I thought the Judge did rather well, he's so charming and charismatic! How can you not love Judge Nap?
Yes, they ended the segment online very well. I liked it.
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.Originally Posted by matt0611
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.
I thought he did well. I would still love to see Tom Woods on there
What if courts or PDAs become corrupt,criminal, etc?
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Tom Woods Says Limited Government is an Oxymoron
The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.
Contract Law Explained in One Video
Anarcho-Capitalist Reference/FAQ List
Ignored: Xerographica+Travlyr.
YES! And your comment immediately made me think how great the Judge would be as VP.
He did great.
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.
Tube anyone?
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
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.
Last edited by BW2112; 10-28-2011 at 11:08 AM.
Judge on front page of HuffPo! Hit up the comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1063521.html
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.
Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi
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!
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.
I'm trying, but the clueless are everywhere there.
Rand Paul for Peace
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.
Yeah. I still love the judge. We all have our moments
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.
"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul
I loved the interview, I just wish the Judge made it clear that there is a huge fundamental difference between federalism and local government.
//
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
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.
“When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.” -CS Lewis
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.
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
he didnt sell it well
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.
Last edited by The Magic Hoof; 10-28-2011 at 01:40 PM.
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
Agreed. I was waiting for him to say that.
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*
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us