Oct

11

Jon Stewart Love

Written by

At long last, the estimable Mark Tabry has helped us bring you last night’s Daily Show, in which Jon Stewart calls protesters the “pencilneck caucus” and says we “make Sean Hannity look like the reasonable one.” OK, you’re a douche, but we love you anyway. 

Also, find Karina Garcia’s interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman (think Fox news of the left)  and Jim Gilchrist, before he left. He cut out halfway through “based on legal advice.”

Tags: , ,

77 Comments

  1. Daily Show  

    I heart Jon Stewart

  2. Democracy Now  

    2 things.

    Democracy Now isn't as slanted as Fox News. Goodman usually lets their guests finish sentences and have a debate.

    Gilchrist (rightfully) left because Garcia starting slandering him on television. At that point his lawyer probably adivised him that her comments were sufficient evidence to sue her and he probably was advised not to say anything in case it would jeopardize any potential case he would have. It sucks that he left so abruptly and could definitely have handled it more charismatically but he handled it the right way.

  3. shira  

    too bad stewart doesn't seem to have seen the univision footage...

  4. mike bottom  

    When you both have FOX news and Jon Stewart against you, you know you have no platform to stand on.

    • nah  

      I don't Stewart really stands up for anyone, that wouldn't be nearly as funny as, well, making fun of them. (Point being, it's not a sign of your being too far left if Stewart makes fun of you - it's just a sign that you did something really noticable.) Do you really think if Kerry had been elected he would have left him alone? Even mainstream Democrats do all kinds of stupid shit that this show makes fun of, I don't think it means you are super crazy if you're made fun of on the Daily Show.

      • no completely  

        true. the main reason republicans don't watch is because it honestly just makes light of democrats in more superficial ways while it ridicules republicans about policy. and in interviews (which stewart is surprisingly good at) you can tell stewart is a pretty solid liberal- he also seemed pretty serious during some parts of this sequence

        • That's pretty true

          Although they weren't so kind to Clinton during his administration either. It'll be interesting to see what the next few years bring to the Daily Show...

          So far, groups they thoroughly don't like:

          * The religious right
          * The entire House of Representatives
          * George Bush's cabinet
          * John Kerry, sort of

          The show has improved a lot for being a clever critical voice, thank God -- possibly the only decent good-humored liberal broadcast in the country right now? Sad but true?

  5. ha ha ha  

    john stewart is fantastic. i hope that perhaps one day - maybe only in a decade or two - the lunatic left of columbia grow up and realise their idiocy: shutting down a speaker in the name of free speech.

  6. varun  

    haha i love jon stewart

  7. Anonymous

    Democracy Now has an interesting Radio program - it is designed around a townhall setting in order to hit the key deciding states in the 2004 election. They call it Code Purple or something or other...they split the electorate into 7500 person blocks and run voting crossections. Their goal is to increase charitable funding through their websites so they can skim a piece. In the process they will run an "anti-partisan" DEMOCRATIC PARTY campaign in the border-line voting counties to make sure the issues of the purple states - red plus blue is purple... are brought to the public in hopes that a 5 point swing will provide the Democrats enough votes to take the House in 2006 and the Senate and Presidency by 2008.

    The fact that Amy Goodman did not offer Jim Gilchrist any defense when Karina called him a murderer was pathetic.

    Jim Gilchrist was a frontline Vietnam Veteran. He fought to provide Karina with the Freedom she is now using poorly across the board. It makes you wonder...who did Karina vote for...Kerry??? The man who called our soldiers "Baby Killers" in Vietnam?

    The Minutemen wield cameras, binoculars and cell phones - that is it. If they wield any weapons they have them for self-defense.
    For Karina to claim they carry shotguns and try to kill people who are coming over the border only testifies her lack of knowledge, first or second hand...and her delusional status, which only hate and wishwash dreams can provide.

    Is the Columbia Crowd so blind that they cannot see reality? Get off of your Ivory Ivy League towers and study the world you are living in.

    For Amy Goodman, the author of Static, to continue the one sided interview and allow Karina to spout her lies without providing one piece of counter evidence to at least give the piece even a resemblance of balance shows this outsider that Amy Goodman wanted Gilchrist to leave, in fact planned for him to leave and finally, wanted to speak to a fine piece of Tail...as any Hillary Clinton Follower would.

    As to FOX and Stewart...guys, wake up. Radio is the new battleground, Fox' rupert Murdoch is backing Hillary Clinton in her next run...Fox will become more and more leftist as the next two years progress...and this year is practice as the slanted polls are focused on, as Foley is focused on, as analysts from The Soros think tanks like Center for American Progress are seen seriously...as if they have something positive to say to unify this country.

    There is no Conservative network any longer. Only Rush and Hannity and a couple others are left...all else has gone the way of the leftist.

    If you want to congratulate yourselves on that or start marching in the streets, well...that is your prerogative, but in the end...Independence was Declared and Freedom was Earned - it was not the other way around.

