Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Business Insider
2257 Followers
Rogue Genius
638 Followers
Suchanelitist
122 Followers
atomic1fire
164 Followers
SpineStudent
0 Followers
jonnormandin
3 Followers
Morgan Barnhart
4 Followers
jeffdabeatJan 13, 2011
I still love the quote, "Sarah Palin is upset she is being unjustly blamed for the acts of an extremist. Maybe she should get advice from Muslims on how to deal with that."
Regardless of whether Sarah Palin is responsible or not, I'm glad the discussion of violent rhetoric being spewed between parties is finally being talked about. If we had continued with the status quo, I fear the presidential elections in two years would be even worse than anything we've seen thus far. Now more than ever, it seems like politicians will go to any low to degrade their opponent instead of what they will do to change this country with an actual plan. Anyone can complain about what's wrong, but it's the rare few that will actually come up with a game plan and put that plan into action.
And as for Sarah Palin, her little Facebook rant was all about pointing fingers instead of the pretty much universal agreement that politicians need to tone it down. In fact, I'm pretty sure she tried to justify these acidic insults.
superkendallJan 13, 2011
It is not violent to say "targeted". That is a figure of speech that has been long used, in far more an analytical sense than anything. I wouldn't ask Democrats to stop using that either... let's stop murdering our language on the altar of political correctness.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitJan 13, 2011
I think the difference between saying 'targeted' which could be 'targeted for a unique money saving opportunity', and saying 'targeted' then using violent language and imagry on specific people.
darthoptoJan 13, 2011
This a thousand times. Political correctness is BS.
4bitJan 13, 2011
It depends what you mean by that. If you mean Civil = Political correctness... then no. Being civil isn't BS.
If you mean changing a literary classic because it makes people uncomfortable = Political Correctness. Then yes.
But this story is about the first example.
darthoptoJan 13, 2011
Civility is not the problem and I would not include it in the realm of political correctness.
Political rhetoric has never been civil and would venture to say that it never will be. Even the elections right after the founding of the country were tens times worse than what we see today. That is an unfortunate part of the election process. Limiting people's natural right to freedom of speech is not the answer in correcting the poisonous political scene this nation finds itself in.
What will correct it is people waking up to the fact that both sides are essentially two sides of the same corrupt coin and doing something about it. Peacefully preferably although as Thomas Jefferson said occasionally the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of those willing to die for it.
ericschc1Jan 13, 2011
"Civility is not the problem..."
You're absolutely right: we would be so lucky if Palin's worst comments were just being uncivil.
JasonOJan 13, 2011
@ ericschc1 -What did Palin say that was beyond uncivil?
4bitJan 13, 2011
Ah. But Political Rhetoric and political correctness are different.
Using the term 'retarded' is politically incorrect, but it's not political rhetoric. Same with most other derogatory terms for groups of people.
As for the Jefferson quote... I'm fricking sick of hearing people say that. If you're willing to die for the minute differences we currently have... by all means... you go first. Otherwise, lets just drop that comment all together, and discuss it without any suggestions of violence.
darthoptoJan 13, 2011
I am willing to give my life to protect the freedoms we do enjoy. We have too many politicians overstepping their Constitutional bounds trying to fix problems which wouldn't have existed had they not gotten their dirty fingers into it to begin with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darthoptoJan 13, 2011
I want a peaceful solution of all things. However I will defend the Constitution
What I am saying is that people need to wake the hell up, shake off the partisan wool that has been pulled over their eyes and realize that both parties have been screwing us.
JasonOJan 13, 2011
@4bit - But couldn't "political incorrectness" cause civil unrest or push a disturbed individual over the edge? Also, attacks are attacks! I think people are responsible for their own actions and what ever the muse, whether it is politics or a social issue or a song that pushes that individual over the edge; it's still the fault of the one not the collective.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitJan 13, 2011
Ok, Darth... where's the line. It's funny to me that on Sept 10th, there would have been a huge "Government is too big" riot if we did half the screening tactics we're doing today, but on the 12th everyone was asking "Why wasn't anyone watching?"
We need the government to do things that are to big or unprofitable or important to do as individuals. I think all too often there's the "Keep government out of our lives", without any concern for the fact that sometimes we DO need them there.
