"I never thought going into this that somehow Stewart would come across as the more arrogant of the two, but he did. Overall I was pretty disappointed with the whole thing. If I had to chose I think o'reily came across a little better. "
O'Reilly came across better despite being shown to be completely wrong on everything they disagreed about? When one professes to know so much about a subject, but is laughably wrong and uses disingenuous logic...and then when the correction comes in a strident and ridiculing manner, it's not called arrogance, it's called being corrected and made a fool of since that's what is deserved. That's what Jon did, and that's what everybody should try to do with the bullshit that O'Reilly, and those who are like him peddle as truth. You might as well call scientists arrogant for having points that refute religious bs. Boo hoo. Get with reality already instead of being whiney about Jon not being respectful. O'Reilly deserves the opposite when he says stupid shit, as he did often.
And to those who say O'Reilly won on substance, you don't know what substance is. Jon knows the difference between debt and deficit and especially the fact that they function hand in hand. It can be easy to flip the words around in the heat of debate and Jon tried to correct himself but had no time to do so, but you conservatards run with whatever you want with zero context to the fumble. And Jon was funnier because of his substance. If he lacked substance, he wouldn't be funny. That's why so many watch his show, viewing politics through the lense of comedy reveals hard truths, much unlike the rest of the 'serious' and 'official' news that Bill pretends he's any part of.
The only credence I can give Bill is that he was less of an asshole than he usually is on his show and otherwise had some things he agreed with Jon about that were totally good to be concerned about. It's Bills constant behavior to provoke fears, draw fast conclusions, and other demagoguery, etc. otherwise that should award him the clown treatment.
I think there were good points on both sides, I do think that the deficit/debt blunder is huge. It undercuts some of Stewarts points. I also whole heartedly disagree with him on the health care issue. I think, he is right though, Americans have always had a sense of entitlement. I think that is why people like him think a single payer health care system is a good idea. He hasn't lived in say eastern Europe like myself once did, or even say Cuba (once touted by Michael Moore as having better health care than the US) where my free health care was great except that if you needed something you went in front of a commision and hope they approve you. It took forever, maybe potentially too long for some diseases. If you were lucky to be approved, and wanted to actually receive good care your family gave "grease" to doctors and nurses in the form of money, or other material things. Obviously that would greatly disadvantage the poor, because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO GIVE. So they will get less care, certainly far lesser quality care than the rich person who can slide the envelope of cash and give a wink to the doctors. And this wasn't an isolated incident, ask anyone whose lived in sociatist countries in the 80s and 90s, probably even now in Cuba, it was the way things were done. Everyone knew it, everyone did it, it was the elephant in the room. Unfortunately people on the left in this country, like John Stewart don't consider minor little details like this, or they think that it won't happen here. Really? Reducing payments to providers and a 15 member panel in ObamaCare? How long before we need the grease some hands to get to the front of the line, or to get the care we need? And what if we can't afford it? Think about it, there are unintended consequences to things.
Being fair if we lived On bs mountain we'd see stewart as mayor not oreilly. To be so clueless as to think under Clinton the nation debt was wiped out is crazy. If you take his B S that that's true then I can see why he'd think bush was the problem but bush only (use only very liberally) added 4.8 tril while even the great Dem Clinton added 2 trillion to it. Get a clue Stewart and maybe you perception would be more accurate.
Obviously Jon won. Just because not everything Bill said wasn't complete bullsh*t doesn't mean that Just starting statement wasn't proved that he is completely full of sh*t!
I liked the friendly moments though!
Jon won, but barely. Considering the poll, and that it's on the Internet, and that most of Bill's viewers could care less about a debate with Jon, the figure are what I expected. Both sides made good arguments. I like how Bill did not interrupt as much as he does on his show and how when he did Jon didn't back down. The real loser here is the moderator who failed at almost every attempt to control these two.
Seriously people? Stewart is quick with coming back with "counterpoints" but most of them are flat-out out of context. For that matter he would simply not answer many questions directly. The entitlements discussion for instance: there is a difference between PRIVATE benefits which exists within a company and a FEDERAL entitlement. People taking aid from the government for a LIMITED amount of time as a hand-up is fine. Anyone who claims there isn't a serious problem with a large amount of people clinging to government aid as a means to avoid contributing in are simply living in a fantasy world.
Jon's only stumble was where he didn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. He dominated O'Reilly in pretty much everything else, in both style and substance.
O'Reilly was dead right though when he said that part of the problem with the discourse in America is that hate sells. Fox News and MSNBC are both contributors to the problem.
I think Stewart was much funnier but Bill dominated on substance. I felt bad that Jon didn't know the difference between the debt and the deficit. It just highlighted how many of his opinions are based on emotion and not actual facts but Jon is a good man. If you go by substance, Bill won. If you go by who was funnier, Jon won. Both were very entertaining.
I think they both made good points. There are certain things that I disagreed with Jon and certain things things that I disagreed with Bill O'Reily. I didn't like the curse words but I did like most of the debate
I found the entire event very refreshing. It was funny, aggravating and very inspiring all in one. I think Bill's best moment came 1hr20min in when he was talking about hate. That said, Stewart shined with some beautiful comments that, I believe, may be looked at years from now by future generations.
I never thought going into this that somehow Stewart would come across as the more arrogant of the two, but he did. Overall I was pretty disappointed with the whole thing. If I had to chose I think o'reily came across a little better.
Jon Stewart, because what he proved on stage, on the internet; is how Bill and others petty fog and try to evade or make excuses for how they act and this whole "Bush is gone." thing...my god, I honestly never saw that coming.
E.D Hill's legs won the overall...but Stewart pretty much owned O'Reilly. I have to give Bill some credit though, he's a pretty funny guy and can come off as likeable at times.
E.D. Hill. Between a 63 and 49 year old man, i'll take the 50 year old milf a million times over.
Jon Stewart killed it. Bill had some good points but Jon shot most of them down beautifully. Jon is simply the better speaker of the two. If they had been arguing about which was more aerodynamic, a pink elephant or a green elephant, Jon would win. He's just better with words. He is better at making a point.
While Jon clearly won the debate, he did fumble some figures like the National Debt, as Bill correctly pointed out. (C'mon, Jon, they're on that inter-thing....)