Television

Jon Stewart and Me

We agreed more than we disagreed but Jon is a comic genius and may be the smartest personality on television.

|

About six years ago, one of my producers at the Fox News Channel received a call out of the blue in which the caller asked if I'd be interested in coming on The Colbert Report. At the time, I was generally unfamiliar with the genre of late-night comedy because I am usually in dreamland when it airs.

Colbert was hilarious in his haughty imitation of the excesses of my Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly. I did not and do not know what his personal politics are, but his shtick was playing O'Reilly to a T. In fact, at one point during our back-and-forth, I inadvertently called him "Bill." He stopped the act, came out of character and kissed me. Later he claimed it was one of the most novel and show-stopping uses of a single word he had experienced.

A few months later, my producer received a call from a producer for Colbert's boss, Jon Stewart. That caller asked if I wanted to be on Jon's show to discuss my latest book. That was five books and five appearances ago.

The on-air experience with Jon Stewart is unlike anything I do at Fox. First, when you are Jon's guest, you are his only guest. Second, as the only guest, you are on the show for about 15 minutes. In TV time, and by Fox standards, 15 minutes as an on-air guest is an eternity. Third, Jon spends the first 15 minutes of the show bashing you or your ideas or your employer—and he did this to me all five times I was on with him. So, by the time I first walked onto his set, the 400 or so folks in his live studio audience were expecting me to have two horns and a tail.

I decided to push the envelope a bit. Before Jon could question me, I told him my purpose in coming on his show was to out him as a closet libertarian. "Go ahead, Your Honor. Give it a try. This is ridiculous." OK, here goes… "Is it any of the government's business whom you marry or what you put into your body or to whom you speak on the phone?" "Of course not." Good. "Should the U.S. be traveling the globe looking for monsters to slay?" "No; never." Excellent. "Can the feds constitutionally capture the content of your phone calls and emails without a search warrant from a judge based on evidence about you?" "No." Terrific.

I should have stopped there, but I was having too much fun with America's funniest comedian. "Are you a secret admirer of Rand Paul?" OK. I blew it. He exploded with his characteristic inanity, and the audience roared with Jon and me, thinking we had rehearsed this.

So began a happy friendship during the course of which we have discussed and analyzed on air nearly every aspect of the proper role of the government in our lives. We were and are admittedly an odd couple. He is the progressive Jewish funnyman with a tongue as sharp as a serpent's tooth, trying to sound smart. I am the libertarian traditionalist Catholic defender of the Constitution, trying to be funny.

Well, a strange thing happened. We agreed more than we disagreed, and I learned what most of his fans do not know: Jon does not need to try to sound smart; he may be the smartest personality on television. He is as well read in the works of those with whom he disagrees as he is in the works of those who reinforce his own views. 

During last winter's version of the polar vortex, a bit like the weather this week in the northeast, I left a restaurant in lower Manhattan one night and was waiting for a car to pick me up when I saw a man wearing two overcoats and a hoodie walking a three-legged dog. I couldn't see the man's face, but I recognized the dog, and the dog recognized me. Then I heard the man, who was on his cellphone, spell my last name in a loud booming voice to whomever was on the other end of the call.

It was Jon. His dog jumped up to lick my face. Jon hugged me and said, "Judge, please come on the show next week. Let's talk about something that we will not disagree on." "What?" "Lincoln…" Oy. We disagreed profoundly. Jon had a black actress about a foot and half taller than I am playing Lincoln and three leftie-loony professors who were blind to historical truths trying to rough me up. It was hilarious.

I was saddened when Jon announced his retirement last week. Jon is a comic genius. His ratings are the envy of all in cable TV. He is the principal news source for millions of young people, who are the principal targets of TV advertisers—and God love him, he is his own boss. He has five dogs who run around that studio, and also a lot of love. Agree with him or not, he is intellectually honest, sharp as a tack, and so warm and engaging that you just don't want your time with him to end.

I hope mine doesn't.

NEXT: Canadian Schools Are Strip-Searching Teens And That's Cool with the Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I know a lot of people here don’t like Stewart. But around 2004, The Daily Show was good fun. Part of that had to do with the fact that the showed was balanced by Tough Crowd, which came on right after it.

    But, he was fun for that time. Colbert’s show seemed a little late and the jokes a little stale. Stewart had already shredded Fox News the year before, so it seemed a little silly to base a show on O’Reilly/Hannity.

