Actually, both Steward and Colbert are the funniest comedians I currently know of. Of course, they are 'liberals' when making fun of Bush, but when making fun of Weinergate, foaming at the mouth radicals suddenly like him all over again. Same with Letterman. Same with any comedian.

Its like how radicals on the left think money is evil. Same dumb approach, even though it is an entirely different subject.

Too bad that's not all it does to you!

Stewart has a more impressive, astute group of guests than any Fox host.

Is that what makes Derek "puke"....or is he just lacking in a sense of humor?

I come close to puking when watching Jon Stewart when he tries eating Baconnaise.

Stewart and Colbert are geniuses.

Stewart/Colbert in 2012!

Fact - people who watch Jon Stewart have been found to be more well informed than fox news participants. Google it.

Those on the Right have a conspicuous lack of humor.

They are too worried about hoarding guns, making money, and repudiating actual Christian values.

No wonder they aren't creative.

YOU SUCK STEWART!!!

the rest of you feeling more creative now?

JustAnotherSillyLib: That was a brilliant example of sarcasm... well done!

JASL, that is not sarcasm?

This addresses what I have always maintained: right-wingers simply have no concept of irony, which makes much of Stewart's humor beyond their ken. Also makes hypocrisy difficult to recognize, much less acknowledge. (i.e. the Vitter problem) You want creative solutions, go to people who "get" irony -- "the mocking distance between what IS and what SHOULD BE."

Ornery: If you didn't see Rachel Maddow's bit on Vitter a couple nights ago, it's a must-see, and you're right: his story is the perfect example for ironic hypocrisy!

Syrinne

I come close to puking when watching Jon Stewart when he tries eating Baconnaise.

Mmmmmmm........Baconnaise.

I never really thought of it as an effective way of communication--just my preferred way! :)

The Cobert Report... that's true conservative Americana!

I assume you're being sarcastic. Either that, or you don't understand what sarcasm is.

videre quam esse

Wouldn't make fun of Weiner? Are you serious? Did you even watch the shows? Four days in a row!!! He always told you up front that they were friends but then Stewart ripped him like he does to any other hypocritical politician. Meanwhile, on that other fake news channel (F*X), they refuse to criticize ANYONE Ailes loves or has a business relationship with. They are the true hypocrites.

You clearly do not watch the shows at all. They have dedicated quite a bit of time to Mr Weiner. Literally, the last 7 of 7 shows. Tuesday he even sliced open his wrist during a bit making fun of weiner's pathetic apologetic speech.

Wow, that's brilliant that you were able to know what Stewart did or didn't do without watching his show... you must be, like, psychic!

(Sorry, I'm just trying to help you to develop your creativity.)

The nephew of the "Son of Sam" is able to absorb shows, make analytically correct judgments, and then spew super important opinions on something he knows nothing about through a new process called "Samosis".

Nephew - Honestly ignorant, or just too lazy to pay attention?

Dear Lisa, have you ever considered getting a shoe implant? I used to date a gal with the same condition. Her name was Eileen.

I see, because they are both Jews Weiner gets a break. Very observant of you Nephew Of Sam!

Hoestly folks,

You can't even watch Fox or CNN anymore without seeing Stewart or Colbert clips. Fox will then spend the next ten minutes ripping on the revealed truth from Stewart/Colbert. CNN will then spend ten minutes showing cute kitten clips. Turner would be steaming like hell if he hadn't already sold the network for a few odd billion.

Isn't it funny? I just love that the hate is spread equally among libs and conservatives. Especially lately with all the bits making fun of Obama, like last night and his "getting hit by a truck" analogy.

Humorless left wingers are annoying.

Humorless people are annoying.......

I know. I get a real kick out of conservative Colbert fans! They don't even know, that they are the butt of all his jokes!

That's the sheer genius of Colbert. ;)

What do you expect....they worship Palin....nuff said

Thanks to Syrinne for answering the questions! I would have gotten them eventually, but if I didn't, it would really have bothered me!!

Another thought: MSNBC should alter the link to this article so that it sends readers to a non-sarcastic version half the time, and then compare how the comment sections vary in terms of creative response!

I think it's better if you turn one on for a while...then turn it off and another on...then go into the room because if the room is dark (we don't know if it is or isn't) and you go in without any on then by the time you find the lights they may all be cool. Going in with one on, you should be able to quickly touch the other two and see which is warm.

