The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

16 Years? For real?  ???
I can honestly say. I have never watched any episodes of his show. The only reason I know about him, Glenn Beck or the guy who's taking over for Dave. Is because of the videos posted on here. Granted what I have seen is funny, entertaining and sometimes insightful. But never enough to get me to actually watch political humor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2948642/Jon-Stewart-s-takedowns-Daily-segments-mocking-names-Glenn-Beck-Sarah-Palin-Bill-O-Reilly-President-George-Bush.html

If you have HBO you should watch John Oliver then.  His is weekly and he takes on subjects from the death penalty to for-profit generic colleges to net neutrality.  He's a product of Jon Stewart (had him as his "Senior British Correspondent" as well as him guest-hosting the show while Jon was directing his film a couple of summers ago).  Since he's on HBO he has free reign to excoriate anyone (since he's not beholden to sponsors like CC is to an extent).

Well, too late now I suppose, at least until his next gig.   Curious though what shows you do watch?  While Stuart has always cloaked his commentary in humor, there is also always considerable substance underneath.  I find him to be much more truly informative on his topics than, say, the more mainstream news commentary shows (on either side of the political spectrum).  And I simply cannot watch any of the mainstream humor/interview shows, a la Letterman, Leno, etc., as it's just inane drivel and not worth the time.

This is sad.  Without Jon Stewart, a large population of people will get no news at all.

They also won't know who to vote for because of that.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point but your opinion already holds true for anyone relying on most news shows on television.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


Poor Gasp is under the impression he's informed.

I listen to NPR all day and watch Sunday morning political talk shows.

Come hither and give heed

Then this would be 21 minutes well spent:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/8omwbs/february-10--2015---david-axelrod

There is a song that says;

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...

To paraphrase;

But if you go carrying pictures of Ludwig von Mises
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...


Gaspar is a card carrying, picture toting von Mises fan.  Explains it all....or at least a lot of it.  (His picture.)

Old school Alex Jones, maybe??

Oh! You got me!  I am indeed a classical liberal.

Did it really take you this long to figure that out?
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/180459666-infant-baby-girl-with-amazed-look-on-her-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=pa3cqJ4Abwv1HMoJISnXogIfBdAwIampFk27ngCxq%2FQ%3D)

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/11/58df15607f64bf2def0b4673bdc09c25.jpg)

Nope.  Have known that for a long time...the new definition is libertarian, by the way.  And of course, it is also wrong - at least to the degree von Mises proposed.  The principals are good, right up to the point where they adversely impinge on the rest of society and other individuals.

Just that particular quote points out how inflexible he was - and how he just didn't understand that freedom IS divisible.  It is conditional.  It is situational.  And you don't enter into a decline so much as you gain a society.  There is no such thing as unlimited, indivisible freedom - there cannot be when there are other people around.  Perhaps if he were the last person on earth, that becomes true.  But not before.  It's just a shame so many don't get it.

Explains everything.

Meet Chairman Meow.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/IMG_6737_zpsk6ek1qoy.jpg)

A classical liberal. That tripe.

The modern classical liberal is an American invention that mixes Ayn Rand and the Austrian "School" of Economics. The philosophy of selfishness and narcissism created by a crazy woman mixed with a so called economic theory that dislikes math and actual history.

You always seem so angry, and that is sad.  The departure of Jon Stewart has obviously had quite an impact on you. I apologize if my political beliefs offend you, but at least they offer a welcome diversion, allowing you to vent some of that pain. 

I'd like to empathize with you, but I can't.  I don't see any selfishness or narcissism in libertarian thought.  On the contrary, liberty by definition must be devoid of such things.  I am a giving person, as are most of my libertarian friends, the difference is that our giving does not involve, or require taking from anyone else.

Rand had nothing to do with the creation of libertarianism, she was simply a student, flawed and inquisitive as we all are, and as we all should be willing to acknowledge.  She does offer the progressive a broad and clichéd target though.  If you want to find the foundation of libertarianism, you need to go back much further.  It's application has never failed to produce the widest and most diverse prosperity, and its abandonment the greatest malignancy of corruption. 

It is unfair to accuse someone of selfishness because they refuse to dictate the welfare of others.  Goodwill and charity does not come at the point of a gun. 

