You’re right the fault of a tow party system is that some people may think differently and or point out something negative about you. I guess you’re right maybe we should just have a dictator and an inquisition to find and kill anybody that may have different views than us.
the rationality is Jon is trying to get laughs and is not a real journalist. even though he reports news better and more truthfully than "actual ' journalists
Let me get this straight, you support New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right) who basically disappeared for 8 years while the Bush administration destroyed our coutry with wars that lined the pockets of the uber-rich. The only reason Gingrich is out now is he has presidential aspirations. I will never vote for this cockaroach!
Every aspect of your post is either false or irrelevent to the video. I am NOT a Gingrich supporter. The point of this video is clear: to point out the logical fallacies of Stewart's arguments. If you have any intelligible thoughts about that I'd love to hear them.
@miggetymike1 I get the point that you were being hard on Jon Stwart (the comedian), but you said none of my points were true or relevent to the discussion: (1) Let me get this straight, you support Newt Gingrich ... You basically railed against Jon stewart in support of Newt Gingrich in both your points (2) New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right). He lied about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama being a radical.
I don't know how I could have been more clear when I said I was "NOT a Gingrich supporter." Once again your personal views on Gingrich are irrelevant to whether or not Stewart's arguments were valid. It doesn't matter if Stewart was trying to use the faulty logic on Osama, it's still faulty logic and I wouldn't be supporting Osama for pointing that out.
@miggetymike1 I get the point that you were being hard on Jon Stwart (the comedian), but you said none of my points were true or relevent to the discussion: (1) Let me get this straight, you support Newt Gingrich ... You basically railed against Jon stewart in support of Newt Gingrich in both your points (2) New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right). He lied about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama being a radical.
Warren Buffet a really rich guy...."Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
I've heard this. I find it hard to believe that Buffet's personal secretary only makes $60k. Even if these numbers are true the exeption doesn't disprove the rule. Pointing out that one girl is taller than one boy does nothing to disprove that on average boys are taller. The fact remains, rich people, on average, pay not only more money but a larger percent of their income in taxes. This has never been a secret, the IRS keeps records you can look up.
@miggetymike1 The rich pay a larger percentage on income tax from regular income, like if their selling a product they would pay a larger percentage of tax on the profits. But from interest on investments they only pay around 15 percent which is a lot lower than what somebody making 60,000 a year would make which is close to 30. Warren Buffet makes all or most his money off investments so he is paying around the 17.7 number he quoted.
I didn't realize Newt was on Daily Show twice, since I didn't see the interview you were responding to I don't know how "objective" you were. But in the one I saw, Newt accused Obama of unprecedented Socialism & cited terrorists rights/US Citizenship (see above) as an example when challenged by Jon. Again, Newt was wrong on a"fact" that supported his argument. Worst of all, Newt's feeble argument was irrelevant to the issue. Watch the interview I'm referring to & you'll see that I'm correct.
I grudgingly admit there are hints of merit to your points,but any truly objective observer would be most concerned w/ Newt's reasons for declaring Obama a Socialist- he is extending rights to terrorists (a supposed radical departure from Bush's policies). Newt incorrectly asserted that British Shoe-bomber was a US citizen & deserved Miranda Rights unlike recent African Crotch-bomber. Newt's argument for Obama's unprecedented Socialism uses incorrect info. Where is your concern for this lapse?
I grudgingly admit there are hints of merit to your points,but any truly objective observer would be most concerned w/ Newt's reasons for declaring Obama a Socialist- he is extending rights to terrorists (a supposed radical departure from Bush's policies). Newt incorrectly asserted that British Shoe-bomber was a US citizen & deserved Miranda Rights unlike recent African Crotch-bomber. Newt's argument for Obama's unprecedented Socialism uses incorrect info. Where is your concern for this lapse?
You are confusing two different interviews. My video was made 9 months ago where the topic was socialism. The interview where Newt talked about terrorists' rights was last month. You are trying to combine the two interviews and say that Newt brought up terrorists' rights as evidence of socialism.
You asserted that my video was not objective. Other than the confusion over the different interviews do you have any reason to believe that my comments weren't objective?
The Bush tax cuts for the rich, no bid contracts for private companies in Iraq/Afganistan/Katrina, subsidizing the defense industry with tax payer money in the GAzillions for yeaarrrrs. The start of the bank bailouts by the Bush administration. Obamma is no more a socialist than any republican since Eisenhower. When are people like you gonna realize WE subsidized private power. Now thats Socialism.
Also gingrich is a "socialist"....his congressional district when he was a senator was one of the highest recipients of "government" money. In the form of defense subsidies to lockhead in Georgia. Somehow the free market rules get thrown out the window with conservatives when it comes to defense....socializing the defense industry...now thats ok.
how can I explain this. "GOVERNMENT" legislation that is designed to benefit the top tier of the population. With out being long winded tax cuts are essentially subsidies skewed to the benefit of a certain segment of the population. Basically those with a shitload of money paying a lot less proprtionately than those with less who pay a lot more(the middle class). Theres some debate over this and I suppopse we could have a copy and paste fact chek war. but I think this is true class warfare.
The upper brackets in our income tax have *never* been lower nor have corporate taxes. So economic performance should be the best its ever been, right? Yeah obama the socialist devil. His main econ advisor (Larry Summers) was from the Reagan admin. then again Reagans deficits exceeded all previous administrations combined before him. was he the 2nd coming of Mao?Dick Cheney who publicly state "Deficits dont matter". A free market for you the average joe but not for me...if im a rich guy.
Both yoru claims are blatantly false. The upper income tax bracket has been lower than it is now on many occasions (most recently in '92). At one point it was even 5x lower than current levels. You also claim that the rich "pay a lot less proportionately." This couldn't be more false. The richest 1% make 19% of the wealth but pay 37% of the federal tax load, so about 2x their proportional share. No more posts from you unless you can show this is incorrect. so... basically, no more posts!
Against Newt Gingrich, when he said "well Bush did some of that", you said that was irrelevent. Yet, when you actually pay attention you will understand that peopel are calling Obama a socialist base on policies and laws he is trying to pass. So, if Bush did the same thing, that is the definition of relevent when trying to argue the point. He doesn't need to state what Obama is doing as a counterpoint because everybody already knows.
I think partisan politics and the vagueness of the word socialist get in the way of understanding the logic of the argument. Try this:
I claim that president A has spent more money on foreign aid than any other president. If you were trying to prove my statement wrong it would do you no good to say "well, the president before him spent a lot of money on foreign aid and president A just expanded on that." That has no bearing on whether or not the original claim is true or false.