    • What  

      Jim Gilchrist was fighting for Karina's freedom? But...the US pulled out of Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese government took over the entire country and imposed its rule. Yet..according to you she is still exercising her freedom? How does that work? I thought the evil commie asians were supposed to come over and destroy our Freedoms?

      • Vietnam  

        may have been a failed war in terms of execution and reasoning but that still doesn't mean that the soldiers who fought there weren't heros who were still doing their duty for the country. Gilchrist would have went anywhere to fight for the US and its the politicians fault they went to vietnam, not the soldiers. Karina Garcia is pretty disgraceful.

        • What  

          I didnt say it wasnt heroic or dutiful. However, it is disingenuous to say he was fighting for her freedoms. That statement is illogical, since the war was aborted without completing its goals, yet her freedoms still exist. So, hmm...I wonder what they were fighting for...

          • he was  

            still fightings for her freedoms from the perspective that he was an enlisted officer in he military that existed to protect her freedoms

            i agree though that w/regards to vietnam it becomes more complicated

      • Anonymous

        What?

        Sphere chasing is a tactical pursuit of Freedom and Democracy and yada yada. We have been sphere chasing since the end of World War II. Every war we have entered was in express defiance of Fascist Imperialism or Totalitarian Communism. The war in Vietnam was a complete failure, because we put men on the ground...because, let's face it, we had enough missiles and air power to destroy that entire Northern Vietnam region.

        What we faced in our failure, was not the enemy...what we faced was the Human Rights Movement worried over civilian casualties...just like we are facing in Iraq, just like Israel faced with Lebanon.

        Now, personally, I never heard any Communist but Khruschev state they will bury the United States...but virtually every dictator the world over at the present time is declaring that the United States has to end, die, be destroyed...what have you.

        IN five years, when the smoke clears...we can discuss whether or not the soldiers of the Vietnam Era taught our military leaders how to protect us from the modern evil. Until then, yes, he fought for her Freedom and My freedom and your Freedom, because he faught for his country on the frontline.

        What? Is it possible that we were attempting to free the South Vietnamese? Is it possible that Communism is evil, simply because it espouses slavery as its moral goal? Is it so easy to forget Stalin? Did Mao not kill 3 million in a cultural Revolution? Educated men and women like you, who he deemed subversive?

        • buzz  

          despite my columbia education im obviously not as educated as you since i have no clue what the hell "sphere chasing" is

          • Anonymous

            Sphere chasing is an attempt to fight without fighting.

            For instance, we backed Batista against Castro, who was backed by the USSR. We lost that sphere.

            We also back, financially and with weapons other political entities. In all reality, the first sphere we chased after WW2 was Israel...by 1948, we had backed them with weapons since they were invaded by the surrounding Islamic territories. We won that round, and to this day, the Islamic world is still angry about it. They call it an imperial wedge and claim America is an Imperialist Country.

            Strangely, on the Israeli-Palestine issue, both sides have a case. But let me put this little piece forward on that score...the Palestinians sold out. The rich landholders sold the land the houses were on and the Israelis kicked the "squatters" out when their contracts were no longer valid. These Palestinians have never gotten over the fact that the rich land owning Palestinians were willing to sell the land, without helping them to relocate...They took the money and ran.

          • Stupid!  

            The USSR didn't support Castro until after he was in power. International Politics 101.

          • Anonymous

            I was speaking of sphere chasing. And the fact is, Castro came to the likes of Edward R. Murrow for US support and found no help. He then went to the USSR. As far as your Political Science 101 chibe, thank you. I so love being called stupid. It makes me happy to know you are rolling your eyes and considering me a dolt, when the libs and dems and lefties and radis and reds call one names, it is generally the case that their quiver is growing thin with arrows. Limits are fun when you find them...at that point you can take a running leap and defy the edge.

            The Daily Show is hilarious, I don't care who you are.

        • What  

          The "sphere chasing" aside (not sure what you mean by that), am I right in interepreting you, are you in fact saying that we should ignore any possibly civilian casualties that could be incurred and bomb the heck out of Iraq and Lebanon? Are you stating that this war is really between the US Government and the "Human Rights Movement"? I suppose George Soros is behind this Human Rights Movement?

          Pardon me if I would rather not have my government bomb an entire country and population to pieces because you feel that such a policy is the only way to win a war. Your vision of the world is terribly narrow and unrealistic. Countries and leaders can say whatever they want about destroying the United States or Israel, that does not in any way denote that they are capable or willing to do it. North Korea has repeatedly stated their hatred towards the United States. Does that mean they are capable of destroying us? No, not at the moment. Your policy of "bomb now, talk later" would result in the deaths of not only thousands if not millions of North Koreans who play no part in their government, it would likely result in the death of millions of innocent South Koreans as well. Nevermind that the majority of the countries you are referring to posed little to no threat to the United States and were invaded for the purposes of securing continued American prosperity and international influence despite the cost.

