Stewart v. O'Reilly, live streaming debate Oct. 6th

Padawanbater2 · Sep 18, 2012

In his “Talking Points Memo” tonight, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly announced he‘ll be pairing up with Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart for a 90-minute debate. It will stream online on Oct. 6.

O’Reilly said the debate will center on three topics: the national debt, American relations in Muslim countries and gas prices.

“I feel so strongly about this that I’m teaming up with my pal Jon Stewart to do a 90-minute debate on those and other vital issues,” O’Reilly said.

He said they were calling it “The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium” and it will be formatted like a presidential debate, “without all the phoniness and pomposity.” Furthermore, O’Reilly said there will be a Q&A with the live audience and those streaming online can submit questions.

The tickets are available for pre-order at TheRumble2012.com for $4.95. O’Reilly said fifty-percent of the profits “if there are any” will go to “a bunch of very worthy charities.”

The New York Post‘s Cindy Adams wrote this morning and said CNN anchor E.D. Hill will moderate.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/09/17/bill-oreilly-jon-stewart-debate/

This is going to be fucking awesome! Tune the fuck in and watch!

Canna Sylvan · Sep 18, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
In his “Talking Points Memo” tonight, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly announced he‘ll be pairing up with Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart for a 90-minute debate. It will stream online on Oct. 6.

O’Reilly said the debate will center on three topics: the national debt, American relations in Muslim countries and gas prices.

“I feel so strongly about this that I’m teaming up with my pal Jon Stewart to do a 90-minute debate on those and other vital issues,” O’Reilly said.

He said they were calling it “The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium” and it will be formatted like a presidential debate, “without all the phoniness and pomposity.” Furthermore, O’Reilly said there will be a Q&A with the live audience and those streaming online can submit questions.

The tickets are available for pre-order at TheRumble2012.com for $4.95. O’Reilly said fifty-percent of the profits “if there are any” will go to “a bunch of very worthy charities.”

The New York Post‘s Cindy Adams wrote this morning and said CNN anchor E.D. Hill will moderate.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/09/17/bill-oreilly-jon-stewart-debate/

This is going to be fucking awesome! Tune the fuck in and watch!

Really? I thought the the next Special Olympics is going to be held from January 29 to February 5, 2013?

canndo · Sep 18, 2012

O'Rielly is trying to bask in the sunlight of Sterwart's "drug addled" audience, and in Stewart's intelligence and handy grasp of facts. If Stewart really wanted to make a difference he would run for office instead of hiding behind his humor.

Padawanbater2 · Sep 18, 2012

canndo said:
O'Rielly is trying to bask in the sunlight of Sterwart's "drug addled" audience, and in Stewart's intelligence and handy grasp of facts. If Stewart really wanted to make a difference he would run for office instead of hiding behind his humor.

Jon Stewart is way too smart to run for public office

canndo · Sep 18, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
Jon Stewart is way too smart to run for public office

Leads me to canndo argument #22

So long as we believe government can't work, government won't work. So long as we paint government as corrupt and inable to accomplish anything to protect individuals and society then the people who are attacted to government office will be those who wish to game the system or the ones who are inept to begin with. Why should Stewart get into public office? He has no hidden agenda. If we begin to see government as an institution that with the help of good men and women will actually improve our lives and the situation we as a nation find ourselves in, then good people will join in.

Rob Roy · Sep 18, 2012

canndo said:
Leads me to canndo argument #22

So long as we believe government can't work, government won't work. So long as we paint government as corrupt and inable to accomplish anything to protect individuals and society then the people who are attacted to government office will be those who wish to game the system or the ones who are inept to begin with. Why should Stewart get into public office? He has no hidden agenda. If we begin to see government as an institution that with the help of good men and women will actually improve our lives and the situation we as a nation find ourselves in, then good people will join in.

As long as government tends to steal natural rights rather than protect them, it won't work. Since the business model of government is to presume authority over everything and everybody even those who peacefully want to be left alone...it won't work.

The way that government "works" is you don't "join in", you automatically fall into their dominion, whether you consent or not. The idea that voting presents any real choice is not reality. The option of being left alone is never presented is it?

canndo · Sep 18, 2012

Rob Roy said:
As long as government tends to steal natural rights rather than protect them, it won't work. Since the business model of government is to presume authority over everything and everybody even those who peacefully want to be left alone...it won't work.

