Daily Show contrasts two clips of Judge Nap: Taken out of context or revealing hypocrisy?

[BenIsForRon]

Watch this very short video:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/moment-of-zen---public-employee-union-vs--wall-street-bonus-contracts

Knowing the Judge, I'm thinking these are taken out of context, but I'm not 100% sure.

[low preference guy]

Watch this very short video:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/moment-of-zen---public-employee-union-vs--wall-street-bonus-contracts

Knowing the Judge, I'm thinking these are taken out of context, but I'm not 100% sure.

I haven't seen the full context of the clips, but what seems to be going on is this: The Judge is referring to different things in the different clips.

In the first clip, he is opposing having new contracts that bankrupt a state.
In the second clip, he is opposing violation of current contracts.

Opposing to future contracts that keep the status quo is different from opposing violations of currently existing contracts.

[AZKing]

Of course it's out of context. In one clip he's talking about government interfering in private contracts and in the other he's referring to government "interfering" contracts that they made with public workers... totally different imho.

[BenIsForRon]

I haven't seen the full context of the clips, but what seems to be going on is this: The Judge is referring to different things in the different clips.

In the first clip, he is opposing having new contracts that bankrupt a state.
In the second clip, he is opposing violation of current contracts.

Opposing to future contracts that keep the status quo is different from opposing violations of currently existing contracts.

Ok, that would make sense. I'll try to find the full clip, since it was only a week or so ago.

[Stary Hickory]

When the government is the employer then they have every right to offer whatever terms they want for employment and prospective employees may either accept them or look for employment elsewhere.

However when the government is not the employer and uses force to interfere with an agreement between employer and employee in the private sector then they have crossed the line. This is why unions today are immoral, they all utilize government coercion to force employers to offer them a better deal.

This is two totally different things which some people like to pretend are the same...they are not.

[dbill27]

Guys seriousy? Would the daily show ever take something out of context? I seriously doubt it! (sarcasm) The entire show is clips taken out of context

[silverhandorder]

How can a government make a contract in my name? Government made contracts are as good as the public sentiment backing them. Person making such contract should know this before making it.

[TrentEmberson]

I'm just glad they're showing the Judge, it means we're moving up in the world. Stary Hickory and Low Preferences got the specifics right, but just the fact that Stewart's moment of zen is focused in on one of ours talking philosophy means we're on the rise. And let's be honest, don't we trust Napolitano to speak his mind whenever, wherever, however, because he advocates liberty in every single situation? There's no need to fact check for hypocrisy, his whole outlook is Rothbard as hell. And yes, I'm using proper nouns as adjectives.

[Nastynate]

It really doesn't matter, the damage is done. It is seared in the back of everyone that watched the daily shows mind except the people who do research. That is a form of propaganda there, since they nit pick a person who has been on numerous different TV broadcasts and radio he is going to seem like he says stuff that contradicts each other. However if you have a strong base rotted in the constitution and you don't change your position you'll never contradict yourself. What he was referring to here is private contract (which of course the government has no right in interfering except if the contract was breached and the courts need to make a judgment) and a public contract (which the government has all right to interfering with since it is a party of the contract). So now if you ever talk about the judge to someone in the daily show audience they'll just discredit him by that small clip in the back of their mind seeming like he contradicted himself at one time to fit a popular position. Just more propaganda by the media to try to discredit the liberty movement as a viable movement so they can advance their own agenda of real flip flopping on issues.

[madfoot]

Yeah, I saw that, and wondered what the deal was. I had to rewind it to get what the point was.

I assumed it was clever editing on Viacom's part and, who knows, maybe it was accurate. I'm not really bothered, I don't agree with everything on either show, doesn't mean I can't respect them.

[Gage]

I don't think the first clip was even his opinion, he was just reporting the news.

[S.Shorland]

Well, Jon Stewart is a decent person and would allow the judge on as a means of redress?Andrew is smart enough to handle himself anywhere.If he's big enough to be the subject of a piece,he's big enough to have a segment on the show!Someone should email,ring them.