If you’re expecting us to ream Jon Stewart for his impersonation of conservative hero Glenn Beck, you’ll be disappointed. LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO, yes, we did it all watching his hilarious segment. The fact is, it was a great impersonation, and great comedy.
We’re sorry to disappoint liberals who expect us to storm his studio in protest, but you’ll find conservatives have something you lost long ago, if you indeed ever had it: a sense of humor.
Subscribe, tweet, share, tell a friend!
Browse before and after this article
OLDER: The smartest President ever. Well, at least of the last fiveNEWER: New rallying cry at CNN: “We’re number 31! We’re number 31!”
Related Posts
No related posts.

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Is there something going on in the news, prompting Jon to spend 10 minutes doing a half assed job of impersonating Beck. What would prompt Jon to make mocking Beck a priority?…aside from the obvious humor in the word appendicitus.
Oh yeah…Democrats got a slap down at the polls…time to redirect the audience’s attention to Glen Beck’s appendix.
It is a comedy show after all…and the place many liberals get their news.
We love Beck and don’t really care much for Stewart, but come on, it was funny. He was good. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves.
Anyway…
Not only do many liberals get their news from Jon Stewart, he is unbelievably America’s “most trusted newscaster”
Another sign of the Apocalypse: Jon Stewart voted America’s most trusted newscaster
He IS brilliant.
Via some strange cosmic rupture, I was pushing buttons and landed on Stewart’s lampoon last night. Glen has more wit in his pithiest poop than Stewart (liberals are funny only when they’re being humiliated), BUT…yeah, JS nailed the impression and I discovered a chuckle rising from my innards of its own accord. Nancy Pelosi, however, is in no mood for such shenanigans. See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm6p535SiTI
Cheers,
Ian
Yeah, we liberals are so ignorant. Why must I get my information from the White House website, Politifact, watching the actual discussions, and reading PDFs of the various pieces of legislation when I could have the unaltered truth as it spews forth from the gullet of any number of accepted Republican newscasters?
Oh, and Doug, I almost forgot – I fact-check everything to make sure it doesn’t disagree with Jon Stewart, mighty overlord of liberal information. And boy, when you’re right, you’re right… I got dealt a hell of a blow when the poll I voted NO on portaining to the Health Reform that I now disagree with because of the vast editing and overall elimination of much of the aid its original design sought to give came back with most other non-conservatives agreeing with me!! AAHHH!!! What’ll we do, it’s like we all realize how screwed up and therefore irrelevant it’s become thanks to repeated appeasement of Republican desires. Get your head in the game, learn some factual information, and then try to guess all my opinions and where I get them – you might fare better.
It boils down to what flavor of spin tickles your taste buds.
Thank you for this post! It makes me feel like Georgey Patton at the Kazzerine Pass. Joey Goebels, I read your book, you son-of-a-bitch! AH HA HA HA! Joey, I hope you’re down their in Hell having a big belly laugh over this one! Thank you Department of Education for eliminating “Critical Thinking” from the entire public school curriculum, when I told you to.
Getting your information from a White House website? AH HA HA HA! AH HA HA HA! I’m sorry readers, this is too much even for me! AH HA HA HA! AH HA HA HA!
yes… it sounds crazy, but part of that critical thinking you supposedly use (though not much during your comment up “their”) involves having several different official perspectives from which to compare information so as to be better able to draw the most logical conclusion…
But I’m sure you already know that and practice it regularly General, the White House laughter is surely for some joke my liberal mind can’t grasp in it’s primitive inability to listen and blindly follow Republican pundits…
Also, please take care to not mistake “Agreeing with” for “Obtaining information from”… why isn’t everyboyd laughing..?
Critical thinking? Is that what you used when you decided to avoid addressing any of my arguments in favor of all-caps exclamations of the words “White House” and hypocritical conjectures about how messed up the public school system is (so messed up Obama DOESN’T need to fix it???). Well excuse me, but where exactly do you get your facts from that they are so much more reliable and well-researched than mine, because I’d certainly like to know..? Your TV set and radio? Your fellow conservatists’ words and biased websites perhaps? Go ahead, enlighten me. Honestly, give us a list and we’ll cross-check the validity of eachother’s sources’ claims with the actual facts as they exist in the real, documented world.
My point in the beginning was not to offend, but rather defend myself against such foolish concepts as Doug’s and the Administrator’s and raise awareness to the ill-contemplated obsurdity of writing off my agreeing with Jon Stewart, in particular on the obvious nature and origin of Glenn Beck’s biased and popularity-driven tv show antics as being the notions of an uninformed liberal… especially if you plan to contest the validity of the program with a show like Glenn’s. It doesn’t speak to a well-informed image on this site.
