God, Jon Stewart Is An Elitist Douchebag [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : God, Jon Stewart Is An Elitist Douchebag

frerottenextelway

11-11-2010, 07:32 PM

Man, at least Maher is an elitist douechebag with is a set of balls. What a disappointment from Stewart on Maddow. **** him.

snowspot66

11-11-2010, 07:56 PM

Can we stop with the elitist bull****. It's retarded.

frerottenextelway

11-11-2010, 08:06 PM

Can we stop with the elitist bull****. It's retarded.

You can do whatever the f_ck you want. I think it's the first time I've ever used it and I'll use it again if he acts like an elitist douchebag again.

spdirty

11-11-2010, 09:15 PM

No link, no story, no video clip? WTF did he do?

DivineBronco

11-11-2010, 09:22 PM

Raaaaaaaaaaaaage!!!

epicSocialism4tw

11-11-2010, 09:27 PM

Man, at least Maher is an elitist douechebag with is a set of balls. What a disappointment from Stewart on Maddow. **** him.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D421N6xlisg/0.jpg

Wha happened?

DivineBronco

11-11-2010, 09:53 PM

ok just watched the whole thing..........please come back and share you issues

Rigs11

11-11-2010, 10:29 PM

gotta love the elitist tag, it's the only way rightards can point to someone smarter than them...which happens alot.Hilarious!

spdirty

11-11-2010, 10:42 PM

gotta love the elitist tag, it's the only way rightards can point to someone smarter than them...which happens alot.Hilarious!

Oh so now all of a sudden frerottenextelway is a "rightard?" I remember many a time you backing his bull**** up.

Then again, I don't know, maybe a mighty dose of reality might have kicked him in the ass the last 2 years...

epicSocialism4tw

11-11-2010, 10:55 PM

gotta love the elitist tag, it's the only way rightards can point to someone smarter than them...which happens alot

I'm not sure how many mental backflips you had to reel off there to get yourself so dizzy that you made a completely unrelated topic into one about your perceived issues with conservatives, but I'll help you with your complaint.

I can only speak for myself and for the general feel that I get from my friends and associates who would identify themselves as conservatives in one way or another. The 'elitist' label when discussed in conservative circles does not in any way infer or allude to a greater intelligence, but in behavior.

'Elitist' is a person who believes that they deserve to rule over others because they see themselves as part of a higher social class. Modern day Dukes and Lords. The nearly humorous (if not for the pitiful nature of it all) thing about it is that people who claim themselves part of a social elite advocate taking things away from the more powerful: people who have made lives for themselves and their families. Its the whiny dichotomy.

Liberals who followed the academic propaganda like it was the tenets of a religion ran into reality when they left the sheltered box of academia. There you only have to do what you are told and you are more or less guaranteed success. Its easy to figure out what it takes to make A's. The Grad school application process is black and white. You check off requirements...GRE, GPA, service hours, experience, reccomendations, etc,...then you get the interview. You are coached to succeed in the interview. If you get all of those checks marked off, you get the position.

Except when you actually pop out of the sterile womb of that University and you have to make your way in the private sector.

Many liberals are disillusioned by the world when they meet it. There are many reasons why, but one plain reason is because they realize that their academic religion of indulgence-like check marks ended up being an empty excercise. Its similar to the way a man who becomes disillusioned by a religion reacts when he finds it unsatisfying. In the real world, you cant just check all the boxes and get what you want. You have to shuck and jive, be creative, and pull together your resources. While PhD's are writing theses, some people are using their minds to make their way in the US. Theyre pursuing their own happiness and refining the process.

Anywho, an elitist is someone who is at odds with the world. Someone who feels that they need to take things away from other people because they cant get it for themself.

Requiem

11-11-2010, 10:56 PM

Don't hate on John Stewart because he is Jewish and successful.

Requiem

11-11-2010, 10:59 PM

People who are pursuing academics and make their life of it are also using their minds to make their way in the States. Pursuing their own happiness and being creative all at the same time. Following their bliss. As if "Elitist" is a tag that can only be applied to liberals. How naive.

JJJ

11-11-2010, 11:06 PM

Don't hate on John Stewart because he is Jewish and successful.

Jesus, talk about shameless race baiting.

Requiem

11-11-2010, 11:15 PM

Jesus, talk about shameless race baiting.