And...I haven't heard any nasty or sarcastic complaints today.

What you say for the analytical question works. Here is why it works:

x - first employee

y = second employee

z = third employee

1) x + y + z = 750

2) x = 2y

3) x = z - 50

therefore by rearranging and substituting 2) & 3) into 1), we have

x + 0.5x + x +50 = 750

and...

x = 280

y = 280 /2 = 140

z = 280 + 50 = 330

Just shows how "green" i have become. It didn't occur to me that the lights would be incandescent.

I guess I'm the only person who wanted to go in there with a screwdriver and some wire to find out which circuit is on, which has a working positive and which has a working negative. I guess we'd all be screwed if we didn't bring a ladder?

Ha! Spoken like a true handyman, Bounty.

No, conservatives tend to dislike self-righteous hypocrites, that's the issue they have with Jon Stewart. His many fits of righteous indignation over partisan politics are laughable given his treatment of the Anthony Weiner episode. Suddenly the acerbic, mocking wit which serves as his stock in trade is nowhere to be found. Go figure.

And your attempt at intellectualizing the freakin' daily show is laughable. Every bit of it is as trite and predictable as the rest of the shows on TV. What you like is the humor, which is fine, but confusing that with complexity is sort of silly. You're obviously a youngster, the only demo still wowed by Stewart.

Of course, only liberals are self-serving, self-righteous a--holes. It all makes sense now. . . of course you should never trust a man named Billy-Ray, Billy-Bob, or Billy-Jim.

Billy - You need to pay more attention.

As I'm suuure you've read, Billy - from a comment smackdown a few posts above yours - Stewart has been repeatedly merciless against Weiner, who is not only very liberal, but a friend of his. Oh wait... since you didn't bother to watch any of the episodes of the past few days, each of which contained some slam on Weiner (ow!), you probably don't bother to watch or read anything you're talking about.

Most conservatives I'm met and seen in the media are self-righteous hypocrites in one way or another. If they dislike themselves so much, why don't they make some constructive changes in their lives?

no, what i like about the daily show BILLY RAY is how they show what republicans are currently saying to get votes or support and how it's the exact opposite of what they said before through unedited video clips. i also love how you say stewart didn't go after weiner hard enough. it's obvious you didn't watch the shows he did. i want weiner gone and stewart went after him just like any other politician.

No, conservatives tend to dislike self-righteous hypocrites,

Ah, so it's an issue of self-loathing....!

muteprophet8726: Are any of you imbeciles capable of crafting an argument without resorting to blatant logical fallacies? The comment about Stewart being a self-righteous hypocrite was fairly straightforward,. Your "oh, so only liberals are self-serving, etc." response is a perfect example of a straw man argument. If you don't see that, find someone intelligent and ask them to explain it to you.

And, whew, man is your "Billy-Ray, Billy-Bob, or Billy-Jim" put down clever. Always funny to see that sort of offensive, gutter gibberish coming from the left side of the aisle.

Syrinne: Just because someone on a message board says he was "merciless" against Weiner doesn't make it so. I've watched him this past week to see for myself how he'd handle it. And all he did was make fun of the name thing, and lampoon Weiner's stupid behavior. He never once went after him in his trademark style, not even close. Maybe you can provide a link to at least one segment that you'd characterize as merciless? I didn't see a single one. His demeanor was one of sadness and resignation over the fact that he had to give his freind a hard time, not the acerbic, biting, condescending derision with which he treats bad actors from the other side of the aisle.

All this is his prerogative, of course. But then don't hold yourself out as some sort of post-partisan occupier of the moral high ground. He's as much of a hack as the rest.

P.S. For those halfwits who can't respond without making some lame, offensive comment about my "BillyRay" handle, here's a little info for you. I chose that handle after one of the funniest movie characters of all time. It's not my real name, so stop embarrassing yourselves.

Conservatives tend to dislike self-righteous hypocrites? Does that make them self-hating?

(I did have the links for each of the episodes here, but the site removed them... I imagine you can figure out how to go to the Daily Show's website though.)

- May 31, first show after the story breaks. Stewart spends an entire segment (the middle one) on the story and the media's coverage of it, though at this point it's unknown whether the pic is actually of Weiner's. Stewart does however cast doubt on it being real, suggesting what's depicted seems too large for this member of congress, belittling his friend in the process.

- June 1, Stewart opens the show talking about it, and with incredulity highlights Weiner's odd lack of denial that the picture is of him.