Is it really that hard for you to admit there’s as much BS coming out of all the most popular Rightist commentators as there is the Left? Scoff, name names, do what you will – your own immaturity does the damage for me. A little critical thinking could lead you to that conclusion.
Ok, go ahead, keep thinking that. One question, though. Where are you getting your facts from? I read the same documents, and I fail to see what you do.
Thank you for further proving my point… You remain unable to admit that the Rights are just as full of disingenuous information as any Left-wing commentator you feel like typing back to me in all-caps. Just more ill-contemplated accusations and a general skirting of any issues I’ve risen. Well, in keeping with our little debate theme, if you’re so confident on the matter despite all those “same documents” you’ve read (hadn’t realized I’d given you the list), then you can surely trace the validity of much of your information and political positions farther back than the word of those pundits you continue to defend (on a website called “ihatethemedia” no less) or my own unreliable interpretation of what you seem to be implying is an unaltered health bill…?
So do it. What exactly is this unerring source you get your information from that’s so much more reliable than the actual legislation and congressional hearings on the matters? Any overview on any program certainly won’t cut it when you consider that the nature of the credibility in the sources you contest over any network/chainmail/webpage lies in them alone having ALL the details included and therefore only being suspect to the interpretations and ethics of the reader – and not the spread of false facts. It’s pretty easy with that knowledge to conclude how much BS makes its way into all your favorite shows. Really though, convince me otherwise PLEASE. I’d love nothing more than to believe that all these politicians and their ball-cradlers aren’t just out to get their own regardless of affiliation, but I’m just a bit too aware to be able to assume that anything that humane occurs…
And it gets worse. My switch to the Democratic Party is anything but an act to ridicule as the Admin seems to think. It’s more a sad realization that I’d like to see disproven. It came just this election and was due to a severe lack of performance ability on the part of the Reps, a newfound transparency of the lies all these networks spread to keep their pockets heavy (and not just CNN and MSNBC), and a desire for a return of true small government with intelligent regulation rather than a continuation of false small government with increasing private restriction. I was actually pretty embarrased once I’d realized the extent of the duping I’d recieved.
McCain’s done plenty before this and is a decorated war veteran, but his information was vague and often not completely true (like the whole abortion bill Obama refused – conveniently left out that it was because it was reiterating legislation already in existence and adding a bunch of selfish earmarks he refused to support. Obama even says this in a debate, but of course I doubt anyone listened. After all, he was the only liar on the campaign trail, right?), his plans for action were almost non-existent, and his strategy was based around his propogated image as an oxymoron… er, maverick conservative… and extremely frequent use of half-truths to slander his opponent rather than to offer legitimate proposals of progression and iad. Or honest rebuttals in debate, which he didn’t do well at in the beginning and it gave him an even worse reputation amongst fact-seekers. Plus, few public figures supported the Reps anymore because of their assumptions about the Bush admin, so everybody that didn’t know what they’re doing fell in automatically with that crowd against him, and that made the creation of such public indecencies all the more appetizing.
But they messed up and got caught too often trying to lands hits on a very intelligent opponent, and then I started to see all the lies pile up, expecially post-election. Expected, I admit, but not to this degree – it’s been a year now and I haven’t seen an end to it. When one lie gets proven false, the next one is accepted as whole-heartedly as if it hadn’t happened dozens of times before, like a dog headed straight back to the hole it got it’s last snakebite from. That’s what makes it so unbearable to have to watch, seeing these nice people with good intentions be tricked to agree, for no reason beyond agreeing, with those decieving hosts and then without any hin of evidence themselves proclaim my own ineptitude as I give more and more proof of why they might reconsider such staunch and unrelenting stances, as we’ve repeatedly seen happen to me here.
I hate politicians, be they conservative, moderate, or liberal, and the media even more as they’re the decieving left arm of such dangerous games. I’ve just got enough factual information under my belt now to recognize the lies as they’re reported, and treating every bit of information as equally suspicious as if I did know it was false helps make the learning process much more authentic. And trust me, once all is said and done, the sifted facts are just far greater on “liberal” networks these days, not because they’re any better than anybody else (or because I’m always right and you’re always wrong in our political convictions), but simply because they have no reason to lie right now – they’re getting what they want for now.
So stop nagging me over these trivial issues of hurt feelings and defensive obligations, and get the big picture I keep eluding to – that neither I not you should trust any of them. ANY of them. It’s why I’m challenging you to get facts and post them to me… Prove me wrong, right, whatever; just do some good research or don’t tamper with the national situation by contributing an uninformed vote. They’re all assholes out to get the dough and could care less how it effects you, me, the economy, or anything else considered in whatever skeleton of a moral hesitation they experience.
And no, I don’t include Stewart’s show as one of those corrupt networks. I know, I know, I’m a bastard open-minded liberal.