          Was Vietnam really a threat to my freedom or your freedom? You say we were trying to "free" the South Vietnamese. If I remember my history correct, a significant number of these South Koreans we were trying to "free" fought fervently against us. If I also remember correctly, Ngo Dinh Diem the leader of South Vietnam was nepotistic, anti-democractic, and brutally authoritarian, especially against the Buddhist population, all in the name of anti-Communism.

          Im not saying it wasnt brave for Gilchrist to fight in Vietnam or that he generally thought he was fighting for freedom. The point is that we have the benefit of hindsight. The error in the Vietnam war wasnt that some conspiratorial "Human Rights Movement" sought to conspire against the US. It was that the war did nothing to either defend American liberty or to grant liberty to the Vietnamese and in the process needlessly cost many lives. I suppose this is the type of future you envision for America?

          • Anonymous

            What?

            I never said anything about bomb now, talk later...

            I am just willing to recognize that war is war and people die in war.

            The Human Rights Watch and Movements are nothing but weak willed, wish we weren't fighting, bleeding hearts.

            Let me ask you, how many Human Rights Violation suits have been put up against the Al Qaida and Hezbollah in our recent war on Terror?

            The goal of the Human Rights Watch may very well be a good one...but the reality of their striving is that you sue the one with money and question their morality and tie them up in court and change policy from within, while a war is on. And if they can't do that, they will form a council and join the UN and filter their efforts through hundred of NGOs which are backed by SOROS.

            I don't buy that Soros is a Philanthropist. I just think he is Evil, because what he wants sounds so good but is philosophically jangled and pie in the sky wish-wash...but then again, Heaven sounds good, but you have to die to get there in most cases. And your not even permitted a phone call to let those on the outside know if you were justified or not in jumping up on a cross or strapping a bomb to your chest in self-sacrificial glee.

          • ugh  

            I can't believe I'm actually bothering to respond to your idiocy, but for your information, Soros gave BILLIONS to fight communism by funding freedom movements behind the iron curtain - far, far more money than he's ever given to local political campaigns that you may happen to disagree with him over. He's done far more good for this world than you can ever hope to achieve.

          • Anonymous

            At least you understand how valuable charity is.

            When it is properly utilized, it is great. However, when it is used to fight Communism one day and then Capitalism the next...I wouldn't call it anything but serving an end run purpose.

            Now, you call my candor idiocy, and then state that I worry over local politics...I could care less about local politics, I just think it is obvious how the think tanks are like colleges...80% liberal...20% brains.

            The current stage is set up to destroy America --- and whether you want to admit it or not, Soros is out to do just that.

            Call him a philanthropist, call him a charitable man if you want to...but when was the last time he sponsored 20 start up companies and put to work Thousands...when it wasn't for think tank purposes?

            He follows the Karl Popper tradition, which states very loudly, truth is not attainable...it is more important to frame the problem and go from there.

            Hence Development and Implementation are the buzz words of the next two years as people slowly but surely realize that the NGOs are sapping this country...and that the NGOs are the problem.

            You can slap a non-partisan label, three senators, two retired brigadier generals, seven graduate fellows together and get a grant from the government for 50 to 100 million and then get Soros to back you...it doesn't matter that the purpose of the think tank is to simply gather data and disappear in 5 years...they still have 501 (C) 3 status.

            In colloquial it would be called "A License to Steal"

    • Anonymous

      Murdoch is probably supporting Clinton, and FOX commentators leaning more to the left because they are ratings driven. They must survive by appealing to what they perceive as being the general public belief. You will notice more and more politicians abandoning ship as the election month draws nearer.

  8. game over  

    i think stewart gets the final word on this. man was that hilarious.

  9. Anonymous  

    Why is this thread so full of conservatives, republicans and right wing extremists? It's hillarious how they still complain about America turning into a fascist/liberal/anarchist country, the left getting stronger and the fact that there is "No Conservative network any longer."
    Describe this color in one lowercase word.

  10. Silly activists  

    "The war in Vietnam was a complete failure, because we put men on the ground...because, let's face it, we had enough missiles and air power to destroy that entire Northern Vietnam region.

    What we faced in our failure, was not the enemy...what we faced was the Human Rights Movement worried over civilian casualties...just like we are facing in Iraq, just like Israel faced with Lebanon."

    Because whats wrong with killing people who happened to be born in the wrong country at the wrong time?

  11. ----------------  

    ^ that's the bottom line. And it says that Jon Stewart rocks and anyone who disagrees with him is un baguette du douche.

  12. woa!  

    "OK, you're a douche, but we love you anyway."

    Wow, Bwog has stopped even pretending to be objective. He didn't call *you* anything - he said MONIQUE DOLS made Hannity look like the reasonable one, not Columbia as a collective. I don't really fully agree with the protesters on stage OR the Republicans (like most people at Columbia, I would imagine) and I found this segment hilarious. The only people who would find this offensive in some way would be those that are on the side of the students on stage (who, if the wealth of official statements is any evidence, are a significant minority here). I guess we know where Bwog stands...

