Jon Stewart to O'Reilly: Why didn't you guys treat Ron Paul better?

[Knightskye]

YouTube - Full Unedited Interview of Jon Stewart by Bill O'Reilly Pt 4 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAGCzNaoZGc)

Around the 6:15 mark.

Stewart was hammering O'Reilly on Fox News being unfair to other viewpoints, and mentioned that Ron Paul had been warning about the deficit throughout Bush's term. I'm pretty sure he made that point on his own show a couple months ago.

[John of Des Moines]

Notice the Paul part did not make the tv cut.

[tonesforjonesbones]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

[0zzy]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

wow, your intelligence is starting to rub off on me ! 0zzy

[jabf2006]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

Ron Paul recently gave high praise to Jon Stewart at the Mises Circle in Houston...I doubt Paul has had a chance to check out Stewart's interview with O'Reilly.

[Bruno]

Was that comment about Mounds and Almond Joy from O'Reilly supposed to insinuate Paul is nuts?

Who's the nut?

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Flips Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY)

[LibertyEagle]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

I'm not arguing with you, because I do not know, but what you are basing this statement upon?

[jabf2006]

I'm not arguing with you, because I do not know, but what you are basing this statement upon?

I'm not sure about the filthy part...buddy looks pretty clean to me...however in the OReilly interview he says the executive branch is no longer equal to congress and that Obama should just issue executive orders like Bush did to get his way. That pretty much ruined Stewart for me.

[zach]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

Really though?

[jclay2]

I agree with tones. This guy is the polar opposite of free markets. He was able to criticize bush over a deficit of 500 Billion, but can't seem to see a problem with Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Don't trust this guy, he is a big government obama loving shill.

[Pennsylvania]

I agree with tones. This guy is the polar opposite of free markets. He was able to criticize bush over a deficit of 500 Billion, but can't seem to see a problem with Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Don't trust this guy, he is a big government obama loving shill.

Yeah but at the same time, a lot of people just see it as Obama having inherited the problems of the Bush administration. They might not particularly agree with the way Obama is handling the situation, but they look the other way because they don't feel he was the initial cause of the problem.

[sluggo]

With all the criticism of Stewart going on here, let's not forget what a scumbag O'Reilly is.

[Bruno]

With all the criticism of Stewart going on here, let's not forget what a scumbag O'Reilly is.

definately noteworthy

[jabf2006]

I'd say the only good thing about Stewart is his respect for Ron Paul and I think that is derived from his consistency. Sometimes I wonder if Stewart would align himself more with Paul if Paul's view were more mainstream and considered more realistic. I think its the inconsistency within Republicans that makes him attack them so much and by default appears to be supportive of the democrats.

[Romulus]

I think Stewart only like Paul because he's outspoken against the Rs

[Chester Copperpot]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4003531/entire-jon-stewart-interview?playlist_id=87249

Around the 35:45 mark.

Stewart was hammering O'Reilly on Fox News being unfair to other viewpoints, and mentioned that Ron Paul had been warning about the deficit throughout Bush's term. I'm pretty sure he made that point on his own show a couple months ago.

I would advise people not to go to this video.. I went to it twice and something on that site totally fucked up my computer both times where I had to reset the computer..

never did get to see the clip of him talking about ron paul either..

maybe someone will youtube the small segment separately..

[Dojo]

I would advise people not to go to this video.. I went to it twice and something on that site totally fucked up my computer both times where I had to reset the computer..

never did get to see the clip of him talking about ron paul either..

maybe someone will youtube the small segment separately..

I couldn't get it to run for me either......What did O'Reilly say in response?

[Bruno]

I couldn't get it to run for me either......What did O'Reilly say in response?

see post #6. I'm replaying it now to get the verbatim response and will post it here

O'Reilly: "Look, we can't promote Mounds and Almond Joy....look....are you talking about Peter, Paul, and Mary?"

Stewart rolls eyes and moves on.

[specsaregood]

Was that comment about Mounds and Almond Joy from O'Reilly supposed to insinuate Paul is nuts?

Yes that was his intent, to say RP is nuts.
They dropped that conversation so quick...and the way Stewart just gave up on topic.....it was as if he knew he had made his point, but it would be pointless to continue to push the issue.

[Dojo]

see post #6. I'm replaying it now to get the verbatim response and will post it here

O'Reilly: "Look, we can't promote Mounds and Almond Joy....look....are you talking about Peter, Paul, and Mary?"

Stewart rolls eyes and moves on.

