PDA

View Full Version : The Judge will be on "The Daily Show"!




IndianaPolitico
10-25-2011, 10:31 AM
"Will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart this Thursday 11PM ET on Comedy Central to discuss "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong"
http://www.facebook.com/JudgeNapolitano

IndianaPolitico
10-25-2011, 10:46 AM
Bump!

JK/SEA
10-25-2011, 11:31 AM
remind me thursday bump..

ZanZibar
10-25-2011, 12:57 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-12-2011/moment-of-zen---stuart-varney-s-unconstitutional-ringtone

dannno
10-25-2011, 12:59 PM
Wow, I can't wait!!

angelatc
10-25-2011, 01:51 PM
blimp

FreedomProsperityPeace
10-25-2011, 07:56 PM
This could be really big. I hope there is some mention of Ron Paul in there. :D

Article V
10-25-2011, 08:28 PM
We need the Judge on O'Reilly.

bluesc
10-25-2011, 08:51 PM
We need the Judge on O'Reilly.

He's been on before, O'Reilly basically acted like the boss of Fox News, and The Judge had to back down, otherwise be fired. Not much can be done with the prima donna O'Reilly unless you're a guest like Jon Stewart, who disarms him perfectly.

Article V
10-25-2011, 08:56 PM
He's been on before, O'Reilly basically acted like the boss of Fox News, and The Judge had to back down, otherwise be fired. Not much can be done with the prima donna O'Reilly unless you're a guest like Jon Stewart, who disarms him perfectly.Nonetheless, it's time to go on again. He's got a new book, that's a perfect excuse.

Also, Ron needs to go on. If we keep fearing the O'Reilly's will misrepresent us or not let us speak, then we'll never win the election (nor should we). We have to trust that the People (or at least some of them) will hear and understand even through the cacophony of blowhards like O'Reilly. Any people we persuade are more people on our side. Ron Paul doesn't lose supporters, so he needs to get on every show he can and trust us. We won't leave him, and he's bound to coax a few new voters to his side each time he goes on one of these shows where the host gives him a cold reception.

ZanZibar
10-25-2011, 09:31 PM
Jon Stewart mentioned the Judge once before: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-july-8-2010-marilynne-robinson?xrs=synd_facebook

rideurlightning
10-25-2011, 10:14 PM
Bump. This is so awesome.

bluesc
10-25-2011, 10:24 PM
Jon Stewart mentioned the Judge once before: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-july-8-2010-marilynne-robinson?xrs=synd_facebook

FTFY: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-8-2010/latino-911-

Fermli
10-25-2011, 10:28 PM
Having a mental debate as to whether this could be as good as Ron Paul being on. He's more charismatic... may influence some young liberals watching.

jct74
10-25-2011, 10:35 PM
retweet this to promote Judge's appearance:
http://twitter.com/#!/Judgenap/status/128867980670013443

I'm really looking forward to this interview, even more than Ron going on the Daily Show. I've never seen Judge interviewed on TV anywhere outside of Fox, so it will be interesting. I'm sure him and Stewart will have plenty to talk about, especially with him being a Fox employee and all, and they will have lots of common ground to talk about too. Stewart probably respects him a lot and is probably pretty familiar with the Judge since a huge portion of what the Daily Show does is make fun of cable news media.

Suzu
10-26-2011, 12:11 AM
Ron Paul doesn't lose supporters

Unfortunately he seems to have lost one, a rather contentious fellow who used to post here a lot and is now all over Facebook supporting first one then another RINO. If he's reading this, he knows I'm talking about him...

bluesc
10-26-2011, 07:11 AM
Unfortunately he seems to have lost one, a rather contentious fellow who used to post here a lot and is now all over Facebook supporting first one then another RINO. If he's reading this, he knows I'm talking about him...

Sounds fun. What's his username?

Tinnuhana
10-26-2011, 07:41 AM
Slightly OT, but I don't have television: Did SNL do another GOP primary skit this past Saturday? If so, how was it?

Suzu
10-26-2011, 08:14 AM
Did SNL do another GOP primary skit this past Saturday? If so, how was it?

Yes they did, and it was great!

Jon Stewart also broke down what happened. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?324536-Jon-Stewart-Dissects-The-GOP-Debate

Tinnuhana
10-27-2011, 07:04 AM
How can I access it?

specsaregood
10-27-2011, 07:21 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the topic of NJ comes up.

jct74
10-27-2011, 07:48 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the topic of NJ comes up.

