Jon Stewart Takes On The G-20 Summit (VIDEO)

With so many world leaders in one place, Jon Stewart had some fun breaking down the key moments of the G-20 summit. Acknowledging the presence of swinging bachelors like Nicolas Sarkozy, Stewart suggestively remarked, "Leave the wives at home gentlemen. You're in Toronto."

Stewart capitalized on the highlights - like the awkward toast between Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, a topic that quickly devolved into a "go f--k yourself" fight with correspondent John Oliver.

He then moved on to mock the ridiculous Urban Outfit-demolishing protests, making solid points along the way:

"It's like these G-20 protests have become little more than festive yearly gatherings like an anarchist Thanksgiving... Are they aware how strange the juxtaposition is between the barbaric behavior of the streets and the sophistic internet culture they exist in?"

WATCH:

Comments

[stargazer13]

08:05 PM on 07/01/2010

one billion spent to keep these thieves safe !!

[stargazer13]

08:10 PM on 07/01/2010

aah I mean world leaders must have been a typo

[stargazer13]

07:48 PM on 07/01/2010

provocoters dressed in black = police playng dress up

[alexolife]

04:55 AM on 07/02/2010

Glad somebody's on the ball.

[artist-53]

08:57 PM on 06/30/2010

Was Stewart knocking and unfairly portraying the demonstrators at the G20 ? Anyone?

[thunder puck]

03:50 AM on 07/01/2010

Yes Absolutely. this is my third attempt at a reply, but it keeps getting clipped by the censors on Huffpost. I said, "At least Craig Ferguson readily calls himself a Corporate [lady of the evening].

[thunder puck]

03:51 AM on 07/01/2010

end quote.

[princeza]

12:04 PM on 06/30/2010

*blink blink*

OLIVER!!!

My favorite part of the clip. Then the "apologies" that devolved... Priceless Daily Show.

[Mariano Pagella]

10:50 AM on 06/30/2010

Aguante la vuvuzuela!!!

[flossophy]

12:02 AM on 06/30/2010

If the G20 protesters have lost Jon Stewart... they've lost the anti-imperialist war.

*giggle*

[Eidolas]

11:32 AM on 07/07/2010

Those "protestors" have been late night fodder for a couple decades.

[coldcanuckinwhite]

03:47 PM on 06/29/2010

Interesting to note that the G20 happening on the weekend in TO is still a major issue here at HP -rightly so and that many, many people are still commenting, leaving their thoughts and telling of their own personal stories. Go to the Toronto Star's article "Demands Rising for G20 Inquiry" and you'll find all of 20 comments pertaining to the subject.

[techcafe]

02:37 PM on 06/29/2010

Out of Order Chaos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFpH32wnWrM&fmt=22

[gamblerman]

03:17 PM on 06/29/2010

End of affluence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCBvceix7k

;)

[GuiltD]

02:27 PM on 06/29/2010

We have a summit of the top world leaders and we can't protest and are treated like inhuman beings. It shows how government really does feel about people, as long as you are in their simulation its okay, but if you aren't, they send their black forces on you and then police provocateurs dress up as black bloc anarchists wearing NIKE( which if you know anything about anarchists...they HATE Nike) So after police burned their own cars, that allowed them to ratchet up violence against people and to demonize the movement.

[Mike Sprinkel]

04:36 PM on 06/29/2010

You're using a computer manufactured by multi-national corporations. You're probably using either a Mac or a PC, so the software is likewise produced by such conglomerates. I also note that you're in a place with electricity and an internet connection. I guess your gov't is able to ensure there's a stable infrastructure.

I seriously doubt the police staged the chaos at the g-20 because if they did, such misdeeds would eventually be leaked to the public and heads would roll. Also, there was no reason to stage violence to demonize the protesters; as a group, they're just not that powerful. There's no reason for a gov't to use espionage tactics to subvert their agenda because they're basically a ragtag group of schizoid fanatics with absolutely no organizational structure or plan of action.

[Manly Pointer]

09:06 PM on 06/29/2010

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2010/06/27/g20-agent-provocateurs/

The same thing happened a few years ago in Quebec. The "Blac Bloc" protesters all had the same boot. This was a police issue boot with matching socks.

Trust me. There is something fishy in Toronto. And it will come out.