The way that government "works" is you don't "join in", you automatically fall into their dominion, whether you consent or not. The idea that voting presents any real choice is not reality. The option of being left alone is never presented is it?

Yet again Rob with this appraisal of government as intentionaly wishing (as though it were some monolithic, entity separate from those it governs) to control everything and in particular, wishing to insinuate itself in every aspect of one's life. While I can see how you might imagine that, you have yet to explain to me how government that does not mandate how anyone is to live in any way, could work.

Government has the responsability to keep the playing field level, it is to support those who are unable to fend for themselves and keep those who would take advantage of others from being able to do so.

When government is seen as both able and willing to improve the lives of those that it governs, when it is perceived as "working", then it will attract those most interested in seeing it "work" and when it does that, it really will "work".

There is no such thing as being left alone in a country with 300 million people in it. Everything you do or refrain from doing affects everyone else - it is up to government to arbitrate and mitigate the effect you have.

Corso312 · Sep 18, 2012

O'reilly is not a dumb guy...he would get crushed if the topics were anything else..it will be a good debate if they do nor interupt each other..wish Bill Marh could get in on this and there were more topics.

Rob Roy · Sep 18, 2012

canndo said:
Yet again Rob with this appraisal of government as intentionaly wishing (as though it were some monolithic, entity separate from those it governs) to control everything and in particular, wishing to insinuate itself in every aspect of one's life. While I can see how you might imagine that, you have yet to explain to me how government that does not mandate how anyone is to live in any way, could work.

Government has the responsability to keep the playing field level, it is to support those who are unable to fend for themselves and keep those who would take advantage of others from being able to do so.

When government is seen as both able and willing to improve the lives of those that it governs, when it is perceived as "working", then it will attract those most interested in seeing it "work" and when it does that, it really will "work".

There is no such thing as being left alone in a country with 300 million people in it. Everything you do or refrain from doing affects everyone else - it is up to government to arbitrate and mitigate the effect you have.

If you understood the non-initiation of aggression principle the answer would be revealed. Generally speaking the government does not abide by this principle, they go against it.

Regarding your last statement, of course it should be possible to be left alone if we leave others alone. The number of people has nothing to do with it and does not grant moral authority for a body of persons to issues edicts or presume authority over peaceful people. Leaving arbitration up to a government monopoly has resulted in millions of deaths and millions of peaceful people in jail.

By getting the "right people" in government you seem to want to move the furniture around to improve the house, yet the very foundation is rotten.

canndo · Sep 18, 2012

Rob Roy said:
If you understood the non-initiation of aggression principle the answer would be revealed. Generally speaking the government does not abide by this principle, they go against it.

Regarding your last statement, of course it should be possible to be left alone if we leave others alone. The number of people has nothing to do with it and does not grant moral authority for a body of persons to issues edicts or presume authority over peaceful people. Leaving arbitration up to a government monopoly has resulted in millions of deaths and millions of peaceful people in jail.

By getting the "right people" in government you seem to want to move the furniture around to improve the house, yet the very foundation is rotten.

We have been going around this for some time now Rob. Non-initiation of agression presupposes that there is an entity that is strong enough to either prevent initiation or sanction the agressor. What entity would you have arbitrate such a thing? How would you codify agression so that its limits are commonly understood by all?

I differ, in a modern society it is not possible. I have a neighbor two doors down, he has a dog that bays constantly at night and in the early morning. The home owner is not leaving me alone although I have never met him. I am on the home owners board of directors and we have sanctioned him but he does not pay the fines. eventually, we will enlist the help of our local government to foreclose on his house and sell it for the fines. Now, not only is he not leaving me alone, I am not leaving him alone.

There is nothing rotten in a system that affords people not the "right to be left alone" so much as guarantees the boundaries between citizens and between citizens and their government. What you are doing is proving my point. So long as you believe that government is rotten, it will be treated as rotten. So long as it is treated that way it will not attract people who would make a difference but rather by people who seek to profit from the perceived rottenness.