    1. Tough Crowd – now that there was a show too great to last.

      1. Dear goodness, that show was brilliant.

        1. Thanks you two, now I see what I missed. Never knew it was on. Watchin’ it on Youtube. Good stuff. REAL.

    2. He can be pretty damn funny, but he is just too overt in his support for democrats. He mocks foxnews and idiot republicans mercilessly. He’s funny when he does it because his mockery is based on the truth.

      But, then he looks the other way when democrats do exactly the same crap. On the rare occasions that he mocks a democrat, it is much more mild. And instead of mocking something they did, he mocks them for not doing enough.

    3. I also like Stewart. The show makes me laugh, which is always to be appreciated. I think the important question is, why does the left have a monopoly on humor? Why is there no right wing version of the Daily Show? Even more importantly, why is there no libertarian version?

      1. We had Penn and Teller’s Bullshit for a while. Great show on Showtime but it wore itself out toward the end

  2. Stewart could have went out on top, but that means he would have had to exit before carrying water for Obama, pre-2008.

    And maybe it’s the prospect of having to carry it for Hillary Clinton that helped him to decide to leave now.

    I agree with Caleb; Stewart was great in 2004, one of the few calling out BushCo for the charlatans and warmongers they were. Dare I say, mandatory viewing even.

    Not anymore.

    1. Anti-semite!

      1. Well, I suppose that’s ends the discussion then.

        1. Oy – that’s the end of the discussion then.

        2. You know who else wanted to end the discussion?

          1. Tyler Durden’s alter ego, Cornelius, Luther, etc…?

    2. Yes?

  3. Wait a minute, what have they done with the real Judge Napolitano?

    There wasn’t a single rhetorical question in this (unless you count the Rand Paul question as one).

  4. Andrew, you should have asked him about economic beliefs and property rights. He’s far to the left when it comes to the money and assets of others.

    1. ^^^Thank you! The “smartest guy” on television (rather like the best looking guy in the leper colony?) doesn’t believe in property rights and is always ready to make fun of anyone who has a problem with the state raising their children.

      I guess I never saw him back in 2004 when he wasn’t a partisan asshole.

  5. I am a bit skeptical of any Obama supporters intellectual honesty, to put it lightly.

    1. Speaking of Obama and dishonesty, his most recent speech went all in for derp:

      “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” Obama said during his remarks, adding later that Muslim leaders “need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam.”

      …….

      On Wednesday he sought to explain his wording, declaring al Qaeda and ISIS “desperate for legitimacy.”

      “They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam,” he said. “We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists.”

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/…..or-summit/

      1. So let’s look at what an actual, influential Muslim leader has to say about that. Take it away, Mr. Choudary:

        Choudary took pains to present the laws of war under which the Islamic State operates as policies of mercy rather than of brutality. He told me the state has an obligation to terrorize its enemies?a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict.

        Shock & awe, jihadi style.

        1. Well, sure, but AmeriKKKa rounded up Japanese Americans into CONCENTRATION KAMPS!!11!!!!

          1. Plus – TRAIL OF TEARS AND INDIAN CASINOS RESERVASHUNSZZZ!

          2. You’ve obviously forgotten the worst of AMERIKKKA’s multitudinous crimes: the Crusades.

            So, you know, chew on that over your prayer brunch.

            1. You’ve obviously forgotten the worst of AMERIKKKA’s multitudinous crimes: the Crusades.

              Well what do you expect when you elect a papist like JFK?

        2. I post this question here last night and got no answer:

          So Obama gives a little talk on ISIS late today and the wingnuttery has jerked into a collective shit fit because he won’t explicitly say that we are “in a war against Islam”.

          Its like the bitter clingers WANT a full out war with all Muslims. I don’t invent CT but there is no other rational conclusion. This obsession with calling out Islam has to have a purpose.

          ARMAGEDDON NOW!

          1. “Let the strong wind of fish farming blow across the country!”

          2. You mean you asked libertarians to defend Republicans, and no one did? Maybe that’s because, while libertarians and Republicans agree on some issues, libertarians aren’t Republicans. Ever think of that? No. Didn’t think so.