The sole concept of the show is to poke humor at the fallacies of political commentary, be it from politician or pundit, doing itself what I seek to do and consequently defeating the purpose of reviewing his information (though when there is an occasional piece of bad info found he has no reservations against correcting it immediately). Besides, contrary to what the Admin suggests, I usually already know the truth before he lands the punchline, so there’s not much need to research known information. It’s the whole idea of being able to get a “punchline” that should clue everybody in to that.
As for the by-product of turning many of his viewers against conservatives on a show that merely points out the nation’s biggest lies… Seems to hint at something a bit larger than party affiliation there Holmes.
This video, without a doubt, is one of Jon’s finest. It was such an accurate impersonation of Glenn Beck, it’s scary.
Administrator…..We libs have an excellent sense of humor, never lost it, have always had it, and that is why we know there is not much difference between Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck, in so far as the context of their shows…..with one exception Jon Stewart knows the FACTS.
It’s difficult to laugh when the humor reveals such scary holes in one’s most important theories
O’Reily is lookin’ out for you. Beck is lookin’ out for America. Who’s Stewart lookin’ out for?
To answer your question: Leibowitz
That is Stewart’s real name, in case ya didn’t know.
Yes, his real name is Leibowitz (it changes everything!), but I don’t contest nor have I ever disagreed that he was looking out for number one. I merely pointed out that doing so for him entails pointing out the lies in the rest of the political world because it’s what gets him good ratings.
He caters to his audience just like everybody else, including O’Reily and Beck despite their uncontestable wisdom and selfless, noble endeavors that trancend their need to make a buck. Even though they’ve been repeatedly and thoroughly proven wrong an astounding amount of times this year alone in the information they give their viewers, you’re right – they’re only trying help you and make America better, apparently even if it means lying to throw support towards the percieved greater good. Hell, why else would they oppose gay marraige and fabricate notions of Death Panels?
And so, in conclusion (for now I assume), still you continue to prove that you can’t even admit they’re not out for you or your country first – they’re out for themselves like everyone else and are unable to debate any of the specifics of my comments. I see no sources, no valid arguments; I can’t even secure a mature concession of jointed corruption by the various pundits in the media.
Whether because you really don’t think they’re crooks or you just can’t bring yourself to admit the inadequacies of the only “reputable” information you have, I can’t answer for you, but it’s not making you look like much of a winner here… Or can nobody read that much?
Peyton,
Does the sun rise and set on you, or are you just one of those little men who have to make a lot of noise to feel good? I wasn’t responding to you at all. In fact, I merely scanned the first few lines of your diatribe and decided the whole was not worth my time. Clarkloon asked a rhetorical question and I was adding a pithy response. Sorry to disappoint you, but other than your opening line, I haven’t read this post either. My guess is it is a lot of blah, blah, blah, and hot air. Do you drive one of those big trucks that is all jacked up?
Suggestion: Brevity is the soul of wit – for you to understand, I will translate; less is more, fewer words means more powerful writing. (Sorry everybody, I broke my own brevity rule here, but Peyton had it coming!)
See if you can finish this one King Alfred. Five whole sentences…
Admittedly, fewer words can sometimes be as eloquent and descriptive as the many that I’ve used, but it seems more telling of your ineptitude than mine that you’re willing to prejudge others’ knowledge on the basis that you “don’t want to read that”. Such long, complicated passages are the result of a kind of pre-rebuttal method I’ve unintentionally developed over the years of intense writing pursuing my Doctorate (not in truck-driving) to help close the various irrelevant “holes” some would otherwise find to poke in my statements (like attacking my intelligence on the basis that I can write compound-complex sentences when the antagonist can’t finish reading a lengthy comment under a web video) as that draws attention from the issues I attempt to bring up. Unfortunately it can be a fruitless endeavor if the statement isn’t even reviewed before the accusations are made – but then those people are making fools of themselves, so it all works out.
And, as admitted, you did break your own brevity rule and lowered yourself to my suggested level, sooo… You don’t really have much of a place advising me on how to revise my moral standards in the first place when you clearly can’t adhere your own.
Oh, and about the sun – you didn’t respond to me, but to Clarkloon, and I was responding to the both of you, which you’d know if you’d read the comment… or traced the series of indentions back to the original post.
That first half a sentence was all that portained to you – geez, does the sun rise and set on Dee Mac?
Yes, I believe it does.
Yawn, pursuing a Doctorate? Haven’t earned one yet? You just keep working, learning and trying real hard and one day you too may be awarded a degree with big words on it.
I know that when I earned mine it meant something, I am not so sure these days.
And, I wasn’t referring to moral standards, just rhetorical ones.
I guess we can count Stewart as a Beck fan? It takes a lot of watching to get all of those mannerisms down and be able to carry off such a good parody.
Wonder if Stewart learned anything from the content while he was studying the character?
I tune in often myself… well, a couple times weekly anyways