For all those calling Jon Stewart a socialist pig

[SamuraisWisdom]

By now many if not all of you have seen the interview with Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart that took place a couple of days ago. The response on here was generally negative, with many people calling Stewart a socialist/shill/whatever. Well, I just watched the full UNEDITED interview and thought it would be worth sharing. There's a good 15 minutes of material that was cut out from the aired version, including something that many of you will enjoy. Stewart gives a shout out to Ron Paul about two thirds of the way through. Please give this a shot, I'm sure you'll see the interview in a different light.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4003531/entire-jon-stewart-interview/?playlist_id=86923

[tonesforjonesbones]

That guy is a SOCIALISt lEFT WING MOONBAT. tones

[psi2941]

I like Jon Stewart! I just disagree with his views.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I listened to the whole thing..he is in the can for Obammy, he is a socialist moonbat. tone s

[low preference guy]

tones, one could answer to you that Glenn Beck is a warmonger neocon. But name calling isn't going to contribute to anything. Hope you realize that what you're doing is counterproductive.

[adara7537]

I give Stewart props for mentioning RP because he is totally right about Fox on this point. And I like Stewart even though I disagree with him A LOT. I think his heart is in the right place.

[tonesforjonesbones]

No it is not. John Stewart is not your friend, unless you are a left wing moonbat. Glenn Beck is a BETTER friend to you than Stewart is, unless you are a socialist moonbat. If you are a socialist moonbat what are you doing in Ron Paul's yard? TOnes

[tonesforjonesbones]

Just to set the record straight...Bill Oreilly is also a moonbat and I firmly believe he is in Camp Obama. tones

[LibertyMage]

I listened to the whole thing..he is in the can for Obammy, he is a socialist moonbat. tone s

The only thing this post accomplished was my googling the term "moonbat". After a long period of ignorance about moonbats, my suspicions of its utter meaninglessness were totally confirmed.

I say we ditch the term moonbat and revive the term "mountebank".

[0zzy]

Tones is the most annoying person I have ever had the chance of reading on an internet forum. Not just this forum, of all internet forums put together that I've come across.

That is all.

[low preference guy]

No it is not. John Stewart is not your friend, unless you are a left wing moonbat. Glenn Beck is a BETTER friend to you than Stewart is, unless you are a socialist moonbat. If you are a socialist moonbat what are you doing in Ron Paul's yard? TOnes

Well, Ron Paul praised Jon Stewart in a speech recently at the Mises Institute. I believe it is in the youtube below. He said how he likes Jon Stewart because when someone on the left does something really stupid, he goes after them.

Now, that's more positive that anything I've said about Jon Stewart, so if you are asking me to leave "Ron Paul's yard", when I didn't even say anything as positive about Jon Stewart, are you going to ask Ron Paul to leave the Ron Paul movement?

YouTube - Prepare for the Worst (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6KJRIums4&feature=player_embedded#at=1248)

[disorderlyvision]

Tones is the most annoying person I have ever had the chance of reading on an internet forum. Not just this forum, of all internet forums put together that I've come across.

That is all.

+1

That is all.

[coyote_sprit]

I listened to the whole thing..he is in the can for Obammy, he is a socialist moonbat. tone s

I'd rather have a socialist moonbat, then a self-described Beck worshiper.

[Mini-Me]

Cue:
"this forum has bcome overrun by LIBERALS aND cOMMUNISTS!!1! tones"

Ordinarily it may be bad form to gang up, but I want to see if I can earn the title of Forum Nostradamus here.

[low preference guy]

Tones, you say you like Beck. Out of curiosity, have you ever heard the phrase "War is the health of the state"?

[raiha]

Enjoyed that Mises Institute talk thanks Low Preference Guy. Seems Ron Paul and Jon Stewart have mutual respect for one another.

"Twinkle Twinkle little Moonbat,
How I wonder what you're at!
Up above the world you fly,
Like a teatray in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle little moonbat!
How I wonder what you're at!"