Thanks Bruno! O'Reilly dodged it

[SelfTaught]

It's funny how people on this forum and the Daily Paul are quick to jump on Beck and call him controlled opposition, even though he is more in line with the liberty movement (free markets, smaller government, bashing the Fed Reserve, anti-socialism/communism, and he's starting to rethink keeping thousands of our troops stationed around the world).

Yet, the most hardcore liberals/progressives/socialists like Kucinich or Stewart say ONE nice thing about Ron Paul and people are riding their dicks. Wouldn't it be more rational to call them controlled opposition? You guys don't fall for the spin Beck puts out, but you fall for the spin socialists put out????

:confused:

[Natalie]

I'd say the only good thing about Stewart is his respect for Ron Paul and I think that is derived from his consistency. Sometimes I wonder if Stewart would align himself more with Paul if Paul's view were more mainstream and considered more realistic. I think its the inconsistency within Republicans that makes him attack them so much and by default appears to be supportive of the democrats.

I once heard Stewart talking about how the show has to have a leftist viewpoint because otherwise they wouldn't have any viewers. Most of the people who watch the show are young and young people are usually liberal.

[dannno]

I agree with tones. This guy is the polar opposite of free markets. He was able to criticize bush over a deficit of 500 Billion, but can't seem to see a problem with Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Don't trust this guy, he is a big government obama loving shill.

I trust Jon Stewart with a lot of things. I don't trust him to make great commentary on economics all the time.. but I do trust him to be funny and entertaining, occasionally talk smack on Israel and push for Civil Liberties.

[Dreamofunity]

however in the OReilly interview he says the executive branch is no longer equal to congress and that Obama should just issue executive orders like Bush did to get his way. That pretty much ruined Stewart for me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[jabf2006]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

I don't buy it. I've re-watched that portion of the interview. He seems like he could be being slightly sarcastic at the beginning, but then he goes on to attempt to make a legitimate argument. I think he really does believe congress is useless (he's not far off) and Obama should get things done the same way Bush did, or else he won't get anything done.

[SelfTaught]

I don't buy it. I've re-watched that portion of the interview. He seems like he could be being slightly sarcastic at the beginning, but then he goes on to attempt to make a legitimate argument. I think he really does believe congress is useless (he's not far off) and Obama should get things done the same way Bush did, or else he won't get anything done.

Agreed.

[Stary Hickory]

I agree with tones. This guy is the polar opposite of free markets. He was able to criticize bush over a deficit of 500 Billion, but can't seem to see a problem with Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Don't trust this guy, he is a big government obama loving shill.

Agreed, he likes Paul because of his anti-war and anti-fed stance though. Hey this is good, but Stewart has proven that he cares little for the liberties and freedoms of Americans if he can support Obama.

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul praised Jon Stewart at a recent appearance at Mises. Stewart gives RP fair interviews and RP appreciates that. Stewart certainly gives RP better interviews than Glenn Beck.

[anaconda]

Around the 35:45 mark.



But wasn't the interview only something like 18 minutes? It seems to be in three parts that are about 6 minutes each...

There does not seem to be a timer on the player at the Fox link.


Update: the Fox link appears to be the "unedited version" not on Youtube. My bad.

Update II: Still not getting where you saw this counter that read "35:45." Can you tell me where you are finding this? Thanks.

[SelfTaught]

Ron Paul praised Jon Stewars at a recent appearance at Mises. Stewart gives RP fair interviews and RP appreciate that. Stewart certainly gives RP better interviews than Glenn Beck.

I don't know about that. Sure, Stewart interviews Ron Paul with the attitude that he likes Ron and wants to give him exposure. BUT, Glenn asks more specific question and more relevent questions especially when talking about the economy, even though he disagrees with Ron a lot.

I don't like softball interviews like the one Ron did with Stewart. I'd rather have Ron answer more challenging questions.

[Stary Hickory]

It's funny how people on this forum and the Daily Paul are quick to jump on Beck and call him controlled opposition, even though he is more in line with the liberty movement (free markets, smaller government, bashing the Fed Reserve, anti-socialism/communism, and he's starting to rethink keeping thousands of our troops stationed around the world).

Yet, the most hardcore liberals/progressives/socialists like Kucinich or Stewart say ONE nice thing about Ron Paul and people are riding their dicks. Wouldn't it be more rational to call them controlled opposition? You guys don't fall for the spin Beck puts out, but you fall for the spin socialists put out????

:confused:

Yes I have noticed this too. Liberals are treated with respect here, if they have just one thing in common with the movement. Yet someone like Beck who has a lot more in common gets bashed constantly. I don't know what it is really, it certainly is not balanced or unbiased. It could be that people feel that change can come from thr GoP side easier than from the Dems therefore they are more aggressive in their purging efforts.