    • yo, chill!  

      Umm, Bwog can say he's a douche for making fun of Columbia University and the Ivy League ("geeks" ... "poor defenseless Ivy-leaguers" ...)

      Seriously, some people just need to take a step back and chill. Besides, we all know that we all love Jon Stewart. And calling him a douche is just another form of affection....

  13. kid  

    that kid is in my cc class. it's not like he's an idiot. why the hell would he do that?

  14. Anonymous  

    Can someone who's good with technology make a soundboard of all the terrible cliches we've heard in the past week - like "left-wing jihad" and whatnot...

  15. rjt  

    I know about 10 people have already said this, but Jon Stewart wins all arguments.

  16. Hypocracy lives  

    Both from MacZed

    "I don't buy that Soros is a Philanthropist. I just think he is Evil"

    "Well I love it when when the libs and dems and lefties and radis and reds call one names, it is generally the case that their quiver is growing thin with arrows"

    But it's ok for you to call one names names?

    Have you no decency sir?

    • Anonymous

      Sell me on the notion that Soros is not Evil.

      Sell me on the notion that Democrats are not liberals and Communistic.

      You have to sell me, I don't care how much posturing you do for your Columbia world.

      Decency? Are you going to throw morality in the Mix...>>>???

      Hehe... I back up my namethrowing...The Democrats want to raise taxes. Dems is a shortened form of Democrat. Lib is a shortened form of Liberal...Red is a shortened form of Communist. Radi = Radical. I wouldn't call that name calling, I would call it grouping. And as far as I can tell...there is no difference between a Democrat, a Socialist, a Communist, A Fascist, and a Liberal.

      Educate me oh morally high one. Explain to me exactly how a Democrat is not a Commie Stalinist Dreamer of a Utopian... Because for the life of me, I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

      I think he is Evil is not name calling, it is a gut feeling...and my research is no doubt more extensive than yours.

      Don't throw bombs unless your willing to crush me.

      I don't think you can.

      • touche Mr. Zed  

        decency (noun) conformity to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.

        There is no mention of morality here

        You made the claim that they are evil. Opperating from the assumption that man is intrinsically good(or at least neutral) the burden of proof rests with you to prove that one is evil
        Gut feeling.

        Gut feelings are just that, feelings, they carry no weight in an intelectual debate.

        A couple of other points

        A)not all democrats want to raise taxes e.g. elliot spitzer
        B) Increased taxes does not equal communism. I'll grant that if you continually rase taxes ad infinitum you reach communism but no democrat supports that, and I can state that for a fact because I fulfill an a democrat who does not support communism. And since your claim is that they are all equal even one counterexample proves it wrong. On another vein find me one democrat calling for communism. In case you need a refresher here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


        Give me your research that you claim or is it just more gut feelings


        Sell me on that, and in the words of our greatest president "BRING IT ON"


        decency (noun) conformity to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.
        not morality as you claim

        • sorry  

          I apologize for the typos. I'll be the first to admit that I'm an awful typist.

        • Anonymous

          Decency - Before we begin, allow a few parameters...Exactly who is your standard of Decency... It seems like a perfectly Subjective circle you have woven. You reject my appeal to morality, which can be debated in terms of ethics and then you say the burden of proof rests on me to provide evidence. The fact that you have a dictionary is delightful to me...it is a wonderous thing this world of real life words and definition.

          Could you please present for me your definition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Fascism...in abbreviated or truncated form...

          As to burden of proof...The lay definition of grouping is basically pulling all together in order to stereotype. Now, while the Democrats and Liberals (and I am glad you found one example of an elected Dem that you could point to by the way)may simply advocate the raising of taxes responsibly or for security...my argument is Why? Why would you ever choose to raise taxes when all the numbers prove that raising taxes does nothing but remove money from an economy for the purposes of redistribution?

          Now, as to the ethical dilemma you pose - am I decent? I don't know. I haven't enummerated the norms and bases of popular culture to such a degree that I might speak convincingly on such topics...is it decent to smoke a joint? I am decent. Is it decent to despise meth? I am decent. Is it decent to like pharmaceutical speed? Again, I am decent. Is it decent to debate with Liberals by putting them into a corner and forcing them to fight their way out? I don't know, but I am pretty darn sure it is the decent thing to do since it forces them to back their argument with reason, rather than wish.

          Decency is tricky...But I have no problems Bringing it On, in all caps or no.

          As to your supposition regarding the word "All" - I find it a waste of time to personalize ideology. If you are an Anti-Zionist, you have a reason. If you are a Socialist, you have a reason...

          What is important is not whether all people who espouse the principles and teachings of Marx are Commie Red Scum...what is important is that Marx needs to be identified as scum.

          And, in turn, it would be my pleasure to direct you to correct schools of thought...however, let me put it to you...

          Argument 1) If you believe the selfish earn and the greedy steal...you are a capitalist.