The issue was is Obama the most socialist president ever. To rebut this argument Stewart would have to show that there was a more socialist president. Pointing out that, for the most part, Obama just expanded on Bush policies does not do this. This is just the reason of the argument, it doesn't mean Obama is a bad president or Bush was good or anything. I'm just pointing out that Stewart's argument was not valid.
You do know Stewart is a Comedian correct?....It is a staire news show, often exposing the comedy that is our two party Government. Are you seriously anaylizing The Daily Show? Spend your time on Hannity if you want to analyize comedy.
This is a really interesting comment. You are saying that the logic of Stewart's arguments were so bad that they must have been an attempt at some type of satire. However, when you watch the daily show it is clear when he is using satire and when he is not. For example, when he ripped into Jim Cramer (and rightfuly so) that wasn't satire that was Stewart himself. The Newt interview was clearly not satire. So we are left with the other option that some of Stewart's arguments were just bad.
how is it an irrational response to an attack on "Obama's policies" to point out that they are actually Bush's policies?.. no further explanation is needed..
I think you may be under the misunderstanding that Bush put policies in place that are somehow unrevokable and Obama is powerless to not expand on these policies. If that were the case then your comment would have merit.
Take the deficit for example: I criticize Obama for his unprecedented deficit increases. It would be pointless for you to say Bush was (to a lesser extent) also horrible on the deficit. You should instead present an argument that Obama's deficit increase is best for America
No, I'm not under that misunderstanding, but I know that things can't be changed with just a snap of the fingers. It takes time. Also, I'm sure no republicans were saying anything abou those same policies when Bush was in office. As for the deficit increases, those are mainly due to the stimulus bill which was necessary to spark recovery. The deficit started under Bush's administration because of expensive new legislation passed with no plan on how to fund it.
"expensive new legislation with no plan on how to fund it" I guess that's another thing Obama and Bush have in common! (you set yourself up for that one)
Anyway, if you want to think that Republicans and Democrats are really different when it comes to spending money they don't have you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for your comments.
What legislation did Obama pass without a plan to fund it? the stimulus bill? That was a much needed investment to stimulate the economy. Without it the economy would keep continuing to get worse and the deficit would grow anyway. At least now, with the bill, it helped halt the skid and allow the economy to rebound which, in turn, will decrease the deficit. I'm not trying to put all the blame on any one party because I know both parties are refusing to work together, which is bad for americans
The govt is not efficient at fighting war but you still cheerlead the as the govet goes ahead and engages in war. even though it's not efficient at it. You see how hypocritical people expose themseves to be. So it's good for govt to fight wars even though you believe govt is not efficient at it, but govt should not engage in healthcare.
You don't know what you are trying to talk about. I am far from a cheerleader for our government's recent wars. I'm against the current two going on. Watch the video again at 2:10 you will see my point was the govt should be allowed to wage war. It's a legitimate government function. People can't provide their own national defense. However, people can provide their own healthcare. It's not a "public good." it's excludable unlike national defence.
(part 2) Why would we not trust them with running other health care for younger people, and non-vets, as well? They can do it cheaper and with greater efficiency. You arguments make no sense. Neither did Newt's. And why, please tell me why, are you so afraid of the government's ability to run health care? The private industries have completely gone off the deep end regarding that part of our economy and will, eventually, destroy it.
Jon Stewart did indeed make some valid points. The government does not wish, in any way, want to run our health. The government has not, nor will it ever, want to do that. That is for medical people. The point is that the government runs health care, at the present time, very well, i.e., Medicare, Medicade, Veterans. Not perfectly, but very well.
Yes, you are absolutely right. Medicare run "very well" that's why so many people who qualify for medicare still choose to pay out of their own pocket to get other insurance.
You are also correct about veterans hospitals, they are run "very well." that's why every election veterans groups make a big deal about how horrible they are and that's why many veterans who can afford it pay out of their own pocket to get insurance so they can avoud the VA hospital.
This is so typical of the "conservative" response. You make a claim and have no substance to back it up. 99% of people use medicare because it works. A few may opt out, sure, but the huge majority use it because it is all they have. And as far as vets go, since you are not one, you do not know what youare talking about. Every experience I have had has been first rate. There are a few bad places, sure. But again, the vast majority are terrific.
So John Stewart, by your own account, is at fault for not validating a point that Newt made. A point , by your own admission, that was not correct. You are an idiot, you tube guy.
You need to watch the video again and pay attention this time. I never said Stewart is at fault for not validating Newt's point. The video made it clear what the problem was, Stewart used invalid arguments against Newt's claims. I even admitted that there are logical arguments Stewart could have used. Furthermore, I never even hinted that Newt's claims were incorrect. It's all clear in the video, not sure how you got so confused.
I'm saying Obama's a tyrant, and so was bush. WTF. I think the government shouldn't wage war. OF course you wouldn't be dumb enough to occupy Iraq, but you could and hire somebody to defend your house.
"The government doesn't do things well?" I'm not so sure. The largest contruction/engineering feat in the history of the world was a 100% U.S. government run project. And, it turned out to be the most important single instrument for advancement of economic growth in U.S. history and made a profit every year. And, guess what? The second largest construction project in U.S. history was also government run -- was very successful, and highly profitable.
The largest construction project in the United States is the interstate highway system and, not surprisingly, it doesn't turn a profit. Do you honestly think that government run schools educate better than private schools and the usps is more reliable than fedex? If I had a company that was $12 trillion in debt and on average spends over $500 billion more than they bring in each year would you say that my organization was "doing well"?
Dude you are wrong! Life is not just black and white. There are people who cannot afford to provide for their own healthcare. Life cannot just be a commodity to make profits off of. Health is wealth. A healthy nation is a wealthy nation! Health directly impacts anything else you do in this country. Without your manpower or population in good health you have no thriving economy or country. You need both a private and a public healthcare system co-existing.
The health of a human being cannot simply and completely be reduced to profiteering. Since you want to make it an argument all about profits, I see that you cite examples of schoolswell why stop there? Why dont we include the fire department or police department? Since it is all about profits surely we should privatize the fire department and police department? You know, have people buy or pay for their own fire service coupons.
Whenever there is fire in a certain part of town the fire department will decide whether to put it out depending on premium paid and what part of town you live and area codes and county. Premium buyers will get preferential treatment first before those less privileged. Security provided by the police department must be enforced on premium payments. Police should secure certain areas depending how much residents pay the police department. Surely we will all make lots of profits dont you think?
Newt gingrich couldnt even get his facts straight on Richard reid. He called him a citizen in the Stewart interview. Well Reid is not a citizen. He comes on TV and blatantly lies infront of the whole country and he sits their proudly feeling good that he just scored a point. Patriotic? What an asshole! All these politicians and stupid pundits are all jousting and angling for positions and posturing for their own self interests!