But I notice this too all the time.

[pacelli]

Yes I have noticed this too. Liberals are treated with respect here, if they have just one thing in common with the movement. Yet someone like Beck who has a lot more in common gets bashed constantly.

I don't know about that as a hard and fast rule. There was a member named Kade, self-proclaimed "Last liberal on RPF" and many people did not treat him with respect.'

As far as John Stewart goes, he didn't exactly campaign for Paul either. He can suck an egg.

[BenIsForRon]

As a Daily Show fan since the beginning, let me tell you guys that Jon Stewart does genuinely respect the liberty movement. However, he is a self described democratic-socialist, and he staunchly believes that the government should play a role in job creation and management of resources.

That said, I think he is slowly coming around to our side, especially after he's seen how the bailouts and stimulus have worked out.

[specsaregood]

Yes I have noticed this too. Liberals are treated with respect here, if they have just one thing in common with the movement. Yet someone like Beck who has a lot more in common gets bashed constantly. I don't know what it is really, it certainly is not balanced or unbiased. It could be that people feel that change can come from thr GoP side easier than from the Dems therefore they are more aggressive in their purging efforts.


I think it comes down to the war issue. The "liberals" at this point are less likely to be pro-war. I don't like associating with people that think we should bomb and shoot innocents in the name of spreading democracy. --And yes i realize this used to be the conservative, not liberal position, but it isn't anymore in the minds of the republic. Add the civil liberties issues to the list as well.

Also, I find it more pleasant and easier to discuss/persuade somebody to accept libertarian minded/small govt principles than it is to convince the many "conservatives" that view the "war on terror" and all that entails including the patriot act in terms of a religious battle. once they decide their God demands these things, there doesn't seem to be a way to get through to them.

[nayjevin]

...Liberals are...
...if they have...
...someone like Beck...
...gets bashed constantly...
...people feel...
...they are more aggressive...

...all the time...

Collective mindset.

Stewart is an odd one... but he's smart. If he were to see the fallacies of the left and start railing on them, the implications could be huge. In many ways, the Daily Show audience is the segment of society 'our' movement needs to reach.

[SelfTaught]

I think it comes down to the war issue. The "liberals" at this point are less likely to be pro-war. I don't like associating with people that think we should bomb and shoot innocents in the name of spreading democracy. --And yes i realize this used to be the conservative, not liberal position, but it isn't anymore in the minds of the republic. Add the civil liberties issues to the list as well.

Also, I find it more pleasant and easier to discuss/persuade somebody to accept libertarian minded/small govt principles than it is to convince the many "conservatives" that view the "war on terror" and all that entails including the patriot act in terms of a religious battle. once they decide their God demands these things, there doesn't seem to be a way to get through to them.

Fair enough.

[Stary Hickory]

I think it comes down to the war issue. The "liberals" at this point are less likely to be pro-war. I don't like associating with people that think we should bomb and shoot innocents in the name of spreading democracy. --And yes i realize this used to be the conservative, not liberal position, but it isn't anymore in the minds of the republic. Add the civil liberties issues to the list as well.

Also, I find it more pleasant and easier to discuss/persuade somebody to accept libertarian minded/small govt principles than it is to convince the many "conservatives" that view the "war on terror" and all that entails including the patriot act in terms of a religious battle. once they decide their God demands these things, there doesn't seem to be a way to get through to them.

This is not my experience at all. Many conservatives are actually not for the war. You will never convince a liberal that the welfare state is an evil. I have many times tried. Liberals start just as many wars as conservatives. This is the funny thing. A liberal typically supports the welfare state and foreign interventionism. Conservatives are against the welfare state typically, and against interventionism, but they are for a strong national defense. This has been twisted many times over the years to get support behind interventions.

I have a hard time believing that liberals are more open to the liberty movement. The revolution is taking place in conservative/independent America...not with the Democrats.

[sratiug]

Can we take O'Reilly down?

[raiha]

Thanks for posting this. I watched the whole thing and it didn't stuff up my computer.
There is something that puzzles me which someone may be able to help me with. It has puzzled me since i got vaguely interested in US history and politics. The hard, tough people who eat nails are the quickest to freak out about alleged Socialism.

Stewart made a good point about the Fox Network 'Fair and Balanced' indoctrination which feeds the view that Obama is a National Socialist tyrant to which Stewart said well Obama must be dyslexic. My question is why is it that the intellectuals, artists, people who help others like social workers, psychologists etc, why is it that they are tarred with the fascist brush when in reality it is the hysterical, collectivist O'Reillyish type of individual who manipulates negative emotions (i.e. fear) and look set to pick up the nearest blunt instrument to silence opposition or even debate??