I will go out on a limb and predict he mentions Ron Paul somehow. Well, maybe not, but he seems to plug Ron Paul at just about every opportunity, like on his show every night.

Invi
10-27-2011, 08:03 PM
Anyone have a streaming link handy?

MJU1983
10-27-2011, 08:04 PM
Saw this on the Judge's facebook page:


I gave Jon Stewart a copy of my book and my maple syrup I make at my farm before the interview. Does he look happy? I can't tell! Don't miss the show tonight at 11PM ET on Comedy Central.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/317612_10150433913720802_207770190801_10423173_142 1665022_n.jpg

speciallyblend
10-27-2011, 08:06 PM
Anyone have a streaming link handy?

yes a link? i am at work . hopefully it will not stop every 5 secs.

ZanZibar
10-27-2011, 09:00 PM
The Judge owns a tree farm and sells maple syrup. Is Jon Stewart holding a jar of the Judge's maple syrup?

zerosdontcount
10-27-2011, 09:10 PM
no stream? hmm

heavenlyboy34
10-27-2011, 09:22 PM
I can haz tubez?

low preference guy
10-27-2011, 09:25 PM
is it over?

FreedomProsperityPeace
10-27-2011, 09:28 PM
D'oh! They go to break right when it starts getting good! Now the rest will be online. :(

pauliticalfan
10-27-2011, 09:28 PM
Well that was fiery. I'd love to see The Judge run for prez one of these days.

speciallyblend
10-27-2011, 09:29 PM
is it over?

hmm guess i will have to wait till after work for comcast on demand, usually rpf folks are all over liberty:)

Jeremy Tyler
10-27-2011, 09:29 PM
Well I thought TV part was pretty weak. They didn't even get to discuss too much.

R3volutionJedi
10-27-2011, 09:29 PM
no stream? hmm
uh hmm :'(

king_nothing_
10-27-2011, 09:29 PM
Stewart's show would be so much better if he just made fun of people and didn't inject his politics into it. This big government crap he's touting in this interview is revolting.

The Judge says banks shouldn't be bailed out, and he gets big applause. Then Stewart says something along the lines of "shouldn't the government help the losers (business losers)? Aren't we a collective? Blah blah, social Darwinism." etc. etc. And he gets big applause.

lol? Is the audience confused?

bluesc
10-27-2011, 09:30 PM
Well that was fiery. I'd love to see The Judge run for prez one of these days.

I would support him over Rand or Johnson in a heartbeat.

FreedomProsperityPeace
10-27-2011, 09:30 PM
Well I thought TV part was pretty weak. They didn't even get to discuss too much.I know. They need a full half hour.

Feeding the Abscess
10-27-2011, 09:31 PM
Well that was fiery. I'd love to see The Judge run for prez one of these days.

He can't. He's come out as an anarchist, without actually saying so.

Sentinelrv
10-27-2011, 09:31 PM
It was pretty short so no mention of Ron. He also kept getting cut off by Jon. At least it was pretty funny.

2young2vote
10-27-2011, 09:31 PM
Yes, it is over. It was a pretty light hearted debate. They both said good things. It mostly had to do with the role of government. Jon said public roads and other infrastructure enhances freedom, Judge said government is inherently evil and is put in place to take freedoms away which is good sometimes and bad other times. You really didn't miss much other than The Judge laughing really loudly and slamming his hand on the desk.

matt0611
10-27-2011, 09:34 PM
Yes, it is over. It was a pretty light hearted debate. They both said good things. It mostly had to do with the role of government. Jon said public roads and other infrastructure enhances freedom, Judge said government is inherently evil and is put in place to take freedoms away which is good sometimes and bad other times. You really didn't miss much other than The Judge laughing really loudly and slamming his hand on the desk.

Bringing up roads is such a weak argument, there are so much better arguments out there for the state but road is one of the weakest IMO.
There were private toll roads in the past and also private railroads.
There's really no reason why roads have to be public. We're just accustomed to it so people assume its the only way society can function.

The other thing lefties (including stuart) do is confuse government with society. They assume without government cooperation can't exist and everyone is on their own.

specsaregood
10-27-2011, 09:38 PM
Bringing up roads is such a weak argument, there are so much better arguments out there for the state but road is one of the weakest IMO.
There were private toll roads in the past and also private railroads.


