Jump to content

Jon Stewart Last Night

Gene Frenkle

By Gene Frenkle
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

Joe Miner Veteran

Joe Miner

Posted
Posted

Anyone else notice that after Karl Rove the comparisons got more and more off track and out of context?

 

O'Reily - Can anyone say that Mrs. Spears prostitution of her children the past several years is at all the same as Palin has raised her daughter? So perhaps, just perhaps parenting decisions in 1 child's life have played a bigger role in the pregnancy than in the others? Or are the situations really the same as Stewart is leading you to believe?

 

The blonde chick and Dick Morris - saying that a candidate shouldn't use gender to hide from questions or to play the victim is the same as saying that the media shouldn't be asking sexist questions? In one instance, the candidate is using gender, and in the other, the media is using it. Is that really the same? Couldn't both actually be true? To the candidate: Don't use your gender to hide from questions. To the media: Don't attack a candidate with questions because of their gender

 

Palin - Palin saying that women should stand up and work harder instead of complaining when they are being picked on compared to Palin telling the media she's not running to be like by the media? Is that really the same? Did her comments from last night indicate that she no longer thought women should try harder when they felt they were being picked on? It didn't sound like it to me.

 

Outside of Rove, were these statements really hypocritical, or did Stewart use good editing and joke telling to make people miss the fact that it really wasn't an apples to apples comparison, and as such not really hypocrisy? In many of these cases, you would need more than the clips shown to tell if these people were really hypocritical or not.

 

Why does Morris think the media's questions to Palin are sexist and the ones to Hillary weren't? Can he (or anyone else) point out differences in the questions being asked in the interviews of Hillary and Palin that he was responding to at the time? I have no idea, but Stewart certainly didn't show the questions for us to form a real opinion. Stewart took responses from two different commentaries about 2 different lines of questioning, and called it all the same. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

Why does O'Reilly think that Mrs. Spears parenting has had a direct affect whereas Palin's hasn't? Can he point to legitimate differences? I would be able to, but maybe he can't and he's actually a hypocrite.

 

There's a difference between entertainment and the truth.

 

That goes for Stewart as much as O'Reily as much as Moore as much as Savage as much as etc... We should learn to discern the differences a little better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gene Frenkle Veteran

Gene Frenkle

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Anyone else notice that after Karl Rove the comparisons got more and more off track and out of context?

 

O'Reily - Can anyone say that Mrs. Spears prostitution of her children the past several years is at all the same as Palin has raised her daughter? So perhaps, just perhaps parenting decisions in 1 child's life have played a bigger role in the pregnancy than in the others? Or are the situations really the same as Stewart is leading you to believe?

 

The blonde chick and Dick Morris - saying that a candidate shouldn't use gender to hide from questions or to play the victim is the same as saying that the media shouldn't be asking sexist questions? In one instance, the candidate is using gender, and in the other, the media is using it. Is that really the same? Couldn't both actually be true? To the candidate: Don't use your gender to hide from questions. To the media: Don't attack a candidate with questions because of their gender

 

Palin - Palin saying that women should stand up and work harder instead of complaining when they are being picked on compared to Palin telling the media she's not running to be like by the media? Is that really the same? Did her comments from last night indicate that she no longer thought women should try harder when they felt they were being picked on? It didn't sound like it to me.

 

Outside of Rove, were these statements really hypocritical, or did Stewart use good editing and joke telling to make people miss the fact that it really wasn't an apples to apples comparison, and as such not really hypocrisy? In many of these cases, you would need more than the clips shown to tell if these people were really hypocritical or not.

 

Why does Morris think the media's questions to Palin are sexist and the ones to Hillary weren't? Can he (or anyone else) point out differences in the questions being asked in the interviews of Hillary and Palin that he was responding to at the time? I have no idea, but Stewart certainly didn't show the questions for us to form a real opinion. Stewart took responses from two different commentaries about 2 different lines of questioning, and called it all the same. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

Why does O'Reilly think that Mrs. Spears parenting has had a direct affect whereas Palin's hasn't? Can he point to legitimate differences? I would be able to, but maybe he can't and he's actually a hypocrite.

 

There's a difference between entertainment and the truth.

 

That goes for Stewart as much as O'Reily as much as Moore as much as Savage as much as etc... We should learn to discern the differences a little better.

Welcome to the No Spin Zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chilly All Pro

Chilly

Posted
Posted
O'Reily - Can anyone say that Mrs. Spears prostitution of her children the past several years is at all the same as Palin has raised her daughter? So perhaps, just perhaps parenting decisions in 1 child's life have played a bigger role in the pregnancy than in the others? Or are the situations really the same as Stewart is leading you to believe?

 

His point has nothing to do with parenting decisions. Papa Bear is arguing that Palin shouldn't be judged for her teenage daughter getting pregnant, and then the Daily Show juxtaposes that with a clip of Papa Bear judging someone for their teenage daughter getting pregnant. Should we not judge all pregnancies, or just Palin's cause she's the Republican VP?

 

The blonde chick and Dick Morris - saying that a candidate shouldn't use gender to hide from questions or to play the victim is the same as saying that the media shouldn't be asking sexist questions? In one instance, the candidate is using gender, and in the other, the media is using it. Is that really the same? Couldn't both actually be true? To the candidate: Don't use your gender to hide from questions. To the media: Don't attack a candidate with questions because of their gender

 

Morris is insinuating that people have a right to be offended by that line of questioning in one video, and then making fun of a candidate for being offended by that line of questioning in another video and instead should legitimize the questions and answer them.