- June 2, Stewart tries to begin the show with non-Weiner coverage, but it takes over the show anyway. He mocks Weiner for dismissing the scandal as a "distraction," for talking endlessly about the scandal after saying he was done talking about it, and becomes even more incredulous about Weiner's lack of a simple denial. Then he wrestles with whether he should continue on the story about his friend, and ends up bringing out "the full politician sex scandal soul singer blowout."

- June 6, Stewart is sure viewers want to hear about big, important, meaningful news stories but instead turns back to Weiner, who confessed to the scandal in a press conference minutes before the show started filming. Not much time to come up with the funny, but he spends a little while on it.

- June 7, Stewart opens the show with a hilarious ten-minute press conference parodying Weiner, in which he tearfully confesses to not spending enough time mocking Weiner in the previous show. It's brilliantly mocking as well as self-deprecating, managing to lacerate himself in the process. A short segment follows, focusing on men exposing themselves in general.

- June 8, Stewart spends some time at the beginning of the show mocking his own performance from the night before, and in the middle segment mocks Weiner's choice to call and apologize to Bill Clinton.

There's tons of stories that the Daily Show could cover, but they spent a large amount of time putting Weiner's face in it (so to speak). And I've just spent way too much time putting this together for someone who probably won't be satisfied by it anyway.

Billy....the one thing you are forgetting.....JS is not a politician nor is he a "news man"...you cant compare a politician or a "news man" (though Faux new is anything but) to a COMEDIAN!!!!!!! My god you people on the right are such dumb@sses.....

Syrinne: I saw many of these bits. May 31 - He didn't "belittle his friend" in any way. Give me break. It was the all-too-predictable, "hey, can't be my friend, way too big" play for cheap laughs. Outside of you, I'm guessing that not a single sole on the planet would characterize that as "belittling" in any way. Ridiculous.

June 1- Saw that too. What you call mocking was more playful, had not bite.

Actually, the same applies to every instance you cite. He referenced it in some fashion, because he had to, but he never attacked him. Your characterizations about belittling, mocking , etc. totally overstate the tenor of his pieces. If you aren't aware of his tendency to be mighty caustic, you clearly haven't seen much of his show.

Lastly, let me ask you this. As soon as this sordid affair came to light, Weiner met with supporters and assured them it was a "right-wing conspiracy" and he had his spokesmen spread the word the conservative hackers were to blame. This sort of repugnant lie, crafted to cover one's own ass...that seems to me to be the type of thing that Stewart loves to seize upon and use to "eviscerate", as you say, the perpetrator.

So here's my question. Has Stewart even once referenced (and mocked, belittled, whatever) these outrageous lies, or are they not worthy of his show? Weiner being an old friend and all...

Billyray- No Jon could have said F-off Weirner and you would say he should have said FU there is no pleasing you cuz you don't get the humor and you are not open enough to HEAR IT. Everything said about a righty is not funny to you, and you are not open enough to see that Jon spreads his sarcastic wit to all! Daily/Colbert FunnyA$$ shows!!!

My use of the word "belittle" was a pun.

My "sole" characterizes nothing, but I do stand on it.

"Mocking" is "totally" overstating? Mocking means to make fun of someone... it's not that brutal a word. I'm certainly aware of how caustic Stewart can get, and I've seen every Daily Show of the last few years. He tends to reserve his most biting comments for the biggest hypocrites and the worst behavior, neither of which applies to Weiner. Weiner did something creepy, but (at this point, so far as we know) broke no laws, didn't have sex with anyone outside his marriage, and he didn't campaign against this kind of behavior or other relevant moral/social issue.

If you want Stewart at his most biting, you'll need to be someone that runs on a family values platform, criticizes others caught in sex scandals telling them they should resign, then have a lurid scandal involving actual sex, lying about it, paying people off, giving your mistress and her husband government and lobbying jobs, and not resigning unless you're about to be fired, etc. (I'm using John Ensign here, but there's plenty of other good examples). Or campaign against gays and then get caught soliciting for gay sex in a men's room. Or disappear, telling your staff you're off hiking but have instead gone AWOL to Argentina on the taxpayers' dime to romance a woman other than your wife. Seeing as how comparatively weak Weiner's scandal is, the Daily Show has spent a disproportionately large amount of time talking about it.