It is always interesting when the Cons pick and choose when Govt is best and when it is not.. I think you will find those on the left understand the limitations of Govt but try and work with it rather then against it.. Govt can run health care it does so in most civilised nations across the globe.. And it is a valid point that Bush started some of the programmes Obama is running.. the Cons would have you believe that Obama started with a clean sheet and everything he is doing is brand new..
I assume you are refering to Newt and not me when you say "Cons." Bush was a horrible president so trying to defend Obama's programs with "Bush did it first" is actualy harmful, not helpful, to your cause. Think of a new CEO who ramps up the funding for the failed policies of the previous CEO. Would it be a defense for his supporters to say "hey, the previous CEO (who had 22% approval rating) started it"?
With regard to your point that the "government doesn't do things well". - Just because the GOP does its best to prove that point every time they're in office. Doesn't mean that government can't do things well. - As an example, Stewart mentioned the US's ability to wage war. Further, he asked what legitimate reason is there that the government can't manage peace as well as war. - It is a valid point.
Oh yea, I forgot the Government is only run poorly when Republicans are in control.
If you think the U.S. is efficient at waging wars look at korea, vietnam, iraq2, war on poverty, war on drugs, look at what we have spent on those wars and then compare that to what we got in return.
I just rewatched the clip and he never asked about managing peace as well as war.
How well government manages war is not clear. Many would claim that they do a poor job (look at Vietnam... what happens when democrats run things), then look at the Gulf war. Hit and miss.
Managing peace... Reagan was very effective, very strong, yet he never got us into WWIII as his detractors said he would. Then again, another president might have had a worse result.
I dont really see your point, Jon Stewart is a comedian and his main goal is to make people laugh...If your looking for him to give you some type of political insight then your watching the show for the wrong reason.
I agree that you don't see my point. Both of the points you brought up here (Stewart's goal and my personal reasons for watching the show) are irrelevant to the issue of hypocrisy.
Really, because I heard, and have since checked up on it and verified it to be true, that the daily shows viewer base has the HIGHEST median political knowledge of ANY news show on T.V. and know for a fact you heard that from Bill O'reilly who has a show on the third lowest according to the Pew research group study.
On TV? har! I've not had TV for... I dunno... 12 years? It's to intellectually vacant...
Besides, I don't care if you are Einstein... if you are watching Steward drunk or high off your *ss... then I don't care how supposedly "intelligent" one is.
Drunk people laugh at stupid jokes... sleep with people they normally would not.
I thought the same thing. Jon Stewart is funny, but I wish he would stop preaching his politics and then using the fact the excuse that he is a comedian to hold himself to a different standard than everyone else he criticizes. Like how he went of crossfire and chastised the host for being too partisan and creating political division in America. Is he so blind that he can't see he actively does the same thing every night? What a hypocrite.
how bout this. both bush and obama are socialist idiots. they both have it wrong. why? they are both big gov't. they BOTH defy our founding fathers. fuck whether it's red or blue.
jon stewart is a comedian, a smart one. newt is a neo-con, a smart one. but jon is a comedian, newt is a neo-con. i trust neither of their opinions.
to jon thinking gov't is efficient: student tuition is way up, housing crisis, current medicare deficits, iraq war, stalin, mussolini, hitler.
MiggetyM, Great Job, it is pointless for a man of Gingrich's intellect to go on the Daily Show, not that Stewart isn't bright, he just plays down to his audience.
I dont think you understood what Stewart meant. First, the point Stewart made was that Newt was making just a political argument. He implied that Newt didn't really believe on what he said since the policies he now criticizes were in place long ago and he never stepped up to say anything as he does now. Again, he attacked Newt on a higher level saying that he was moved to attack Obama and not to make his point.
Second, Stewart very smartly compared running the health care system with running a war. He, knowing that Newt has said a myriad of times that the US military is doing great and was very successful with the surge in Iraq, asked Newt which of these two was more difficult running a war or a health care system. Newt who could not say that the military was ineffective became quiet and had no answer. He actually did not know what to say. That was a great argument.
Stewart did not ask Newt if healthcare is more difficult than a war.
If I claimed that gov should control what house citizens buy and you argued that gov would mess that up and shouldn't be put in charge of something so important it would be a dumb remark for me to say "oh ya, well we let the governmnet wage war don't we!" There's a lot of things easier than waging wars that we don't want the gov controling.
Newt said the government shouldnt control health care because it is inefficient. Therefore, what Stewart did was simply to confront that with what Newt said previously (not in this show) that the military, and consequently the gov., was efficient. If Newt had said that he thinks health should be totally private because he wants so, then Johns argument would be pointless but thats not the case. John proved to Newt that the government was and can be efficient, at least in Newts point of view.
I think you are missing Stewart's point here. Stewart believes that healthcare is clearly broken, which, I think most americans woud agree. So, if private business can't make it work, why not let the government give it a try. Competent governments are good at waging war (The first Gulf War!) As for the houses, I don't hear people complaining about the houses they purchase. However, I do hear a lot of complaints about medical insurance people purchase.
This would have been an intelligent response if the issue was does Newt agree with certain Obama policies that Bush supported. However, the issue was clearly stated when Newt claimed that Obama's administration is the most socialist ever.
Stewart's response would be like if Stewart said Bush was the worst president ever and Newt replied, "oh ya, well some of the things Bush did Obama is doing!" That would be pointless bc it doesn't address the issue brought up. this is what Stewart did.
I think you got this wrong too. What Newt is doing is the same as if you support a basketball coach that follows a certain strategy, then the coach you like leaves and one you dislike takes place. Coincidentally, the new coach follows the same strategy. But, now you go to all your friends and criticize the new coachs strategy. - CONTINUES
CONTINUATION - Well, your friends will think one of two things. Either you dont really believe the strategy is wrong or you would have said before or you always disliked the strategy but never said anything because you liked the guy. Thats were Stewart arguments put Newt as everyone knows he never said that of Bush before.
watch it again. Your comment would be accurate if newt's claim was "everything Obama does is wrong." His claim was Obama is the most socialist ever, so showing that SOME of his policies were the same as Bush's does nothing. If Stewart wanted to go this route to prove his point he would have to claim that ALL of Obama's policies were Bush policies. Or, (gasp) he could have just addressed whether Obama admin is most socialist OR argued that his policies socialist or not are the best.
Horrible example. I would like to argue that our prior president and current president have different strategies. Please review the issues and understand them before you make a comparison.