What specifically do you see the federal government as doing beyond their constitutional duties? What is so awful that's happening that violence may be the answer?
4bitJan 13, 2011
@JasonO
I totally have no idea what that has to do with anything I said.
darthoptoJan 13, 2011
"Ok, Darth... where's the line. It's funny to me that on Sept 10th, there would have been a huge "Government is too big" riot if we did half the screening tactics we're doing today, but on the 12th everyone was asking "Why wasn't anyone watching?""
Ok the TSA and the "security" we have at the airports is ridiculous, it hampers and hurts rather than improve security. We should follow the model which the Israelis use in their airports. Things are very secure and yet there is not any of the crap you find here. After 9/11 we went off half c**ked and implemented things which did nothing but impede travelers and make security even more of a joke at airports.
"We need the government to do things that are to big or unprofitable or important to do as individuals. I think all too often there's the "Keep government out of our lives", without any concern for the fact that sometimes we DO need them there."
Like what? Individuals and outside businesses have been proven time and time again that they are more efficient than the government. Example: USPS vs. Fedex and UPS.
"What specifically do you see the federal government as doing beyond their constitutional duties? What is so awful that's happening that violence may be the answer?""
Where to start? Um taxes. Before the early 1900's we did not have a national income tax. The country operated just fine until the times when there was a national bank setup which caused several recessions during the times which they were operating. Which leads me to the Fed which is illegal and not Constitutional as members of Congress NOT a private banking cartel are supposed to be in charge of the finances of the country.
How about all of the intrusions on the second amendment. Yeah, a lot of them have been overturned, yet many have been upheld.
I could go on and on and on about all of the problems the government has caused and then tried to fix and made things worse and encroached on our natural and constitutional freedoms.
4bitJan 14, 2011
"Like what?"
Public schools.
Public Roads
Public Defense
Police
Fire
Sewage
Food Inspection & Safety
Etc.
Anything that would allow a private institution to dictate our safety or movement of ideas based solely on finances rather than well being.
In some cases yes, privatization of things would be 'more efficient financially' but not necessarily 'better'.
This last recession was caused when controls were taken away and/or not enforced. It did not occur because they were added.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, regularly we get a vote to fix another part of it. We get the chance to speak our minds here. And we get the right to run for the office if we think we can make the difference.
In most cases it's the seaming 'privitization of governemnt' by having our reps bought is complained most by the people who want limitations off the people buying them.
JasonOJan 13, 2011
Really? You are justifying the lefts relentless attack on this woman, basically trying to pin this insane act on her because she spoke about a practice that Muslims have been doing for years? Muslims build mosques on or near where they have conquered. Indonesia is a perfect example. Indonesia is the largest Muslim population today but used to be the largest Buddhist population; yet where are all the Buddhist temples? When Islam came in and conquered they tore down the Buddhist temples and even used the rubble to build their mosques. Another practice by Muslims is to lie in order to get what they want if it serves Islam; it's called taqiyya. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is heading this project is an perfect example of using taqiyya! Did you read his book "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West"? If so which version? The one that was polished up for Americans or the radical, extremist version released in more 'prominent" Muslim countries? You need to research things and not just blindly accept the thoughts MSNBC/NBC and CBS allows you to have!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JasonOJan 13, 2011
Continuing, I find it interesting when the left calls for civility yet we have a President who's campaign was by design a means to rile! I also find it quite ironic that a man gets to address the families of this horrible senseless act, was someone who befriended domestic terrorists and radicals that spew hate either from the pulpit and the classroom. We watch time and time again left wing media saying horrible things towards the right:
Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”
On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will y
“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains
Hell, we watched the family guy basically make fun of Sarah Palin's child who has Down syndrome; a 30 minute episode. Yet, no outrage from the left? Would they be as tolerant if family guy was making fun of Obama because he's black? I think not? Political satire is one thing but hurtful attacks, especially on a mentally challenged child is deplorable! No outrage from the left though.... But don't say negative things about Muslims or you'll be sorry!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2011
this is how far we have fallen? What a sad day when my countrymen think that we need to sterilize language.
weRULEyouJan 13, 2011
LOVE IT!!!!!!! A law that restricts the freedom of every american is only a slap in the face to 1 person!!!!!