I haven't heard Weiner call this a "right-wing conspiracy." Did he? He clearly tried to hide his slimy behavior, hoping he'd get away with it and that it would all just go away. He did suggest hackery, but at that point he may have sincerely wondered if he'd been hacked, because he'd never intended his picture to get to anyone but that one woman (my understanding is that he ended up doing a noob's dumb mis-send). I'm not convinced he was so blatantly lying as trying to squirm and hide, and Stewart did skewer him repeatedly on this, over the ridiculousness that he wouldn't deny it was his body part. Although, while Weiner was definitely a squirming little member of congress, he at least didn't lie and say that the picture wasn't of him.

Lastly, I'm not sure where I said "eviscerate." A response somewhere else in the section?

And Stewart holds himself "out as some sort of post-partisan occupier of the moral high ground?" Really? Wow.

billy ray- since saying that couldn't be his friend's weiner cause it's too big isn't an insult or belittling i guess you won't mind if i say you have a small penis?

Billy-ray, I'm pretty sure most guys would find being told that they have a small penis is rather hurtful.

However, you also miss the intent of the show: to be funny. Attacks on Wiener and his pictures would and could have been conducted, but they wouldn't have been funny. He poked more at Vitter and others because he was addressing the hypocrisy of their actions, not the validity of them. Wiener has never been on an ethics committee. He didn't base his platform on the increased persecution of a sex trade.

Other than bad judgement what has Wiener really done? As long as his wife is OK with his actions I say we address the lying and be done with this. I get more racy photos in Viagra ads. This is a non-issue.

Syrinne: This is a waste of time, but I'll put out one last response. Regarding the "blittling, mocking, etc.", I think you understand exactly what I'm saying. Every Weiner bit he's done has had this "I hate to do it buddy, but I gotta give you some grief" flavor to it.

For those in the peanut gallery commenting on his small penis allusion, to suggest that that was hurtful or whatever is absurd. It was an obvious joke, teed up for him by the situation, and only a complete fool would take it literally and view it as an attack on Weiner's penis size. It was about as hurtful as the infant HATR_HURTER's comment above regarding my package.

Weiner's lurid behavior and inexplicably poor judgement are all he's gone after, as I said last post; not once has he raised the issue of his "right-wing conspiracy" comments or other claims pointing the finger at conservatives for manufacturing the whole episode. And yes, he did make the right-wing conspiracy comment himself, at a fundraiser breakfast the morning the story broke. Shockingly, that little piece of info was reported a few times early on then dropped by the media. Go figure.

As for Weiner's behavior, sending out c_ck-shots to 21 year old strangers is a little less benign than most here seem to believe. It's pathetic behavoir, a manifestation of serious self-control problems. But be that as it may, what's most appalling is the manner in which he tried to cover up his actions. Remember, this clown has a well-earned reputation for being among the most self-righteous, strident pricks in congress. His penchant for calling his opponents liars and mocking their intelligence, mincing no words along the way, provides more than enough fodder for someone like Stewart to completely eviscerate (yes, my word not yours...) him. And yet all we got were glum, sorry-but-I-got-no-choice creampuffs, replete with loads of double entendres and the like, but with no real bite.

Missed this one earlier...

"And Stewart holds himself "out as some sort of post-partisan occupier of the moral high ground?" Really? Wow."

Yes, indeed. Several years back, Stewart went on a number of sanctimonious tirades bemoaning the rise of black/white, hyper-partisanship. In a very awkward, uncomfortable exchange with the hosts of Crossfire, he dressed them down for being partisan hacks and begged them to "please, please stop...you're destroying the country" (paraphrasing). Quite frankly, his overwrought antics notwithstanding, I couldn't agree more with the spirit of what he was saying. The problem I have is the memory of seeing that repugnant pig Michael Moore on Stewart's show not long thereafter (one of his many appearances). As in all of Moore's appearances, the two of them yucked it up good as Moore spread his class warfare poison, with Stewart just nodding along in agreement or deliberately teeing up diatribes with softball questions. Please reconcile that behavior with his "...you're destroying the country" lecture. And his own defense - "hey, we're a comedy show" - is ridiculous. The effects of coddling and providing a platform to ideologues are hardly diminished by the fact that, generally speaking, his show tries for laughs. Hence his hypocrisy.

Though for some reason, many here have narrowed the definition of hypocrisy so that it applies only with respect to 1) tawdry sex scandals, that involve 2) conservative, family values-preaching politicians. Pardon me for pointing out how silly and self-serving that is.

