Comments

  1. JIm says

    The main difference in this debate is that Stewart is a clever, funny, intelligent and very quick guy who has the facts on his side and explains them brilliantly, and O’Reilly is basically a unfunny thug who is indeed the mayor of an alternate reality, who uses the existing facts to promote an extreme conservative agenda, ludicrously making hot buttons like Sandra Fluke and PBS as the cause for all society’s ills. O’Reilly ignores facts when they don’t suit him and Stewart wiped the floor with him.

  2. Dastius Krazitauc says

    “the men facing-off on almost every subject under the sun”

    Really? Did I miss the marriage equality segment? I skipped around a bit, but I just saw about four topics: Economy, Middle East, Health care, Social security.

  3. Alceste says

    @Jim. And Republican supporters will say the same thing but in O’Reilly’s favor.
    This debate is merely another proof of the fact that Justice Holmes and all other philosphers of the right to free speech are wrong: the market place of ideas does not, has never and will never work. There comes a point (rather quickly) were discussion is pointless and all attempts at convincing people in good faith is a waste of time and breath.
    The sad reality is that free speech has no capacity whatsoever to help society arrive at Truth.

  4. kdknyc says

    You’re a moocher if you hired a lobbyist to enact legislation giving you that tax break. As a self-employed person who can’t afford to hire lobbyists, I take what tax breaks I can, but I’ll never reduce my tax burden the way the people who hire lobbyists can.

    So a qualified yes–if he hired a lobbyist (as, say, Mitt has) then yes.

  5. anon says

    Both made a number of bad points. Stewart for the most part doesn’t know what he wants, he just knows what he doesn’t want and O’Reilly just goes off the cuff on anything without any consideration of the consequences.

  6. Wilberforce1 says

    It’s Stewart’s job as a ‘liberal’ pundit in commercial media to make weak arguments.
    He could have list 30 lies on the right; he listed 2. He could have asked if ORielly meant the redistribution that floods into the red states. Of course he didn’t. Instead, we hear about Sandra Fluke, a total non issue.
    The incompetence of the liberal elite makes my teeth ache.

Leave A Reply