[stargazer13]

08:02 PM on 07/01/2010

oh it,s happen in the past police playing dress up so as to create an excuse to blugin and tear gus the protesters !

they have been caught red handed and most of us know this tactic has been going on for for years

so do you get paid to say these things ? because that,s what I am thinking

about you ! or you could on the other be ignorent of the tactics the government and law enforcement use but I am leaning towards my gut here I do believe it to be the first opinion

[GuiltD]

02:17 PM on 06/29/2010

I love how people think black bloc "anarchists" wearing NIKE clothing are actual protestors. Thousands and thousands of police arresting, searching, beating people and somehow these black bloc anarchists ( which have been proven in other demonstrations to be police provocateurs) don't get arrested. Nothing happens to them and the police just watch. hahaha sure..........

[gamblerman]

02:15 PM on 06/29/2010

G20?

WTF?

It's the end of affluence....period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCBvceix7k

GM

[Roses]

02:04 PM on 06/29/2010

When there were WTO protests in Seattle, I remember that the head anarchist in the anarchist gathering (oxymoron?) rode the Amtrak to Seattle in order to protest governmental intrusion in our lives.

[Mike Sprinkel]

04:40 PM on 06/29/2010

WTO protesters are the stupidest people the world has ever known. World trade ensures world peace. Poor countries are losing not because of the WTO, but because they're governments are corrupt and totally unstable. Why would someone want to initiate a foreign direct investment in a country where you'd have to bribe officials to get anything done, and then get indicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Even if someone did successfully initiate such an investment, the gov't could simply change overnight and they're assets would be seized.

I only argue the above point because I assume the protesters have some complaint that concerns the third world.

[Roses]

05:37 PM on 06/29/2010

I doubt they were the 'stupidest people'. The speakers for the movement had some very good arguments about globalization, trade, tariffs, manufacturing, domestic economies, and jobs. However, there were alot of people who just wanted to have fun and smash things while wearing their Nike tennis shoes manufactured in Asian sweatshops for pennies.
This protest is probably similar in scope and concept. And similarly stupid bozos who just want to torch police cars while impressing girls.

[techcafe]

01:58 PM on 06/29/2010

Violent Arrests at Queens Park - by G20 Detainee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVDY8pE_twY

[Beatriz09]

01:32 PM on 06/29/2010

Obama tries to convince world leaders (most of them being rather unpopular in their home countries) to continue spending to save the economy instead of focusing on deficit cuts, and Jon Stewarts asks himself what those protesters want ... ?

I have some friends in Greece, the stop spending and cut deficits mantra is already causing enormous damage there. Concert halls loose their subsidies and are being closed, musiciens loose their job, and it's of course mainly the middle class and the poor who suffer the most from this 'stop spending' experiment ... .

Obama (most popular leader in the world for the moment (international April 2010 poll)), Krugmann (Nobel Prize-winning economist) AND most of those protesters are clearly fighting for one and the same thing: let the 5% wealthiest people pay for this crisis, instead of laying off teachers, firefighters, artists, and a lot of other 'ordinary' (or like BP calls it, "small") people who weren't responsible for this crisis in the first place, and who deserve a decent job and a decent life!

I adore Jon Stewart, but I couldn't disagree more with him this time. Obama is popular in many countries in the world because he GETS it, whereas most of those leaders don't get it at all.

This is not a defeat for America, comparable to the World Cup, it's a defeat for the poor and the middle class all over the world.

Time to update your info Jon!

[EndRacismNow]

01:52 PM on 06/29/2010

By borrowing and spending it also hurts the poor and middle class. By borrowing we let the government go into endless debt where we can barely pay the interest. Eventually taxes have to be raised to pay for it. They will probably create a VAT or Federal sales tax and that hurts everybody. By printing more money and spending it you get temporary relief. But this also hurts everybody by inflating our currency. Anyone who has money saved loses the value of their savings. So why can't we cut unnecessary government programs while spending on useful projects that create jobs like rebuilding the country's infrastructure or create new modes of transportation like the Chinese are doing with rail trains?

[Beatriz09]

02:10 PM on 06/29/2010

Everybody agrees to say that eventually we have to cut the deficit (and Obama already took important steps to do so, contrary to what the GOP does when they are in power).

The question for the moment is: what is the best emergency solution when we're about to fall into a double-dip recession?

"Best" means:

- what solution will stop the recession in the fastest possible way?
- what solution will cause the least short term and long term pain to the majority of world citizens?

Krugmann and Obama argue that spending today is much more effective to obtain those two goals than deficit cuts. If that's the case, the economy will be growing again SOONER by spending instead of deficit cuts, and once it grows again, there are immediately more tax revenues (because more people have a job and by goods) than when it doesn't.

So:

1. Spending will turn the economy around sooner than tax cuts (thereby creating sooner more government revenues i.e. a lower deficit than if it takes more time to stop the recession)

2. Once we're out of this recession, we need to stop spending and cut deficits.

That was the point Obama and the protesters were making ... but JS prefered to focus on the violence committed by a small minority of protesters ... .