I would question that memory of yours. What Stewart was railing against was the overblown, sanctimonious, hyperbolizing of every utterance that sallied forth from the mouth of a political figure. And he upbraided MSNBC and other left-leaning media outlets as well as Fox and friends. Having a guest on doesn't mean get into an argument with them. But, to turn a metaphor, not every spilled cup of coffee is a billion dollar law suit. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

He was not dressing down the hosts of Crossfire for being partisan hacks. He was dressing them down for doing it badly. If you want to be Republican you can do that. If you want to be Democrat, you can do that too. But there's a difference between a peace march and "Freedom Fries". It's the false injection of partisanship that Stewart was bemoaning. If a little girl gets kidnapped in Texas it's a crime. NOT a Republican crime, just a crime.

To have Moore on as a guest is not against anyone's moral compass. Stewart has had Bill O'Reily on several times and has expressed a deep admiration for the man. Even went so far as to praise O'Reily for trying to calm some of the partisan rhetoric that was flying about Michelle Obama at one time. What Stewart has not done is invent controversy (other than as a sarcastic foible) for partisan reasons. He has never chided anyone over the guests of their show. It's the controversy they make up out of whole cloth that he had (and has) a problem with.

Excuse me sir. . . FOX news is the only unbiased news channel out there! If you don't believe me then why would Bill O' Reilly call his show the "no spin zone"? That would just be deceptive journalism.

Actually, you've made a common mistake. It's not the "no spin zone", it's the "nose pin zone"... and for obvious/olfactory reasons.

Generic, mindless innuendo doesn't really impress me, sorry. I'm talking quite specifically about Jon Stewart, and pointing out why I and many others deem him a hypocrite. Unfortunaately, idiotic blanket statements and the always infantile "blah, blah, conservatives are this, conservatives are that..." comprise about 98% of the provoked responses. Very pathetic stuff.

yes, what you wrote is very pathetic indeed.

HATR_HURTER: Are you 12? Does mommy know you're on the computer?

are you referring to weiner(the politician) or weiner(what was in the picture)?

You're taking that quote out of context. It's the pairing of that outburst with what precedes it that makes it funny (he's done this more than once). If he just said that, and nothing before or after it, it would be a simple, dumb, malicious insult.

The fact that you don't know the meaning of the word sarcasm and instead equate it with people being egotistical, arrogant, and cruel makes me think that you might be sore from having been targeted by sarcasm on a regular basis.

And thank you for the well-wishes! My sciatica has been really rough this last week and it's good to know that there are sweethearts like you that care.

He doesn't tell Fox News to go F*** themselves - he actually calls them out on their BS and their right leaning slant opinions that they try and present as news, especially on OPINION shows which there are a number of on Fox. He's even called out MSNBC on their left leaning as well. I think what you dislike most about Jon Stewart is that Fox News provides him with unlimited jokes. You should complain to Fox about that. If Fox provided Jon Stewart with less fodder there wouldn't be so many jokes about Fox.

Besides which, Stewart in person was unfailingly polite to O'Reilly, even in the face of Bill's egotism and prevarication on the issues. He is a class act all around.

And I have to say, I LOVE these threads which are showing that same kind of sly humor & ironic wisdom -- I'd say that Stewart fans are a pretty cool bunch -- and, demographic-wise, I'm 'WAY past "youth."

since people like o'reilly cut off their guests while they're talking and if they don't stop have them removed from the set yes, i do find it funny when he says that to the people at fox. even if that's all he said i would cause fox is full of a-holes who only show one side of anything they cover and attempt to claim that they are "fair and balanced". it's obvious to anyone who isn't retarded that they aren't.

Sarcasm can be useful in illustrating a point, especially when illuminating hypocrisy. And it can be very entertaining. And if used when trying to be constructive in some situation, it can make a point in a way that is light-hearted and diminishes drama (this has nothing to do with the Daily Show in particular, but is more about sarcasm in general).

Taking everything literally sounds rather dangerous to me... are you sure that's a gamble you're willing to take?

I assume that what is said is what is meant, and then I judge the person's competency based on facts that I know.

That can be a very dangerous approach. If you don't give others the opportunity to express sarcasm you could very well misunderstand their intentions horribly. You could find yourself watching The Colbert Report and thinking it's right-wing. Communication is a one-way street. You are responsible for understanding and for being understood. If you give up the ability to understand others you could find yourself in very bad circumstances.