Throughout history, recall that it is the aforementioned group of people who are rounded up first and hauled off to the gulags/ concentration camps. Oh and homosexuals! What group of people loathe the homosexuals in America? The alleged socialists? ...don't think so!

So who do i see strutting around the U.S.A. brown shirts in ten years? It was demonstrated magnificently on the show when Mr Waggly Finger, O'Reilly kept making generalizing statements about the 'type of person' who lives in Greenwich village. John Stewart came back saying you can't do that. You have to look at the individual.

I often feel I am in topsy turvy land when i come here where people support neocon thuggery thinking it is purity and righteousness. They slag off good, kind people calling them fascist.


Tone's your ridiculous statement is a good example of the nonsensical nature of this koan i am grappling with.

As Ron Paul pointed out "When fascism comes to America, it will be a cross wrapped in a flag." and that is not original i know, neither is it verbatim. It must piss a number of you off that RP responds to Stewart's intelligence favourably. To me it is obvious why he does. And I promise you i am not a Bolshevik, a socialist or anything of that nature. The whole thing just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Beware that you don't become the very thing that you are most afraid of.

[SelfTaught]

Thanks for posting this. I watched the whole thing and it didn't stuff up my computer.
There is something that puzzles me which someone may be able to help me with. It has puzzled me since i got vaguely interested in US history and politics. The hard, tough people who eat nails are the quickest to freak out about alleged Socialism.

Stewart made a good point about the Fox Network 'Fair and Balanced' indoctrination which feeds the view that Obama is a National Socialist tyrant to which Stewart said well Obama must be dyslexic. My question is why is it that the intellectuals, artists, people who help others like social workers, psychologists etc, why is it that they are tarred with the fascist brush when in reality it is the hysterical, collectivist O'Reillyish type of individual who manipulates negative emotions (i.e. fear) and look set to pick up the nearest blunt instrument to silence opposition or even debate??

Throughout history, recall that it is the aforementioned group of people who are rounded up first and hauled off to the gulags/ concentration camps. Oh and homosexuals! What group of people loathe the homosexuals in America? The alleged socialists? ...don't think so!

So who do i see strutting around the U.S.A. brown shirts in ten years? It was demonstrated magnificently on the show when Mr Waggly Finger, O'Reilly kept making generalizing statements about the 'type of person' who lives in Greenwich village. John Stewart came back saying you can't do that. You have to look at the individual.

I often feel I am in topsy turvy land when i come here where people support neocon thuggery thinking it is purity and righteousness. They slag off good, kind people calling them fascist.


Tone's your ridiculous statement is a good example of the nonsensical nature of this koan i am grappling with.

As Ron Paul pointed out "When fascism comes to America, it will be a cross wrapped in a flag." and that is not original i know, neither is it verbatim. It must piss a number of you off that RP responds to Stewart's intelligence favourably. To me it is obvious why he does. And I promise you i am not a Bolshevik, a socialist or anything of that nature. The whole thing just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Beware that you don't become the very thing that you are most afraid of.

But wasn't it George Carlin that said if fascism comes to America, it will be fascism with a smiley face?

Look around you. What difference does it make which group of people get sent to the concentration camp? Back then, they demonized ***** and jews. Today, it's gun owners, constitutionalists, anti-abortion activists, tea party protesters, "alleged" racists, small government people, etc.

Sorry baby, but times have changed.

And the people most often sent to concentration camps aren't the people you and I mentioned above. The people most likely to get rounded up are dissenters. Period.

[sofia]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

confused liberal/socialist maybe...but he's not a communist..

At least he treats Ron Paul with respect.

he's not as bad as your hero Sarah Palin ......a woman who delights in the senseless mass murder of Muslim women and children.

[raiha]

Self Taught:
But wasn't it George Carlin that said if fascism comes to America, it will be fascism with a smiley face?

Look around you. What difference does it make which group of people get sent to the concentration camp? Back then, they demonized ***** and jews. Today, it's gun owners, constitutionalists, anti-abortion activists, tea party protesters, "alleged" racists, small government people, etc.

Sorry baby, but times have changed.