          Argument 2) If you believe Charity is based on talent and merit and not need...you are a capitalist.

          Argument 3) If you believe that raising taxes is a reasonable means for providing for the common good, you are a slavist, statist, commie that has no business in government.

          Hold on, let me take my gloves off.

  17. so.  

    any storming at the shoebat event? while i'd hate the press shitstorm that happened, it would be just too hilarious if it happened again

  18. by the way  

    I thought it was ?? hilarious how much security was assigned to the non-event tonight.

    • non event?  

      is that the shoebat event? i imagine they would want a smaller crowd and a lot of security after last week

      • Anonymous

        Ayn Rand: Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness

        These are the first two books any young Conservative to be should read at the college level. So, if you plan to be a liberal forever, make your living by debunking these two works.

        As to gut feelings...my gut tells me that you don't understant that if it smells like a Pirate, swashbuckles like a pirate, fires a cannon like a pirate, and rapes and pillages like a pirate...there is a damn good chance, that what you are witnessing is not a Decent Person - and, in all probability, is a you got it - PIRATE!

        For instance, the entirety of the Koran is littered with evil phrases about how the infidels will be destroyed and butchered by the believers if they do not "Convert or pay alms". The Prophet Muhammad was not a peaceful soul, seeking the chastity of perfect peaceful bliss, he was a pedophilic, rapist, thieving butchering Pirate of the Desert who stole and stole and stole and gained enough followers who recognized his blood thirstiness enough to know they needed to follow him or run. The Koran is the Pirate Manifesto. Muhammad was a Pirate of the Desert.

        Gut feelings are a measure of my decency, are they not...so, it would be shameful, if one were not to act according to his own internal level of piety...

        Now as to your assertion regarding the innate nature of man as good or evil, well...we can cut that all day without ever hitting the word Decency...because the birth of a babe has nothing to do with the accepted customes of the day...and if you want to debate that, a new ball of wax forms and the thunder rolls.

        Why, not lets just solve Pi - it would be just as vexing...

        However, if you want to ask my gut if people are inherently evil or good...my gut would say, people are born stupid...their environment fosters their natural predilections...and their final constructs of what is right and wrong is derived from the accepted code of decency of that environ, until that being is forced to grow into the world outside of his circle, at which time the ultimate understanding of the world is based largely upon his level of intellect, his upward mobility based on creativity or current status mixed with personal drive...but in the end, Evil and Good are the measure of decency the outside world puts on another's actions not the terms one typically lives his life by...and that leads to a conformist notion of good and evil and then...you see...the argument rolls around and spirals in many directions...just as food digests, the point is dispersed and feeds only one, leaving the outside observer perplexed and wondering how it tasted.

        • a response  

          Let me attempt to extract what seem to be the main points of your arguments.

          First off liberalism is not defined by it's opposition to conservatism. I'll allow Moynihan to speak for me here on the true definition of liberalism "The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. I'm not going to let you define this ideology as only related to debunking two limited works.

          Secondly Soros, I once again call for evidence. You only provide a rationale for gut feelings. You ask me to believe that his every action is "piracy" without any proof. We can all hurl accusations, but I can’t refute you if you don’t prove anything. This is also where point about the nature of man is good or evil comes in. You are the one making the accusation about Soros being “evil.” That’s a hefty word. But please explain to me why he is evil. I want contentions with evidence. As I said before it is the one who makes a claim who must provide proof. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.

          Quoting you: “Now, while the Democrats and Liberals (and I am glad you found one example of an elected Dem that you could point to by the way)may simply advocate the raising of taxes responsibly or for security...my argument is Why?”

          This implies an admission that not All Democrats are communists thereby refuting the point brought up in post 43. On this point alone I win as it was originally the only contested point. I never said higher taxes were good. I merely said that increased taxes does not equal communism. On the retreat a bit eh?

          Quoting you: "Why would you ever choose to raise taxes when all the numbers prove that raising taxes does nothing but remove money from an economy for the purposes of redistribution?"

          There are reasons other than "redistribution" to tax, including two wars and a huge national debt. In addition redistribution isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Public schooling, national defense, police, transportation infrastructure are all valid reasons to tax and they all involve redistribution. In the end this redistribution benefits society as a whole by allowing each citizen an equal chance at success. If we did not have public schooling, for example, we would effectively remain in an aristocracy, as a permanent underclass would not be able to afford private schooling.

          I don’t know why you choose to bring the Koran at this point but I will respond. Several religions espouse violence at one point. The Hebrew bible commands the death of every living thing in the promised land. Women and children are slaughtered indiscriminately. I could here claim that the biblical tribes were “Pirate(s) of the Desert” but I would contend that they were not. In the end Christianity describes a horrid fate for all those who are unbelievers, a fate that is unmatched by any suffering on earth. In addition the Koran has many passages that call for respect for “People of the book.”