            1. Save it, sarc, it doesn’t understand.

              1. Yeah, how many chances do you want to give this person?

              2. Maybe my comment wasn’t just for him.

            2. That would require that he think at all. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

          3. First off, dickhole, we’re not GOPers. Second, nobody on the right even wants to necesarily say we are “in a war against Islam”. Rather, they want to acknowledge that ISIS are “Islamis terrorists”, seeing as their entire operation is based on bringing an Islamic caliphate to the middle east and beyond through terrorism.

            Calling a spade a spade isn’t bad. And when the terrorists themselves say they are doing their acts in the name of Islam then its a misnomer not to call them Islamic Terrorists.

            And trust me, every single douchebag on the left calls it “Christian terrorism” when an abortion doctor gets attacked or a clinic threatened. Yet, those people don’t represent even the slimmest minority of Christians. But attempt to call self-identified Islamic terrorists for what they are and imbeciles like you lose your collective shit.

            You can’t have it both ways, you progressive shitstain.

            1. Calling a spade a spade

              RACIST!!!!!1!!!

              1. “Calling a spade a spade”

                There was a great drawing about this in
                Language In Thought And Action.

            2. The correct answer is, of course, that the inbred morons who make up an entire political party in this country actually want us to be a Christian theocracy, thus at war with Islam as a whole. Some of them no doubt actually want an apocalyptic war to end the world so Jesus can come back.

              Mostly, though, they have no politics beyond demonizing every ethic or religious group that’s not white and Christian. It’s all they have. Take any issue, be it the welfare state, immigration, foreign policy–anything–and their approach is to whine and yell about how the brown people are fucking up the world for us good, real Americans.

              The president is trying to quell this alarming increase in Islamophobia–using language that was totally uncontroversial when his predecessor used very similar words even days after 9/11.

              1. Well said, Tony.

              2. Stereotyping people, then claiming those people are bad for stereotyping others. Classy.

                Or is it OK when you do it?

                Obviously this site is not aimed at the stereotype you imagine yourself at odds with, so why are you wasting your time here?

              3. Poor trolling. 2/100. You fail today’s lesson.

              4. That straw man just blew right over

              5. CLAIM to want us to become a Christian theocracy. Many would wipe their asses with pages from the Bible if it would win elections.

              6. Wow, you attribute comments to people that you are nearly the only one I know of who has said them.

                It was really hard core abusive though. Well done adolescent ranting including the obligatory “inbred morons” line.

                You are making great progress though. Since you are at the adolescent ranting stage, at your current progress you should be capable of adult thought in a couple of decades.

                Now, just to help you out with the next rant, didn’t vote for Bush, didn’t vote for Obama, not in the GOP, don’t give a shit what religion you are just so you leave me alone.

          4. Maybe you could try phrasing that as a question?

          5. Turd lies. That’s all you have to know.

        3. So, did I misunderstand? An extremist nutbag claims that these crazy views and actions are based on religion. And you’re using that point to argue against the statement that, “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

          Or are you saying Choudary typifies an average Muslim with his beliefs?

          To be clear, I fully accept the idea that religion plays a central part in the motivation of the nutbag extremists. I am simply arguing that the nutbag extremists aren’t representative of the religion or the vast majority of its believers.

          1. “To be clear, I fully accept the idea that religion plays a central part in the motivation of the nutbag extremists.”

            Based on what? Late last year I watched TV news, BBC and PBS, pretty regularly for a period of time. I never saw even one jihadist or jihadist spokesperson interviewed though the story was top of the headlines almost every day. There were plenty of Westerners, and some Easterners, critical of the jihadis and they some would make the claim you make about religion being the primary motive. I’m very skeptical about that and believe that jihadists are motivated by things less abstract and more down to earth than the teachings of the koran.

            1. Fair enough. Maybe justification would have been a better word than motivation.

              It’s not that the religion convinced them to become terrorists in the absence of anything else. Instead, the charismatic nutbags in charge get people (who are already agitated about something) to overcome their natural hesitation to do terrible things by convincing them that the religion actually tolerates and even demands these terrible acts.

              1. I’m not party to the conversations between the charismatic leaders and their followers. You may well be right. I’d say the followers are prepared for war, know that terrible acts are inevitable, and that religion is a strong force in holding a community together and giving people justification. I’m still not convinced that religion is the primary motive. Any more so than Marxist notions of commodity fetishism etc motivated the early Bolsheviks rather than the promise of land, peace and bread.