[aardvarkcola]

03:13 PM on 06/29/2010

Your friends in Greece feeling the pinch?
What you call "enormous damage," Greek concert halls closing, isn't enormous damage.
It's minor.
Wait until colleges close. Wait until garbage can't be picked up. Wait until police officers
can't be paid.
It's crunch time.
Their country needed a bail out by the EU. The EU told Greece to cut back to pay debt.
You know what GDP is? All of the wealth of the country, the total of what every
company makes in a year all added up, all goods and services.
Guess what? Greece owes more than that each year. A lot more. That should be
mind-boggling.
There have been Greek strikes,. Greeks taking to the streets, wanting their good times
back.
But those good times won't be back. Not for a long time, if ever.
But don't worry. You'll have something to tell your Greek friends soon.
That little problem called state debt is a problem in the USA , too.
You're facing exactly the same thing now. Obama came to the G8 wanting to spend spend. Other countries, notably Canada and Germany, said cut, cut.
When income can't meet outgo any more, you cut.
Yes, it's tragic.
But contrary to what you've said in your comments, Obama does not get it.
You don't have a president right now. You have a photo-op queen.
He should have studied economics at Harvard.
Never mind Greece. Watch California. It's debt problems now are just about as bad as Greece.

[Beatriz09]

03:35 PM on 06/29/2010

I don't think you get it, you're mainly repeating GOP talking points.

I'll try to explain it in a more simple way.

Suppose you have a household with two kids and a father John who earns $2000 a month. Suppose that John's brother Robert died and left John with a $100,000 debt. He's making $24,000 a year, so the annual deficit is $76,000.

Suppose that there are big holes in the roof of John's House, and that fixing those holes will cost him $30.000.

The question is: what's the best thing for John to do?

Certain people tell him: first pay your debt, then work ten years until you can put $30,000 aside, and then fix the holes. At first sight, that seems perfectly reasonable to John.

But others tell him: first fix the holes. Of course, he answers that he doesn't have those $30,000, so that to do so he'll have to borrow still more money, whereas he already has a hugh debt.

Borrowing to fix the holes is nevertheless the most rational solution, and here's why: if John waits until he has paid his debt and earned the money to fix the holes, he will pay each year thousands of dollars on energy bills (because the heat constantly escapes through the holes in the roof). So it will take him decades before he'll be able to pay back his debt, whereas he will have much higher energy bills than if he fixed it immediately, so

[Beatriz09]

03:41 PM on 06/29/2010

he will loose tens of thousands of dollars on wasted energy.

Indeed, if he normally pays $4,000 a year for energy, because of the holes he'll pay 8,000 a year. After ten years, he will have paid $40,000 more on energy bills than if he would have borrowed immediately $30,000 to fix the holes, you see?

In the meanwhile, his family will have lived in the cold for ten years, they will become sick more frequently, he'll have less money to spend on health care, and soon will have to borrow just to pay the rent and the interests of his debt.

That's why it's so important to borrow and spend when you're in the midst of a severe recession, and why being obsessed by the deficit only makes it worse, as in this case short term deficit cuts will only INCREASE the long term deficit.

You can replace "John" by "Obama" and "Robert" by Bush, and then you'll easily understand why Krugmann, Obama and those protesters who are non violent are perfectly right.

I only wished Jon Stewart had taken the time to explain this ... .

[LINY01]

01:08 PM on 06/29/2010

It seems that the anarchists were not really anarchist but police pretending to be. At least, this one video seems to show that. I guess to justify their million billion dollar cost whatever it was for security, they had to make it look good and like they were worth that expense to the city.

G20 Police Provocateurs Being Let Through Police Lines After Causing Trouble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GyoM3YOsdA&feature=youtube_gdata

[Patrick Jones]

01:24 PM on 06/29/2010

Whether or not they were is irrelevant to how the police acted.

[LINY01]

01:28 PM on 06/29/2010

You're right and even more so if they themselves provoked it!

[Beatriz09]

04:10 PM on 06/29/2010

As far as I know it's a strategy used by the police all over the world.

If you suppose/fear that protests will end up in violence, you start the violence yourself, because at least in that case you determine the moment and the place, so that you can better handle it than if you wait until protesters start it ... .

[lazaraza]

11:07 PM on 06/30/2010

yeah, effective strategy to hold the initiative.

However in this case the prevailing goal is to silence the message that the protesters try to conduct. Turning it to a plane gathering of hooligans. Then all the media attention goes to the riots, the burning cars, and the armored police forces, instead of what's happening in the summit.