What you think isn't being discussed here. What we're discussing here is that Newt said Obama was the most socialist goverment for doing the same things Bush did. Therefore, he should have said Obama and Bush are the most socialist goverments ever. But, of course, because of his party he did not. Going deeper, if he de facto believed that these are socialist policies why he didn't say in November 2008 that Bush was the most socialist goverment ever? Answer: Because he just wants to attack Obama.
You're looking at this too simplisticaly. This will help: If newt said Obama was the most traveled president ever the response "no, Obama went to some of the same countries Bush went to" would be pointless. This line of response would only be valid if they both went to the exact same countries. Likewise Stewart's question would only be valid if Obama's and Bush's policies weren't just similar, but identical. That's clearly not the case.
No. You are the one too simplistic. I don't think you get what Stewart means. Newt arguments are so flaw. Why Newt says Obama is the most socialist goverment? Well, for sure Obama has plans for a new universal health care but that is not even a reality. Then, the only possibility for this is the money that is being given to mainly the car manufacturers and the banks. Then comes the real question who started it, who planned it. If you didn't started how come you are the most socialist?
The real point Stewart makes and you probably haven't noticed yet is that Newt is just another politician trying to use the moment to his benefit. The only thing that Obama is doing that can be called sociliast is lending money. You know who decided to do that: Bush. Still, Newt voted for the money to be lent. Newt knows that Obama cannot get back and don't give them the money or the whole country will go bankrupt and Stewart knows Newt knows that. That's why Newt is the most hypocrite person .
lol, u probably think Stewart is more intelligent than Newt too, huh? Stewart is nothing more than the class clown, providing more laughs than news to please the stoner crowd, his main audience.
You have been watching way to much of the O'Riley Factor.....And besides you give a flying F!@# what Jon says he is a comedian thats what they do make people laugh at poking fun at everybody else...
Sadly, a VERY large number of people get their political news from the Jon S. show, and Jon takes his politics very seriously.
He makes hard points, but then retreats under the blanket of comedy to escape meaningful examination of his positions.
He is agenda driven, and clearly tries to advance his political agenda from his seat, no different than, say, Mr. Linbaugh does, only in a slightly different format.
Newt doesn't make any sense at all. I am surprised that you would come here to make a video about Stewart arguments and not about all the BS that this man says in the interview. For instance, he says Obama is the most tyrannic goverment of all. WHAT?? You see what you are doing, you are trying to defend the logic of argumentation of a guy who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he uses.
It's clearly you who doesn't even "know the meaning of the words he uses." Newt expresly stated that in the interview he doesn't think he is "tyranical" as the question posed by Stewart said. Go back and watch it again. He only addressed the socialist claim. Since this was the only argument you came up with on your post and since it's clearly false I'll assume you are done here now.
Ahahaha.....it is a good thing when you run out of arguments then you say that the other is the one who doesn't have any arguments. Listen, try not to be so biased. Maybe you are related to Newt and your job here is to defend your uncle. Newt voted yes for the money given to banks and automakers, then he comes and says that the new guy is the socialist, he who voted for the money is now being given is not...ahaha.. it is getting funnier and funnier
This video clearly isn't about Newt>Obama. You can think Obama is the best and still aknowledge that Stewart's responses/questions to Newt weren't valid.
For the policies that Obama and Bush have in common that Newt disagrees with why didn't we hear about this during Bush years? This is a completely valid question but not what Stewart asked. This video is about the validity of what Stewart did ask not what he could have or should have asked.
I am starting to think you haven't seen the video at all. That is exactly what Stewart ask: did you say that before? He even threatens to go and look for it in his TIVO.
wrong again, that question was when they were talking about Palosi's CIA issue. If you paid attention you would know that. If you paid attention to my video you would know that I addressed two things Stewart did and this was not one of them.
But ya, that was a good question. If you like you can make a video of things Stewart did well. Mine was about the things he did poorly.
jon did not do well in this interview. gingrich took it by sticking to the point and not getting sidetracked by jon's silliness. jon was off-balance throughout.
Jon is a bright and analytical person who weighs the facts and comes to conclusions on his own, which is what everybody should be doing. Newt is just a cynical lier and distorter of facts like the rest of the GOP. For instance, saying that Health Care is just another form of taxation plainly incorrect as it is about lowering the cost of health insurance and improving quality of life for all americans. So it is actually REDUCING the cost for the taxpayer.
the interview was 95% politics. I think it had two short jokes in it. That's no different from a lot of other interviews of politicians. Stewart's jokes are just better.
NDAA.. Obama not tyrannical? But Jon Stewart's argument's are illogical at times certainly.
GSG17 1 month ago
Can't wait to hear Stewart about Newt's ideas of arresting judges.
That nutcase wants to be a Fuhrer ... LOL
perrrob 2 months ago
Jon Stewart is a dick
Capefear00 2 months ago
You’re right the fault of a tow party system is that some people may think differently and or point out something negative about you. I guess you’re right maybe we should just have a dictator and an inquisition to find and kill anybody that may have different views than us.
rellirTnoraa1 2 months ago
the rationality is Jon is trying to get laughs and is not a real journalist. even though he reports news better and more truthfully than "actual ' journalists
btachi50 1 year ago
Let me get this straight, you support New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right) who basically disappeared for 8 years while the Bush administration destroyed our coutry with wars that lined the pockets of the uber-rich. The only reason Gingrich is out now is he has presidential aspirations. I will never vote for this cockaroach!
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
Every aspect of your post is either false or irrelevent to the video. I am NOT a Gingrich supporter. The point of this video is clear: to point out the logical fallacies of Stewart's arguments. If you have any intelligible thoughts about that I'd love to hear them.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 I get the point that you were being hard on Jon Stwart (the comedian), but you said none of my points were true or relevent to the discussion: (1) Let me get this straight, you support Newt Gingrich ... You basically railed against Jon stewart in support of Newt Gingrich in both your points (2) New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right). He lied about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama being a radical.
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
I don't know how I could have been more clear when I said I was "NOT a Gingrich supporter." Once again your personal views on Gingrich are irrelevant to whether or not Stewart's arguments were valid. It doesn't matter if Stewart was trying to use the faulty logic on Osama, it's still faulty logic and I wouldn't be supporting Osama for pointing that out.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 I get the point that you were being hard on Jon Stwart (the comedian), but you said none of my points were true or relevent to the discussion: (1) Let me get this straight, you support Newt Gingrich ... You basically railed against Jon stewart in support of Newt Gingrich in both your points (2) New Gingrich (a known liar in his own right). He lied about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama being a radical.