Love from the Mad Hatter

Liked it when JS made the following observation in his Reilly encounter:
"Here's what FOX has done, through their cyclonic perpetual emotional machine that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,'' Stewart told O'Reilly. "They have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao.'':D:D:D

[Promontorium]

I like Jon Stewart, and he's a socialist Obama Schill.

If you don't think he's a socialist, you've been got.

If you don't think he's an Obama schill, the moonbats got your eyes.

[LibertyEagle]

I'd rather have a socialist moonbat, then a self-described Beck worshiper.

Interesting.

[evilfunnystuff]

I thought this quote from minime in another thread would be pertinant here


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. ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy. John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not. Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not. You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool". It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool. You don't think for yourselves at all. I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game. Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy. You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement. Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

OH and Glenn Beck is CERTAINLY not the enemy. tones

[coyote_sprit]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy. John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not. Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not. You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool". It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool. You don't think for yourselves at all. I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game. Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy. You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement. Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones

You're an idiot, we don't hate Beck because it's cool, we hate him because he's a disingenuous neocon and I personally am not a fan of of Stewart I just dislike him less then Beck. Also cut the cool shit, you watch more mainstream television in 30 minutes of Beck then I do in an entire month.

[Mini-Me]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy. John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not. Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not. You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool". It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool. You don't think for yourselves at all. I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game. Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy. You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement. Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones

We're so trendy that we've taken one of the most marginalized political positions on the planet. Is that about right? I must be completely blinded by all the media propaganda that I almost never watch on television, while you've risen above that by tuning into Fox and Beck? ;) You're deluding yourself.

tones, have you ever considered that you're just far more biased towards the political "right" than almost anyone else in the liberty movement, and you're too fire-breathing and obtuse to realize it? That is, you're simply more biased towards the Republican party label than most, more biased towards cultural conservatism than most, and more willing to make allowances for evil warmongers than for short-sighted socialists. You could counter that all the crazy trendy kids drove off all of the conservatives, but I should add that up until the recent CFL controversy, this movement has in many ways only been drifting farther to the "right" since the Ron Paul campaign ended. In any case, you're certainly far more biased toward the "right" than Ron Paul is. That's fine, because this is a big tent movement, but it's pretty ridiculous when you deride anyone else who isn't as far "right" as you and act like we don't belong.

Also, since you're ragging on libertarians and act like we're somehow separate from liberty lovers, I should point out the etymological roots shared by "liberty," "libertarian," and "liberal:" The whole point of being libertarian is supporting liberty, and until socialists co-opted the "liberal" label and twisted it, that was the whole point of being a classical liberal (like most of the Founders), too.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I listened to the whole thing..he is in the can for Obammy, he is a socialist moonbat. tone s

So is Glenn Beck. He just doesn't think your money should stay HERE. Hed rather give it to other countries. :rolleyes:

[tonesforjonesbones]

IF you are truely a liberty person..libertarian, you fail to admit that libertarians have more in common with the conservatives than the liberals. Limited government, sound money, etc etc...Without a doubt, the GOP was hijacked by neo cons but not all republicans are neo cons. I think you either forget what a neoconservative is or you just don't know. You just throw all republicans into the neocon catagory. While I disagree with the foreign policy, I agree with most of everything else the republican party stands for. am not a zionist and I think everyone here should know that by now. I consider the grass roots republicans ,many of which are Christians, have been brainwashed. I believe that we will be much more successful bringing the republicans back to liberty than the socialist liberals. I DO believe that most of you are very young, rebellious, etc...and yep...TRENDY. I saw how the young people, for the most part, shifted to Obama when Ron Paul didn't make it. THey go for what is perceived to be POPULAR. I am not a party line hack but I dont' see ANYTHING that resonates with liberty happening in the Democrap party. They are big big big government socialists. The sooner you cut the apron strings with your little heros ..who are destroying the country, such as John Stewart...and the other liberal loon "comedians"...the better off we will be. Glenn Beck is pushing the liberty movement forward...he's making an impact. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with 80% of what Beck says. TONES