          Your three arguments at the bottom of post 62 are not actually arguments. They are merely statements that you have said. I call for proof either rationally or empirically, which I do not find. Also you speak of raising taxes. From what benchmark are we raising. Is the current US level perfect? Is the best rate 0%? Should we be somewhere in between?


          As for decency, the quote “Have you no decency sir?” is a bit of a paraphrase of Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy Hearings. I quoted it to point out that you had effectively emulated McCarthy by your accusations of communism. It was also a critique of the lack of decency expressed in your posts. In any argument there should be an expectation of fact based, rational argument, not unsubstantiated claims and a double standard.

          • addendum  

            From the DNC website. Not communist at all.


            We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation.
            Government's responsibility is to create an environment that will promote private sector investment,
            foster vigorous competition, and strengthen the foundations of an innovative economy.

          • Anonymous

            Third, as to your assertion of I win this point and you lose that point, which is the point of debate...you say you never said higher taxes were good, but then within a few paragraphs state that redistribution benefits a society by giving people an equal chance at success. That is the crux, it is as if you say "Out of sheer necessity, I don't like it, you don't like it...but we have to raise taxes." Now, as to your assertion that All Democrats are not Communists, by virtue of the dismissal of my grouping, you have extracted a key concept...are All Republicans Capitalists? To which you will immediately say, I didn't say that, you are putting words in my mouth...you are the one who made the umbrella accusation Mr. Zed. All Democrats do favor the equitable redistribution of wealth; however, in order to
            "create an environment that will promote private sector investment,
            foster vigorous competition, and strengthen the foundations of an innovative economy"

            After all, as Democrats. "We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation."

            Now, if the private sector is the source of economic growth...what is a government taxing for? To stimulate a vigorous competition? No, the government is taxing to create jobs, which...when developed by the right guiding principles may in the end, if everything goes like we think they can as long as nothing changes...can foster innovative developments and vigorous competition.

            Why is vigorous competition necessary? To lower prices. If vigorous competition did not exist what happens? higher prices? Maybe. Maybe not. If taxation didn't occur, what would happen to prices in comparison with the wages earned and kept? We don't even know anymore.

            This is Keynesian Economic theory, that Marx would have gotten a woody over...Government sponsored Mixed Economy, with the policy and legislative actors creating a market economy. A bad idea for the businessman, a great idea for no one, a possible safety net for those without. Why build a safety net and not a trampoline?

            Now, as to the Koran, the reason I brought the text in was to demonstrate that Muhammad was a Pirate. I am currently rewriting the text, so please don't try to brush me off with the possibility that it is a peaceful text just because it references the people of the book. So what, that means nothing. How many Pagans did the Pope order Fatwas on this year? How many Gentiles did the Hassidim declare Jihad on in the past decade? Do you need rational proof or empirical evidence of any Islamic Fatwas? And don't bother saying that it is a radical fringe element, because they are fundamentalist zealots which by definition hold the word of Muhammad in the Koran as their guiding light and one can point to roughly 100 passages of evil in that book of Peace. And by evil in this case I mean, pure hatred and annihilation as a measure of Tolerance.

            Now as to assertion arguments rather than debatable arguments without contentious rational empirical proof.

            Do you really need to prove the statement, "The selfish Earn, the Greedy Steal?" It is a reasonable statement. Now mind you, I am not saying that Republicans are Capitalists. In fact, I am on your side when it comes to the fact that roughly 1000 or so people control the wealth of the country in the Republican realm, yet these same people who espouse capitalism are attempting to break borders and move to neocon (new world order) capitalism...especially with the Rise of NAFTA and such Superhighways and the President isn't all too clean here... What I am stating is that if you earn your Money you should get it and if you steal your money you should burn for it. (Metaphorically of course...hehe) Capitalism has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with Charity. Without someone earning an exorbitant fund which exceeds their needs, true charity of life changing quantity is next to impossible short of a will. Evidence Bill Gates' charitable donations throughout his life. Now that is not to say small charities aren't important, that is only saying that small charity is sharing and big charity is investing in measured talent in hopes for better things for the talent and those that talent can support. This is much different than compassionate conservatism, which spends loosely on Foreign AID and at the same time overcomes so much on the fiscal side by lowering taxes to keep money in the economy.

            As to McCarthy, I recognized the quote, but I thought it from quite a different source, and it may be a reference to that you mentioned (now that I think about it, it probably is a reference to it) - However, by pushing the name, you imply a witch hunt. I can handle that. I am on a witch hunt. I am attempting to knock the pegs out from beneath those that would claim non-partisanship in name, yet back a party in fact and skew of facts and focus of efforts.

            For instance, would you say that the Nation is a Non-Partisan Magazine? No, you would say it is a leftist periodical, no doubt. Yet that magazine is the brainchild of Center for American Progress, which is a Soros Organization.

          • Anonymous

            First, I never said one word about conservatism. Conservatism implies sticking to the status quo, and I see nothing in the status quo that would make me believe it worthy of remaining set, since it is a mixed economy that is bureaucratic in nature and welfarist in actuality.