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
Warren Buffet a really rich guy...."Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
bilboslagins 1 year ago
I've heard this. I find it hard to believe that Buffet's personal secretary only makes $60k. Even if these numbers are true the exeption doesn't disprove the rule. Pointing out that one girl is taller than one boy does nothing to disprove that on average boys are taller. The fact remains, rich people, on average, pay not only more money but a larger percent of their income in taxes. This has never been a secret, the IRS keeps records you can look up.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 The rich pay a larger percentage on income tax from regular income, like if their selling a product they would pay a larger percentage of tax on the profits. But from interest on investments they only pay around 15 percent which is a lot lower than what somebody making 60,000 a year would make which is close to 30. Warren Buffet makes all or most his money off investments so he is paying around the 17.7 number he quoted.
kbellshs1 3 weeks ago
I didn't realize Newt was on Daily Show twice, since I didn't see the interview you were responding to I don't know how "objective" you were. But in the one I saw, Newt accused Obama of unprecedented Socialism & cited terrorists rights/US Citizenship (see above) as an example when challenged by Jon. Again, Newt was wrong on a"fact" that supported his argument. Worst of all, Newt's feeble argument was irrelevant to the issue. Watch the interview I'm referring to & you'll see that I'm correct.
RayRothrock1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I grudgingly admit there are hints of merit to your points,but any truly objective observer would be most concerned w/ Newt's reasons for declaring Obama a Socialist- he is extending rights to terrorists (a supposed radical departure from Bush's policies). Newt incorrectly asserted that British Shoe-bomber was a US citizen & deserved Miranda Rights unlike recent African Crotch-bomber. Newt's argument for Obama's unprecedented Socialism uses incorrect info. Where is your concern for this lapse?
RayRothrock1 2 years ago
I grudgingly admit there are hints of merit to your points,but any truly objective observer would be most concerned w/ Newt's reasons for declaring Obama a Socialist- he is extending rights to terrorists (a supposed radical departure from Bush's policies). Newt incorrectly asserted that British Shoe-bomber was a US citizen & deserved Miranda Rights unlike recent African Crotch-bomber. Newt's argument for Obama's unprecedented Socialism uses incorrect info. Where is your concern for this lapse?
RayRothrock1 2 years ago
You are confusing two different interviews. My video was made 9 months ago where the topic was socialism. The interview where Newt talked about terrorists' rights was last month. You are trying to combine the two interviews and say that Newt brought up terrorists' rights as evidence of socialism.
You asserted that my video was not objective. Other than the confusion over the different interviews do you have any reason to believe that my comments weren't objective?
miggetymike1 2 years ago
The Bush tax cuts for the rich, no bid contracts for private companies in Iraq/Afganistan/Katrina, subsidizing the defense industry with tax payer money in the GAzillions for yeaarrrrs. The start of the bank bailouts by the Bush administration. Obamma is no more a socialist than any republican since Eisenhower. When are people like you gonna realize WE subsidized private power. Now thats Socialism.
mirapilates 2 years ago
Also gingrich is a "socialist"....his congressional district when he was a senator was one of the highest recipients of "government" money. In the form of defense subsidies to lockhead in Georgia. Somehow the free market rules get thrown out the window with conservatives when it comes to defense....socializing the defense industry...now thats ok.
mirapilates 2 years ago
How are tax cuts for the rich an example of socialism? Wouldn't that be the opposite of socialism?
miggetymike1 2 years ago
how can I explain this. "GOVERNMENT" legislation that is designed to benefit the top tier of the population. With out being long winded tax cuts are essentially subsidies skewed to the benefit of a certain segment of the population. Basically those with a shitload of money paying a lot less proprtionately than those with less who pay a lot more(the middle class). Theres some debate over this and I suppopse we could have a copy and paste fact chek war. but I think this is true class warfare.
mirapilates 2 years ago
The upper brackets in our income tax have *never* been lower nor have corporate taxes. So economic performance should be the best its ever been, right? Yeah obama the socialist devil. His main econ advisor (Larry Summers) was from the Reagan admin. then again Reagans deficits exceeded all previous administrations combined before him. was he the 2nd coming of Mao?Dick Cheney who publicly state "Deficits dont matter". A free market for you the average joe but not for me...if im a rich guy.
mirapilates 2 years ago
Both yoru claims are blatantly false. The upper income tax bracket has been lower than it is now on many occasions (most recently in '92). At one point it was even 5x lower than current levels. You also claim that the rich "pay a lot less proportionately." This couldn't be more false. The richest 1% make 19% of the wealth but pay 37% of the federal tax load, so about 2x their proportional share. No more posts from you unless you can show this is incorrect. so... basically, no more posts!
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Against Newt Gingrich, when he said "well Bush did some of that", you said that was irrelevent. Yet, when you actually pay attention you will understand that peopel are calling Obama a socialist base on policies and laws he is trying to pass. So, if Bush did the same thing, that is the definition of relevent when trying to argue the point. He doesn't need to state what Obama is doing as a counterpoint because everybody already knows.
darryl32920 2 years ago
I think partisan politics and the vagueness of the word socialist get in the way of understanding the logic of the argument. Try this:
I claim that president A has spent more money on foreign aid than any other president. If you were trying to prove my statement wrong it would do you no good to say "well, the president before him spent a lot of money on foreign aid and president A just expanded on that." That has no bearing on whether or not the original claim is true or false.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
The issue was is Obama the most socialist president ever. To rebut this argument Stewart would have to show that there was a more socialist president. Pointing out that, for the most part, Obama just expanded on Bush policies does not do this. This is just the reason of the argument, it doesn't mean Obama is a bad president or Bush was good or anything. I'm just pointing out that Stewart's argument was not valid.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
You do know Stewart is a Comedian correct?....It is a staire news show, often exposing the comedy that is our two party Government. Are you seriously anaylizing The Daily Show? Spend your time on Hannity if you want to analyize comedy.
scosh24 2 years ago
This is a really interesting comment. You are saying that the logic of Stewart's arguments were so bad that they must have been an attempt at some type of satire. However, when you watch the daily show it is clear when he is using satire and when he is not. For example, when he ripped into Jim Cramer (and rightfuly so) that wasn't satire that was Stewart himself. The Newt interview was clearly not satire. So we are left with the other option that some of Stewart's arguments were just bad.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
In charge of supplying funding to maintain your health.
3wsgabav3 2 years ago
how is it an irrational response to an attack on "Obama's policies" to point out that they are actually Bush's policies?.. no further explanation is needed..
jdh14 2 years ago
I think you may be under the misunderstanding that Bush put policies in place that are somehow unrevokable and Obama is powerless to not expand on these policies. If that were the case then your comment would have merit.