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Man, Tones must have been drunk at the wheel for the last 8 years. Can I have some of what you are drinking Tones? How about ol' Ronnie Reagan, the guy who ballooned the Government just as much as Bush. I do not like the GOP and most Republicans because they are more villainous scum than the Democrats because they actually pretend and co-opt the Minarchist viewpoint and skew it so unimaginably that when you talk about Minarchism no one thinks of Albert Nock, Howard Buffet, or Robert Nozick, but people instantly think of Reagan, who was one of the biggest big-Government Presidents we ever had. So, yes, I think the enemy within is more dangerous than the enemy outside.

Besides libertarians are equal opportunity haters, and it's disingenious of you to lump all of us who are young into your warped fantasies. Also, libertarians have as much in common with the "left" and "right". Ah, the wonders of Government. Makes people fight when they otherwise wouldn't. Isn't the State just wonderful folks?

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am a registered libertarian and I resonate more with the conservatives than the so called, progressives. I am also a Christian libertarian. I dont believe in legislating morality..unless I am called to a vote that is. If the junk gets on the ballot I'll vote the way I think is best. I am beginning to realize I can't be put into a box. I agree with the GOP on some things and on the LP on some things...so I see my self eventually becoming an independent. That's where the country is headed. No political party affiliation. Tone s

[Mini-Me]

IF you are truely a liberty person..libertarian, you fail to admit that libertarians have more in common with the conservatives than the liberals. Limited government, sound money, etc etc...Without a doubt, the GOP was hijacked by neo cons but not all republicans are neo cons. I think you either forget what a neoconservative is or you just don't know. You just throw all republicans into the neocon catagory.
Not all Republicans are neocons, but when it comes to people in political positions and party positions, the vast majority lean far closer towards the neocons than towards Ron Paul. Taking over the Republican Party is a strategy, but before you can do that, you need to realize that the Republican Party as it exists today is obviously not our friend (or we wouldn't have need for a movement whatsoever).


While I disagree with the foreign policy, I agree with most of everything else the republican party stands for.
tones, it's not just foreign policy that existing Republicans have failed at. It's everything. The Republican Party supposedly stands for low taxes, low spending, fiscal conservatism, etc., but when's the last time you saw any of them - other than Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, and a few others - doing any more than paying lip service to these principles? The Republican Party's current commitment to fiscal conservatism and free markets is like the Democratic Party's commitment to peace and civil liberties: Nonexistent. That's why we're out to change the party from within (if we can; otherwise, we'll have to take a different route).


am not a zionist and I think everyone here should know that by now. I consider the grass roots republicans ,many of which are Christians, have been brainwashed. I believe that we will be much more successful bringing the republicans back to liberty than the socialist liberals.
In that case, you should focus on conservatives, but not all of us necessarily feel the same way. In my case, I've found that liberals are more laid back and open to my economic viewpoints than conservatives are open to noninterventionist and pro-civil liberties views...and I believe it's because too many conservatives have their personal identities and pride wrapped up in their belief in American empire. There are a lot of dyed-in-the-wool socialists who may be beyond hope, but a lot of the young kids who become socialists only do so in desperation, because they see so many economic problems in our world and don't really understand any other solution besides government control (which is obviously not a solution). These kids may be brainwashed and indoctrinated, but they're skeptical enough to at least recognize that there are major problems in America right now (and have been for years), and that's more than I can say about people who have been buying into jingoist propaganda their entire lives. It's foolish to alienate these people.


I DO believe that most of you are very young, rebellious, etc...and yep...TRENDY. I saw how the young people, for the most part, shifted to Obama when Ron Paul didn't make it. THey go for what is perceived to be POPULAR.
tones, a lot of us are indeed young and rebellious (though not rebels without a cause), but perhaps you should recognize that those of us here right now are obviously not the ones who shifted to Obama, let alone out of trendiness.


