JON STEWART Goes OFF On Congress

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Well since the majority of the alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia could afford to pay their health care costs

[donnay]

Well since the majority of the alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia could afford to pay their health care costs

First you have to have a trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

A charity would be more beneficial to those who need help now.

[jmdrake]

And? He is still a douchebag comedian/actor. Why is he there? He isn't a first responder. how is he relevant in anyway to the topic at hand?

Why is he there? Why not? Donald Trump being a douchebag gun grabbing actor hasn't stopped many people here from cheering him on for giving lip service to their concerns about immigration and trade even though he has hired illegal immigrants and manufactures in China. People take whatever spokesman they can get.

What's really sad is the fact that they just put up a "memorial" at ground zero for workers who died from lung diseases from 9/11 while not doing anything for their health.

[Anti Globalist]

If they wanted to be taken seriously they shouldn't have chosen a douchebag comedian/actor as their spokesman.

This.

[jmdrake]

First you have to have a trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

A charity would be more beneficial to those who need help now.

Victims and families of victims have been trying to get a trial to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their role in 9/11 for years.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/ne...ia/1037544001/

And yes, even though I don't believe the official government story, I do believe Saudi Arabia and their U.S. intelligence handlers played a role.

Michael Springman on suspected Saudi terrorists being waived through immigration by the CIA.



Emad Salem, FBI informant, built the 1993 WTC bomb.



I know you know all of this but it bears repeating. The best way to get to the truth about 9/11 is to start holding SOMEBODY accountable.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's appropriate for the government to compensate its own employees (police, firemen, etc) who were injured on the job.

Even if such compensation wasn't part of the original employment contract and therefore isn't an obligation, it's still good personnel management.

That said, there's no reason for the government to be compensating non-employee victims.

A person injured by the crime of 9/11 is no different in principle than a person injured by a mugger on 9/12.

The government's function is to help victims get compensation from criminals (courts), not to indemnify people against crime.

The question to ask is "why now"? It's been 18 years since 9/11. What bill do they want to pass to "fix" this problem? Whenever a big name celeb is trotted out in front of Congress, to much media coverage, there's an agenda behind it.

Apparently, the program has always been funded with short-term funding bills that have to be renewed periodically.

[jmdrake]

It's appropriate for the government to compensate its own employees (police, firemen, etc) who were injured on the job.

Even if such compensation wasn't part of the original employment contract and therefore isn't an obligation, it's still good personnel management.

That said, there's no reason for the government to be compensating non-employee victims.

A person injured by the crime of 9/11 is no different in principle than a person injured by a mugger on 9/12.

The government's function is to help victims get compensation from criminals (courts), not to indemnify people against crime.



Apparently, the program has always been funded with short-term funding bills that have to be renewed periodically.

Well in this case the victims should be compensated by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States because all three played a part in the 9/11 attacks. The Saudi hijackers would not have been able to operate if they have not been waived through the screening process by the CIA. And the Saudis financed the attack by funneling the money through Pakistan. These are not "conspiracy theories." They are conspiracy facts. People can quibble forever about how the buildings came down. But there is no (genuine) debate about government complicity and collusion in 9/11. I wish the MSM gave that conspiracy the same scrutiny, investigation and airtime that they gave the Russian election meddling conspiracy theory.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well in this case the victims should be compensated by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States because all three played a part in the 9/11 attacks. The Saudi hijackers would not have been able to operate if they have not been waived through the screening process by the CIA. And the Saudis financed the attack by funneling the money through Pakistan. These are not "conspiracy theories." They are conspiracy facts. People can quibble forever about how the buildings came down. But there is no (genuine) debate about government complicity and collusion in 9/11. I wish the MSM gave that conspiracy the same scrutiny, investigation and airtime that they gave the Russian election meddling conspiracy theory.

I have a similar view, but I wouldn't go as far as to say "there is no (genuine) debate."

That 9/11 wasn't what it initially appeared to be is fairly obvious; exactly what did happen is much less clear.

...e.g. I would say that your description of events left out a major player, and I could support that with a lot of undisputed evidence.

Anyway, sure, if it can be proven that X was responsible for 9/11, the victims certainly ought to be able to get compensation from X.

Though, getting compensation from the government is a bit problematic.

...not only in that it's difficult to do, but in that you aren't really taking "the government's money," since it has none of its own.

[jmdrake]

I have a similar view, but I wouldn't go as far as to say "there is no (genuine) debate."

