Are all republicans loud crybabies or just this guy?

They just love America more. It's hard to keep all that emotion held inside.

 

Take a gander at his recent book and realize that he really has nothing of pertinence to say - it's all partisan fluff. He's a somewhat-taken-seriously version of Coulter.

 

Dude sounds like he's about to pee his pants at any moment.

Stewart really b!tchslaps him around minute 10.

 

Gross dude.

 

He had some points in the pt.3 of the extended interview where Stewart defers Thiessen's question by claiming that he isn't a professional interrogator.

Thiessen's strongest point is that "enhanced interrogation" does achieve actionable results.

I don't like that he's conding enabling suspected fundamentalists' desire to be tortured in order to "fulfill their duty". Confirming terrorist propaganda points only serves as a greater recruiting tool in exchange for short term gains.

 

mayzar?

 

Ewww. You missed your era of heroin addicted white men with stringy bleached hair in the 1970's, I guess.

 

To answer the original question, it's all of them.

 

I know other people who have shared this disturbing attraction. Maybe you guys should form a support group?

 

What a d-bag. His idea of a dialogue is he talks and Stewarts listens. That's a monologue, not a dialogue. But if you listen carefully, he's not complaining that Stewart didn't "give him a word". He's complaining that he came on to "get his points out" on the air. The problem is, his reasoning was specious, and Stewart wasn't going to let him get away with it. He did as much talking, if not more, than Stewart. He just made the fatal mistake that so many make when they come on the Daily Show: they assume Stewart is just a goofy comedian, and are amazed and perturbed when he breaks down their arguments so effectively and easily.

 

Stewart knew he was guilty of bullying. He was chagrined that the guy had the moxy to point it out. If most of you didn't agree with Stewart, you'd be pillorying his lack of professionalism as a host.

 

perhaps, but what exactly was this guy expecting? as another poster put it, this guy was apparently looking for monologue as opposed to dialogue which immediately tells me his reasoning was specious at best. if your points are valid, be prepared to defend them and defend them well. it's not like he couldn't get a word in because thieseen said plenty. it looks like he was completely flabbergasted that stewart didn't just roll over and allow him to soapbox for 10 minutes.

 

Someone somewhere sometime somehow will measure who dominated the conversation. I'll bet Stewart had 70%; he kept interrupting the guy. Why have a guy on as a guest if you won't let him air his viewpoint? Stewart constantly interrupted him.

I just went back and listened and tried to tally up who was talking and for how much time and this is what I came up with:

Stewart: 350 seconds

Guest: 239 seconds

Even banter: 136 seconds

Longest runs (secs)

Stewart: 32, 47, 28, 21, 40, 31, 120 of apologizing at the end

Guest's were: 23, 39, 43, 50 and 27

Of course, Stewart was also constantly interrupting his guest like a good host should I guess!

 

JS is a clever guy, so when people go against him he usually will make you look bad, and be funny doing it. Most Republicans I meet are either really old white people or crazy rednecks who **** chickens and go to Klan meetings.
To harsh???

 

Steward is merely being pragmatic... Did I mention Hitler was pragmatic?

 

Hitler was a politician who won election before becoming a beast. The pragmatism you referenced refers to his political dealings not his humane considerations. Quit twisting things around.

On the other hand, Stewart is a very funny, smart comedian and sometimes a frumpy host. It's not very pragmatic to treat your guests like that or you'll have people reluctant to come on the air with you: ~"We'll put this online and let people judge my steamrolling..." -- Jon Stewart