I am not a party line hack but I dont' see ANYTHING that resonates with liberty happening in the Democrap party. They are big big big government socialists.
The Democrats play lip service to ending wars and restoring civil liberties, kind of like how the Republicans pay lip service to fighting socialism, regulations, taxes, spending, and gun control. Both party establishments reel their bases in the same way. Neither party establishment ever makes good on these promises, because the Democrats are committed solely to socialism but okay with war, whereas the Republicans are committed solely to war but okay with socialism. What most don't see is that it's almost impossible for either party to make good on their promises, because domestic and international interventionism both follow each other and the centralized power that enables them. As the two parties stand right now, they live together in a symbiotic relationship, each constantly increasing the size and scope of government on certain issues while pretending to oppose the increases of the other...and this creates a see-saw effect where voters continually switch between empowering one or the other, in perpetuity.

When you step outside their bubble and view the situation objectively, you can recognize that Glenn Beck and the Republican Party are doing exactly what Keith Olbermann (for example) and the Democratic Party were doing in 2006: Pretending to give a crap about the issues their voters care about. They've turned the volume up big-time this time around, and I think we're a major reason for that, but their basic strategy remains the same.


The sooner you cut the apron strings with your little heros ..who are destroying the country, such as John Stewart...and the other liberal loon "comedians"...the better off we will be.
Do you really think any of us worship Jon Stewart as a hero...you know, the way you worship Glenn Beck as a hero? That's totally preposterous.


Glenn Beck is pushing the liberty movement forward...he's making an impact. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with 80% of what Beck says. TONES
You may agree with 80% of what Beck says, but the problem many of us are seeing is that those who agree with 100% - or a different 80% - will likely be herded back towards the Republican establishment when it counts (i.e. the neocons, not the marginalized paleoconservatives). In fact, this process has already started. You have trouble perceiving this threat, because Beck's talking points resonate so closely with you and you identify so closely with him, but some of us "on the other side of the looking glass" legitimately believe that he is trying to co-opt and sabotage the movement Ron Paul started. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear and believe I'm right. I know you also like Sarah Palin, but you must understand that her relationship with Bill Kristol - among other things - says a lot to many of us about where her loyalties lie, and that is not with Ron Paul or this movement.

Just because someone in the media says things you agree with, that does not mean they're to be trusted. In Stewart's case, he's far enough away from us that he poses no threat, but it's nice when he puts in a good word for Ron Paul or has him on his show. In Beck's case, he's a position to do a LOT more damage to us, and that may very well be his actual intent/job.

[american.swan]

I watched the whole Stewart interview. He accepts "individuals" and he doesn't sound THAT bad.

[SelfTaught]

I watched the whole Stewart interview. He accepts "individuals" and he doesn't sound THAT bad.

You can't accept individualism and support redistribution of wealth and an all powerful executive branch at the same time. Not possible unless you're a confused ignoramus which is typical of liberals like Stewart and Kucinich.

People say their hearts are in the right place, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

YouTube - Good Intentions 1of3 Introduction and Public Schools with Walter Williams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI&feature=PlayList&p=8F6669EBA4AD450E&index=0&playnext=1)s

[american.swan]

He seemed to be saying that Bush dictated what the GOP in congress should do down to the small details and Obama isn't doing that to the DNC in Congress. So he's complaining that Bush controlled the GOP better than Obama is controlling his party. Obviously, taking this to the extreme and saying the executive branch is all powerful isn't a good thing. For most of the interview, Stewart was pointing out failures in Fox News to wishy wash back and forth on the issues depending on which way the wind was blowing, rather than stating his opinion. From what I got out of the interview is Stewart has a lot of respect for Ron Paul's foreign policy and principled stance on the issue. I think that has influenced Stewart just as it has influenced us. For a man to make his living on the foolishness of US politics and then to have Ron Paul standing like his does on principle...I think Stewart like Ron Paul a lot. Again they don't see things eye to eye, but there's a lot of respect there.

