| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
JON STEWART PWNS BACHMANN, HANNITY AND THE REST OF THE CRAZIES
Stewart cuts through the crazies of the GOP like a warm knife through butter. Make no mistake, they are lunatics. There's no other explanation for their paranoid fantasies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Bachmann calls for an armed, violent overthrow of the Obama administration, she should be in jail.
Fear is a powerful motivator and the Republicans have used fear to try to get Americans to vote for them, for decades.
In the last election Americans did not reject the Republicans fear tactics, they rejected their political policies.
I wonder when Americans will reject these fear tactics on all issues religious, political, social, military, and reject the actions that only divide us and set us against each other instead of finding solutions to our problems.
According to Republicans Obama is an evil man. A Muslim, a Nazi, a racist, an American leader caving to our enemies, and on, and on, and on.
Really? Did we make the same mistake again, as we did when we voted for Bush 43?
What the loonies on the Right [not all Republicans buy into this sort of lunacy] are doing is playing Pay Back.
I've watched in amazement how they're sqawking about "taking back the country." What? Who took it away? Answer. No one.
As Stewart points out this bleating about Obama taking our children and sending them to re-education camps to turn them into Obamabots is mindless, thoughtless idiocy. Nowhere in that legislation for these volunteer camps is there anything that says service is compulsory.
But that doesn't stop these trouble makers from putting that lie out there to stir up the masses who are too lazy and stupid to find out the truth on their own.
What I worry about is that lone misanthrop out there filled with hate and fear and who listens diligently to the morons on the far right telling him the gummit is out to git him, take away his guns, and invade the sanctity of his over-mortgaged. It doesn't take much to trip the neurons in that sort of misfiring brain and encourage him or her to mindless violence and mayhem.
The Hannities and Becks of cable news are a cancer on our society. I believe they incite people's fear and gullibility for money and fame, and that is about the slimiest sort of human being that exists.
Once again, a great video.
Gracias Shaw!
Shaw: "I've watched in amazement how they're sqawking about "taking back the country." What? Who took it away? Answer. No one."
Is this "amazement" hypocritical? Were you amazed when the "Take back the country" rhetoric was used by Dems during the Bush administration? You would be if you were consistent. Who took it away then? No-one, right?
The phrase has been used by Dems/etc. from Thom Hartmann to an actual specific effort called "Take Back America 2008"
Anything's funny taken out of context, Shaw.
But don't let that stop you from marching lockstep here.
I guess it is OK when the Limbaugh's left-wing equivalents like Thom Hartman use the phrase.
Ummm.
Thom Hartmann's strategy for 'taking back the country' was to register voters and elect Progressive Democrats.
Representative Bachmann is eager for revolution:
"At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch..."
Add her demagoguery regarding the "Marxist' President Obama and AmericCorp morphing into 're-education' camps and we have an altogether different kettle of fish.
Patrick and dmarks,
I never heard that phrase 2 months into Bush's administration. I heard it after years of his administration's incompetence and his breaking the laws of the land.
And please don't compare Thom Hartmann with Limbaugh.
If you were to ask the proverbial man on the street who Hartmann was, no one would know.
Hartmann hardly launched a nationwide campaign with a listening audience in the millions.
The extremists on the right look like fools. They've decided they need to take back the country before Mr. Obama's first 100 days!
It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically juvenile and nonsensical.
Stewart is right. What happened to this country is that it said NO! to conservatives. They had 8 long years to change this country and make it a conservative paradise and they failed.
Now they want to demonize and infant administration before it even has all the people needed for all the cabinet positions filled.
It really is unheard of--the righties wanted revenge more than they wanted a unified country.
Did they really expect Mr. Obama to implement a conservative agenda?
They seem not to understand what it means when the opposing party wins and the losing party gets its ass kicked.
They need to grow up, and act like the loyal opposition, not temper tantrum throwing cry babies.
I have not been all that involved in politics till 2004; before then I really could care less who was President. Bush did not get the vile vicious and hateful treatment that Obama is getting.
You have blogs that are so theatrical in their anger that they go beyond the American concept of fair play...