So....just to put this out there....from what you say Jim.... Palin truly was threatening all Dems. when she said "dont retreat reload".....hmmmm

Stewart doesn't "shut his trap" on O'Reilly. He actually debates O'Reilly with facts. O'Reilly then will have to stoop to calling him a pinhead because he can't debate Stewart with opposing facts. O'Reilly often has nothing more than talking points. And of course O'Reilly will bring on a body language expert to decipher the body language of the both of them and try to ask her which one of them won. Sorry O'Reilly, body language doesn't decide a argument - facts do. I will tell you that Jon Stewart is well prepared and can stand toe to toe with O'Reilly. O'Reilly will run out of facts before Stewart does. This is unrefutable.

wow really.....JS ALWAYS owns Douh reilly....and i take it you dont think "Faux"news is not full of hypocritical lieing Aholes who are bought off from the right....

Stewart does remain silent on O'Reilly's show sometimes, because he's not as aggressive in cutting off the other person every time they try to speak. He tends to be overly polite when he's on the Factor.

Actually, I have found, even when stunting, Stewart and Colbert both allow their guests to say something, often of value, and do so with respect. Better than the wham-bam drive-bys done by "news" programs. And occasionally you'll even hear a real challenging question, with time for a real answer.

I think both Stewart and Palin are great entertainers.

You only say that because Republicans and the others on the right are well known not to have any sort of humor. I've met quite a lot of Republicans and they are really boring. Democrats are much more fun to be around and much more creative than their Republican counterparts.

Bernard, man you are slanted and prejudice against all things conservative. So much so, that you simply throw insulting irresponsible garbage out there just like a true liberal. You should be more like Syrinne who displays real intelligence and logic. I disagree with her some, but she is a good debater and has a way of being so without using irrevelant, useless opinions. (Syrinne...I truly am sorry about your sciatic pain. Been there and it's hell) So Syrinne, I really do hope you get well and get that pain out of your life. When I did, it truly was like being reborn. But Bernard, as you may hear all the time, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own "facts". So I sincerely hope you get well soon.

Oh Realistic - I base my opinion on my EXPERIENCE! Also quite a few other people of higher prominence than myself have said the same thing that Republicans, on the whole, don't have much of a sense of humor. And I think you've proved that point. How do you know what Jon Stewart MEANS and what Jon Stewart is JOKING about. You are not him, not on his staff and not there. So exactly how do you know when another person is serious? Are you a mind reader? Jon Stewart is very popular and just because you don't like that type of humor doesn't mean it isn't funny or that he isn't making light of the absurdity of what those on Fox News say. You are one of those people that doesn't like a popular show/s making fun of their political party or their favorite show and just because you don't like it then you will just refer to it as garbage. What you really don't understand is that The Daily Show and Colbert Report are COMEDY shows! If Republicans were funny then they would have their version of a comedy show on cable. BUT THEY DON'T - DO THEY? Case-point-match.

Also one other fact that proves my point is that I have voted for a Republican President and that your opinion that I am slanted and left leaning and prejudice against all things conservative is based on your lack of knowledge about liberals as a whole.

Realistic - thanks for the sympathy and kind words.

What I see here though - not just in this comment and response but throughout - well hell, not just this comment section, but social/political/moral dialogues in our culture overall - is that we often make generalizations and often don't disclaimer them as such (I can be guilty of this as well). Especially when we're having quick-response, abbreviated discussions via text (which often doesn't convey one's tone very well), it can be hard to tell when someone is making a general statement or being overtly prejudiced.

I'm sure that not every single Republican Bernard has met is boring and humorless, and that he didn't mean it as some big absolute; and I'm sure that Realistic is exaggerating as well in reaction to that generalization, and doesn't really think that all "true liberals" only ever dish out blanket insults in lieu of argument. I'm extremely liberal and he kindly complimented something I said, (even though I was more than likely slightly insultory when saying it).

We also (again, not necessarily here but in general) often make assumptions about each other and say "you think this" or "what you're saying is that" and end up derailing our own conversations, contributing to a vicious cycle of antagonism (again, I'm guilty of this, though I try to check myself... but then, I have wayyy too much time on my hands and am really long-winded). I like to joke to foreign friends that shake their heads at some of our more inane "national discussions" that USA stands for "United States of Antagonism."