Being from NJ, I'm quite certain that both Stewart and Napolitano are well aware of the existence of toll roads.

jcarcinogen
10-27-2011, 09:38 PM
The Judge is awesome!

matt0611
10-27-2011, 09:40 PM
Being from NJ, I'm quite certain that both Stewart and Napolitano are well aware of the existence of toll roads.

private toll roads? We have a toll road here in MA but it was built and is run by our government.
I'm speaking of privately built and operated roads.

specsaregood
10-27-2011, 09:41 PM
private toll roads? We have a toll road here in MA but it was built and is run by our government.

Well I'm not sure there is anything private in NJ, but a toll road is a toll road. The concept is the same, a use tax for something that pays for its own upkeep.

Sentient Void
10-27-2011, 09:45 PM
Agreed on the comments about the debate on the show, but Jon did mention that they were going to host the extended interview on the Daily Show website. I don't see it up. Anyone know what's up or where to find it?

low preference guy
10-27-2011, 09:46 PM
Agreed on the comments about the debate on the show, but Jon did mention that they were going to host the extended interview on the Daily Show website. I don't see it up. Anyone know what's up or where to find it?

it's usually up a few hours after the interview

Crystallas
10-27-2011, 10:14 PM
Does the Judge toke up???

That picture with Jon sure makes the Judge look high. LOL

jct74
10-27-2011, 11:30 PM
Aired interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/andrew-napolitano

Extended interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--3

Note: The aired interview and Part 1 of the extended interview are the exact same thing.

harikaried
10-27-2011, 11:48 PM
Part 1 extended is the same as the broadcast.

Total extended time is around 16 minutes!

jct74
10-28-2011, 01:32 AM
Here's Judge talking to Lew Rockwell on Tuesday, don't think it has been posted yet:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/10/25/230-resist-the-police-state/

or tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvX-xBdQ2Q

Feeding the Abscess
10-28-2011, 02:51 AM
Oof. Judge didn't do so well. I'm taking back my pick for him as VP. He doesn't really seem to be at his best in debate format; he's better when presenting his case in a speech setting.

Not the worst performance, but Tom Woods would have taken Stewart to the woodshed and dismantled him.

Nate-ForLiberty
10-28-2011, 04:30 AM
Crap. I take back my vote for Judge Nap for VP, too. If you can't handle Stewart there is no way you can do a campaign. The Judge is much better when he can prepare his statements. With that said, as ambassadors for the message of freedom, we all need to prepare ourselves to rip these types of arguments down when we are put on the spot. It is these exchanges that change peoples' minds.

What Peter Schiff has been doing at OWS is what we all need to prepare to do.

KingNothing
10-28-2011, 05:37 AM
I thought Judge was amazing. Have you seen the extended interview? It was excellent.

NaturalMystic
10-28-2011, 05:49 AM
Great to hear Jon say he agrees with the Judge so many times. Also enjoyed for some reason hearing Nader calling him Andrew on Freedom Watch. We have such a wide deep and thoughtful network of support

ThePursuitOfLiberty
10-28-2011, 06:11 AM
The Judge really did not do that bad of a job...
This idea that every single time "one of us" has a platform to speak on, that we are critical of that.... I don't think helps, what so ever.

That interview, without question, forced thousands... if not more, to Google certain things about the free market and libertarianism.
Even if we converted a hundred... it was successful... Remember, our message is so engaging because freedom and liberty matter!

milo10
10-28-2011, 06:22 AM
Oof. Judge didn't do so well. I'm taking back my pick for him as VP. He doesn't really seem to be at his best in debate format; he's better when presenting his case in a speech setting.

Not the worst performance, but Tom Woods would have taken Stewart to the woodshed and dismantled him.

I tend to agree. In fairness, I think Jon Stewart was grilling him a bit harder than he typically does for guests.

One of Napolitano's problems relative to someone like Tom Woods is that the Judge takes a constitutional conservative/legal approach, whereas Woods takes more of a radical Austrian/anarchist/philosophical approach. Woods would have immediately pointed out instances where govt power was implied (e.g., companies couldn't allow unions to organize? How could a company prevent it without the state?), which Stewart wouldn't have had much answer for. I don't think Napolitano thinks like that. He's a little narrower than I thought.

Hell of a great guy though. He may do really well in political debates, because he can be a bulldog on individual issues. But, he's not the type to make a big-picture argument for a libertarian society. That is just not him.

Dorfsmith
10-28-2011, 08:21 AM
I expected the worst. Just watched it and the Judge didn't do half bad. I noticed that the Amazon sales rank of the book went up after the interview. If you have not bought it yet, you should. One of the best books I've read in a long time.

