13 Sep 2013

Jon Stewart Is How I Honestly Get My News at This Point

Foreign Policy 27 Comments

I had no idea about Kerry’s snafu. This is awesome, and Jon Stewart is dead-on.

27 Responses to “Jon Stewart Is How I Honestly Get My News at This Point”

  1. Dan says:

    Jon Stewart is awesome.

  2. Julien Couvreur says:

    Excellent segment.
    That said, I have trouble to even watch Stewart at this point. His understanding of economics is just too poor, it gets irritating.

    • Cosmo Kramer says:

      I saw a segment where he literally didn’t understand the difference between deficits and debt.’

      He is “OK” just because he isn’t afraid to light up liberals when they make gaffs.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Cosmo can you find it? I’m curious. Sometimes the mistake isn’t that awful, like if people are talking about the deficit over 10 years etc., the bright line gets murky.

        • Cosmo Kramer says:

          I’m on it

          • Cosmo Kramer says:

            Ok, the really bad part starts at 20:53

            until about 22:00


            My comment was a bit off, but this is the debt-deficit-surplus piece I was referencing. It seemed he had a big mental hangup on what the Clinton surplus was.

            I think I still like him more than O’reilly though. JS was a lot more fair to Ron Paul.

            • Dan says:

              How could you possibly compare Stewart to O’Reilly? I mean, this video alone should make Stewart a million times better than that douche.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Oh man, you’re right Cosmo, that was cringeworthy.

              What made it so awful was that Jon Stewart was confident in his nonsense. That was a prepared talking point.

              What do you think happened? Did somebody on his staff look at the federal debt when Bush left office, and erroneously attribute the entire thing to Bush’s tenure?

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                That is a tough call. a couple minutes earlier he seemingly understood debt vs deficit, but didn’t (somehow) under put 2 & 2 together. I.E. look at Bush’s deficits and square that with that mystical 10 trillion figure.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I actually had to stop watching it; it was too painful. But maybe somebody thought “surplus under Clinton” meant that the debt had been paid off, so that the debt at the end of W. must have been due entirely to W.

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                When originally watching it 1+ years ago, I had to stop watching at about the 24 minute mark. They were both spewing so much nonsense.

            • Ivan Jankovic says:

              He was nicer to him because he wanted to piss of the republicans and thought Ron was useful and harmless.

              • kj says:

                Can someone please help me understand the claims of budget surpluses under Clinton? How much did the debt increase? What about unfunded liabilities?

  3. guest says:

    How is coercing other countries to give up what little decentralized sovereignty they have to a fictitious “international community” a good thing?

    The UN has no authority, people. (Which is another reason why Robert Wenzel is wrong about RonPaul.com.)

    • guest says:

      UN Sec’y Gen.: National Sovereignty Is a Gift of the United Nations

      • guest says:

        By the way, the solution to the problem that is the “United Nations” does not lie in Congress, but in the exercise of individual sovereignty.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          By the way, the solution to the problem that is the “United Nations” does not lie in Congress…

          Right, the Congressmen and women lie in Congress.

    • Chris H says:

      Actually the UN mostly just seems to act as either a force putting out pointless (and yes often idiotic) symbolic resolutions or a force that obstructs military action. The former isn’t worth caring about, and the latter is a really good thing for whenever it prevents or at least delegitimizes a war. Especially given that all it takes is one permanent security council member to veto any UN support for any war.

      Obviously having the UN actually pass taxes and laws would be horrifically bad, but let’s be honest, none of the security council members would ever let the UN have any real power there so why even worry about that possibility?

  4. LvM says:

    “Currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States”

    Without government, who would prevent people from enjoying Jon Stewart? Anarchy clearly doesn’t work. -_-

  5. Enopoletus Harding says:

    “First, we shall attack the following categories of regime installations in Syria: [???], [???], and [???], such as the [???] in Damascus, Assad’s [???] in [location name goes here], the [name of installation goes here] near the village of [???], and the [???] in [location name goes here] with Tomahawk missiles for a couple days in order to accomplish these immediate tactical goals on the ground: [???], [???] and [???]. The successful fulfillment of these tactical goals on the ground will have strategic implications for the Assad regime such as a reduction in its ability to use chemical weapons, [???], and [???], thus sending the broader messages to Assad that [???], that [???], and that the Obama administration will accomplish [tactical goals [???], [???], and [???]] in the case of [event in Syria goes here]. The following changes to Assad regime policy shall thus be effected by the U.S. actions rather clearly described above: Assad shall refrain from at least some possible future chemical attacks planned by him and may possibly expect further U.S. strikes (or worse) in the case of future chemical weapons use by his regime, [???], and [???].”
    -The most I can derive from Obama’s statements regarding the “action” proposed by him. The Senate Authorization of Force Bill is clearer, though it incorrectly states that the President has the goal of Assad leaving power.

  6. Kevin L says:

    Where do you get your news dishonestly?

  7. Cody S says:

    Shut up, Eno. We get our narratives from Jon.

    Republicans are always warmongers.

    Is it lost on the JS fans here that his entire lecture essentially argues that the end justifies the means?

    If that is impressive and “Jon Stewart is dead-on”, then shall I assume that achieving the same end of peace and lack of chemical weapons through a different means of years at war and tens of thousands displaced and dead in Iraq, also meets with your approval?

    Paraphrasing Jon, who cares how we got here?

Leave a Reply