Patrick you and dmarks can defend those people all you want...
I am an Obamabot by choice.
I agreed with Howard Dean in 2004 when he said "We want our country back."
Thanks for posting the video Shaw.
What is being missed in this discussion is the point that only a small, misinformed minority are clamoring to "take back the country."
A solid majority of Americans are quite happy with where the country is: in the care of the Obama administration.
Tao: "I have not been all that involved in politics till 2004; before then I really could care less who was President. Bush did not get the vile vicious and hateful treatment that Obama is getting."
Then you missed those pre-2004 wanted to deny that Bush was President just because he was in the other party (the 2001 version of the nutters who still insist that Obama is not President because he is not a citizen). And you ignored the calls for Bush's assassination that came from the fringe Left during the middle of his terms.
Shaw: "I never heard that phrase 2 months into Bush's administration. I heard it after years of his administration's incompetence and his breaking the laws of the land."
Well, the fringe-right has just a good of a case for "incompetance and law-breaking" as the hard-left did (which is really no case at all), so the kooks might as well start early. You are right that it is "pay back". Tit for tat.
"It really is unheard of--the righties wanted revenge more than they wanted a unified country."
Reminds me of the lefties at the beginning of the Bush administration.
"They seem not to understand what it means when the opposing party wins and the losing party gets its ass kicked."
That happened neither in 2000 nor in 2008. A mere few percentage points difference would have given McCain victory. Don't confuse "winning" with "landslide"
"What is being missed in this discussion is the point that only a small, misinformed minority are clamoring to "take back the country."
No more and no less "misinformed" than Thom Hartmann, who used the same phrase.
Truth: I stopped listening to Dean when he went nuts and blew his stack on national TV. But I did hear him later when he said that he "hated" half of America. Such a unifying force he was.
Ah dmarks,
"the fringe left" versus a man who claims to have 20 million listeners a day.
"the fringe left" versus 24/7 Fox News..
Big difference.
In 2000 the election was decided by a few hundred votes in Florida after weeks of wrangling and where one candidate won the popular vote and the other the electoral college while in 2008 it was over by the 10 o' clock news with one candidate sweeping states his party hadn't won in a generation.
There was a big difference between those two elections...
""the fringe left" versus a man who claims to have 20 million listeners a day."
We can easily replace Thom Hartmann with Dan Rather, who had a much more sizeable audience. We all know about the crazy story he made up. The point being that there have been screamers nipping at the heels of both presidents, and many of the complaints about the loyal (or disloyal) opposition now fit perfectly in the Bush years if you switch names.
"There was a big difference between those two elections...".
Both candidates won. Neither won by a landslide. So there was no "ass-kicking". But I would agree with you (if you think this, and I think that you do) that Obama has a mandate to implement his policies, because he won. The election process put him in the Presidential office.
----------
I'd never heard of Bachmann before. I agree with what Time said, for sure, about her calls for armed overthrow. Even if after, his statement "Fear is a powerful motivator and the Republicans have used fear to try to get Americans to vote for them, for decades" is just as true of Democrats.
mark says,
"is just as true of Democrats."
Please. you use obscure examples to claim the Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for all sorts of behaviors. Wrong.
Did a democrat say that unless we invaded Iraq there would be "mushroom clouds" of death towards America?
Does Dan rather have a History of making absurd, bigoted, racist remarks and outright lies about the political opposition?
Some speech and actions are worse than others even if they are both disgusting. Making a one time mistake or disgusting remark is not equal to doing that on an everyday basis for 20 years (Rush).
Your comparisons would be more believable if your examples were not so totally unrelated to each other.
Michael Moore and his idiot statements might be a better comparison, but he doesn't have a daily national audience of millions.
You might compare Kucinich to Bachmann, but Dennis never told the country to take up arms against Bush.
No one idiot speaks for the whole group they belong to, but some idiots are dumber and more dangerous than others.
Time: "Please. you use obscure examples to claim the Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for all sorts of behaviors. Wrong."