      2. “We are not at war with Islam.”

        So, we’re at kinetic operations with Islam?

        1. Isn’t ISIS operating in Eastasia?

          Just sayin’.

      3. thanks for inviting the obligatory muslim-bashing thread. i was worried that this post might escape without one, because the post has nothing to do with foreign policy or terrorism.

  6. Stewart is pretty good as an equal opportunity offender when it comes to MSM and government hypocrisy, incompetence and stupidity regardless of ideology.

    But he definitely has a liberal, even progressive, point of view when it comes to beating up on other people’s ideology.

    1. Which by itself is no crime and makes for good television among those who fervently agree, but it’s divisive, intellectually stultifying, and provides absolutely no cultural traction. Those aren’t Stewart’s problems, they’re problems for the un-selfaware leftist boobs who imbibe his show as gospel troof.

      1. Maybe some people realize that taxes are never going away and there is no use pretending they might.

        My gauge is how much does a party increase spending – and the GOP is worse than the Dems are on that count (at least since 1970).

        1. “Let us turn the whole country into a socialist fairyland by the joint operation of the army and people!”

        2. Hell, if the discussion were whether taxes should be eliminated, you might have a point. I’d be a happier man, in that case. But the debate’s only over how much taxes ought to be raised.

          1. But the debate’s only over how much taxes ought to be raised.

            And spent.

            1. Is there really much debate, though? When headliner items like sequestration address only future outlays in minute ways and nobody makes a pretense about reprioritizing spending (which is, or should be, the point of cutting spending), and social welfare costs eat a tremendous and growing chunk of the budget, the debate over spending is pretty much all posturing, anyway. But we always need more taxes. There’s no effective limit to the amount of taxes we want.

              1. As per Ron Paul, cut corporate welfare first.

        3. The GOP or the Dems on taxes and spending….

          Personally, I prefer Giant Douche over Turd Sandwich. I mean, come on. It’s a turd sandwich.

          1. Yeah, but it’s just a regular size Turd Sandwich. You got the GIANT Douche. I couldn’t eat the Giant size in one sitting.

            1. How about neither?

              Oh wait. That’s why I’m libertarian. Nevermind.

              1. At least the Giant Douchebag can be used for butt-chugging.

        4. The House controls the purse (theoretically), so let’s compare the duopoly on years where they have control.

          Since 1970, years under a GOP house have seen spending increases of an average of 2.15% per year (2005 dollars) compared to averages of 3.01% per year for the Democrats per BEA statistics.

          Real spending decreased in 1 of 16 GOP years and 3 of 29 Democratic years. Median increase is 1.9% for the GOP, greatest decline was -1.72%, and the greatest increase was 6.2%; this compares to 2.02%, -1.73%, and 17.37% for the Democrats.

        5. Pretty sure Dem controlled Houses are much worse and according to the Constitution, that’s where the spending happens. If you’ve got a cite showing otherwise, I’d love to see it.

        6. Some minimalist state libertarians would also agree with you that taxes aren’t going away… the problem is the Left refuses to accept that taxes are a form of theft enforced by implied violence, and thus evil. Just because they are a necessary evil doesn’t make them any less evil. It would be nice if leftists would acknowledge this from time to time, or at least stopped seeing State theft as a moral good.

    2. He goes at liberals when they are so far out there that it’s unavoidable. And while funny, he is doing it with obvious reluctance. Has he ever roasted MSNBC’s absurdity the way he goes after Fox?

      Nothing equal about it.

      1. MSNBC is not “absurd” like the idiots on Fox News are. Beck, Hannity, and occasionally O’Reilly make ridiculous shit up.

        Glenn Beck is downright delusional. When his chalkboard came out the CT flew.

        1. “Let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms by making mushroom cultivation scientific, intensive and industrialized!”

        2. Your argument falls apart at Racahel Maddow alone. Throw in the rest if the line up and it’s just as absurd as Fox.

          1. Except Fox hires blonde bombshells, which puts it at least on par with RT in terms of utility.

            There is no utility to watching Rachel Maddow preen about her intellectual sophistry.

            1. I once confused my parents by describing Maddow as a “Shim”. Seriously, though, she had this commercial a while back with her in front of various greenscreen national monuments explaining how there is no social securoty crisis. Maddow is a fraud and a hack.