Take the deficit for example: I criticize Obama for his unprecedented deficit increases. It would be pointless for you to say Bush was (to a lesser extent) also horrible on the deficit. You should instead present an argument that Obama's deficit increase is best for America
miggetymike1 2 years ago
No, I'm not under that misunderstanding, but I know that things can't be changed with just a snap of the fingers. It takes time. Also, I'm sure no republicans were saying anything abou those same policies when Bush was in office. As for the deficit increases, those are mainly due to the stimulus bill which was necessary to spark recovery. The deficit started under Bush's administration because of expensive new legislation passed with no plan on how to fund it.
jdh14 2 years ago
"expensive new legislation with no plan on how to fund it" I guess that's another thing Obama and Bush have in common! (you set yourself up for that one)
Anyway, if you want to think that Republicans and Democrats are really different when it comes to spending money they don't have you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for your comments.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
What legislation did Obama pass without a plan to fund it? the stimulus bill? That was a much needed investment to stimulate the economy. Without it the economy would keep continuing to get worse and the deficit would grow anyway. At least now, with the bill, it helped halt the skid and allow the economy to rebound which, in turn, will decrease the deficit. I'm not trying to put all the blame on any one party because I know both parties are refusing to work together, which is bad for americans
jdh14 2 years ago
Who cares what you think.... DO you think?
mardats 2 years ago
Excellent points. Very impartial view.
jahf1986 2 years ago
This dude on this clip is plain a moron!
The govt is not efficient at fighting war but you still cheerlead the as the govet goes ahead and engages in war. even though it's not efficient at it. You see how hypocritical people expose themseves to be. So it's good for govt to fight wars even though you believe govt is not efficient at it, but govt should not engage in healthcare.
kaluski 2 years ago
You don't know what you are trying to talk about. I am far from a cheerleader for our government's recent wars. I'm against the current two going on. Watch the video again at 2:10 you will see my point was the govt should be allowed to wage war. It's a legitimate government function. People can't provide their own national defense. However, people can provide their own healthcare. It's not a "public good." it's excludable unlike national defence.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
(part 2) Why would we not trust them with running other health care for younger people, and non-vets, as well? They can do it cheaper and with greater efficiency. You arguments make no sense. Neither did Newt's. And why, please tell me why, are you so afraid of the government's ability to run health care? The private industries have completely gone off the deep end regarding that part of our economy and will, eventually, destroy it.
jerjulmey 2 years ago
Jon Stewart did indeed make some valid points. The government does not wish, in any way, want to run our health. The government has not, nor will it ever, want to do that. That is for medical people. The point is that the government runs health care, at the present time, very well, i.e., Medicare, Medicade, Veterans. Not perfectly, but very well.
jerjulmey 2 years ago
Yes, you are absolutely right. Medicare run "very well" that's why so many people who qualify for medicare still choose to pay out of their own pocket to get other insurance.
You are also correct about veterans hospitals, they are run "very well." that's why every election veterans groups make a big deal about how horrible they are and that's why many veterans who can afford it pay out of their own pocket to get insurance so they can avoud the VA hospital.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
This is so typical of the "conservative" response. You make a claim and have no substance to back it up. 99% of people use medicare because it works. A few may opt out, sure, but the huge majority use it because it is all they have. And as far as vets go, since you are not one, you do not know what youare talking about. Every experience I have had has been first rate. There are a few bad places, sure. But again, the vast majority are terrific.
jerjulmey 2 years ago
So John Stewart, by your own account, is at fault for not validating a point that Newt made. A point , by your own admission, that was not correct. You are an idiot, you tube guy.
kdgmason1 2 years ago
You need to watch the video again and pay attention this time. I never said Stewart is at fault for not validating Newt's point. The video made it clear what the problem was, Stewart used invalid arguments against Newt's claims. I even admitted that there are logical arguments Stewart could have used. Furthermore, I never even hinted that Newt's claims were incorrect. It's all clear in the video, not sure how you got so confused.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
I'm saying Obama's a tyrant, and so was bush. WTF. I think the government shouldn't wage war. OF course you wouldn't be dumb enough to occupy Iraq, but you could and hire somebody to defend your house.
snoopyflick 2 years ago
"The government doesn't do things well?" I'm not so sure. The largest contruction/engineering feat in the history of the world was a 100% U.S. government run project. And, it turned out to be the most important single instrument for advancement of economic growth in U.S. history and made a profit every year. And, guess what? The second largest construction project in U.S. history was also government run -- was very successful, and highly profitable.
Wynnson3 2 years ago
The largest construction project in the United States is the interstate highway system and, not surprisingly, it doesn't turn a profit. Do you honestly think that government run schools educate better than private schools and the usps is more reliable than fedex? If I had a company that was $12 trillion in debt and on average spends over $500 billion more than they bring in each year would you say that my organization was "doing well"?
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Dude you are wrong! Life is not just black and white. There are people who cannot afford to provide for their own healthcare. Life cannot just be a commodity to make profits off of. Health is wealth. A healthy nation is a wealthy nation! Health directly impacts anything else you do in this country. Without your manpower or population in good health you have no thriving economy or country. You need both a private and a public healthcare system co-existing.
kaluski 2 years ago
The health of a human being cannot simply and completely be reduced to profiteering. Since you want to make it an argument all about profits, I see that you cite examples of schoolswell why stop there? Why dont we include the fire department or police department? Since it is all about profits surely we should privatize the fire department and police department? You know, have people buy or pay for their own fire service coupons.
kaluski 2 years ago
Whenever there is fire in a certain part of town the fire department will decide whether to put it out depending on premium paid and what part of town you live and area codes and county. Premium buyers will get preferential treatment first before those less privileged. Security provided by the police department must be enforced on premium payments. Police should secure certain areas depending how much residents pay the police department. Surely we will all make lots of profits dont you think?
kaluski 2 years ago
Newt gingrich couldnt even get his facts straight on Richard reid. He called him a citizen in the Stewart interview. Well Reid is not a citizen. He comes on TV and blatantly lies infront of the whole country and he sits their proudly feeling good that he just scored a point. Patriotic? What an asshole! All these politicians and stupid pundits are all jousting and angling for positions and posturing for their own self interests!
kaluski 2 years ago
It is always interesting when the Cons pick and choose when Govt is best and when it is not.. I think you will find those on the left understand the limitations of Govt but try and work with it rather then against it.. Govt can run health care it does so in most civilised nations across the globe.. And it is a valid point that Bush started some of the programmes Obama is running.. the Cons would have you believe that Obama started with a clean sheet and everything he is doing is brand new..
pumasyd 2 years ago
I assume you are refering to Newt and not me when you say "Cons." Bush was a horrible president so trying to defend Obama's programs with "Bush did it first" is actualy harmful, not helpful, to your cause. Think of a new CEO who ramps up the funding for the failed policies of the previous CEO. Would it be a defense for his supporters to say "hey, the previous CEO (who had 22% approval rating) started it"?