Not all sorts of behavior, but many/most. Including using "fear". There were different types of fear "this will happen" statements used by Dems last year. And yes. I recall "mushroom clouds" and nuclear peril statements being used extensively by Dems to scare us into voting for Mondale instead of Reagan. More recently, there was the 2000 election phone call campaign saying that Bush would lynch people if he were elected.
"Does Dan rather have a History of making absurd, bigoted, racist remarks and outright lies about the political opposition?"
Lies about the political competition are rather common from Democractic partisan hacks as they are from Republicans. Others make absurd and racist statements even if Rather specifically does not make racist statements. Can we say the same about Jesse Jackson? No.
"Some speech and actions are worse than others even if they are both disgusting. Making a one time mistake or disgusting remark is not equal to doing that on an everyday basis for 20 years (Rush)."
Limbaugh comes out with a pretty low amount of racist/disgusting remarks when you look at the amount of airtime he's had. But looking at it your way, it means that the only reason the left-wing radio demagogues have not made more outrageous statements is because their shows have not been on as long.
"Michael Moore and his idiot statements might be a better comparison, but he doesn't have a daily national audience of millions."
I might be getting biased toward Moore and letting him off the hook for things, but I don't recall him making racist statements. But he DOES have a national audience of millions, thanks to his popular movies and NYT bestselling books.
"You might compare Kucinich to Bachmann, but Dennis never told the country to take up arms against Bush."
I fully agree with you on this. But I already said this, and did not let Bachmann off the hook.
"Your comparisons would be more believable if your examples were not so totally unrelated to each other."
The examples of demogogeury on the Left AND Right are so similar if you attempt to look at things from a less biased, less partisan basis.
The only thing you have been able to come up with that is exceptional, and limited to Republicans, are the statements of Bachmann. But the "absurd, bigoted, racist remarks and outright lies about the political opposition....idiot statements" are par for the course no less for Democratic partisan hacks as they are for Republican partisan hacks.
So what do you make of all the gun hoarding and end of the world talk and the recent shootings, dmarks? Sorry, no comparison between the left wing anger and what is happening now. This is nuts. I can't wait until Fox news and Glen Beck are named in a lawsuit as accessories to one of these shootings. If it keeps up, it will happen. dmarks, you are such a Bush lover, I don't know why you're here. Your arguments are exhausting and silly.
Oh year! All those loony's on the right...and Jon Stewart is a Genius, right?
I think he's a mental midget. Along with Michael Moore and his ilk.
Why do lefties have to lie and exaggerate and take comments out of context?
Bachmann did not call for the armed overthrow of the Obama administration. This is utter bullshit.
What she said was that she wanted her constituents "armed and dangerous" with the facts about Obama's energy tax, and encouraged them to attend two town hall meetings on the topic.
She also quoted Jefferson on revolution. "Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
Gordon,
IIRC, Bachmann slipped in that phrase about being armed with facts only after she was loudly criticized for her remarks to overthrow the government.
Her paraphrase of Jefferson's remarks don't impress me. Just like when people on the left use Jefferson's remarks against Christianity don't impress the Christian right.
I can't take the time to research just now, but I'll try to find out later what Bachmann initially said.
I believe her first statements on rebellion did not include those words.
In any evernt, it is curious that she and other fringe nuts are given so much attention.
The clowns at a rodeo are there to distract the crowd. I think that's why the clowns on the left and right get all the attention. It's a distraction from serious issues.
Lynne: "I can't wait until Fox news and Glen Beck are named in a lawsuit as accessories to one of these shootings."
Lawsuits that would be entirely frivolous unless they asked for violence. As for Glen Beck specifically, can you provide links to any calls by him for violence? Anything that warrants censoring him via unwarranted lawsuit? If not, can you just grow up and deal with Glen Beck just by not watching his show?
I've never watched Glen Beck myself. But I might if some try to abuse the court system in order to censor him.
"Sorry, no comparison between the left wing anger and what is happening now."
Oh yes there is. Calls for violence, refusing to work with the President in any way, concocting theories to "explain" why the man is not a legal President, extreme disrespect of the man and the office. It was there during Bush as it is now during Obama.