        3. The same Glen Beck whose show hasn’t aired since 2011? You do realize from then to now, MSNBC talking heads have mocked Romney’s adopted black children, they’ve worn tampons as earrings, have called for people to defacate into the mouth of a political opponent, have accused a GOP candidate of “the niggerization of Obama” and have labeled George Wallace as a Republican.

          That’s some serious class. I challenge you to find equally disturbing actions by hosts on Fox.

          1. I suppose I’d be remiss if I failed to mention the deliberate manipulation of the George Zimmerman video evidence MSNBC used to incite anger and drive ratings.

            Or when a host called a Republican pundit a “right wing slut”.

            Or when their most moderate host referred to the GOP as “the Grand Wizard Party”.

            And the list goes on….

            1. All good points – but never reply to the buttplug. He isn’t real.

            2. The grand wizard party? That’d be like a nazi, accusing the social democrats, of being the stormtrooper party.

          2. Long ago in Pittsburgh papers, Lyndon LaRouche in was described as the Libertarian candidate for President. It was either intentional or they confused him with Andre Marrou, which I doubt.

            1. *the extra “in” Really need an edit button here.

        4. “MSNBC is not “absurd” like…”.

          Stick a fork in him. He’s done. Lost all credibility, even as a troll.

          Put your tampon earrings on, Buttplug, then make fun of Romney’s black baby. Don’t forget to call everyone you disagree with racist.

          And remember: Jews surviving the holocaust was an example of white privilege.

          [All above are examples from MSDNC]

          1. What it really means is that it gets its news from MSNBC, so they cannot be lunatics.

        5. Yeah, Beck is a nut alright. Remember when he said that if Obumbles pulls out of Iraq an Islamic Caliphate would rise up? How anyone would let a crazy guy like that have airtime is beyond me.

        6. AL FUCKING SHARPTON!!!!!

        7. Beck’s not on the network anymore, you dumb bastard.

          Hannity and O’Reilly or Maddow and MHP? Two of those are batshit insane. Two are assholes.

        8. MSNBC is not “absurd” like the idiots on Fox News are.

          Go and google for “Melissa Harris-Perry”, and then come back here and tell us what you’ve learned.

          -jcr

      2. That would require MSDNC to be relevant.

    3. Does he beat up on people’s ideology, or on the people themselves?

      I’ve never seen a leftist actually go after ideas. Just people.

  7. I actually had some stupid person tell me that because really smart people get their news from The Daily Show, that his watching The Daily Show made him really smart. Stupid.

    1. That’s ‘Tony’ type thinking, right there.

  8. I’ve always found Stewart WAY to Smugger Than Thou to tolerate, ever.

    he may be the smartest personality on television

    OK, Napster. Whatever you say.

    1. PS “to” = “too” where appropriate, just for today

      *opens another Mountain Dew*

    2. I mean, those dopey camera stares after playing a video clip? Only a genius can do that.

      1. And employ a bunch of barking seals for an audience…

        1. The cost of fish alone…

  9. I saw a man wearing two overcoats and a hoodie

    Trayvon Stewart

    *pours a sip for his homie*

  10. Oh shit. The Peanuts won’t like Judge Nappy as much after this tongue bath of Jon Stewart.

    1. “…we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…”

      1. Not to mention ‘heal the earth’!

    2. Do you EVER have anything constructive to say except that my team is better than yours?

      And to make it worse, you don’t even know which team most of the people on this site are playing for.

      Idiot.

      1. Jorono|2.19.15 @ 11:48AM|#
        “Do you EVER have anything constructive to say except that my team is better than yours?”

        Turd lies. If you respond, you’re responding to lies.

    3. I like him 8% less.

    4. Nappy? Funny, whenever I hear the “n” word in tthe real world, it’s from one of you creeps.

      1. That was for the turdlet.

  11. The only time he got a chuckle from me was when he tried to threaten Dwayne Johnson with the BFG prop during the shilling of the ‘Doom’ movie. It was only because he looked absurd.

  12. He is the principal news source for millions of young people

    So. Sad.

  13. Plow just went by again. This is going to be a heck of a cleanup.

  14. I think my feeling on Stewart are slightly negative. At one point in my life I watched his show with some regularity. I watched less and less when he shifted to playing clips of elected officials saying something stupid then a cut to Stewart saying “what what what??!?!?. While there is no end of dumb to come out of the mouths of the government types there is an end to how long I can watch the same reaction to it.