"For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. --Janet Frame

The history of liberty is the history of limitations on the power of government, not  the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are  resisting the processes of death, because concentration of power is what always  precedes the destruction of human liberties. – President Woodrow Wilson

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community. – David D. Boaz


Libertarians are intolerable and incompatible with modern collectivism.  We cannot win, and we know that. Our only hope is to stay the tide for a short time so that our children may enjoy some of the freedoms we did.  As I have said before, we exist in a cycle that repeats itself over and over again. As a civilization becomes more prosperous a swelling majority will demand that prosperity for diminishing exchange of value, and will indenture themselves to any politician who promises them the "free" but not the freedom. The productive will insulate themselves and wealth will become concentrated until everything collapses. 

The goal of libertarianism is not victory.  It is preservation.

And some are obviously more flawed than others...

It seems my initial analysis is being echoed in liberal realms as well.
"The idea that what Jon Stewart and his team did was journalism always rankled some journalists, but that’s exactly what it was. At its most fundamental level, the purpose of journalism in a democracy is to build a more informed citizenry. For many Americans, especially younger ones, Stewart fulfilled that task. "

Very good article in the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-house-that-jon-stewart-built/385399/

So, allow me to predict a political future for Jon now. In fact, I think if he were to run for office today, he would utterly transform the political landscape. I think the void he leaves will also have a transformative effect. Perhaps he will first become a part of someone else's campaign?

The timing is certainly appropriate.

(1)
Of course you don't.  That's kinda the whole point - as with von Mises - he didn't understand either.

(2)
Doublespeak.  Libertarianism by definition celebrates the accomplishments of the individual, when the reality is absolutely opposite that - it is "society" of people working together that has never failed to produce the widest and most diverse prosperity, and its abandonment the greatest malignancy of corruption.  The "lone wolf" accomplishes little of lasting value on his/her own....with some very rare special cases in the field of arts.  

(3)
The "productive" accumulating the wealth are not the ones creating the wealth - they are, as always riding on the backs of the people doing the work.  Yes, it will collapse, exactly like a Monopoly game collapses due to accumulation of wealth - that's where we are very strongly headed today.  And how is it you would fix that again - stop the collapse created by the accumulation of wealth??  Let the rich keep getting richer perhaps??   Oh, wait....

...and did anyone catch the remarks about Senator Tom Coburn?

Just give him time to grieve....

Bette Middler's response today:
"Jon Stewart leaving The Daily Show?! NOOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so!  What better platform could he find? an election year? What will I think?"
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8617/16510766811_ec5f4fc490.jpg)
Some have suggested that she try one of the news channels.  CBS has some nice programming. Morning Joe is entertaining and informative if you can stand pinch-face girl. Someone will fill the void when Jon goes.  I doubt there will be the hopeless wandering that some envision.

Considering Mitt could get the crazies to overlook his faith, Stewart could be the new GOP front runner.

Who could cover this "incident" nearly as good...

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8j4n7k/the-dick-swett-incident

A pretty thorough takedown of Jon Stewart, with mention of the "Bush lied" meme.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/15/how-jon-stewart-turned-lies-into-comedy-and-brainwashed-a-generation/

The Post?  Might as well be Fox News doing it..

It IS Fox, or at least it IS Newscorp. Uncle Rupert doesn't like to be mocked.

That was my point Swake.   ;D

If you read the editorial the writer is upset because people believe that Bush lied and it's all Stewarts fault.

As I read the editorial, the writer was merely pointing out how Stewart misled his viewers by distraction and distortion. Sounds like "Mission Accomplished" as far as you are concerned.

John Stewart has been part of a show that has educated millions of viewers on hundreds of topics. My children and their friends are engaged in discussions of many topics that they first heard about on the Daily Show. These kids are all on high school debate teams and the topics at competitions are social issues of the day.

The Daily Show clearly got them interested in the topic and while advancing only one side of most arguments, spurred their interest in a way that made them want to learn more. Their teacher/coach always pushes them to get as many sources and points of views as possible to use in these discussions. My son got in a discussion with me the other day and quoted some stats he got off the Reason Foundation website.

I remembered that we had had this discussion (about the minimum wage) before after watching the Daily Show. That day he had a discussion with his friends talking about the show and that sparked him to learn more about a topic. Thanks John Stewart.

How funny!!  A Koch-addict going on about Stewart!!  Love it!!  Thanks for posting that!

Careful...!!  You are ending up with an educated, thoughtful, intellectual human being there - that's a dangerous thing to be here in Oklahoma!!  Like the Japanese saying about the nail that sticks up is beaten down!

This Daily Show has it all... racist OU bus chants to Tulsa's godless parade.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/riop51/the-brotherhood-of-the-traveling-chants---to-catch-a-prejudice

and another

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ahdr7p/meth-labs-of-democracy---don-t-mess-with-sexes

Same state, different embarrassment.   See if you can spot the local morning show.