And the people most often sent to concentration camps aren't the people you and I mentioned above. The people most likely to get rounded up are dissenters. Period.
Carlin is one of my heroes but i think he would be rounded up before anyone else in the US of the future. Luckily for him, he is already dead.
Also the dissenters are usually the intellectuals and the artists. Think of the Cultural Revolution in China. McCarthyism gave us a taste of the kind of hysterical witch hunt mentality I allude to.
Generally speaking the dissenters are those who have the courage to think for themselves and express their views, not afraid of unpopularity. Ron Paul comes to mind. I don't think people who watch Fox News (to generalize :D) and gain their knowledge, views and opinions from the likes of O'Reilly are the sharpest tools in the shed, neither do i notice a whole heap of individuality.

[tron paul]

Yes I have noticed this too. Liberals are treated with respect here, if they have just one thing in common with the movement. Yet someone like Beck who has a lot more in common gets bashed constantly. I don't know what it is really, it certainly is not balanced or unbiased. It could be that people feel that change can come from thr GoP side easier than from the Dems therefore they are more aggressive in their purging efforts.

But I notice this too all the time.

This phenomenon is called the narcissism of minor differences. Swift parodied it in Gulliver's Travels, using the War of Big-Endians vs Small Endians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences


The term describes the manner in which our negative feelings are sometimes directed at people who resemble us, while we take pride from the "small differences" that distinguish us from them.

[Mini-Me]

This is not my experience at all. Many conservatives are actually not for the war. You will never convince a liberal that the welfare state is an evil. I have many times tried. Liberals start just as many wars as conservatives. This is the funny thing. A liberal typically supports the welfare state and foreign interventionism. Conservatives are against the welfare state typically, and against interventionism, but they are for a strong national defense. This has been twisted many times over the years to get support behind interventions.

I have a hard time believing that liberals are more open to the liberty movement. The revolution is taking place in conservative/independent America...not with the Democrats.

"You will never convince a liberal that the welfare state is an evil?" Not all of us came from the conservative camp, you know. ;) I was "born and raised a neocon," but by the time I came across Ron Paul, I was very much a liberal, in favor of universal education and healthcare and everything. From my experience dealing with neocons, dealing with liberals, and going through so many changes myself, I'm convinced that specsaregood is correct.

In any case, I don't think the issue with Beck vs. Stewart is the "narcissism of minor differences" problem. Rather, I think it's threefold:
First, liberals will be liberals, but neocons completely destroyed and perverted everything that fiscal conservatism ever stood for, all from within. Honest ideological foes are one thing, but Dante can tell you where traitors belong. ;) I'm being a bit facetious here, but in all seriousness, I think this kind of resentment plays a role.
Second, to some of us, being anti-war and pro-civil liberties actually takes priority over being a free marketer. Foreign non-interventionism (especially opposing senseless wars) is not just another issue; it's in some ways the most important issue, aside from perhaps the monetary system. Socialism may be extremely inefficient and immoral, create horrendous economic problems, create tremendous moral hazard, etc. but war is nothing short of a murderous racket. I mean, at least when you're redistributing money for "free health care," you're getting something back, however little. With war, all the money goes into killing people under false pretenses and feeding the MIC, while simultaneously endangering the country. Garden variety liberals may be arrogant, elitist, economically short-sighted, and coming from a completely misguided moral foundation, but it's easier to overcome those issues than the "AMERICA FUCK YEAH BECAUSE WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS NO MATTER WHAT AND OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES US THE BEST IN THE WORLD" religion neocons subscribe to. In most cases, I have a far more fundamental clash of values with self-righteous warmongers than with economic simpletons (except for those who openly recognize the statist totalitarianism of Marxism and embrace it anyway).
Third, I think a lot of it has to do with perceived honesty: Stewart (like Kucinich and others apparently in the "liberal idealist" camp) may be inconsistent and confused in his ideology, and he may be on a clearly different side from us, but he doesn't try to hide it, and he still treats Ron Paul (and us) with respect. To me, Stewart comes across as honest, whereas Beck reeks of blatant demagoguery. Anyone pulling phony crying acts for effect deserves every bit of scrutiny they get. Many of us are convinced that he is a knowing and willing saboteur, and that he is deliberately co-opting our message to woo the conservative base and deliver them back into the hands of the neocons. Not only that, but Beck largely polarizes people across party lines, and while he's raving like a madman, fake-crying, etc., he's simultaneously positioning himself as a figurehead of "la resistance." All of this drags us down by association and makes it that much more difficult to create a big tent movement - like Ron Paul's platform did - that spans across party lines and unites Americans against the political establishment of BOTH parties. With friends like that, who even needs enemies? I'd love to see him prove me wrong, but Conza called the whole act last January (and left zero room for doubt), and here we stand today with Beck pimping Sarah Palin. In other words, Stewart has honest differences with us, but Beck is likely a rat trying to sabotage us. That kind of makes it personal, too. ;)

It probably helps that Stewart has never called us terrorists, as well. ;)

[nayjevin]

This phenomenon is called the narcissism of minor differences. Swift parodied it in Gulliver's Travels, using the War of Big-Endians vs Small Endians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

cool, thanks.