    He is like NPR in some ways. While I don’t agree with the slat of the journalism(?) there is little arguing that Stewart has brought many people a wider exposure to the world.

  15. Good think I’m working from home today. I’ve got gas that could gag a maggot. What the heck crawled up my ass and died? Oh shit. It moved. Guess it’s not dead. Ugh.

    1. Tough night, eh, sarcasmic?

      1. I’m lactose intolerant, and I don’t always read the ingredients of what I eat. This is the result.

        1. Sorry.

          When I have bad gas, I find it helps to stand on my head. Seriously.

          1. Me too. It works. Once after eating two thirds of a large can of refried beans (there was nothing else left in the house) I had gas pains so bad that I had to call off work. But I timed a thirteen second fart, my personal record, so it wasn’t all bad..

  16. A little slobbery on the judge’s part, but Stewart did give him a 10-15 minute hearing on numerous occasions to his huge partisan audience. That’s probably better than what could be expected.

    1. Stewart is the spirit guide of the left. He’s there to administer the draught and safevouch his audience through their journey of spiritual wakening, but ultimately bringing them back to where they started.

      No, wait. He’s a tour guide for intellectual tourists.

    1. Don’t vaccinate your kids twice!

  17. Stewart often gave the same deference to Ron Paul that he has to Judge Napolitano. In that respect, he’s head and shoulders above most leftist talking heads.

    1. It could be argued that he gave time to RP to discredit libertarians in general. He ain’t that great of a spokesman for liberty.

      1. Stewart respects RP for having intellectual consistency. He knows that RP truly believes what he’s pedaling and doesn’t have an ulterior motive. Stewart doesn’t trust the free market, but since he agrees with libertarians on most other issues of liberty, he was truly interested in RP’s opinion.

        Most politicians will tie themselves in knots defending contradictory positions that they must hold in order to appeal to the various voting blocks of their party. Stewart’s bread and butter is in exposing that hypocrisy and he knew he couldn’t do that with Ron Paul.

        I agree with Napolitano that Jon Stewart is a very smart guy and a great interviewer. In his opening bits, he often stretched the truth or omitted details for the sake of getting laughs from his core constituency, but his interviews were always top notch and he let his guests have their say.

    2. Or Sean Manatee.

  18. When these guys (rise?) to the Stewart/Napolitano/ Brian Williams/ O”Reilly level — they’re all just stroking/defending each other so they can hold on to their cushy positions. SELLOUTS!!! The entire self-interested group of assholes. They all make me sick.

    1. Being a professional doesnt make someone a “sellout”. Part of the miracle of free markets is that it incentivizes people who have nothing in common to cooperate peacefully. Like Napolitano and Stewart.

  19. When these guys (rise?) to the Stewart/Napolitano/ Brian Williams/ O”Reilly level — they’re all just stroking/defending each other so they can hold on to their cushy positions. SELLOUTS!!! The entire self-interested group of assholes. They all make me sick.

  20. When these guys (rise?) to the Stewart/Napolitano/ Brian Williams/ O”Reilly level — they’re all just stroking/defending each other so they can hold on to their cushy positions. SELLOUTS!!! The entire self-interested group of assholes. They all make me sick.

    1. Could you say that one more time? I didn’t really get it the first three.

      And while you’re ending the GOP (not a bad idea) you should know that only one of those four probably ever voted GOP, and even he is not a member of the party.

  21. Stewart may be smart, but I just can’t get the “Moron Boy” walk out of my head when I hear his name or see his face. Like Rush, his truly funny days are way behind him.

    1. C’mon…Getty Lee has plenty of comedy left in him!

      1. Geddy. Jesus.

    2. Rush funny? Only in the sense of weird.

  22. “Smart” and “funny” are attributes, not compliments.

    If a man is your enemy — promoting and fighting for things that will harm you — being “smart” and “funny” just make him a more dangerous enemy.

    I would be much more comfortable if Stewart was dumb and unfunny and his show had lasted about two episodes.

  23. I’ve always had misgivings about Napolitano and this, as one earlier poster described it, tongue-bath to Jon Stewart does make me trust him even less.

    Napolitano shares a certain naivete common in highly educated ideologues.