It was sarcasm, but either way it wouldn't be race baiting.

"Jewish" isn't a race, moron.

Dr. Broncenstein

11-11-2010, 11:33 PM

You know who else thought "Jewish" was a racial definition?

Requiem

11-11-2010, 11:40 PM

You know who else thought "Jewish" was a racial definition?

Hitler and Dr. Mengele!

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 07:27 AM

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 07:29 AM

gotta love the elitist tag, it's the only way rightards can point to someone smarter than them...which happens alot.Hilarious!

That's amusing! :spit:

epicSocialism4tw

11-12-2010, 07:32 AM

There's the video.

In it you'll get to see Stewart claiming FOX isn't partisan, a defense of Bush's war crimes, some great equivalencies such as comparing Code Pink to those wanting to violently overthrow the U.S. Government, WMD's not in Iraq is just a belief, a defense of torture, and so much more. All delivered in a douchebag elistist way with the defense he's a just comedian and above it all.

Oh no...such a sad day for brainwashed liberal twenty-somethings. They may be a little less comfortable parroting the party line now that their hero has come out as more of a moderate than they want him to be.

Its just terrible that this guy would want to try to bring people together rather than further polarizing his viewers. Oh the horror.

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 07:43 AM

Oh no...such a sad day for brainwashed liberal twenty-somethings. They may be a little less comfortable parroting the party line now that their hero has come out as more of a moderate than they want him to be.

Its just terrible that this guy would want to try to bring people together rather than further polarizing his viewers. Oh the horror.

I didn't realize liberals had a party to parrot. Thank you for that bit of info.

epicSocialism4tw

11-12-2010, 07:48 AM

I didn't realize liberals had a party to parrot. Thank you for that bit of info.

Not very far off from now, the dems will move further to the right again.

What are you hyperliberals going to do then? Start killing people?

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 07:54 AM

Not very far off from now, the dems will move further to the right again.

What are you hyperliberals going to do then? Start killing people?

We believe in First Amendment remedies, not Second Amendment remedies.

epicSocialism4tw

11-12-2010, 08:09 AM

We believe in First Amendment remedies, not Second Amendment remedies.

The far left doesnt believe in any amendment remedies. They dont believe that the constitution is of any value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coming_Insurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 08:12 AM

The far left doesnt believe in any amendment remedies. They dont believe that the constitution is of any value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coming_Insurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

Yes, those big government liberals who want Anarchism. Brilliant!

Obushma

11-12-2010, 08:13 AM

Man, at least Maher is an elitist douechebag with is a set of balls. What a disappointment from Stewart on Maddow. **** him.

****, I could have told you this months ago, his brother didn't clue you in? Jon Stewart’s Older Brother, Larry Leibowitz, Is COO Of The NYSE

http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/jon-stewarts-older-brother-larry-leibowitz-is-coo-of-the-nyse/
November 4, 2010

Not as many people are aware of it as should be, but Jon Stewart’s older brother, Larry Leibowitz, is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

Mr. Leibowitz was appointed chief operating officer in the first quarter of 2010. In this capacity, he (Leibowitz) is responsible for all the operations management, global cash execution and global listings.

He previously served as group executive vice president and head of U.S. Execution and Global Technology from 2007 until 2009. He joined NYSE Euronext in 2007, having served as managing director and chief operating officer, Americas Equities, at UBS Investment Bank.

Prior to joining UBS in 2004, Mr. Leibowitz held the position of executive vice president, co-head of Schwab Capital Markets. He currently serves on the board of National Stock Exchange of India and has also served on many industry boards and committees, among them the Market Structure Committee of the former Securities Industry Association (now SIFMA).

As stated above, Leibowitz was also formerly managing director and chief operating officer at UBS, “the leading global wealth manager, a leading global investment banking and securities firm, and one of the largest global asset managers”, as they describe themselves. A rather influential man, indeed.

So Larry’s brother Jon calls the President of the United States, Barack Obama, “dude” on international televison when Jon catches Mr. Obama bull****ting his way through an interview (“In fairness, Larry Summers did a heck of a job…”).

There’s been some hubbub about this moment in various media, but the mainstream pundorks appear to be studiously avoiding the obvious: by calling Obama “dude”, Stewart showed his perception of his relationship to the President of the United States. And why wouldn’t the brother of one of the more influential people on Wall Street see himself as being as equal in influence, if not surpassing it, to the president?

A few days following the interview, Stewart drew more people to Washington, DC than Obama could ever hope to draw. Of course, Stewart has banking and media behind him. What’s Obama got?

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 08:50 AM

****, I could have told you this months ago, his brother didn't clue you in? Jon Stewart’s Older Brother, Larry Leibowitz, Is COO Of The NYSE

http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/jon-stewarts-older-brother-larry-leibowitz-is-coo-of-the-nyse/
November 4, 2010

I don't care who his family is.

Smiling Assassin27

11-12-2010, 10:09 AM

The Lone Bolt

11-12-2010, 11:27 AM

There's the video.

Thanks for posting it, I found it very informative and entertaining.

In it you'll get to see Stewart claiming FOX isn't partisan...

Misleading. He clearly states that Fox is ideologically biased. His point is that they will support any politician from any party that falls in line with their conservative ideology.

... a defense of Bush's war crimes...

False. Stewart doesn't defend any crimes. What he does is call out people who assume a priori that any and all decisions Bush made of debatable ethical, moral, or legal grounds were done with evil intent.

...some great equivalencies such as comparing Code Pink to those wanting to violently overthrow the U.S. Government...

I didn't get this part. He did make a point that screaming and disrupting is not constructive.

...WMD's not in Iraq is just a belief...

False. He does not dispute that ultimately no WMDs were discovered in Iraq. What he says is that he personally thinks that Bush believed Saddam had WMDs, and even when none were found Bush's believed that Saddam would rebuild his WMD programs and stockpile at the earliest opportunity, so was therefore still a threat.

...a defense of torture, and so much more...

False. Stewart does not defend torture. Once again his criticism is of those people that assume that bush authorized waterboarding with evil and sadistic intent. Stewart does not state that the decision itself was legal or moral or just.

All delivered in a douchebag elistist way with the defense he's a just comedian and above it all.

Actually, he really characterizes himself as "below" it all.

But your attack on Stewart brings into sharp relief that which he is arguing against -- the mindless vilification of those whose politics or thinking or decisions we disagree with. Personally I'm on Stewart's side.

barryr

11-12-2010, 11:47 AM

Hmm, so will liberals still think Stewart is cool and get their political talking points from him? Quite a dilemma.

Dukes

11-12-2010, 12:17 PM

Hmm, so will liberals still think Stewart is cool and get their political talking points from him? Quite a dilemma.

Fear not, Olberman is back.

barryr

11-12-2010, 01:16 PM

Fear not, Olberman is back.

I didn't think he would be gone for long. Just a token move by MSNBC.

frerottenextelway

11-12-2010, 02:08 PM

.
Thanks for posting it, I found it very informative and entertaining.

Anytime.

Misleading. He clearly states that Fox is ideologically biased. His point is that they will support any politician from any party that falls in line with their conservative ideology.

It's accurate. He said it. And his answer was nonsensical when it was pointed out FOX didn't criticize Bush when he did things that went against conservative ideology. The truth is FOX is both ideological and partisan.

False. Stewart doesn't defend any crimes. What he does is call out people who assume a priori that any and all decisions Bush made of debatable ethical, moral, or legal grounds were done with evil intent.

Paraphrasing because I don't feel like digging through for the exact quote, but this is basically what he said...

"George bush may 'technically' be a war criminal, but to me a war criminal is really someone like Pol Pot, not George Bush."

Which is kinda like saying "a rapist isn't a criminal, a criminal is Ted Bundy."

It's defending war crimes under Bush, unless you don't consider downplaying something a form of defending something.

I didn't get this part. He did make a point that screaming and disrupting is not constructive.

The reason this interview exists is because of Bill Maher's charge against Jon Stewart of using false equivalencies. Stewart explains that his intent was not to do equivalencies, then goes on to use equivalencies throughout the entire interview, some of which I found a bit disgusting (ie., 2nd Amendment remedy threats to anything the Left leadership has done).

False. He does not dispute that ultimately no WMDs were discovered in Iraq. What he says is that he personally thinks that Bush believed Saddam had WMDs, and even when none were found Bush's believed that Saddam would rebuild his WMD programs and stockpile at the earliest opportunity, so was therefore still a threat.

Paraphrased:

Maddow: Saddam didn't have WMD.

