Jon Stewart hands Bill Bennett his own ass

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

There is literally no good reason to ban marriage between people of the same sex.  As we know, however, there’s an election coming up, and the Republicans once again feel the inexplicable need to pander to their Nazi wing, and so have resurrected the disgusting campaign to write bigotry into the goddamned Constitution.

Bill Bennett, professional shithead, had the misfortune to be interviewed on this subject by a pissed-off Jon Stewart.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Jon Stewart hands Bill Bennett his own ass

  1. Ananth

    Dude, did you watch the same interview as I did? I have seen John Stewart pissed off, and this wasn’t even close. He completely disagreed with Bennett, and his arguement was basically why be on the wrong side of history on this, and that fighting this was a waste of time.

  2. Steve

    I dunno, man. Usually, Stewart, even if he’s disagreeing, will give space to the interviewee, clear the air with a joke or two, and generally let the other person save face. This one ended with Stewart telling Bennett — no disrespect intended, of course — that he would be the back end of the show. He wasn’t interested at all in letting Bennett come off even halfway sympathetic.

  3. Ananth

    I just don’t think he was as antognistic of an interview as I have seen. Stewart was at no point rude nor did he cut off Bennett, and was pretty respectful towards the guy, as was Bennett. It’s not on par with say the recent O’Reilly vs Letterman.

    Also, you are wrong about their literally being no good reason to ban gay marriage. There is not good reason to not allow Civil Unions and call civil marriage the civil union between a man and woman. You should care about the actual legal rights presented, not the wording.

  4. Steve

    For reasons mysterious to me, WordPress won’t let me log in; I’m going to have to respond without the Gray Box of Authority.

    Anyway, reasonable people may differ about how they think Jon Stewart would act when he’s pissed about something.

    Your second paragraph befuddles me, specifically the part where you follow this:

    Also, you are wrong about their literally being no good reason to ban gay marriage. There is not good reason to not allow Civil Unions and call civil marriage the civil union between a man and woman.

    with this:

    You should care about the actual legal rights presented, not the wording.

    Did you just follow up a sentence wherin you break down the acceptable wording of an arrangement to give gay couples marriage rights with an admonishment to me that I shouldn’t care about wording? After I never actually mentioned or even referred to wording?

    Once again, I’m calling projection.

  5. Ananth

    Dude, I am not projecting shit. I could care less about it. I am not one worked up the wording on either side. But if the argument is truly about having the same rights as opposed to something else, I would think that you would make what concessions you had to in wording to achieve the benefits in law.

Comments are closed.