RyanTheRhino · Sep 18, 2012

Stewart, comedian or not is still a much smarter individual. He has had interviews with bill in the past & with all the talking points ,response cards and home field advantage bill had he still always looked like the fool.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman · Sep 18, 2012

Corso312 said:
O'reilly is not a dumb guy...he would get crushed if the topics were anything else..it will be a good debate if they do nor interupt each other..wish Bill Marh could get in on this and there were more topics.

he didn;t know about tides, he ain't that bright pal. i'd get bill maher too and maybe Jesse ventura, he's always seemed paranoid and doing stuff on conspiracy theories but i don't blame him.

spandy · Sep 19, 2012

canndo said:
If Stewart really wanted to make a difference he would run for office instead of hiding behind his humor.

So what about you? I don't see a Canndo on the ballot in my state, whats the deal?

Padawanbater2 · Sep 19, 2012

canndo said:
Leads me to canndo argument #22

So long as we believe government can't work, government won't work. So long as we paint government as corrupt and inable to accomplish anything to protect individuals and society then the people who are attacted to government office will be those who wish to game the system or the ones who are inept to begin with. Why should Stewart get into public office? He has no hidden agenda. If we begin to see government as an institution that with the help of good men and women will actually improve our lives and the situation we as a nation find ourselves in, then good people will join in.

The problem isn't that good people don't run for public office, the problem is good people can't win. Why good people can't win is a question with a lot of different answers. Imo, those are the things that need to be changed for any kind of government to ever succeed.

canndo · Sep 19, 2012

spandy said:
So what about you? I don't see a Canndo on the ballot in my state, whats the deal?

FAR too much past. Did you imagine that if I were to run, all of the posts on this website wouldn't turn up on Drudge within hours of my declaration of intent to run?

canndo · Sep 19, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
The problem isn't that good people don't run for public office, the problem is good people can't win. Why good people can't win is a question with a lot of different answers. Imo, those are the things that need to be changed for any kind of government to ever succeed.

By all accounts, Obama is not a "good person". he spoke a mean game of turning government around. I truely believe that he is/was capable of doing so but he has not. Romney is not a "good person" either. So we have two candidates that are doing as I said, capitalizing on the fact that the majority of the public do not believe that government can work at all. The best person in the race was Ron Paul but he does not believe that government can work either.

Padawanbater2 · Sep 19, 2012

canndo said:
By all accounts, Obama is not a "good person". he spoke a mean game of turning government around. I truely believe that he is/was capable of doing so but he has not. Romney is not a "good person" either. So we have two candidates that are doing as I said, capitalizing on the fact that the majority of the public do not believe that government can work at all. The best person in the race was Ron Paul but he does not believe that government can work either.

In your opinion, when has government worked?

I believe it's naive to think that we only need good people to believe the system will work for it to work.

canndo · Sep 19, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
In your opinion, when has government worked?

I believe it's naive to think that we only need good people to believe the system will work for it to work.

In the first 100 years, during and immediately after WWII. That isn't quite what I said. In order for government to work it has to be perceived as being capable of working AND have good people working within it.

spandy · Sep 19, 2012

canndo said:
FAR too much past. Did you imagine that if I were to run, all of the posts on this website wouldn't turn up on Drudge within hours of my declaration of intent to run?

So are you saying you wouldn't win because no one would agree with what you've said in the past and you would be unable to bullshit the country because all your truths would be out for all to see?
Gee that's too bad. But hey, atleast you have a couple followers here, right?

Dr Kynes · Sep 19, 2012

spandy said:
So are you saying you wouldn't win because no one would agree with what you've said in the past and you would be unable to bullshit the country because all your truths would be out for all to see?
Gee that's too bad. But hey, atleast you have a couple followers here, right?

i couldnt get elected dogcatcher either.

politics has become a game od mud slinging, not ideas, just a stain or two on your past and you cant get anywhere, not even at the local level.

meanwhile once youre established, and supported by a party and it's apparatchiks you can drown bitches in your car, siphon off government contracts through your spouse's company, get caught up in an FBI sting taking bribes from phony arab oil magnates on camera and even conceal the details of your life from any investigation, including legitimate questions about your qualification to be president under the constitution, all while still failing upwards.

the only way a politician falls no matter how dirty he might be, is when he gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

Stewart v. O'Reilly, live streaming debate Oct. 6th

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads