance. an initial investment has the potential to save money in the long term, and the benefits wouldn't just be financial. we would all benefit from an educated society.
Click to expand...

We would benefit more if our jobs weren't going to immigrants. We'd benefit more if public schools weren't a waste of money on the whole. We'd benefit more from a society that embraced personal responsibility.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If that's true, then it just proves that old adage that you never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

What has Limbaugh said that's as quotable as any of these?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that I am sure Stewart has said funnier things than are in that sad list. How many did he actually write, though?
 
MrVicchio said:
We would benefit more if our jobs weren't going to immigrants. We'd benefit more if public schools weren't a waste of money on the whole. We'd benefit more from a society that embraced personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

those are some nice blanket statements, but each of those issues is fairly nuanced and complex. we'd definitely benefit if we had more highly educated and trained people working instead of drawing public assistance. the college paywall is a huge disincentive. if we had a need based program that ensured debt free access and required completion of the degree, that's something specific we could do which would probably be beneficial to a lot of people and to society.
 
Helix said:
so how will the bare bones states be handling issues like poverty? right now, some of the states most likely to do that are fairly dependent on federal tax dollars.

Which States Depend The Most On The US Federal Government?
Click to expand...

The problem with that study is that they count gross Federal money into the state and only count federal income taxes coming out of the state. What they don't count is corporate taxes and gas taxes and an whole host of other business related tax dollars coming out of a given state and going to Federal coffers.

They also give no rational explanation for why they weighted the 3 criteria the way they did. What value, for instance, is using only half of the Federal Employees/state metric? Why include it at all really? If those individuals are already being counted as part of the gross federal dollars entering the state then why count the federal employee impact twice?

Federal funds/State Revenue is a rather odd statistic as well, and they seem to know it is strange given that they list it as "possibly" resulting in a supplement for what the state should be collecting in taxes. If they aren't sure what the stat is actually saying then why include it in what is supposed to be an objective analysis?
 
Helix said:
so how will the bare bones states be handling issues like poverty? right now, some of the states most likely to do that are fairly dependent on federal tax dollars.

Which States Depend The Most On The US Federal Government?
Click to expand...

The problem with that study is that they count gross Federal money into the state and only count federal income taxes coming out of the state. What they don't count is corporate taxes and gas taxes and an whole host of other business related tax dollars coming out of a given state and going to Federal coffers.

They also give no rational explanation for why they weighted the 3 criteria the way they did. What value, for instance, is using only half of the Federal Employees/state metric? Why include it at all really? If those individuals are already being counted as part of the gross federal dollars entering the state then why count the federal employee impact twice?

Federal funds/State Revenue is a rather odd statistic as well, and they seem to know it is strange given that they list it as "possibly" resulting in a supplement for what the state should be collecting in taxes. If they aren't sure what the stat is actually saying then why include it in what is supposed to be an objective analysis?

Don't bother responding if you plan on using a version of "trust them they are scientists!"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom