And then he’d complain that he was the one not getting a chance to speak.

And Stewart apologized, even though one wasn’t warranted because contrary to what the jackass said he DID get a chance to make his points. Stewart gave him time to talk about how some “sainted hero of the left” (Thiessen’s words) who was an interrogator who said torture didn’t work was supposedly full of crap, to name just one example.

And the way the guy said that because of Bush’s policies there hadn’t been an attack since 2001, I just get so sick of people saying that. Bush has been out of office for over a year now, Obama has done a number of things differently than Bush concerning national security, and there hasn’t been another attack like 9/11 in all that time. Whatever the reason that there wasn’t another such attack, I think we can safely rule out “Bush was the president” as that reason by now. I don’t know whether the people who still give him credit are too stupid to realize that, or if they realize it and are just too stubborn to publicly admit it.

I’m with MarvinAndroid above in agreeing that his entire argument was “They’re guilty because they were accused”.

Frankly, I’d love to see Obama just have a bunch of these morons rounded up, declare them “enemy combatants” and throw them in Gitmo and see how that goes. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be all “They’re guilty because they were accused” then, now would they.

Which most likely means he was keeping Helms supplied with Ensure and Depends.

Likely, there’s more to it than that, although I am perhaps giving him too much credit. Certainly he didn’t seem to have any faith whatsoever that should Guantanamo prisoners be charged and tried that they would be guilty, which is curious to say the least. But when it comes down to it, the debate is not a new one; freedom versus security. What rights are you willing to sacrifice – not just for yourself, but notably for others – in order to increase your sense of, but perhaps not actual security?

In the end, I suspect the best answer you can give such people is that if you wish to feel truly secure, you must first foster an environment in which that feels like a good thing; if you give up what you stand for in order to remain standing, one might argue you’ve missed the point.

Thiessen: Blahblahblahblahblah!
Stewart: But if I may interject with some sanity-
Thiessen (DRAMA QUEEN SIGH): Don’t you know who I am?!

What a douchenozzle.

Did you see the same interview I did? Thiessen would rarely stop talking, often going from one point he wanted to make to another without giving Stewart a chance to respond. And then he’d complain that he was the one not getting a chance to speak.

Stewart got his turns, but usually only by having to interrupt Thiessen’s streams.

And at the end, with his “You mean I won’t get to make my points on the air?” crap, Stewart should have just said “OK, we’ll just end the interview right here then.” and denied Thiessen any more time.

Let me guess, “WATB” was originally created to refer to Thiessen.

I had to do the same with the Newt Gingrich interview as well.

Then I went to Maddow’s site to learn about Virginia’s leaders wishing they were Uganda…

I know as an entertainer he has to make sure they hit all the highlights of Marc’s completely stupid argument but watching it from a strictly analytical perspective, Marc really got walked over and managed to take it with a fairly respectable amount of composure, all things considered.

It still doesn’t make his point in any way valid or defensible. I would just have liked Jon give Marc a little more rope and let him hang himself rather than do all the work himself.