    Of course you can find things that Libertarians and Leftists (like Stewart) agree upon. Or Libertarians and Conservatives, or Libertarians and Communists, even! Everyone raise your hand who’s against freestyle baby-killing as a spectator sport! Everyone? Great! (Geez, is that you in the back, Idi Amin? Who invited you? No, your vote doesn’t count. Get out.)

    That doesn’t mean they’re not your enemy. As others have said, scratch the surface a bit more, and the cracks will start to show. If you’re not seeing that Stewart is a statist, leftist, you’re not trying very hard. Ask him if the government has any business taking his money so it can subsidize what others put into their body (Obamacare drug benefits, contraceptive coverage), who they marry (tax differences between married and single), or who they speak to on a phone (Obama phones, telecom subsidies!). Yeah, thought so.

    Smart and funny just means he’s better at doing harm.

    1. How about we stop being each other’s enemies and start having mature, reasonable discourse?

      Of course, you’d have to figure out how to understand that just because you don’t like what a liberal wants to do with public dollars doesn’t mean you don’t also want to use public dollars for your own purposes.

      1. Tony|2.19.15 @ 11:27AM|#
        “How about we stop being each other’s enemies and start having mature, reasonable discourse?”

        Have mature discourse with a lying lefty ignoramus like you?!
        I’d stand a better chance of getting an intelligent response from a bucket of mud.

        1. I wouldn’t hold your breath, tony.

          1. Oh, you’re one to talk.

            Pull out another bullshit “study” then run away when we point out all of its flaws again, why don’t you.

      2. “Of course, you’d have to figure out how to understand that just because you don’t like what a liberal wants to do with public dollars doesn’t mean you don’t also want to use public dollars for your own purposes.”

        What? You dumb assfuckery, no one here wants to use public dollars for our own purposes.

        1. So you’re all anarchists?

        2. Tony thinks that, if you believe the government should run courts funded by taxes, that therefore you can’t object to any other uses of money appropriated by taxation.

          He thinks the slippery slope is a water-park ride.

          1. “Courts and police” are also Tony’s magic trump card that he pulls out when he starts losing an argument badly. Of course, he is too stupid to realize that libertarians aren’t exactly sympathetic to the police or judges right now, largely thanks to his own political ideology run amok, but he was never big on actual intelligence to begin with.

  24. I may disagree with him a lot, but i grew up watching this guy.

  25. Jon is a comic genius and may be the smartest personality on television.

    Sarcasm?

    1. If making faces at the camera is comic genius, well OK.

      1. Max Reede: If I keep making this face… will it get stuck that way?

        Fletcher: Uh uh. As a matter of fact, some people make a very good living that way.

  26. It was Jon. His dog jumped up to lick my face. Jon hugged me and said, “Judge, please come on the show next week. Let’s talk about something that we will not disagree on.” “What?” “Lincoln…” Oy. We disagreed profoundly. Jon had a black actress about a foot and half taller than I am playing Lincoln and three leftie-loony professors who were blind to historical truths trying to rough me up. It was hilarious.

    It should be noted this was the show where Napolitano tried to argue that slavery was not that big an affront to liberty and that it would have magically gone away on its own if we had just quietly ignored it.

    It completely ruined my impression of the judge; I can’t really respect a man who works himself into a foaming at the mouth rage over taxes going up a few percent and yet responds to organized chattel slavery with a “meh, waddya gonna do?”

    1. Napolitano tried to argue that slavery was not that big an affront to liberty

      Liar.

    2. He did no such thing. Fuck off, liar.

      1. It was not Napolitano’s finest hour. His argument was extremely weak.

        http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid…..napolitano

  27. Intellectually honest dem. supporting MSM personality. Oxymoron of the day.
    Methinks that someone has dreams of bedding Mr. Stewart.

    Love these “Smartest guy in the room” types, with all the answers as to how to successfully run a society, meanwhile, every answer invariably involves pointing guns at folk who have harmed no-one.
    A pox on all their houses.

    1. The Democrats and Republicans are both in favor of pointing guns at folk who harm no one, just for very slightly different purposes.

  28. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  29. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

    1. If you lower the wage amount by 80 or 90% a few gullible people might click on your scam.

  30. he may be the smartest personality on television.

    Damning with faint praise, aren’t you judge?

    -jcr

  31. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……
    http://www.wixjob.com

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……
    http://www.wixjob.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.