TheTyke
10-28-2011, 08:47 AM
The Judge didn't emphasize enough that the GOVERNMENT enforced segregation. I believe I read some private businesses such as Bob Evans bucked that trend. I'm not that familiar with the judges he referred to, but weren't they pushing back against GOVERNMENT overreach? Hehe, the Judge was relaxed and humorous, and it's easy to criticize when one isn't in the hotseat but... sometimes I think they miss these arguments.

They ended the online section on a great note though... agreements and joviality. :)

Czolgosz
10-28-2011, 09:04 AM
I don't see what some of y'all disliked about the Judge's performance (non extend version). He's great, speaks clearly, well thought out, and very likeable...and with a killer hairline.

matt0611
10-28-2011, 09:04 AM
I thought the Judge did rather well, he's so charming and charismatic! How can you not love Judge Nap?

truthspeaker
10-28-2011, 09:05 AM
Yes, they ended the segment online very well. I liked it.

angelatc
10-28-2011, 09:13 AM
private toll roads? We have a toll road here in MA but it was built and is run by our government.
I'm speaking of privately built and operated roads.

The first highway systems were built with private money. The auto makers didn't want to get stuck building them, but they knew their cars wouldn't sell very well if there were no roads to drive on. So they started lobbying the federal government.

Diashi
10-28-2011, 09:46 AM
I don't see what some of y'all disliked about the Judge's performance (non extend version). He's great, speaks clearly, well thought out, and very likeable...and with a killer hairline.

I don't get it either. Just because Stossel or Judge don't deliver the most ace response (and I thought Judge did really well), that's not reason to discount them. They're defenders of liberty, and some here act like they've turned sides. Sheesh.

Wesker1982
10-28-2011, 09:53 AM
I thought he did well. I would still love to see Tom Woods on there :cool:

kazmlsj
10-28-2011, 09:55 AM
We need the Judge on O'Reilly.

YES! And your comment immediately made me think how great the Judge would be as VP.

affa
10-28-2011, 10:23 AM
He did great.

hwm
10-28-2011, 10:33 AM
I'm a bit disappointed with the Judge's responses, but that may just be unrealistic expectations. A huge source of frustration for myself and many other libertarians is having to hear the same tired justifications for big government over and over. Given that the Judge is such a prominent figure, I was hoping that he could better expose the weaknesses in Jon's arguments.

slamhead
10-28-2011, 10:35 AM
Tube anyone?

Darin
10-28-2011, 10:54 AM
I watched the regular and extended... it was painful to watch. I really like the Judge... but man, that was bad. He wasn't arguing well, he was all over the place (including physically... looked like a crazy man!), and then there was the racial overtone thing going on. I thought Stewart presented him with questions that he'd destroy, but it came off as if he was just sort of brushing them aside.

That was uncomfortable to watch.

BUT I still think Judge Napolitano is great! Just maybe not so great in that sort of setting.

- Darin

BW2112
10-28-2011, 11:05 AM
I can't believe he said in the beginning that you have the "right" to kill, steal from, and harm people. WTF is he talking about?

I think Ron Paul did a much better job when he was on the show than the judge. I thought the judge would do better. He could've at least said that corporations exist because of the government.

jct74
10-28-2011, 11:14 AM
Judge on front page of HuffPo! Hit up the comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/jon-stewart-andrew-napolitano_n_1063521.html

amy31416
10-28-2011, 11:19 AM
I watched the regular and extended... it was painful to watch. I really like the Judge... but man, that was bad. He wasn't arguing well, he was all over the place (including physically... looked like a crazy man!), and then there was the racial overtone thing going on. I thought Stewart presented him with questions that he'd destroy, but it came off as if he was just sort of brushing them aside.

That was uncomfortable to watch.

BUT I still think Judge Napolitano is great! Just maybe not so great in that sort of setting.

- Darin

Yeah...I think he's great, but he came off "weird" there and didn't make his points very well. Seemed like he drank a pot of coffee right before he came on the set.

Sunstruck-Eden
10-28-2011, 11:22 AM
Honestly, I thought Jon talked over him way to much, especially in the aired section. The Judge would talk for about 15 seconds and than Jon would jump in again without letting him articulate his point further. Which isn't fair because when Jon agrees with a person he just let's them go on and on but when he doesn't, he usually intervenes frequently. If you want to debate fairly with another individual, you need to let them finish. Also, The Judge is quite an animated person so of course he's going to wave his hands and look at the crowd when he's talking about something he's passionate about.

But, they were both civil to each other. It appears that Socialist and Libretarians can have great debates - hell, me and my professor (who's a socialist) debate all the time and it's great!