Fantastic how conflict and dissent further empower us feds. You people are finally coming around to the realization that only we in government should have guns.
http://youareproperty.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-are-exempt-from-your-morality.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stallscribbleJan 13, 2011
Liberals sure know how to stir the pot. This should help the partisanship for sure.
macparrotJan 13, 2011
I'm sure your comment will do the same. The rhetoric DOES need to be toned down. jeffdabeat has it right. Speak more about what you'll do as a representative to your constituants than what your oponent was or said (sometimes years earlier). Tired of it from both sides and it's why I refuse to register as either a Dem or Rep
apocadallJan 13, 2011
I'm just sad he didn't go after more of congress.
dirtyfriesJan 13, 2011
Well clearly, you're holding the door open for yourself.
WTF is wrong with you?
apocadallJan 13, 2011
As we have more and more of our freedoms taken away people just sit and let it happen instead of doing something about it.
dirtyfriesJan 13, 2011
You're endorsing the assassination of congresspeople.
That is NOT part of our freedoms.
apocadallJan 13, 2011
It can become part of protecting those freedoms though.
macparrotJan 13, 2011
Yes I'm sure murdering representatives of Congress will lead to less restrictions
apocadallJan 13, 2011
I'm talking about revolution, not intimidation.
deelleveeJan 14, 2011
Yeah, violent murderous revolution is not intimating at all.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2011
When you look at the how our petty bureaucrats get so stinking drunk with power the threat of force is the only reason we still have a Republic.
laurahoustonJan 13, 2011
The gun laws need some work. Thats for darn sure when any person of legal age even whackos can way to easy buy one. Plus gun sales in america have armed the mexican druglords. Something needs to be done about that mess aswell. Like find out exactly what americans sold guns to mexico and just how they got them over the borders.
However 'the killer of alaskas wildlife-she who will not be named again'..is not getting anymore notice from me today.
superkendallJan 13, 2011
You ate no meat today?
Hypocrite.
4bitJan 13, 2011
Unless McDonalds has started hunting cows, instead of farming them, I don't see how eating meat makes someone a hypocrite for wishing there was a little more oversight in where guns are going.
laurahoustonJan 13, 2011
actually I didn't have meat today or yesterday. I like a good beef steak, however most Doctors say to limit red meat to once a week. I don't eat wild meat mainly because I work with exotic animals and note how worm filled most wildlife is. So I would rather eat meat from animals raised for food. In addition some wildlife like deer have unresearched diseases. Many deer populations are suffering from 'chronic wasting disease' (google it)seems to be spreading and they are not sure if humans that consume deer can catch this disease. wild deer meat scares me as the wasting disease is a pion virus like mad cow disease. And we know humans can catch madcow :)
So you eat the wormy wild animals, I'll stick with my once a week t-bone steak :)
Closed AccountJan 20, 2011
So you want to be a subject. The politicians that think like you are the reason the second amendment was placed in our constitution.
laurahoustonJan 20, 2011
Don't think even with all these wackie bills the constitution will be changed at all in the end. Its just more of the 'fear tactics' used by politicians to scare people into voting for them. Or a sham show to show the voters, look im in office now and trying to do what I said I would (like the repeal the healthcare bill timewasters)Shame all the silly bills, a real waste of time and money america can't afford. With all the millions (billions?) spent on this foot dragging/time wasting crap..america could put in some very needed things.
alanocuJan 13, 2011
Guns kill people the same way spoons make Michael Moore fat.
If Jon Stewart or any of you other liberals have an issue with freedom, Cuba is just a boat ride away.
Start paddling, honey.
Row, row, row your boat....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
healiousJan 13, 2011
look at the murder rate of the united states per capita compared to any country with stricter hand gun laws (such as Canada), and you will see, that they certainly do kill people. Think about it, if u HAD to kill someone, would u select a knife or a gun? a gun is just point and click. Thats the problem, its too easy to do. no handguns=steep drop in murder rate, its that simple
grammerpantsJan 13, 2011
As a Canadian, I don't think that is the only reason the murder rate is so much lower. We don't have the violent history that the United States has nor the culture of violence and paranoia. In Canada we don't have the same amount of passion about things (that can cause things to get out of hand), nor a major social divide that can cause the crime levels that the States deal with.