            Second, as to Moynihan, what would happen if society was left to its own devices? Anarchy? War? Exactly what is liberalism saving itself from? Imperialism? Corporatism? Piracy? Thievery?

            The beauty of the Moynihan statement is that it takes up a breath but says absolutely nothing. Now, if politics can change a culture and save it from itself...what is it supposed to have been, and why is it necessary to fix it or revamp it? The beauty of liberalism, it seems by this is that it "notes that something was wrong and it has the ability to fix the problem." Now if it has the ability to change and save, what the heck does it do to accomplish this and what is the ideal it will strive toward.

            One could just as easily argue that Culture needs be saved from politics in order to become Society...that is, as long as breathing is the only measure.

            As to my forcing you to debunk two works, they were just a beginning point for your study, I would soon point you to Friedman and Hayek and then I would have you read the Communist Manifesto in full, if I were to be a professor of economics...in order to create a framework of comparison and contrast. In this estimation can one find that Politics is an additive equation...metaphysics plus epistemology plus ethics equals politics - aesthetics is the measuring rod of each. Indeed, History is a study in Ethics, not politics.

            Now...onto Soros...it is hard to know exactly where to start. OK, begin with Shadow Party by David Horowitz just to get a taste. Read the first 80 pages or so, that should suffice.

            Realize I am not a Republican...I am not a Conservative. I am a Capitalist.

            This will get you started down the road of Soros Thought. It will allow you to realize that his Foundations are merely vehicles for a political spin. Facts? Look to his employees and see their leans and ambitions. Why is Morton Halperin in charge of US Advocacy for the Open Society Institute? He holds 4 other Fellows chairs in Leftist think tanks. He was the assistant Secretary of State under Nixon, who was working with Daniel Ellsberg to undermine the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg's papers were called the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers in combination with the ACLU head Neier, who pushed the warrantless phone tapping issue to a head...Morton Halperin and Daniel Ellsberg amd Neier are all now working for the Open Society Institute. Would you call it a coincidence that the NIE docs were leaked? Would you call it a coincidence that Ellsberg's recent paper hit the Harper's Magazine in October and called for a member of Bush's staff to Leak the Iran Plans?/? Would you call it a coincidence that everything Morton Halperin says on the Center for American Progress backdoor blogs winds up as a Democratic Buzz statement? Would you call it a coincidence that Colin Powell, out of nowhere came back to Washington to discover the McCain ticket on the torture situation at Gitmo was not being heeded? Colin Powell and McCain are inseperable. When you hear one name, the next follows. Colin Powell used to be the chair of the Millenium Challenge Accounts, which ran USAID, the largest Foreign Aid source the world has ever known, which works with NGOs like Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch in order to fund their development aims, which Gara LaMarche is the head of and happens to be the VP of the Open Society Institute.

            It is not a matter of hard facts, it is a matter of patterns. Every single issue the Republicans have had to fight has been brought to order by one of Soros' thinktanks. Whether it was torture and wire taps or Foley through CREW, the SOROS think tanks are behind the timely leak of information to the press.

            Morton Halperin's son is in charge of the ABC Political wing, which put forth the Foley scandal and tried to noose Hastert. Morton's other son is in charge of The Center for American Progress' Campus Progrogress, which pushed the COnstitution in 2020 Yalee program, which gives you an idea of the Hillary Clinton run in 2008 and 2012 - note the drop of Immigration reform and addition of universal "nationalized" (Fascist)healthcare...

            Honestly, I could care less if they are all guilty of pedophelia in the Congress...I think it is pure stupidity to have highschool age pages in the Congressional wings in the first place, not when there are so many college kids that would give their left nut to get the chance to intern...but that is neither here nor there.

            Now, it is a known fact that Soros broke the bank of England with a rumor, broke the German Deutschmark and Crushed the Rubel of Russia after he helped the Wall fall.

            For every action, he has an equal and opposite profit motive. I don't mind that until he starts messing with the United States of America's dollar by propping up regimes to give the US Diplomatic Core problems.

            The beauty of Soros' Piracy is its veiled nature. He has given 5 billion to "Non-partisan" think tanks. Come on, the ACLU says it is non-partisan, yet on the ACLU ticker tapes, the Republicans get Fs while the Democrats get As...on their National website if you look at their voting statistics.

            In 2005, all of the heads of USAID came out and put forward the reality that the multiplying spectrum of BGOs and private Thinktanks added a new element of lobbying power never before witnessed. They go on to say that they have no idea which programs of the government were successful because they have no way to measure if they developed fully or implemented efficiently. This is our government...saying in fact, "We don't know what the hell is going on". If you'd like me to I could give you the Miller Report Stenography.