Stewart complains about "his own party" and I think it just adds more evidence to Stewart being a person who goes his own way and doesn't pipe for anyone in particular.

Stewart may end up being a Tea Partier after all this mess is said and done. And that should be the goal, rather than doing everything we can to destroy the guy.

[Bman]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy.

So are your arguments. Learn to make a valid point. It helps.


John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not.

Well comedy is a little more hip, than possible insanity.


Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not.

Yeah kids read Huffington Post.:rolleyes:


You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool".

Are you going to ask people about their father next? Have you ever even taken a class on psycology? You're all mixed up and I bet it starts with your looking glass self.



It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool.

Rant, rant, rant. I'd wager that most people here are registered Repulican. Who do you think you are talking to? It's really strange.


You don't think for yourselves at all.

Now that's a bonafide statement if I've ever heard one. again:rolleyes:


I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game.

No one asked if you did care, and seriously your one of the farthest people I've met here from Ron Paul. Annoying? I believe you often make people here sick.


Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy.

Who cares, you have such a one track mind it's frightening.


You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement.

You're about as Libertarian as Mao Zedong.


Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones

God, you have a complex.

Is this you btw???

YouTube - Christian woman went crazy looooooool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORCuR84-_8)

[ChaosControl]

As a TV host I like him okay, but he is too socially liberal for my tastes.
At least he isn't a partisan hack though, which makes him better than 90% of political commentators.

[Todd]

Many left wing socialists loved his stance on being anti war. They also share his belief that the bankers caused the economic problem.

[Liberty Rebellion]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy. John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not. Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not. You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool". It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool. You don't think for yourselves at all. I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game. Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy. You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement. Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones


Hahahaha. Oh my sides. Yeah, Fox just marginalized and laughed at all the principles Ron Paul stood for in front of a national audience (sans the Judge) and did a 180 once it was politically convenient. Rupert Murdoch also threw a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

And, do we really need to go over all the shenanigans, dirty-tricks, and completely unethical (in some cases illegal) behavior of the Republican Party leadership to keep any Ron Paul Republicans from participating?

You are completely lost, especially for generalizing people with certain views as having them for no other reason than being "cool"

You sure know how to make friends

[someperson]

Some of the individuals at Fox News and many individuals who label themselves as Republican respect Dr. Paul.
Listen to these delightful people ;)

YouTube - Ron Paul Laugh Track (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VgAOBR4eYo)
/s

[low preference guy]

The problem with you kids is that you are trendy. John Stewart is perceived as "cool", and Glenn Beck is not. Huffington Post is "cool" and Fox is not. You have a problem with perceptions and that you don't want to be perceived as "uncool". It's not "cool" to be a republican in 2010...because the majority of the media TELLS you it's not cool. You don't think for yourselves at all. I really don't care if you find me annoying...I'm not playing your game. Fox is not the enemy and the republican party is not the enemy. You are not liberty lovers, you have become some sort of subset within the libertarian movement. Oh, Its also "uncool" to be a christian...you think atheism is "coool man". Bunch of 'tards. tones

Being a warmonger is not just uncool. It is wrong.

[low preference guy]

IF you are truely a liberty person..libertarian, you fail to admit that libertarians have more in common with the conservatives than the liberals. Limited government, sound money, etc etc...Without a doubt, the GOP was hijacked by neo cons but not all republicans are neo cons. I think you either forget what a neoconservative is or you just don't know. You just throw all republicans into the neocon catagory. While I disagree with the foreign policy, I agree with most of everything else the republican party stands for. am not a zionist and I think everyone here should know that by now. I consider the grass roots republicans ,many of which are Christians, have been brainwashed. I believe that we will be much more successful bringing the republicans back to liberty than the socialist liberals. I DO believe that most of you are very young, rebellious, etc...and yep...TRENDY. I saw how the young people, for the most part, shifted to Obama when Ron Paul didn't make it. THey go for what is perceived to be POPULAR. I am not a party line hack but I dont' see ANYTHING that resonates with liberty happening in the Democrap party. They are big big big government socialists. The sooner you cut the apron strings with your little heros ..who are destroying the country, such as John Stewart...and the other liberal loon "comedians"...the better off we will be. Glenn Beck is pushing the liberty movement forward...he's making an impact. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with 80% of what Beck says. TONES