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Also, regarding health care vs the military:
One is guaranteed by our freakin' constitution (protection from harm) and one is not (providing health care).
ptmoneyrap 2 years ago
With regard to your point that the "government doesn't do things well". - Just because the GOP does its best to prove that point every time they're in office. Doesn't mean that government can't do things well. - As an example, Stewart mentioned the US's ability to wage war. Further, he asked what legitimate reason is there that the government can't manage peace as well as war. - It is a valid point.
im4wur 2 years ago
Oh yea, I forgot the Government is only run poorly when Republicans are in control.
If you think the U.S. is efficient at waging wars look at korea, vietnam, iraq2, war on poverty, war on drugs, look at what we have spent on those wars and then compare that to what we got in return.
I just rewatched the clip and he never asked about managing peace as well as war.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
How well government manages war is not clear. Many would claim that they do a poor job (look at Vietnam... what happens when democrats run things), then look at the Gulf war. Hit and miss.
Managing peace... Reagan was very effective, very strong, yet he never got us into WWIII as his detractors said he would. Then again, another president might have had a worse result.
I think your point... really makes no point.
RyderSpearmann 2 years ago
I dont really see your point, Jon Stewart is a comedian and his main goal is to make people laugh...If your looking for him to give you some type of political insight then your watching the show for the wrong reason.
AClark0100 2 years ago
I agree that you don't see my point. Both of the points you brought up here (Stewart's goal and my personal reasons for watching the show) are irrelevant to the issue of hypocrisy.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
I'm just going to do this:
Newt = Bad
Jon = Good
kblixt 2 years ago
I think this sums up the level of understanding of the audience that day.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
The funny thing is, that I heard that polling data about Jon's show is that nearly 90% of his viewers are intoxicated when they watch the show.
RyderSpearmann 2 years ago
90% ???
Wheres this poll you talk about?
90% stoners, maybe.
xetlive 2 years ago
he was being interveiewed when it was brought up... and I don't doub't it :) He did not dispute it.
RyderSpearmann 2 years ago
It's something Bill O'Reilly said on his show.
subaveragejoes 2 years ago
Really, because I heard, and have since checked up on it and verified it to be true, that the daily shows viewer base has the HIGHEST median political knowledge of ANY news show on T.V. and know for a fact you heard that from Bill O'reilly who has a show on the third lowest according to the Pew research group study.
subaveragejoes 2 years ago
On TV? har! I've not had TV for... I dunno... 12 years? It's to intellectually vacant...
Besides, I don't care if you are Einstein... if you are watching Steward drunk or high off your *ss... then I don't care how supposedly "intelligent" one is.
Drunk people laugh at stupid jokes... sleep with people they normally would not.
Not impressive, is it.
RyderSpearmann 2 years ago
I thought the same thing. Jon Stewart is funny, but I wish he would stop preaching his politics and then using the fact the excuse that he is a comedian to hold himself to a different standard than everyone else he criticizes. Like how he went of crossfire and chastised the host for being too partisan and creating political division in America. Is he so blind that he can't see he actively does the same thing every night? What a hypocrite.
bawbawbla 2 years ago
how bout this. both bush and obama are socialist idiots. they both have it wrong. why? they are both big gov't. they BOTH defy our founding fathers. fuck whether it's red or blue.
jon stewart is a comedian, a smart one. newt is a neo-con, a smart one. but jon is a comedian, newt is a neo-con. i trust neither of their opinions.
to jon thinking gov't is efficient: student tuition is way up, housing crisis, current medicare deficits, iraq war, stalin, mussolini, hitler.
i prefer freedom!
tmac9938 2 years ago
MiggetyM, Great Job, it is pointless for a man of Gingrich's intellect to go on the Daily Show, not that Stewart isn't bright, he just plays down to his audience.
libssuc 2 years ago
I dont think you understood what Stewart meant. First, the point Stewart made was that Newt was making just a political argument. He implied that Newt didn't really believe on what he said since the policies he now criticizes were in place long ago and he never stepped up to say anything as he does now. Again, he attacked Newt on a higher level saying that he was moved to attack Obama and not to make his point.
tiagovq 2 years ago 2
Second, Stewart very smartly compared running the health care system with running a war. He, knowing that Newt has said a myriad of times that the US military is doing great and was very successful with the surge in Iraq, asked Newt which of these two was more difficult running a war or a health care system. Newt who could not say that the military was ineffective became quiet and had no answer. He actually did not know what to say. That was a great argument.
tiagovq 2 years ago 2
Stewart did not ask Newt if healthcare is more difficult than a war.
If I claimed that gov should control what house citizens buy and you argued that gov would mess that up and shouldn't be put in charge of something so important it would be a dumb remark for me to say "oh ya, well we let the governmnet wage war don't we!" There's a lot of things easier than waging wars that we don't want the gov controling.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Newt said the government shouldnt control health care because it is inefficient. Therefore, what Stewart did was simply to confront that with what Newt said previously (not in this show) that the military, and consequently the gov., was efficient. If Newt had said that he thinks health should be totally private because he wants so, then Johns argument would be pointless but thats not the case. John proved to Newt that the government was and can be efficient, at least in Newts point of view.
tiagovq 2 years ago 2
I think you are missing Stewart's point here. Stewart believes that healthcare is clearly broken, which, I think most americans woud agree. So, if private business can't make it work, why not let the government give it a try. Competent governments are good at waging war (The first Gulf War!) As for the houses, I don't hear people complaining about the houses they purchase. However, I do hear a lot of complaints about medical insurance people purchase.
nicolempaine 2 years ago 2
This would have been an intelligent response if the issue was does Newt agree with certain Obama policies that Bush supported. However, the issue was clearly stated when Newt claimed that Obama's administration is the most socialist ever.