ForLiberty2012
10-28-2011, 11:26 AM
Jon Stewart kind of owned him... why would you argue against having the fire department, saying insurance companies would do a better job? I wish he talked more about the FEDERAL government and about the federal reserve, oh well.

LatinsforPaul
10-28-2011, 11:27 AM
Judge on front page of HuffPo! Hit up the comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/jon-stewart-andrew-napolitano_n_1063521.html

I'm trying, but the clueless are everywhere there.

Revolution0918
10-28-2011, 11:45 AM
Jons closing argument was 100% correct and should be talked about with all kids these days. Its amazing have similar our views our when you stop talking past each other, most of this country would agree on 75% of stuff we talk about, they just don't like how we come to those conclusions.

R3volutionJedi
10-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Yeah...I think he's great, but he came off "weird" there and didn't make his points very well. Seemed like he drank a pot of coffee right before he came on the set.

Yeah. I still love the judge. We all have our moments

VoluntaryAmerican
10-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Yeah...I think he's great, but he came off "weird" there and didn't make his points very well. Seemed like he drank a pot of coffee right before he came on the set.

The Judge didn't have a stacked audience like Ron did when he went on.

If Ron didn't have a stacked audience full of supporters it would have seemed weird for him to, because at the end of the day
the people in the audience are Stewart fans and support his views over the guest.

Crystallas
10-28-2011, 12:15 PM
I loved the interview, I just wish the Judge made it clear that there is a huge fundamental difference between federalism and local government.

Danke
10-28-2011, 12:15 PM
Tube anyone?


Aired interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/andrew-napolitano

Extended interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--3

Note: The aired interview and Part 1 of the extended interview are the exact same thing.

//

Maximus
10-28-2011, 12:17 PM
Yeah, the Judge was talking about the Federal government, but John Stewart was talking about "government" in general. The Judge was a bit too excited.

DinahWest
10-28-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't get it either. Just because Stossel or Judge don't deliver the most ace response (and I thought Judge did really well), that's not reason to discount them. They're defenders of liberty, and some here act like they've turned sides. Sheesh.

IMO, it shows why people like Obama get elected!

They can snap off flash w/o substance. Keeping it all shallow and surface because (as my father says) people are no longer taught to think and think critically. It is why Paul, Stossel, & the Judge have blathering idiocy thrown at them because they treat people as thinkers and not as having ADD having no attention span longer than the time it takes for politicians like Obama to respond with some canned little quips and have the media treat it as sheer brilliance.

It makes me respect them so much more, especially RP given how long he has been at it, being called all kinds of names and not getting discouraged when you aren't playing the games the media, politicians, and voters what you to play in trying to act as if simply addressing symptoms instead of the source is going to do much of anything.

Feeding the Abscess
10-28-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm not discounting or disavowing Judge or anything like that. I still love the guy, he's great. I'm just saying that, after witnessing him in a debate format, he's not the best standard bearer for libertarian philosophy in that setting. milo4something said it perfectly a couple pages back.

NewRightLibertarian
10-28-2011, 01:27 PM
I'm not discounting or disavowing Judge or anything like that. I still love the guy, he's great. I'm just saying that, after witnessing him in a debate format, he's not the best standard bearer for libertarian philosophy in that setting. milo4something said it perfectly a couple pages back.

I dunno, man. I thought he did great. Perhaps he was a little too amped but I don't blame him

eleganz
10-28-2011, 01:36 PM
he didnt sell it well

The Magic Hoof
10-28-2011, 01:39 PM
I swear to everyone reading this that I am NOT trying to take a stab at Paul by saying this, but... judging (pun intended) by the Judge's really energetic, friendly performance and delivery of his points on Stewart, who's to say he's NOT or can't be good at delivering our views? He was better than most of the candidates I've seen this time around. Hell, he's up there with Newt!

I bet you that with a little practice and preparation he could wipe the floor with just about anyone because of his energy.

NewRightLibertarian
10-28-2011, 01:41 PM
I swear to everyone reading this that I am NOT trying to take a stab at Paul by saying this, but... judging (pun intended) by the Judge's really energetic, friendly performance and delivery of his points on Stewart, who's to say he's NOT or can't be good at delivering our views? He was better than most of the candidates I've seen this time around. Hell, he's up there with Newt!

I bet you that with a little practice and preparation he could wipe the floor with just about anyone with his energy.