Then you agree with bailouts, deficit financing, government ownership of "private" companies, expansion of Government departments. I wonder what you're doing in Ron Paul's yard.

[angelatc]

Well, Ron Paul praised Jon Stewart in a speech recently at the Mises Institute. I believe it is in the youtube below. He said how he likes Jon Stewart because when someone on the left does something really stupid, he goes after them.

Now, that's more positive that anything I've said about Jon Stewart, so if you are asking me to leave "Ron Paul's yard", when I didn't even say anything as positive about Jon Stewart, are you going to ask Ron Paul to leave the Ron Paul movement?

YouTube - Prepare for the Worst (http://www.yov=9W6KJRIums4&feature=player_embedded#at=1248)

The thing is, we know that Ron Paul doesn't watch a lot of TV. For example, Jon Stewart thinks it's stupid of Obama not to just blow off Congress and give us a federal health program using signing statements. Do you think seriously think that Ron Paul will be giving kudos to Stewart for calling Obama out when Obama isn't socialist enough?

[low preference guy]

angelatc, all I'm saying is that if tones asked me to leave the forums when I didn't even say anything positive about Stewart, the consistent thing for tones to do would be to call Ron Paul to leave the Ron Paul movement, as he said more positive things toward Jon Stewart that I did.

Of course I don't think Ron Paul should leave the RP movement; that's ridiculous. I just wanted to point out that if tones were consistent, she would be calling for exactly that.

[Reason]

dear god TONES is annoying

[Goldhunter27]

I just watched the whole interview and I agree with about 80% of what he said. Aside from the crap at the start about Obama, he was pretty spot-on. The shout out to RP was nice too.


Also, Glenn Beck is a fool. :o

[low preference guy]

Tones, if you don't like trendy and cool kids, why can't you stop hanging out with them on the Forums?

[__27__]

/sigh

[MichelleHeart]

Tones may be on to something when he talks about socialists infiltrating these forums. I don't care if you think he's annoying or stupid or blind or whatever...his heart is in the right place, and I think he's a wonderful guy. That said, I've seen all kinds of people on these forums worshiping Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, and other socialist big government outlets. These guys may have played lip service to the anti-war movement during the Bush regime, but now they're regime cheerleaders for the Obama camp. They're lying, deceitful hypocrites, just like the Republicans.

To be honest, I feel more comfortable around misguided conservatives who supported the war in Iraq than I am around socialists. At least I can attempt to convert them by talking about Robert Taft, Warren Harding, and the principles of the Old Right. It's starting to work. My mainstream conservative friends are starting to see the light. Use buzzwords like "world empire," "nation-building," and "policing the world for the U.N.," and mainstream conservatives start to get how war isn't very conservative at all.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck with socialists. Although they claim to be anti-war, they instantly defend Clinton when I talk about his 44 military deployments. They also tend to support nation-building and billion-dollar foreign aid programs. No matter how hard I try, they never catch on to free market economics. They seem to have an ingrained hatred for the rich that reels them into a stubborn belief of wealth redistribution. As much as I despise the bankers and corporations that helped get us into this mess, they could only do so with the help of the government. It's an alliance, not just one or the other, and socialists have a hard time understanding that.

The left-wing media is just as bad as the so-called "right-wing" media (I must note that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh are anything but "right-wing"; the "right-wing" media is left-wing in nature). And just because the left-wing tries to be all hip and trendy doesn't mean we should get in bed with them. I've always held a deep-seated hatred for modern social norms. I hate modern humor, modern values, modern music, modern movies, modern television shows, modern everything. "Hip" and "trendy" have always been negative in my book.