            Now, if the United States Government can't tell you what is working and what isn't, then the only thing that can tell you is a trail...of media hits. Who are the generals cited by Fox and CNN, which think tanks do they represent... what is the lean of the think tanks... who is on the board of directors... do those board of director members belong to other groups as fellows, what are the leans of all associated... Now mind you, there are roughly a quarter of a million think tanks now, digging for information on every little thing you can imagine to do reports on everything you don't want to know, to be able to lobby some senator for support on some addendum and an appropriations bill on what not... It is a virtual carnival in Washington right now. They are jockeying to see who will get what pieces of how many NGO [501c3 & 4]puzzles by 2020 when the whole system collapses in upon itself.

            The Best sites to look at as far as Healtchcare is the PHR plus website...the national healthcare accounts are a look into the future of International healthcare which is the world goal by 2020.

            What was the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled again?

            As to your redistribution arguments...No, I am not retreating...

            Why are those necessary as redistributions? Why can't a government be profitable? What is stopping a government from making a profit without raising taxes? Would it not be reasonable to raise tariffs on foreign goods and services to guarantee that our free markets will have the best competitive chance to succeed...and at the same time build up the treasury to provide those services? Redistribution is only necessary for those who assume a failure of Bureaucracy as a necessary evil. The cost of collection and redistribution rips 2/3 of the money off the top in our current system, look at any economist notebook on GDP and GNP versus taxation. This inefficiency not only costs those who would be able to afford a private education, it also doles out the funds to those it means to help, effectively destroying their self esteem and trapping them into a bracket of poverty. More in a bit, gotta run for a moment.

          • Anonymous

            Your statement of Moynihan reminded me of this fun quote from Hunter S. Thompson...

            "Politics is the Art of Controlling Your Environment"
            That is one of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it the hard way. Anybody who thinks that "it doesn't matter who's President" has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World--or been beaten and gassed by police for trespassing on public property--or been hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons--or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had voted.
            --Hunter S. Thompson, Hey Rube

  19. Anonymous

    I'm guessing that this might be the end of the 'Jon Stewart for President' T-Shirt Monique used to wear to Arabic class...

  20. whats the big deal  

    I dunno why this stuff is such big news, consider the 655,000 people in Iraq who have died since the start of the Iraq War, theres also problems in North Korea, Iran, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc etc...news programs def have their priorities mixed up. Then again...the most popular news 90% of the time is about pets getting stuck in trees or starting fires.

    • oh boy  

      trying to feed bs lancet studies again. have you looked at their methodology? take data from households (no official body counts, separate confirmations) in a cluster of about 12000 from the most violent area and extrapolate? yeah, real reasonable methodology there

  21. it wont  

    matter to those on the left CNN spent all day touting the remarkable figure of 655,000 (a full 600,000 over most estimates of dead in Iraq) and its not until the end of the article that they give their methodology and who commissioned and carried out ths study.

    come on now, when did facts ever stand in their way, but they arent partisan or trying to influence the election No.

  22. ummm

    That's ridiculous:

    1) There's nothing wrong with their methodology.

    2) They don't use the most violent areas of Iraq. For example, they have never included Falluja in any Lancet study.

  23. Stewart

    Frankly as decent as Stewart often is, he has his real limitations.

    For example, he completely buys into the BS "Those arabs are so C-razy" line when he talks about the Middle East.

  24. I'm sorry  

    but this is shit poor methodology:

    In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire.

    For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

    The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/10/D8KM6GL80.html

    population of iraq: 26,074,906

  25. actually

    external link to www.iraqbodycount.org ] .

    Actually, Iraqbodycount.org is measuring something totally different, officially reported and verified deaths.

    Lancet is a well respected medical journal that is talking about the number of excess deaths compared to what would be expected if there wasn't a war going on.

    They're talking about totally different things

  26. JMP  

    Thank you Jon Stewart for finally bringing sanity to all of this.

  27. pwned

    Even John Stewart isn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Now will you people stop denying reality?

  28. Anonymous

    I find it fabulous that the shiny icon of Liberalism slams the Gilcrest demonstrators. Like someone said above...

    When you have both FOX news and Jon Stewart against you, you know you .... must be a whackjob fringe element.

  29. Anonymous

    Karina Garcia and her comrades are foot soldiers for capitalism, and they're too stupid and self-righteous to even realize it. And she got into Columbia University??

    Mass immigration provides the necessary growth to perpetuate capitalism. So the Red Left advocates of open borders provide critical support for the system they claim to oppose.

    "You go girl!" said the Wall Street investment banker.

  30. Who is  

    this MacZed character that is writing pages and pages to...himself?

  31. Harrison Bergeron

    It's kind of odd how so many of you have run off on tangents, seeming to forget the original point of this post! I guess this is part of the problem. So many people are living in their own heads, or in a protected upper class world, they don't have to deal with the consequences of their utopian idealism.

    I have to shake my head in amazement that Ms. Garcia was stupid enough to libel Mr. Gilchrist. I think she's about to experience the harsh reality of the real world. A place where calling someone a murderer, along with a load of other hateful lies just to see what will stick, gets you hauled in to court and our a good chunk of change. I hope she thinks it's all worth it in the end.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.