"So what do you make of all the gun hoarding and end of the world talk and the recent shootings, dmarks?"
The gun hoarding is happening due to a correct perception of President Obama's hostility toward 2nd amendment rights. I recall the "end of the world" talk over Bush. As for the shootings, well there always have been shootings.
"dmarks, you are such a Bush lover,"
All because I opposed it when the some one left lied about Bush and went all nutty. Just as some on the right do now
"I don't know why you're here. Your arguments are exhausting and silly."
This is corrcetly paraphrased as "shut up, I don't want you heard".
Shaw, do you want me gone? Just give the word. I'll listen to you, but not someone who is immature, extremely one-sided and intolerant.
dmarks,
You're one of my most loyal commenters. We disagree on a lot, but you've never been rude or crazy. Wrong, on some issues, yes. ;-)
The Swash Zone let me use their commenting policy. I don't want to engage the trolls anymore, because I've come to realize it's a waste of my time. I don't mind people coming here and posting opposing POVs.
If all we did was enforce our beliefs, we'd get nowhere.
"If all we did was enforce our beliefs, we'd get nowhere."
That pretty much explains everything that is wrong with this country....
The fantasy that Obama is poised to dismantle the Second Amendment is just that. A fantasy. It isn't going to happen. Sadly Americas right to keep & bear arms is intact and will remain so. The idea that Obama is a threat to the Second Amendment is,sadly, yet another lie. And those on this thread who suggest otherwise are not being truthful.
Still I can't help but wish those who do 'bear arms' were in fact required to report for training and a few weeks annual service. Deployment on the Canadian border mid-winter & the Mexican border come summer would help strengthen the nation. Digging slit latrines. Small unit tactics. Map reading. Target practice. An endless list of activities to be enjoyed in a 'well-organized militia'.
Just as the Founding Fathers so wisely wrote.
"If the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and cowardly white men and women."
Michael Moore
Mr. Moore might have things to say that I would agree with, but when I heard this comment, I stopped listening to him. It's not only false, it's meant to incite.
That's what people should do with the Rush's, Bachman's, Beck's, etc., etc....stop listening to them!
They are pushers of fear.
When fear is used to start a war and Americans die...that is worse than an idiot remark that only shows how dumb someone is.
Again, some statements have a much larger consequence than others.
dmark says,
"Limbaugh comes out with a pretty low amount of racist/disgusting remarks when you look at the amount of airtime he's had."
This is supposed to be some kind of excuse that his comments are acceptable? Don't justify it, reject it, denounce it.
Moore is not the de facto leader of the Democratic party, Rush is the de facto leader of the Republican party. Republicans not only won't denounce what Rush says, they use his statements to foster support for their political policies and legislation.
Most democratic representatives shy away from Moore even if they agree with him.
It's easy to incite people with words or actions, but why do that if the goal is to compromise and solve problems? Could it be that some only want to gain political points and are not interested at all in compromise and solving problems?
The Republican alternative budget is a joke, if they were serious they would have presented a serious budget.
It's obvious that the Republican "NO" legislators want Obama to fail...that's being anti-American.
Time: That Moore quote. Wow.
"When fear is used to start a war and Americans die"
Didn't happen, at least not in the last 8 years.
"The Republican alternative budget is a joke"
Of course. Your political party alignment requires you to say so, no matter what the budget is.
Arthurstone claimed: "The idea that Obama is a threat to the Second Amendment is, sadly, yet another lie."
This is from factcheck.org: " Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms"
This is just one example of the truth of President Obama's poorly thought out gun-related policy and hostility to 2nd amendment rights.
Yawn.
ANY law regulating guns is a 'threat to second-amendment rights'. Right? Speaking of which how about the idea of gun owners actually participating in a 'well-regulated militia'?
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Works for the Swiss.
http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-america-can-learn-from-switzerland.html
Regardless.
Personally I go back and forth on the issue of who should pack heat. For example part of me wishes everyone did so we could have a far higher number of fatalities in the ever increasing incidence of road rage.