Which government's complicity is still up for genuine debate? I have yet to see anyone refute Michael Springman on the CIA waiving through terror suspects. And that fits the admitted before/after pattern. The FBI had to admit complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing with their informant Emad Salem because he had the tapes. The Obama administration admitted they purposefully let the underwear bomber on the plane.

That 9/11 wasn't what it initially appeared to be is fairly obvious; exactly what did happen is much less clear.

...e.g. I would say that your description of events left out a major player, and I could support that with a lot of undisputed evidence.

I agree that "exactly what did happen is much less clear" but that didn't stop us from launching multiple wars in response. As for leaving out a major player, when it comes to civil litigation that doesn't matter. If person A sues person B and person C is also responsible, person B can file a cross claim against person C, but that's not person A's responsibility. Is the other major player Israel? I am aware of the "dancing Israelis" and other evidence. Of course talking about that can get you "deplatformed." Ask Louis Farrakhan.

Anyway, sure, if it can be proven that X was responsible for 9/11, the victims certainly ought to be able to get compensation from X.

Though, getting compensation from the government is a bit problematic.

...not only in that it's difficult to do, but in that you aren't really taking "the government's money," since it has none of its own.

Think of it as a "rebate." The government taketh....sometimes it must giveth backeth. Yes it would be nice to personally go after the private funds of the major movers and shakers but they always give themselves immunity.

[Valli6]

Not impressed with actor John Stewart.

Too bad Jon Stewart doesn't have courage of his conviction to start a charity for these people with others in Hollyweird. He could certainly afford to put in a couple of million up.

1962

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxj-Qm7MErc

1988

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liRPvA6jRdY

2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkYQN8KPF40

[Todd]

Too bad Jon Stewart doesn't have courage of his conviction to start a charity for these people with others in Hollyweird. He could certainly afford to put in a couple of million up.

I was going to say the same thing. If we are true to our philosophical foundations, then let the free market take care of this. Not trying to be a heartless man, but they would probably get more help out of a foundation that is set up to help them get the medical care they need over ever getting Congress to do crap for them.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think I want to get into a lengthy discussion just now of what actually happened on 9/11, maybe another time.

Suffice it to say, I'm not as confident as you that the existing evidence would be enough to win a civil suit.

And, yes, Israel was the other potential state-sponsor that I had in mind.

Think of it as a "rebate." The government taketh....sometimes it must giveth backeth.

The state pays damages by robbing (taxing) innocent people.

That isn't righting a wrong; that's adding a new wrong.

Suppose I assaulted you and then, when ordered to pay compensation, robbed my neighbor to finance it - no justice there.

Yes it would be nice to personally go after the private funds of the major movers and shakers

Exactly

but they always give themselves immunity.

I don't see any successful civil suits (against the state itself or any individuals) forthcoming.

...which is to say that many of the victims are likely screwed, unfortunately.

[jmdrake]

The state pays damages by robbing (taxing) innocent people.

That isn't righting a wrong; that's adding a new wrong.

Suppose I assaulted you and then, when ordered to pay compensation, robbed my neighbor to finance it - no justice there.

I don't think that is a good analogy. When the government loses a civil lawsuit they don't levy specific taxes to pay for it. The correct analogy would be you are running a protection racket, you break someone's knees in the process, you are sued in court and ordered to pay damages and the damages come out of your already ill gotten gains. You would have spent those ill gotten gains on yourself anyway.

Exactly

I don't see any successful civil suits (against the state itself or any individuals) forthcoming.

...which is to say that many of the victims are likely screwed, unfortunately.

Well the victims compensation bill Jon Stewart was lobbying for unanimously passed so House panel so.....

See: https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/house-...ewart-shaming/

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think that is a good analogy. When the government loses a civil lawsuit they don't levy specific taxes to pay for it. The correct analogy would be you are running a protection racket, you break someone's knees in the process, you are sued in court and ordered to pay damages and the damages come out of your already ill gotten gains. You would have spent those ill gotten gains on yourself anyway.

That analogy only works if you assume that the government would cut spending to pay the judgement.

Otherwise, if spending is to remain the same, the government must either tax (or borrow or print) more.

And, unlike the ordinary protection racket, it has virtually unlimited ability to do so.

If the government had to pay out billions to victims, I don't see them cutting some other vote-buying program.

I mean, we have an example right in front of us - has the victim's compensation fund been paid for to date with spending cuts?

Well the victims compensation bill Jon Stewart was lobbying for unanimously passed so House panel so.....