[BenIsForRon]

I just watched the interview. I wonder which parts, besides the Ron Paul mention, were cut from the interview.

Jon really got to the heart of how they use a really sneaky, suggestive form of propaganda. Like how they will put a question mark at the end of a statement to make it seem unbiased, or originating from a source other than themselves. I think if some of the viewers got to hear that, it would pull the wool out from over their eyes a little... not most of the viewers, but some.

I need to watch thursday's episode, I'm sure he brought it up at some point.


edit: Just watched it. Pretty funny. O'reilly had on other people he interviewed about how he did in the interview, including a body language expert. So Jon had on his therapist to ask how he did in the interview.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-4-2010/jon-consults-his-therapist

[evilfunnystuff]

In any case, i don't think the issue with beck vs. Stewart is the "narcissism of minor differences" problem. Rather, i think it's threefold:
first, liberals will be liberals, but neocons completely destroyed and perverted everything that fiscal conservatism ever stood for, all from within. honest ideological foes are one thing, but dante can tell you where traitors belong. ;) i'm being a bit facetious here, but in all seriousness, i think this kind of resentment plays a role.
second, to some of us, being anti-war and pro-civil liberties actually takes priority over being a free marketer. Foreign non-interventionism (especially opposing senseless wars) is not just another issue; it's in some ways the most important issue, aside from perhaps the monetary system. Socialism may be extremely inefficient and immoral, create horrendous economic problems, create tremendous moral hazard, etc. But war is jothing short of a murderous racket. I mean, at least when you're redistributing money for "free health care," you're getting something back, however little. With war, all the money goes into killing people under false pretenses and feeding the mic, while simultaneously endangering the country. Garden variety liberals may be arrogant, elitist, economically short-sighted, and coming from a completely misguided moral foundation, but it's easier to overcome those issues than the "america fuck yeah because we're the good guys no matter what and our government makes us the best in the world" religion neocons subscribe to. In most cases, i have a far more fundamental clash of values with self-righteous warmongers than with economic simpletons (except for those who openly recognize the statist totalitarianism of marxism and embrace it anyway).
third, i think a lot of it has to do with perceived honesty: Stewart (like kucinich and others apparently in the "liberal idealist" camp) may be inconsistent and confused in his ideology, and he may be on a clearly different side from us, but he doesn't try to hide it, and he still treats ron paul (and us) with respect. To me, stewart comes across as honest, whereas beck reeks of blatant demagoguery. Anyone pulling phony crying acts for effect deserves every bit of scrutiny they get. Many of us are convinced that he is a knowing and willing saboteur, and that he is deliberately co-opting our message to woo the conservative base and deliver them back into the hands of the neocons. Not only that, but beck largely polarizes people across party lines, and while he's raving like a madman, fake-crying, etc., he's simultaneously positioning himself as a figurehead of "la resistance." all of this drags us down by association and makes it that much more difficult to create a big tent movement - like ron paul's platform did - that spans across party lines and unites americans against the political establishment of both parties. With friends like that, who even needs enemies? I'd love to see him prove me wrong, but conza called the whole act last january (and left zero room for doubt), and here we stand today with beck pimping sarah palin. In other words, stewart has honest differences with us, but beck is likely a rat trying to sabotage us. That kind of makes it personal, too. ;)

it probably helps that stewart has never called us terrorists, as well. ;)

bingo

[tonesforjonesbones]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS. You hate republicans...and I really have NO clue why you are here. You've run off the reasonable people. You have pretty much run off the Christians...I honestly don't believe you are really Ron Paul supporters. TOnes

[constituent]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS.

lol



You hate republicans...

maybe it was their approach?



I honestly don't believe you are really Ron Paul supporters.

maybe it's your approach?


Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS.

:p :D

[someperson]

"Moonbats?" What's next? "Pinheads?" Please limit your exposure to the media. You wouldn't want their childish lingo to become a permanent part of your vocabulary.

[Eric21ND]

Where's the Ron Paul segment?

