Again your argument is utterly pointless and flawed. By your very same point you make about not taking Stewart seriously you also make this claim:
People who believe in Religion should not be taken seriously when talking about scientific facts in Global Warming. Their opinions simply don't matter.
I didn't make that point, you did! I think expressed idea or critiques by those who have a theological educational background should not be valued higher than those who have earned science degrees on matters of science. The reverse is true, I don't think scientists can claim to have a better understanding of theology than a theologian because they have a science degree. You can also factor in experience in a certain field as well. You would consider it absurd for Jon Stewart to be skewered by Jim Cramer or Rick Santelli on the art of telling a good joke but you have no problem buying into Jon Stewart's critique of their work. I saw several inadequacies in Jon Stewart's report and I also saw the big gaping problem of Jon Stewart not actually addressing their criticisms of the President's policies.
You lose nothing by Criticizing Obama... WHY? Because your a person on the forums.
So, I shouldn't take anything you say seriously either. Because after all, if your not in the same arena as the people you critique you shouldn't be taken seriously.
This is not the same as my criticisms of Jon Stewart. If I were criticizing his comedic value then you would have a valid point but that is not what I am criticizing.
Again: Your entire argument is flawed. Just because somebody IS one thing. Does not mean they can NOT raise a valid point about ANOTHER thing. Just because one person is a republican, doesn't mean they won't have a great idea concerning Stem Cell Research. Just because a Teacher teaches Math DOES NOT mean that he doesn't have great ideas on Socialism.
You'll find no complaint from me concerning people having a brilliant idea in a seperate field of study or mastering two fields of study. I do take exception to the idea that someone having a vested interest in critiquing a field that they have little knowledge of and it being accepted as gospel truth without equal criticism. Jon Stewart's ideas have been embraced by the media and his blasting of Cramer and Santelli greatly valued not due to the logic of his argument or material but its comedic value. I would have far greater confidence in the expressed appreciation of Stewart's humor than that of "hey Stewart's right and Cramer is wrong." Cramer is wrong on what? Stock predictions? What stock predictions has Stewart made in the past year of value? Santelli is wrong on bailing out homeowners? What logic can be presented by Stewart demonstrating that bailing out homeowners would be of value to the country? What argument provided by Stewart can show that redistributing this wealth will cause current homeowners to pay their existing mortgages?
And... for the last point. There is nothing wrong with Socialism. Country is already full of it and has been for centuries. We are a republic Bro. Republics + Socialism are like Chocolate and Peanut Butter. They go hand in hand as long as they stay out of each others sectors.
Socialism or rather socialists is/are a plague on society that seeks to enslave people making them dependants of the state. The ideas/values of freedom cannot co-exist with a government who owns the means of production (socialism) and values the collective society above that of the individual. I think the outrage over CEO pay is just one example that supports my view.