Just as a 'revolution every once in a while' is a good thing for some, the thinning of the heard is likewise, of benefit to the rest of us.
I support Mr. Obama's positions on gun ownership. IMHO, I belive we are overarmed, and the number of massacre-type deaths involving guns in this country is outrageously higher than in any western democracy.
The NRA supports gun manufactureres and their right to sell deadly weapons no matter the cost in human lives.
I think Mr. Obama doesn't go far enough on the gun issue.
Must be time to hoard guns, then.
No one is going to take your guns away dmarks. Nor will you be unable to buy more.
It's far, far too late. There are entirely too many out in the nation and in the world.
Actually Dmarks, people are already hoarding arms.
Or at least ammo. NPR recently reported on a nationwide shortage of ammo due to use in the Middle East wars and fear of Obama.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102851807
However, even if Obama is not in favor of people carrying concealed weapons, how does that jeopardize gun ownership?
Doesn't that just affect people carrying concealed weapons?
Even gun registration does not restrict ownership per se, does it?
I'd like to know how a small thing like registering your AK-47, or your .357 Magnum deprives you of the right to own those weapons?
As for the guns, you really don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. I envy the American gun laws.
Shaw: I never heard that phrase 2 months into Bush's administration.
Easy reason. Conservatism lost power long ago. First, because Congress stopped acting conservative, and went Democrat two years ago. And second, because Bush started going big government more and more over time (especially in 2008). It's really more systemic than specific. Obama just happens to be the biggest target (it's in the POTUS job description).
Dave: I'd like to know how a small thing like registering your AK-47, or your .357 Magnum deprives you of the right to own those weapons?
Let me answer that. Imagine the government having a list of everyone who had a gun, and the type of gun. Then, imagine what would happen when some lawmakers decided that certain guns (the AK-47, for example) were too dangerous. Poof, they're gone. Then another one is banned. Then another. Then another.
A registration makes it easy to then take them away. Which means to keep your guns, you have to hide them, thus breaking the law.
To exercise my rights, I would do just that.
Especially if Obama manages to be more than a one-termer and Congress stays Democrat.
Dave Miller,
There is no threat to gun owners and their rights. None. This whole idea of 2nd Amendment rights being taken away is a construct of the NRA and their weird mentality that every man, woman, and child should be carrying guns.
WTF?
Certain segments of our population claim this is the best country in the world and yet live in constant fear that some malevolent, shadowy force is ready to take over the government, confiscate their arms and do gawd knows what. Paranoid idiocy.
The fact is that it is not the government that is threatening our safety and the safety of kids in our schools, churches, fast-food emporia, and community immigration service offices, it's ordinary American citizens. Armed to the teeth and unbalanced.
I'm not afraid of my government when I see members of my family go off to school or their place of business. No. I have a sickening fear of crazy, unstable CITIZENS with easy access to every imaginable sort of firearm and with some grievance agains someone, anyone.
I don't fear my government coming into my home and taking anything away from me. The fact is, increasingly, I'm more frightened of my fellow Americans walking around with concealed guns or busting into buildings with a machine gun because he's had some bad luck.
Guns don't kill people, unstable overarmed American citizens with guns, lots of them, kill people.
We're a sick nation when it comes to guns.
Patrick,
You've let your imagination overpower your reason. Those are the thoughts of a paranoid, fearful citizen who has no faith in his country.
You're talking as if you lived in some lawless backwater country with a generalissimo as its head of state.
Fear is not only an ugly thing to live with, but it make a person act irrationally.
The scenario you've set out has been used by the NRA FOREVER! It apparently is still working with
people who choose paranoia over reason.
Shaw: If you don't like firearms, don't own them. Quite simple. The "pro-choice" philosophy works quite well here.
dmarks,
Once again buddy cuteness gets you no where.
Whether someone chooses to have an abortion or not does not in any way causes any danger to me.
Somebody who chooses to own a AK-47 can have a dramatic effect on my life.
It cost me over $200 to post signs on my place of business about no concealed weapons allowed and I had to rewrite our company handbook...