[someperson]

Hi Eric; it's at around 6:15 in this video:

YouTube - Full Unedited Interview of Jon Stewart by Bill O'Reilly Pt 4 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAGCzNaoZGc)

[sofia]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS. You hate republicans...and I really have NO clue why you are here. You've run off the reasonable people. You have pretty much run off the Christians...I honestly don't believe you are really Ron Paul supporters. TOnes

Thats cuz Republicans suck.

The best thing I can say about the GOP is that they are only 80% as socialist as the Democrats...not much to like.

and when it comes to mass murdering Arab women and kids in unjust wars...the GOP is even worse.

[Knightskye]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS. You hate republicans...and I really have NO clue why you are here. You've run off the reasonable people. You have pretty much run off the Christians...I honestly don't believe you are really Ron Paul supporters. TOnes

How have we "run off the Christians"?

[raiha]

"Moonbats?" What's next? "Pinheads?" Please limit your exposure to the media. You wouldn't want their childish lingo to become a permanent part of your vocabulary. :D

Tones just because people do not have the same world view as yourself does not make them moonbeams, moonbats or atheists. And humans are not necessarily programmed to loathe those who are different unless they are insecure, lack individuality or are xenophobic. Or all three.

Ron Paul gets off on the diversity of his people, he certainly does not feel threatened by it. You could take a leaf out of the broadness of his mind, rather than the goon Beck's mind, which fuels hatred and divisiveness.

[Flash]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS. You hate republicans..

O'Reilly calling himself a Republican means nothing. He is not a Conservative, even goes as far as hating the 'far-fight' (anyone more Conservative than him, which is 90% of the Republican Party) and has extremely poor debating skills. He couldn't even 'debate' Jon Stewart, how could anyone take him seriously?

[anaconda]

Well isn't just god damn interesting that they edited out the mention of Ron Paul?

[raiha]

Well isn't just god damn interesting that they edited out the mention of Ron Paul?
There you go Tones, why don't you save up and redirect some of your 'rant' energy and write a letter to your beloved 'Fox' and call them on this little observation.

[SelfTaught]

Well isn't just god damn interesting that they edited out the mention of Ron Paul?

Oooo it must be a conspiracy.

Jesus Christ! It was a long interview. They only had something like 15 mins of it on TV. If you picked clips at random, the Ron Paul mention would have less than 50% chance of making it.

But no, if everybody, especially in the media, doesn't kneel at the feet of Ron Paul, they must be working against us. Geez.

[JoshLowry]

Most of you who are left on this foru;;m are LIBERAL MOONBATS. You hate republicans...and I really have NO clue why you are here. You've run off the reasonable people. You have pretty much run off the Christians...I honestly don't believe you are really Ron Paul supporters. TOnes

Good bye! Two week ban.

[low preference guy]

LOL. Things get interesting when Josh stops by the Forums.

[anaconda]

Oooo it must be a conspiracy.

Jesus Christ! It was a long interview. They only had something like 15 mins of it on TV. If you picked clips at random, the Ron Paul mention would have less than 50% chance of making it.

But no, if everybody, especially in the media, doesn't kneel at the feet of Ron Paul, they must be working against us. Geez.


The reason I thought the edit was interesting is that it was pretty much within the context of adjacent material that was left in the edit and, when combined with the fact that the Ron Paul mention only took up about 1 or two seconds, it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is more deliberate Ron Paul censorship.

[BuddyRey]

...

[Knightskye]

Good bye! Two week ban.

Honestly, that sounds a little harsh. I think we can stand being called "moonbats".

[low preference guy]

How did TONES posts contribute to the thread?
I agree with the ban.

[BenIsForRon]

Honestly, that sounds a little harsh. I think we can stand being called "moonbats".

All her posts were nonsensical and spiteful, if she doesn't shape up after this ban, we might as well permaban her.

[Natalie]

"The one individual that I never had heard of, and it shows my shortcomings, before the campaign, I'd heard of him but never watched the program, and that was Jon Stewart. That guy is pretty fascinating. I've come to respect him, and he most likely comes from the left but he's an honest person. And when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em. And therefore it is not unusual to see somebody like a Jon Stewart befriend us, all of us, through me. I've been on his show at least twice, maybe three times. Those kind of shows we get onto are considered liberal shows, but the delightful message here is that we do approach all spectrums. This means this can be a true movement, a true revolutionary change, and we should be very optimistic about what we see so far." -Ron Paul

Starts at 13 minutes:

YouTube - Prepare for the Worst (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6KJRIums4)

[TheConstitutionLives]

John Stewart is a filthy bolshevik communist ....he is NOT our friend and NOT the friend of Ron Paul. He is an idiot. tones

- LOL koo koo :rolleyes:

[TheConstitutionLives]

I think Stewart only like Paul because he's outspoken against the Rs

I believe Stewart is passed that for the most part. I think he simply has great respect for people of integrity even when he disagrees with them. He had a glowing interview with Schiff not long ago when you'd think they'd be polar opposites. He likes REAL people and not people who play the game.