Stewart's response would be like if Stewart said Bush was the worst president ever and Newt replied, "oh ya, well some of the things Bush did Obama is doing!" That would be pointless bc it doesn't address the issue brought up. this is what Stewart did.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
I think you got this wrong too. What Newt is doing is the same as if you support a basketball coach that follows a certain strategy, then the coach you like leaves and one you dislike takes place. Coincidentally, the new coach follows the same strategy. But, now you go to all your friends and criticize the new coachs strategy. - CONTINUES
tiagovq 2 years ago
Comment removed
tiagovq 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONTINUATION - Well, your friends will think one of two things. Either you dont really believe the strategy is wrong or you would have said before or you always disliked the strategy but never said anything because you liked the guy. Thats were Stewart arguments put Newt as everyone knows he never said that of Bush before.
tiagovq 2 years ago
watch it again. Your comment would be accurate if newt's claim was "everything Obama does is wrong." His claim was Obama is the most socialist ever, so showing that SOME of his policies were the same as Bush's does nothing. If Stewart wanted to go this route to prove his point he would have to claim that ALL of Obama's policies were Bush policies. Or, (gasp) he could have just addressed whether Obama admin is most socialist OR argued that his policies socialist or not are the best.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Horrible example. I would like to argue that our prior president and current president have different strategies. Please review the issues and understand them before you make a comparison.
jwat2807 2 years ago
What you think isn't being discussed here. What we're discussing here is that Newt said Obama was the most socialist goverment for doing the same things Bush did. Therefore, he should have said Obama and Bush are the most socialist goverments ever. But, of course, because of his party he did not. Going deeper, if he de facto believed that these are socialist policies why he didn't say in November 2008 that Bush was the most socialist goverment ever? Answer: Because he just wants to attack Obama.
tiagovq 2 years ago 3
You're looking at this too simplisticaly. This will help: If newt said Obama was the most traveled president ever the response "no, Obama went to some of the same countries Bush went to" would be pointless. This line of response would only be valid if they both went to the exact same countries. Likewise Stewart's question would only be valid if Obama's and Bush's policies weren't just similar, but identical. That's clearly not the case.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
No. You are the one too simplistic. I don't think you get what Stewart means. Newt arguments are so flaw. Why Newt says Obama is the most socialist goverment? Well, for sure Obama has plans for a new universal health care but that is not even a reality. Then, the only possibility for this is the money that is being given to mainly the car manufacturers and the banks. Then comes the real question who started it, who planned it. If you didn't started how come you are the most socialist?
tiagovq 2 years ago
The real point Stewart makes and you probably haven't noticed yet is that Newt is just another politician trying to use the moment to his benefit. The only thing that Obama is doing that can be called sociliast is lending money. You know who decided to do that: Bush. Still, Newt voted for the money to be lent. Newt knows that Obama cannot get back and don't give them the money or the whole country will go bankrupt and Stewart knows Newt knows that. That's why Newt is the most hypocrite person .
tiagovq 2 years ago
lol, u probably think Stewart is more intelligent than Newt too, huh? Stewart is nothing more than the class clown, providing more laughs than news to please the stoner crowd, his main audience.
chriscunanan 2 years ago
You are right. It is clearly a comedy show, that's why Newt was there. The guy provides more laughs than any news these days...lol
tiagovq 2 years ago
You have been watching way to much of the O'Riley Factor.....And besides you give a flying F!@# what Jon says he is a comedian thats what they do make people laugh at poking fun at everybody else...
AClark0100 2 years ago 5
that's not what stewart does. he has more of an agenda than Obama.
ptmoneyrap 2 years ago
Sadly, a VERY large number of people get their political news from the Jon S. show, and Jon takes his politics very seriously.
He makes hard points, but then retreats under the blanket of comedy to escape meaningful examination of his positions.
He is agenda driven, and clearly tries to advance his political agenda from his seat, no different than, say, Mr. Linbaugh does, only in a slightly different format.
RyderSpearmann 2 years ago
Exactamundo!
blueprophet9 2 years ago
Newt doesn't make any sense at all. I am surprised that you would come here to make a video about Stewart arguments and not about all the BS that this man says in the interview. For instance, he says Obama is the most tyrannic goverment of all. WHAT?? You see what you are doing, you are trying to defend the logic of argumentation of a guy who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he uses.
tiagovq 2 years ago
It's clearly you who doesn't even "know the meaning of the words he uses." Newt expresly stated that in the interview he doesn't think he is "tyranical" as the question posed by Stewart said. Go back and watch it again. He only addressed the socialist claim. Since this was the only argument you came up with on your post and since it's clearly false I'll assume you are done here now.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
Ahahaha.....it is a good thing when you run out of arguments then you say that the other is the one who doesn't have any arguments. Listen, try not to be so biased. Maybe you are related to Newt and your job here is to defend your uncle. Newt voted yes for the money given to banks and automakers, then he comes and says that the new guy is the socialist, he who voted for the money is now being given is not...ahaha.. it is getting funnier and funnier
tiagovq 2 years ago
This video clearly isn't about Newt>Obama. You can think Obama is the best and still aknowledge that Stewart's responses/questions to Newt weren't valid.
For the policies that Obama and Bush have in common that Newt disagrees with why didn't we hear about this during Bush years? This is a completely valid question but not what Stewart asked. This video is about the validity of what Stewart did ask not what he could have or should have asked.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
I am starting to think you haven't seen the video at all. That is exactly what Stewart ask: did you say that before? He even threatens to go and look for it in his TIVO.
tiagovq 2 years ago
wrong again, that question was when they were talking about Palosi's CIA issue. If you paid attention you would know that. If you paid attention to my video you would know that I addressed two things Stewart did and this was not one of them.
But ya, that was a good question. If you like you can make a video of things Stewart did well. Mine was about the things he did poorly.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
jon did not do well in this interview. gingrich took it by sticking to the point and not getting sidetracked by jon's silliness. jon was off-balance throughout.
katooom 2 years ago
Did you see Newts face? Stewart stumped him during that national healthcare debate.
goldknight30 2 years ago
Would you care to share how Stewart's comment stumped Newt?
Newt had a confused look on his face because Stewart's "argument" was nonsensical.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
it's a comedy show, who cares
SmokinBabies 2 years ago
Its a little more than a comedy show nowadays. Jon Stewart gets into serious debate. Patisan hack if you ask me.
pahtsan 2 years ago
Jon is a bright and analytical person who weighs the facts and comes to conclusions on his own, which is what everybody should be doing. Newt is just a cynical lier and distorter of facts like the rest of the GOP. For instance, saying that Health Care is just another form of taxation plainly incorrect as it is about lowering the cost of health insurance and improving quality of life for all americans. So it is actually REDUCING the cost for the taxpayer.
tauronmaikar 2 years ago 2
the interview was 95% politics. I think it had two short jokes in it. That's no different from a lot of other interviews of politicians. Stewart's jokes are just better.
miggetymike1 2 years ago
You are wrong, because Stewart constantly refers to his show as a comedy show.
I guess you don't even watch the show.
boombarass 2 years ago
right on brother
aaronpless 2 years ago