I think I should be reimbursed this expense from those who want their freedom to carry concealed weapons....
"Somebody who chooses to own a AK-47 can have a dramatic effect on my life."
Not in the least. Owning it has no effect of any kind on your life (unless you are in some sort of firearms-related business).
Owning something is not the same as using it, let alone committing a crime with it.
"I think I should be reimbursed this expense from those who want their freedom to carry concealed weapons"
Why? It was your choice to post the signs, and your obsession with what someone has in their pants or purse.
"It cost me over $200 to post signs on my place of business about no concealed weapons"
Not only that, how many thousands of employees do you have? How big are the factories? Or did you get really rooked badly by the local Kinkos. Assuming 5 cents for a piece of paper that says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS", $20 should get you 400 sheets. Plenty to put on all exterior doors and inside breakrooms of a vast complex.
Shaw: "IIRC, Bachmann slipped in that phrase about being armed with facts only after she was loudly criticized for her remarks to overthrow the government."
Actually, it was in her original statement. It was very clear exactly what she meant. I happened to be listening that day, and I heard it (it was on a local talk show).
John Hinderacker was the interviewer; his take on it is here.
The Star-Tribune's story on it is here.
The podcast of the broadcast is here. I think it's "The First Team, Hour 1" from March 21.
Thanks Gordon.
However, Michele Bachmann is still a looney, IMHO.
Dmarks: Obama DID win by a huge majority.
Here are the results of the 2008 election:
Obama: 365 Electoral Votes
McCain: 173 Electoral Votes
Obama got 67.8% of the vote.
That leaves 32.1% of the vote. That's kind of a landslide.
But nothing like a popular one. I know, I know, the electoral count is the only one that really matters. However, when you are talking about mandates and popularity, it is best to look at popular vote totals.
Power to the People!
Bill Ayers
Michelle Bachmann
A pair of revolutionaries.
Right?
dmark says,
"Of course. Your political party alignment requires you to say so, no matter what the budget is."
I have no clue what your talking about, neither do you.
I am a registered Republican.
If you bothered to learn something about me (like read my blog) before you make such comments, or practice some critical thinking, or have a little curiosity about who you slam, or check your facts, you wouldn't come across as so #$%&%$# uninformed.
And yes Bush lied to start his Iraq war. You don't believe that, but you must be the one of the few who do.
Your the party hack. Regurgitating all the talking points and lies.
"Your the party hack. Regurgitating all the talking points and lies."
I have regurgitated no lie's, and I do not belong to any party. But I see you did lie about Bush in your most recent comment.
And yes, the Republican alternative budget is no "joke", and to call it such is blind partisan spin. But maybe it would have been funnier if it had 9,000 earmarks in it as Obama's did.
------------
Arthur: Maybe. But so far, only Ayers can list "terrorist" on his resume.
Ah, dmarks...
Love to be argumentative...
I have 256 employees in one location...somebody comes with a concealed weapon and shoots somebody guess who ends up paying?
Me.
So, I pay for a PERMENANT sign, one on every entrance and now I am modifying all the doors so that there is one entrance that everyone goes through and then have that one entrance locked and you have to be approved to get in...
Because people do not just OWN weapons they use the damn things.
They don't just use them on themselves but they use them on their loved ones and on perfectly good strangers...
But the NRA is not liable, nor do the local authorities get sued for not 'enforcing the laws on the books' when someone gets killed by a gun toting idiot.
I get sued, I pay workers comp, and everyone looks at the owner of a work place when someone comes in and shoots the place up...
They ask, 'could the owner have done more'
So, how does 'ownership' differ from the right to 'bear' arms?
If someone wants to just 'own' an AK-47 then why not let them own one like the planes and tanks that sit in front of most VFW's like one that has been gutted?
If it is just something to own and mount on the wall...then gut it.
You got your ownership and society has its safety.
The reason the republican budget has no earmarks is because it was not run through congress....
Since Republicans are bigger on earmarks than democrats they would have attached earmarks to that DOA budget too....
