Jon Stewart thinks that Clinton's surplus eliminated the National Debt

[BOLLOCKS]

A comedian and a TV personality/pundit. Yeah, these two are a much more qualified alternative to typical politicians

Yeah, it's pretty funny and sort of a sad commentary on the circus that American elections have become. Surely, the entire concept stems from that time however many years ago when Jon Stewart appeared on O'Reilly's show. Anything to make a buck.

There was also the so-called "3rd party debate" recently as well. I think it was on C-Span. I'm sure people paid a lot more attention to this though.

I'll still give it a watch though, for the lols if nothing else.

If he was Japanese, you'd both be on his nuts.

[One_Tycoon]

I'll address the substantive points a little. Basically, I already agreed with the substantive matter in this post.

And as much as I dislike O'Reilly, I also agree on that point as well (it was good of O'Reilly to correct him).

O'Reilly could've been creamed. As far as the broader issue, I also think the entire perspective O'Reilly represented is wrong. I'd like to say that I would enjoy hearing an honest scholarly commentary on the matter supporting the view represented by O'Reilly. However, I am not sure where one would be found, and the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing think tanks don't qualify as 'honest'.

You don't need scholars to give the opinion of O'reilly. Plenty of sources besides the Heritage Foundation if one is interested. Though one can always dismiss it if it doesn't fit ones confirmation bias. But I don't much care for what O'reilly's opinion is anyway. He is just a TV personality, representing the generic version of what a "right winger" is supposed to be. Plenty from the Austrian School give the "honest" part alright. About Free Market Capitalism and Small Govt. on a economic and moral level. And unlike O'reilly, don't hold back on what they would cut, in fear of being branded as cold hearted.

.

[One_Tycoon]

A comedian and a TV personality/pundit. Yeah, these two are a much more qualified alternative to typical politicians

I would make the argument that not all Pro-Capitalism, Pro-19th Century small Govt, Conservative-Libertarian's listen to Fox or O'reilly for their info. On the other hand, Anti-Capitalism, Pro-Stimulus, Pro-Regulation, Pro-Higher Taxes Liberals do watch and listen and get their info from someone like Stewart. He is their interpretation of someone intelligent who busts dumb ass Tea Party types and makes funny jokes too.

Hence why i posted this. The smart guy talking down to everyone else got caught making a blunder with a straight face...thinking he knows what he is talking about.

[Drunken Cat]

You don't need scholars to give the opinion of O'reilly. Plenty of sources besides the Heritage Foundation if one is interested. Though one can always dismiss it if it doesn't fit ones confirmation bias. But I don't much care for what O'reilly's opinion is anyway. He is just a TV personality, representing the generic version of what a "right winger" is supposed to be. Plenty from the Austrian School give the "honest" part alright. About Free Market Capitalism and Small Govt. on a economic and moral level. And unlike O'reilly, don't hold back on what they would cut, in fear of being branded as cold hearted.

.

You don't need scholars to give opinions, but I am more interested in, you know, scholarly analysis? As in, of a theoretical and/or empirical nature (this being for purposes of definition of 'scholarly'?

Anyway, I really don't generally reply to gimmick/troll accounts (no disrespect) so probably this is my last response to you.

[One_Tycoon]

You don't need scholars to give opinions, but I am more interested in, you know, scholarly analysis? As in, of a theoretical and/or empirical nature (this being for purposes of definition of 'scholarly'?

There is plenty of those too. Scholars I mean. See Cato Institute. But they're generally not as credited by the Liberal, Pro-GOvt. Interventionism Academia....though plenty recognize them. I could list off a dozen names right now. See Cato Institute. I even posted some but not as many responses as a O'reilly vs Stewart or Fox vs NBC sensationalist Thread.

And you came to my thread...nobody is trolling you. You're excused from class.

[One_Tycoon]

(no disrespect)

Oh thanks.....otherwise I might have thought you intended to disrespect me. Now I feel better.

[Drunken Cat]

There is plenty of those too. Scholars I mean. But they're generally not as credited by the Liberal, Pro-GOvt. Interventionism Academia....though plenty recognize them. I could list off a dozen names right now. I even posted some but not as many responses as a O'reilly vs Stewart or Fox vs NBC sensationalist Thread.

And you came to my thread...nobody is trolling you. You're excused from class.

Post the names. I'm legitimately interested.

[One_Tycoon]

Post the names. I'm legitimately interested.

I'll guide you in the right direction.....See Cato Institute.

[Drunken Cat]

I'll guide you in the right direction.....See Cato Institute.

Haha, well played I suppose.

[!! Shawn]

You don't need scholars to give opinions, but I am more interested in, you know, scholarly analysis? As in, of a theoretical and/or empirical nature (this being for purposes of definition of 'scholarly'?

Anyway, I really don't generally reply to gimmick/troll accounts (no disrespect) so probably this is my last response to you.

And what scholarly opinion are you looking for? That Obama hasn't accrued massive amounts of Debt, or that it was all bushes fault?

Steward was trying to claim (falsely) that Obama "stabilized the debt."

Not increasing spending when its already astronomically high is not any sort of success.

That is the point O'Reilly was making, and that Stewart failed to grasp.

Just for the record, the Clinton Surplus was a myth created by creative accounting. They borrowed Money from social security.

They increased intergovernmental debt to decrease public debt. It was just shifting the numbers around.

Clinton did a good job over all.

I have always felt that democrat in office while both houses are republican is a good check's and balances system, sense the Democrat is usually more socially palatable as a public figurehead.