Stewart: That's a belief. That's your belief. I believe bush is a good guy, blah blah blah.

False. Stewart does not defend torture. Once again his criticism is of those people that assume that bush authorized waterboarding with evil and sadistic intent. Stewart does not state that the decision itself was legal or moral or just.

Parphrased:

"FDR did bad things and he wasn't a bad person. They wanted to save lives, so maybe it was okay, maybe not, blah blah"

Again, unless you disagree that downplaying something is a form of defending something, then it was a defense of use torture under Bush.

Actually, he really characterizes himself as "below" it all.

He characterizes as someone who should have the immunity idol to political criticism because he does comedy sometimes.

But your attack on Stewart brings into sharp relief that which he is arguing against -- the mindless vilification of those whose politics or thinking or decisions we disagree with. Personally I'm on Stewart's side.

According to Stewart I have a different platform than news so I can do this kinda sh_t and blah blah blah and there's a seperate standard and blah blah blah, blah blah blah. It was gutless, and since I guess we're choosing sides here, I'll stand on Maher's.

JJJ

11-12-2010, 02:15 PM

It was sarcasm, but either way it wouldn't be race baiting.

"Jewish" isn't a race, moron.

Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of people,[1] to behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful, to their personal or group interests. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include a collection of whatever aesthetic features define a race or ethnicity. Thus the use of any language or actions for the purpose of exploiting actual or perceived weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups in order to do them some sort of harm can be contained within the concept of "race baiting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting

Requiem

11-12-2010, 02:57 PM

JJJ

11-12-2010, 11:30 PM

That doesn't help you at all.

And Jews aren't a "race." Though, I fully expected you to be ignorant to this.

Might as well quit while you are behind.

Bringing up him Stewart being Jewish doesn't meet any of the criteria above.

Goodness.

What is it about the word ethnicity that you don't understand?

You need to go back to school because you are not as smart as you think you are.

The terms ethnicity and ethnic group are derived from the Greek word ethnos, normally translated as "nation." The terms refer currently to people thought to have common ancestry who share a distinctive culture.

The term "ethnic" and related forms from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century were used in English in the meaning of "pagan, heathen", as ethnikos was used as the LXX translation of Hebrew goyim "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

Drek

11-13-2010, 11:53 AM

Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. If you have not read it--regardless of political slant--you should. You will know what 'Elitism' looks like after reading it.

It comes down to how (and why) a person sees the nature of man, and what the ideolgoical (a.k.a. political) implication manifests itself in real world policies, movements, and values. The best thing about Sowell is that he researches the hell out of stuff to present his case, so those who put a premium on things like evidence will be pleased.

Thomas Sowell is an editorializing clown. Not too long ago he wrote a criticism of FDR's New Deal referring to it as "Keynesian" economic policy when there is nothing Keynesian about it. Until WWII broke out FDR had ran deficit neutral, which defies entire concept of what Keynes was arguing for. Pretty sad when an economist can't keep that fact straight (or more likely, didn't find it editorially convenient).

Requiem

11-13-2010, 12:00 PM

What is it about the word ethnicity that you don't understand?

I understand it perfectly, a cultural anthropologist should.

You need to go back to school because you are not as smart as you think you are.

Funny, an engineer trying to lecture me on the complexities of culture when no doubt, you thought the Jews were a race.

Apparently you don't understand sarcasm or take the Forums way too seriously. Probably both. First this and then the ND tidbit, along with running away from nation-building arguments and a complete bastardization of understanding economics. Boy you are on a roll. Guess it is kind of hard to be in touch with things at the "home front" when you aren't around enough to immerse yourself in them.

Pity.

JJJ

11-13-2010, 01:40 PM

I understand it perfectly, a cultural anthropologist should.

Funny, an engineer trying to lecture me on the complexities of culture when no doubt, you thought the Jews were a race.

Apparently you don't understand sarcasm or take the Forums way too seriously. Probably both. First this and then the ND tidbit, along with running away from nation-building arguments and a complete bastardization of understanding economics. Boy you are on a roll. Guess it is kind of hard to be in touch with things at the "home front" when you aren't around enough to immerse yourself in them.

Pity.

I have never said Jews were a race. These are your words.

You simply didn't understand what race baiting was and it is obvious you realize now with the information provided it would include ethnic groups and not your narrow definition of race. Your little got ya backfired. No big deal.