"Shaw: If you don't like firearms, don't own them. Quite simple. The "pro-choice" philosophy works quite well here." - dmarks
I disagree. Person X having an abortion does not negatively affect Person Y. Person X having a high powered gun can definitely affect Person Y, if Person X is unstable and in close proximity.
I'm not saying we should create/have laws specifically for the above situation but just wanted to note the difference.
Tao: At least you don't run a USPS sorting center. Then you'd need bulletproof signs.
"Since Republicans are bigger on earmarks than democrats they would have attached earmarks to that DOA budget too"
And I would have urged Obama to veto that, too. He made a good promise of "no earmarks", so it would be a good idea of him to reject any bills that come his way that contain them. From either party.
"But the NRA is not liable, nor do the local authorities get sued for not 'enforcing the laws on the books' when someone gets killed by a gun toting idiot"
Nor should the NRA be sued. That would be entirely frivolous. But if the cops are too lazy to show up, or some bad judge has let some obviously guilty criminal out, they would have some blame. Not sure if that is sueable though.
You need a $200 sign "NO FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS". The very idea that you could be sued over anything like this is a reason that we need major tort reform. In a more just world, Goeffrey Feiger would be a pauper.
John: Comparing it to abortion is not the best. It is not a clear-cut example, since half would agree that there is always a "Person Y" that gets harmed. Even if less than half would agree that abortion should always be banned because of this.
Back to your statement, "Person X having a high powered gun can definitely affect Person Y, if Person X is unstable and in close proximity."
The difference is "can" which means a possibility for a situation to come up in which there is danger. However, someone just having the weapon is not harm. The "can" applies to pencils too. Anyone can take a pencil and go all Jack Bauer and put out an eye in an instant.
pencils : guns
Not. The. Same.
When they are not being used, the differene is merely
One. Of. Weight.
dmarks typed:
Arthur: Maybe. But so far, only Ayers can list "terrorist" on his resume.
Bachmann can add 'coward' to hers. Her call for revolution followed by a nod and a wink is cowardly. While Ayers quite rightly has repudiated some of the tactics his group used he has never backed down from their argument. The US was involved in a vast criminal enterprise in S.E. Asia, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians at the cost of tens of billions of our money and tens of thousands US killed. And the war seemed as if it would last forever.
Bachmann on the other hand is a hero to an ever shrinking slice of America. Overwhelmingly white and middle-class. Terrified of losing their privileges and fearful of a future where their mediocrity won't enable them to continue enjoying all their advantages in a quickly changing world.
But speaking of real terrorists, about time Luis Posada Carriles was held accountable for his crimes don't you think?
If one can't see the difference between a pencil and a gun, I fear for your sanity.
Dmarks:
The Republican budget is a joke. I read it. I posted on it. It was like a high schooler who waited until the night before to write a report.
More Republicans voted against it then Dems voted against their own budget. Thats how bad it was.
I'm still waiting for real alternative proposals from the GOP. So far all they've offered are criticisms.
Anon: Well, the right to keep and bear a gun is protected in the Constitution. No so with pencils. So there is one more difference.
Arthur: You have it backwards on Ayers. He supported the actual criminal enterprise (the Soviet-controlled war against South Vietnam), while the US opposed it. The deaths and oppression in Southeast Asia accelerated once the Soviets eliminated native opposition in the area. That is when the "boat people" crisis occured. Ayers has not repudiated the tactics or the ideals. He is and was incredibly wrong.
Your argument against Bachmann is racist. So far, I have supported the arguments against her. But why bring race into it?
dmarks--here's a test:
next time you fly take a gun and a pencil in your briefcase, then go through security and let us know what happens.
dmarks weighed in:
'You need a $200 sign "NO FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS". The very idea that you could be sued over anything like this is a reason that we need major tort reform. In a more just world, Goeffrey Feiger would be a pauper.'
'Frivolous lawsuits' practically never go to trial. Nor are 'frivolous lawsuits' often settled out of court. 'Frivolous lawsuits' rarely gain any sort of traction at all and are rarely brought to action, period. However you are attempting to shoehorn entire areas of law into one box. Product liability. Medical malpractice. Workplace safety. Environmental degradation. Etc. Etc. All, 'frivolous' and all 'clogging our courts' in your description.