 

Nancy says we don't want a candidate who plays the victim card, and then she herself plays the victim card for the candidate.

 

In both of these instances, they are double standards: We don't want the candidate doing something, but everyone else has a right to do it.

 

Palin - Palin saying that women should stand up and work harder instead of complaining when they are being picked on compared to Palin telling the media she's not running to be like by the media? Is that really the same? Did her comments from last night indicate that she no longer thought women should try harder when they felt they were being picked on? It didn't sound like it to me.

 

She said that women shouldn't complain about the extra microscope put on them, and yet her campaign's advisor (Pfotenhauer) was doing just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Miner Veteran

Joe Miner

Posted
Posted
His point has nothing to do with parenting decisions. Papa Bear is arguing that Palin shouldn't be judged for her teenage daughter getting pregnant, and then the Daily Show juxtaposes that with a clip of Papa Bear judging someone for their teenage daughter getting pregnant. Should we not judge all pregnancies, or just Palin's cause she's the Republican VP?

 

It seemed that it wasn't about judging pregnancies as much as it was Bill said it was the parents' fault in one instance and not in the other. But I'll also agree that Fox News, much like all other news channels, focuses on crap like Brittany Spears instead of anything substantial. So calling him out for that crap is fine by me.

 

Morris is insinuating that people have a right to be offended by that line of questioning in one video, and then making fun of a candidate for being offended by that line of questioning in another video and instead should legitimize the questions and answer them.

 

What was the line of questioning specifically? We don't know since it was out of context. If the line of questioning wasn't the same, then maybe it is justified to criticize one as being unfair, and not the other. Again, I don't know since the full segments weren't shown. I can imagine that they weren't really that similar since Hillary raised an ugly chick not a slutty one :thumbsup: <---joke

 

Nancy says we don't want a candidate who plays the victim card, and then she herself plays the victim card for the candidate.

 

In both of these instances, they are double standards: We don't want the candidate doing something, but everyone else has a right to do it.

 

Nancy playing the victim card isn't the same as the candidate playing it herself. Just because I don't necessarily want a whiny candidate doesn't mean that I can't stand up for her instead. That doesn't make Nancy a hypocrite. They aren't doing the same thing. One is whining about your own treatment, the other is defending someone else. Had Nancy playe the victim card for herself, it would be the same.

 

 

She said that women shouldn't complain about the extra microscope put on them, and yet her campaign's advisor (Pfotenhauer) was doing just that.

 

Two different people expressing 2 different ideas doesn't make either one a hypocrite. Again though, part of what Palin was saying was that instead of complaining women should work even harder to prove the critics wrong. A campaign advisor complaining doesn't negate that part of Palin's speech. Until we see Palin not working hard to silence critics questioning whether she can do the job as a woman, it's not really the same thing. Palin wasn't just saying don't complain, she was saying instead of complaining, work harder. Those can actually be 2 different points of view.

 

Again, this was a segment that ignored much of this, and instead went for the enertainment value in the surface appearance it could create. We have to look deeper at things in order to tell the difference between completely valid points and entertaining conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurker All Pro

Lurker

Posted
Posted
For anyone who missed it, the hypocrisy is absolutely hilarious, particularly Rove and O'Reilly.

The best piece of political reporting I've seen all week. Funny, and at the same time frustrating as hell, since so many people will likely never see the hipocracy of these shi*heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chilly All Pro

Chilly

Posted
Posted
It seemed that it wasn't about judging pregnancies as much as it was Bill said it was the parents' fault in one instance and not in the other. But I'll also agree that Fox News, much like all other news channels, focuses on crap like Brittany Spears instead of anything substantial. So calling him out for that crap is fine by me.

 

Sorry, but I disagree. In the first video, Papa Bear is clearly saying to not judge Palin based on her daughter's pregnancy, and in the second he is judging the parents based on their daughter's pregnancy.

 

Nancy playing the victim card isn't the same as the candidate playing it herself. Just because I don't necessarily want a whiny candidate doesn't mean that I can't stand up for her instead. That doesn't make Nancy a hypocrite. They aren't doing the same thing. One is whining about your own treatment, the other is defending someone else. Had Nancy playe the victim card for herself, it would be the same.

 

You worded it wrong. You should have said: Just because I don't necessarily want a whiny candidate doesn't mean that I can't whine as a surrogate for her instead.

 

And yes, that makes her a hypocrite.

 

 

Two different people expressing 2 different ideas doesn't make either one a hypocrite. Again though, part of what Palin was saying was that instead of complaining women should work even harder to prove the critics wrong. A campaign advisor complaining doesn't negate that part of Palin's speech. Until we see Palin not working hard to silence critics questioning whether she can do the job as a woman, it's not really the same thing. Palin wasn't just saying don't complain, she was saying instead of complaining, work harder. Those can actually be 2 different points of view.

 

Uh, a campaign advisor is acting as a representative for that person, so yeah, it does negate that part of her speech.

 

Again, this was a segment that ignored much of this, and instead went for the enertainment value in the surface appearance it could create. We have to look deeper at things in order to tell the difference between completely valid points and entertaining conjecture.

 

Then go pull the actual quotes and dig deeper, instead of arguing based on conjecture yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...