See: https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/house-...ewart-shaming/

Right, but that's not coming from the pockets of the responsible individuals.

...nor is it any kind of admission of guilt by the US.

[Valli6]

Stewart did another infomercial. We’ve already seen this one. He has appeared in front of congress before with the same story.

(This is the message I hear Jon Stewart making: )

“9/11, 9/11, 9/11! Greatest tragedy! [ Will censor self here, regarding the only other 'more important' tragedy - which is so constantly advertised - everywhere - that I am finally fed up with the constant push and have begun to resent it. ]

Heroes! Heroes! Heroes! 9/11 heroes are more important than other ‘heroes’ and more important than never-heard-of members of your own family, who you might prefer to spend your money on, during and after some tragedy I never heard of! There are no advertisements for your tragedies and I choose to deny they exist or matter! As for 9/11, I care! I care the most! I’ll perform this stunt every couple years, because I care the most and I’m wonderful! Everyone loves me! Shame on you if you don’t support the 9/11 heroes, like ME, ME, very special ME! You are to be shunned!

Again, compare this BS with Danny Thomas’ kind request for help building St Jude - an appeal to the goodness of one's heart, rather than a threat to shun those who, likely care, but see a problem with an increasingly overbearing government, AND have tragedies of their own to live with.

I see no difference between using an emaciated cancer patient as a prop, and using a crying or drowned child as a prop. They’re both propaganda, therefore, an abuse of citizens. (Statistically, how many of these people would’ve developed and died of their cancer anyway, even if they had not been around on 9/11? Out here, we currently have ambulance chasers advertising to anyone who was anywhere near the lower half of Manhattan during 9/11 cleanup, and later happened to develop cancer.)

Well the victims compensation bill Jon Stewart was lobbying for unanimously passed so House panel so.....
See: https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/house-...ewart-shaming/

Didn't ya just know it?! There was never any issue getting it passed!

[jmdrake]

That analogy only works if you assume that the government would cut spending to pay the judgement.

Otherwise, if spending is to remain the same, the government must either tax (or borrow or print) more.

And, unlike the ordinary protection racket, it has virtually unlimited ability to do so.

If the government had to pay out billions to victims, I don't see them cutting some other vote-buying program.

I mean, we have an example right in front of us - has the victim's compensation fund been paid for to date with spending cuts?

Congress sets aside money to pay for government malfeasance as a standard part of the budget. Or have you never heard of the congressional sex abuse hush/slush fund? And governments literally pay liability insurance.

Right, but that's not coming from the pockets of the responsible individuals.

...nor is it any kind of admission of guilt by the US.

That's not what I was arguing. You said the victims are likely screwed. The victims will likely get needed funding. Maybe some firefighter who's lungs got screwed up by 9/11 dust that the Bush administration said was safe to breath is going to lose sleep over who's going to pay for it, but most likely his most pressing issue is "I need these medical bills covered for something that was not my fault." I certainly see what just happened as preferable to the victims getting nothing because of some philosophical debate about where the money really comes from. Anyone who does lose sleep over it is perfectly free to set up and donate to a 9/11 first responders GoFundMe.

[r3volution 3.0]

Congress sets aside money to pay for government malfeasance as a standard part of the budget. Or have you never heard of the congressional sex abuse hush/slush fund? And governments literally pay liability insurance.

If that's so, those funds (depleted by pay-outs) would be replenished, and those insurance premiums would rise, no?

Then there's the question of whether it was appropriate to have created those funds/paid those premiums in the first place.

...and it wasn't, if you take my view that taxing X to pay compensation to Y isn't just.

...in which case those funds ought to be returned to the taxpayers, not spent.

That's not what I was arguing. You said the victims are likely screwed.

I was referring to their (in)ability to get compensation from the individuals actually responsible (contra from other taxpayers via the government).

Maybe some firefighter who's lungs got screwed up by 9/11 dust that the Bush administration said was safe to breath is going to lose sleep over who's going to pay for it, but most likely his most pressing issue is "I need these medical bills covered for something that was not my fault."

As I said, I have no problem with compensating state employees (those serving legitimate functions anyway, such as police or firemen).

I certainly see what just happened as preferable to the victims getting nothing because of some philosophical debate about where the money really comes from. Anyone who does lose sleep over it is perfectly free to set up and donate to a 9/11 first responders GoFundMe.

I won't be losing any sleep; it's a trivial amount of money relative all the other improper expenditures - but it is an improper expenditure.

...again, this for the non-employee victims.