For better or for worse in so many ways we are such a different culture that I don't think it's as simple as gun regulation keeping the murder rate down.
duncan202Jan 13, 2011
Or the gang crime...
grammerpantsJan 13, 2011
Depends where you are, where I live we have some of the worst gang activity in NA.
4bitJan 13, 2011
As someone right up on your border, I can say that I'm sure having to scrape the cars off first makes drive-by's less frequent.
notleftusaJan 14, 2011
You cannot be that idiotic. Population in Canada is much less-and they have strict gun laws.I bet you are not from Canada or you would have known this,
superkendallJan 13, 2011
In Canada you are much less easily able to go out and murder someone for much of the year.
Compare your murder rate to the northern states and the picture become clearer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsJan 13, 2011
Um we have places in Canada that are more South then some of your States. Very little of the Canadian population lives in places where it is cold year round. Ignorant tool.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
notleftusaJan 18, 2011
You cannot be from Canada. It never gets warmer than America ever.
It is cold most of the year there.
You must be a liar or very uninformed.
grammerpantsJan 19, 2011
Prove it.
yibbutkeenJan 13, 2011
Actually knife wounds are more likely to be fatal. They don't usually kill as fast, but they bleed much more.
atomic1fireJan 13, 2011
I disagree,
Looking at the ENTIRETY of a nation does not take into account specific locations, and the laws of the states or districts.
Milwuakee Wi Mayor (and democrat who also tried to run for governor, but was beat by republican Scott Walker) Tom Barret is opposed to concealed carry, but he was attacked after stepping into an arguement between a boyfriend and a girlfriend.
You know what they attacked him with?
A crowbar.
The attack had nothing to do with his position on guns, and everything with him stepping into an argument, and then (bravely) putting himself in harms way.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/53347442.html
My point being that just because you ban one thing, doesn't mean all crime will go down.
Gun laws won't solve violence, it will just make other violent tools more likely to be used, or make illegal gun sales more likely.
A criminal won't not buy a gun if you have a 4 week waiting period, He will either steal it or buy it from somewhere else illegally.
Just because crime is high, does not mean it's slowly the fault of lax gun laws. Some areas have restrictive gun laws. Like new york, but they still have gang activity, and things that would skewer results.
Correlation /= Causation
macparrotJan 13, 2011
DC has some of the strictest gun laws and their gun violence is much worse than in MD or Va.
realcoolguy9022Jan 13, 2011
If you were going to kill someone, and everyone else had a gun, it's not so easy as a point and click, there will be a consequence to such an action, and it'll probably end badly for you. Check out the crime rate in 'gun town USA'
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html
Besides, you're not going to be able to ban guns, criminals always will have guns if they want one bad enough (harsher gun laws will only affect people who follow laws). Then if the general population likely doesn't have a gun, pulling that trigger becomes that much easier without that deterrent.
searching4socksJan 13, 2011
I don't know what is sadder.
The fact that you are making this partisan, the fact that you clearly didn't look at the article or the video, or the fact that other like minded individuals have dugg you up while clearly also not looking at the article or video.
dirtyfriesJan 13, 2011
I guess alan doesn't have time making stupid remarks or tweeting all day to actually watch the video and absorb the content.
You basically just said the opposite of what Stewart was saying.
craigkosteleckyJan 13, 2011
To quote Eddie Izzard, "The National Rifle Association says that, 'Guns don't kill people, uh, people do.' But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, 'Bang!' That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that."
jdenzerJan 13, 2011
And if you have a problem with the way 'liberals' are running this country, you can just put the guns down and hitch a boat ride to Cuba.
See how easy that works?
Just b/c you don't agree with people doesn't mean you or they have to leave the country.
arschgaudiJan 13, 2011
I think you need to go watch the video again. This time try and get the point.
skywiseJan 13, 2011
Guns kill people the same way pencils make spelling mistakes.
bdog2g2Jan 13, 2011
f**king Pencils!!! How do they work!
Closed AccountJan 14, 2011
Guns kill people the same way pencils kill people. It is all in the intent of the person who picks them up. I have used my firearms to preserve life and know two people who were harmed with by the reckless use of writing instruments.
ericschc1Jan 13, 2011
"Guns kill people the same way spoons make Michael Moore fat."