[low preference guy]

All her posts were nonsensical and spiteful, if she doesn't shape up after this ban, we might as well permaban her.

That sounds too harsh. I don't own this forums, but a six months or one year ban sounds better than a permaban for her.

[BenIsForRon]

He likes REAL people and not people who play the game.

+1

Jon Stewart has had nothing but incredibly vague, akward interviews with guests from the Obama administration. Everyone but the head of the EPA, who was actually a cool, honest guy. Towards the end of that interview, Stewart said, "I think you're the first guy from the administration I've talked to who actually talks like a person". So yeah, Stewart likes anybody who keeps it real, which is one of the reasons I've been a long time fan.

.. Of course that's just a rule of thumb, I always thought Stewart threw a few too many softballs when interviewing the big shots like Bill Clinton or John Kerry.

[Knightskye]

"The one individual that I never had heard of, and it shows my shortcomings, before the campaign, I'd heard of him but never watched the program, and that was Jon Stewart. That guy is pretty fascinating. I've come to respect him, and he most likely comes from the left but he's an honest person. And when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em. And therefore it is not unusual to see somebody like a Jon Stewart befriend us, all of us, through me. I've been on his show at least twice, maybe three times. Those kind of shows we get onto are considered liberal shows, but the delightful message here is that we do approach all spectrums. This means this can be a true movement, a true revolutionary change, and we should be very optimistic about what we see so far." -Ron Paul

Starts at 13 minutes:

YouTube - Prepare for the Worst (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6KJRIums4)

Thanks, Natalie.

[LBennett76]

Jon Stewart is funny, but he is NOT on our side. So he likes real people... big freaking deal. It doesn't change where his politics lie and that he's a pretty hard core socialist. The exposure he gives liberty people (like Paul and Schiff) is fine and dandy, but it doesn't stop him from influencing the young people who watch his show into liberal/progressivism. He and Beck are two sides of the same coin.

And... That earned a 2 week ban? Seriously?! Wow. Doesn't take much nowadays I see. Geesh.

[BenIsForRon]

Jon Stewart is funny, but he is NOT on our side. So he likes real people... big freaking deal. It doesn't change where his politics lie and that he's a pretty hard core socialist. The exposure he gives liberty people (like Paul and Schiff) is fine and dandy, but it doesn't stop him from influencing the young people who watch his show into liberal/progressivism. He and Beck are two sides of the same coin.

If you watch his show, he's becoming more receptive to the concept of fiscal responsibility. They make jokes about Chinese deficits and the printing presses quite often. I see Jon Stewart as someone that we will win over to our side in the near future. Maybe not on every issue, like health care, but he will agree with us on most things.

[raiha]

I get uneasy with all this talk of 'sides'. It's not as neat or as simple as that. Humans aren't people you can dismiss as simplistically as On our side = good person. On anybody else's side = bad person and persona non grata. Too simplistic.

[Eric21ND]

If you watch his show, he's becoming more receptive to the concept of fiscal responsibility. They make jokes about Chinese deficits and the printing presses quite often. I see Jon Stewart as someone that we will win over to our side in the near future. Maybe not on every issue, like health care, but he will agree with us on most things.
Self described liberals like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher simply haven't been expoused enough to our philosophy. I believe if they spent an hour with any of these thinkers they would be converted to our side: Thomas Woods, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Walter Williams, Thomas Dilorenzo.

[Flash]

If you watch his show, he's becoming more receptive to the concept of fiscal responsibility. They make jokes about Chinese deficits and the printing presses quite often. I see Jon Stewart as someone that we will win over to our side in the near future. Maybe not on every issue, like health care, but he will agree with us on most things.

You know I've listened to a lot of talk radio hosts who are more to the left that are sympathetic to Libertarianism. I honestly think if we (libertarians) could take over the GOP then these Jon Stewart types would be the first to join us.

[Imperial]

Agreed, he likes Paul because of his anti-war and anti-fed stance though. Hey this is good, but Stewart has proven that he cares little for the liberties and freedoms of Americans if he can support Obama.

Umm, that is a massive leap of logic there. I am sure plenty of progressives are outspoken on where they disagree with Obama but still support him. And Stewart has criticized Obama hwere he disagrees (far more than Colbert I may add, who I have come to see as biased way too leftward)