Tones has a point. Lately, I've been seeing people on these forums supporting corporate regulations, government-run monetary policy (instead of market-run monetary policy), socialist media outlets, and the restriction of hunting rights. None of this is conservative or libertarian.

[BlackTerrel]

Tones may be on to something when he talks about socialists infiltrating these forums. I don't care if you think he's annoying or stupid or blind or whatever...his heart is in the right place, and I think he's a wonderful guy. That said, I've seen all kinds of people on these forums worshiping Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, and other socialist big government outlets.

Is it ok to like someone, think they are a decent human being but disagree with them politically? That's how I would view Stewart - the other ones you mention I have barely watched so have little opinion.

As far as worshiping any of those people - I haven't seen it. As a Christian I don't worship any man.

[BenIsForRon]

Michelle Heart:

Maddow covered the co-opting of the tea party movement by neocons, while Glen Beck carried out a political hit job on Medina... your post has no basis in reality.

[Flash]

Michelle Heart:

Maddow covered the co-opting of the tea party movement by neocons, while Glen Beck carried out a political hit job on Medina... your post has no basis in reality.

It is true MSNBC is generally better towards the Liberty movement than Fox. Of course FOX has great Libertarian talents but they are kinda shoved to FBN (Stossel) or Foxnews.com (Andrew Napolitano). Scarborough, & Ratigan are my favorite personalities on MSNBC and may be TV altogether. I don't agree with their views all the time but they allow Liberals & others to voice their opinions.

Maddow is decent since she gives Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and other Liberty-minded people airtime. I was disappointed when she attacked the JBS over nothing.

[silverhandorder]

Tones may be on to something when he talks about socialists infiltrating these forums. I don't care if you think he's annoying or stupid or blind or whatever...his heart is in the right place, and I think he's a wonderful guy. That said, I've seen all kinds of people on these forums worshiping Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, and other socialist big government outlets. These guys may have played lip service to the anti-war movement during the Bush regime, but now they're regime cheerleaders for the Obama camp. They're lying, deceitful hypocrites, just like the Republicans.

To be honest, I feel more comfortable around misguided conservatives who supported the war in Iraq than I am around socialists. At least I can attempt to convert them by talking about Robert Taft, Warren Harding, and the principles of the Old Right. It's starting to work. My mainstream conservative friends are starting to see the light. Use buzzwords like "world empire," "nation-building," and "policing the world for the U.N.," and mainstream conservatives start to get how war isn't very conservative at all.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck with socialists. Although they claim to be anti-war, they instantly defend Clinton when I talk about his 44 military deployments. They also tend to support nation-building and billion-dollar foreign aid programs. No matter how hard I try, they never catch on to free market economics. They seem to have an ingrained hatred for the rich that reels them into a stubborn belief of wealth redistribution. As much as I despise the bankers and corporations that helped get us into this mess, they could only do so with the help of the government. It's an alliance, not just one or the other, and socialists have a hard time understanding that.

The left-wing media is just as bad as the so-called "right-wing" media (I must note that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh are anything but "right-wing"; the "right-wing" media is left-wing in nature). And just because the left-wing tries to be all hip and trendy doesn't mean we should get in bed with them. I've always held a deep-seated hatred for modern social norms. I hate modern humor, modern values, modern music, modern movies, modern television shows, modern everything. "Hip" and "trendy" have always been negative in my book.

Tones has a point. Lately, I've been seeing people on these forums supporting corporate regulations, government-run monetary policy (instead of market-run monetary policy), socialist media outlets, and the restriction of hunting rights. None of this is conservative or libertarian.

QFT after trolling dem forums a lot of their languages becomes noticeable here.

I feel uncomfortable the same way around both misguided republicans and misguided democrats. Unlike republicans however the democrats are misguided at first principles. Which makes it a lot harder to relate and convert them for me.