Logical fallacy; spoons were not invented with the sole purpose of ending someone or something's life. Guns were, so it stands to reason there is weightier consequences and stricter restriction associated with potential mis-use.
Also a spoon has never accidentally "gone off" in the hands of a legal, albeit horribly untrained owner and killed a random 3rd party.
bdog2g2Jan 14, 2011
"Also a spoon has never accidentally "gone off" in the hands of a legal, albeit horribly untrained owner and killed a random 3rd party."
Maybe?
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13355
If she fell on a random 3rd party, their chances of survival aren't great.
atb12688Jan 13, 2011
The sad thing is, I'm afraid the Arizona shooting will be used as grounds to repeal the second amendment, which would be a tragedy itself.
drmangrumJan 13, 2011
Would never happen. The guns are already out there. If they tried to do something that drastic (and realistically impossible), there would be an armed insurrection made up of people on the left and right on the White House lawn.
grammerpantsJan 13, 2011
The 2nd has been upheld over and over and over again. Are you really that paranoid to think that it would be repealed? Get a clue.
arschgaudiJan 13, 2011
Expect to see as much happen this time as happened after Virginia Tech. Nothing.
aristotle0dudeJan 13, 2011
Gun laws do not prevent gun crime. When the UK instituted gun control gun related crime actually went up because only the criminals could then have guns and that basically gave them free reign.
grammerpantsJan 13, 2011
Citation needed. People make this claim (which is fine) but could you link some studies please.
yibbutkeenJan 13, 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
aristotle0dudeJan 14, 2011
ybbutkeen provide the citation you were after but you could have simply used this thing called "Google". Is everyone so damn lazy now that they cannot be bothered to look?
Regardless, it is a matter of simple logic.
Consider the following:
1. Criminals obtain their guns through illegal means regardless of the existence of gun laws because they are f'ing criminals. That is what they do.
2. Gun control places limits on being able to lawfully obtain and own guns.
3. Law biding citizens, by their very nature of obeying the law, are affected by any gun control laws put into place.
The net effect is that criminals still have their guns while some citizens might either be deprived of gun ownership or have additional obstacles to gun ownership, transportation or use.
Have diggers lost the ability to use simple deductive reasoning as well?
Closed AccountJan 13, 2011
when you have an 80 percent disapproval rating you have to find someone to be mad at.
wycliffeJan 13, 2011
Stuart is right though. Discouraging certain rhetoric should be a matter of social condemnation, not legal enforcement. I get nervous any time the state wants to punish use of language.
It's double-plus ungood.
wycliffeJan 13, 2011
*Stewart.
Rookie mistake.
roy5000x2Jan 13, 2011
The way I've always looked at it is, the person who plans on committing an armed robbery, homicide, or whatever horrible situation isn't thinking about if the gun they are using is legal in the state or not. Gun laws only apply to people who obey and uphold the law.
xteamartistsJan 13, 2011
Awesome
vbdonJan 13, 2011
Is there no limit to liberal stupidity?
lucylove1080Jan 13, 2011
AMEN.
JasonOJan 13, 2011
@ jeffdabeat - Really? You are going to justify the lefts unrelenting attack on this woman because she spoke out on a tradition the Muslims carry out when they successfully conquer an enemy? Indonesia is a perfect example of Muslim assimilation. Indonesia is the largest Muslim population today but in the 1800's they were the largest buhdaust population, yet I challenge you to find any Buhdist artifacts! You know why, because they tore them down to build masques, even using the original materials of theComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanJan 13, 2011
Sometimes Jon is a-okay.
realcoolguy9022Jan 13, 2011
And sometimes he's a raving liberal! I'm honestly rather surprised, it seems he has a bigger voice than even most of the news outlets. At the very least I'm insulted with humorous statements, and it's more enjoyable than a Christ Matthews witchhunt for his 'gotchya' moment. Thanks for making Jon the liberal man (being honest).
ivandogaJan 14, 2011
wish I had cable
rgb86Jan 14, 2011
Why? The Daily Show is available online, free and legal, direct from Comedy Central.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
gkiltzJan 14, 2011
Reality check: Most of Congress would not mind f**king Sarah Palin any way they can