I could nitpick the guy, but he made some really excellent points and I thought he did well. The booing crowd of sycophants would bash any pro-freedom idea, it's not his fault that all of his points weren't completely well-received

zHorns
10-28-2011, 01:43 PM
I loved the interview, I just wish the Judge made it clear that there is a huge fundamental difference between federalism and local government.

Agreed. I was waiting for him to say that.

The Magic Hoof
10-28-2011, 01:46 PM
I study body language and persuasion psychology a bit, and I'm telling you guys... HOW you say things is what matters most. Most people in the audience start cheering when someone says something with (the illusion of) conviction. It's a herd mentality thing.

For example, check this out:

Putting your entire body into the words with an intimidating tone of voice:
I've got to take a mother F'n DUMP!!!!!!!!
*CROWD GOES NUTS*

Vs:

A blank face with a monotone voice:
We should probably end the fed.
*crowd waits for someone else to clap so they can join in*

MJU1983
10-28-2011, 01:55 PM
I enjoyed the interview. Love Judge Nap.

Cabal
10-28-2011, 02:13 PM
I don't think Judge did poorly, though his arguments could have been better, certainly. You have to remember it wasn't the most welcoming setting for his ideology; it was essentially an away game for the Judge. Stewart even had to intervene to keep the audience at bay.

I think the Judge did well in conveying the basics of natural law and the natural rights which follow without philosophizing over peoples heads. But his free market arguments could have been more compelling than they were. I think he probably lost people when he got into the role of judiciary in the government machine. All in all it wasn't a bad performance, but at the same time I doubt he really gave many liberals pause about their ideas on the role of government. Jon Stewart once again proves he's at least open to entertaining contrary dialog at the very least, and was respectable.

Keith and stuff
10-28-2011, 02:59 PM
I thought the Judge would have done better. He was funny and did fine, don't get me wrong. Stewart is just so experienced at what he does.

Of course, Stewart is unfair. For example, in response to the IRS, Stewart brought up fire fighters. Most departments in the US are volunteer. There are private departments today. And most importantly, fire departments are fund through city/county taxes, not federal taxes. Stewart has the skills to bring up crazy points at just the right time and derail conversations :)

thehungarian
10-28-2011, 04:29 PM
I wonder how Tom Woods would do on the Daily Show.

Eric21ND
10-28-2011, 04:37 PM
Tom Woods would eat him for breakfast.

crhoades
10-28-2011, 04:40 PM
For Woods to win all he would have to do is call him a zombie.

PA27Pilot
10-28-2011, 04:47 PM
Stewart is a liberal, I'm not sure why a lot of people are upset. He is going to debate his guests with different ideologies and he is quite good at it. Despite this, I thought the judge did pretty well. Jon Stewart is always fair and very respectful, despite our different viewpoints.

MJU1983
10-28-2011, 05:01 PM
I wonder how Tom Woods would do on the Daily Show.

Extremely well.

Cabal
10-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Yeah, Tom Woods would be no contest, tbh. Honestly, I can't really think of anyone who could pose much of a contest for Tom Woods. He's as studied as Ron Paul, and he is an excellent orator as well. If you've ever watched any of his speeches, they all seem to be largely off the cuff; and he doesn't ever really stumble. His debate prowess would be tough to match, even for one such as Stewart.

ZanZibar
10-28-2011, 06:57 PM
Aired interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/andrew-napolitano

Extended interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--3

Note: The aired interview and Part 1 of the extended interview are the exact same thing.WOW!!!!!

The Judge was wound up there! It's hilarious, when he gets lot of energy he really gets going!


Great interview I think, too bad all of it wasn't on TV.

milo10
10-30-2011, 09:55 AM
Jon Stewart kind of owned him... why would you argue against having the fire department, saying insurance companies would do a better job? I wish he talked more about the FEDERAL government and about the federal reserve, oh well.

Man, that one was so easy, too. Try this:

"So many communities across the United States are served by extremely effective and very dedicated volunteer fire departments. While it is true that this is not adequate for some major metropolitan areas like NYC, you could have some very basic user-fee approaches to firefighting that would never leave anyone out. You could pay a small fee each year to the local fire company, or get hit with a large bill when they save your home or business from fire. They would always put out the fire and of course rescue people and property to the very best of their ability, but in the latter case you would be hit with a significant bill after the fact. Plus there is fund raising and other ideas. These approaches are all more efficient and cost-effective than when the govt gets involved. Just as important, you aren't socializing the costs across society as you would through general taxation, but putting it on property-owners, who are in a better position to bear costs that would generally be very small for them, but might be more significant for non-property-owners of modest means."