Except they are neither. Companies are more than happy to sue one another endlessly over trademark violations, monopolistic practices, breach of contract, non-performance etc. etc. And it's always a drag when those pesky consumers end up dead or crippled or seriously injured and seek redress.
Eliminating torts would thrill business because it would save them some time and money it's true. But the vacuum would soon be filled with yet more lawsuits aimed at one another's business practices.
Arthur: Frivolous lawsuits often do to to trial, and are won. Would you like me to dig up many links? We can start with the hot coffee lawsuit.
Then there is this one "A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pa., $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her tailbone. How did the beverage happen to be on the floor? Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend during an argument."
And this one "Kara Walton of Claymont, Del., successfully sued the owner of a nightclub when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying a $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses."
And this one "Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Okla., purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago. Driving the motorhome onto the freeway, Grazinski set the cruise control at 70 mph, calmly left the drivers seat and walked to the back of the coach to make himself a cup of coffee. The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not warning him in the owner's manual that he couldn't do this. A jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago has since changed their owner's manuals to warn users that cruise control can't actually drive the vehicle for them."
Frivolous lawsuits provide an avenue for those who do stupid things to themselves to successfully abuse the court system in order to get rich from it.
"All, 'frivolous' and all 'clogging our courts' in your description."
Not at all. I am only referring to lawsuits against people who did nothing wrong as frivolous.
"Product liability. Medical malpractice. Workplace safety. Environmental degradation."
People filing and winning frivolous lawsuits plague all of these sectors. Former Presidential candidate John Edwards got rich winning frivolous lawsuits against doctors who delivered babies because of babies born with genetic birth defects.
"And it's always a drag when those pesky consumers end up dead or crippled or seriously injured and seek redress"
There is nothing wrong with that unless the consumers are injured due to their own actions. Then they should take responsibility and not blame innocent parties.
"Eliminating torts would thrill business"
Not all torts. Just the frivolous ones. Ford's bad Explorer tires? Good example of a non-frivolous one. The person who successfully sued a car company after wrecking a car while drunk and speeding? Definitely frivolous.
A clear difference between something actually being the fault of the plaintiff or not.
Thayer: Apparently you see no difference between an airplane general public places.
Heh. Heh.
I knew that would get you dmarks. Cutting and pasting is such fun! Of course one can dig up example after example of claims *you* find 'frivolous', Power Line, Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation and the endless list of pro-business funded & supported websites, think tanks et. al. have to be good for something.
I can dig up just as many as you can regarding business causing pain, suffering, injury and death and not paying any sort of reasonable penalty. I can dig up endless examples of business operating in a manner dangerous to the community over years, blocking any sort of reasonable accommodation to unsafe practices. You might like to speak with my wife whose family farm abutted a BPA power line and was sprayed by helicopter with herbicide in the 1970's forcing abandonment of the home & crops slaughtering of the animals and an endless list of medical problems for family members. And here's the best part, the BPA beat the rap. Never paid a dime in costs, medical charges, moving and relocation expenses let alone damages.
Bummer, huh?
Here's lots more interesting info about how corporations are picked on 'frivolously'.
Cheers!
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html
Arthur, you made some great points, about the problem of non-frivolous lawsuits that get lost. Perhaps one thing in common with the frivolous lawsuits that get won is lawyers who are willing to debase the legal profession and the courtroom proceedings with every lie and tactic possible in order to make sure justice is never served.
I don't for a minute think the system, as it currently exists is in anyway ideal. In fact my personal experience is it works almost not at all.
In fact the case I briefly described was labeled from the beginning 'frivolous' by the BPA lawyers. Virtually EVERY tort brought against a corporation is considered as such.
That said I would prefer that a solution begin with the issue of how best to address plaintiff claims (which are overwhelmingly NOT frivolous) rather than finding a solution more convenient to business.
That's my take.
Arthurstone said...
"Power to the People!
Bill Ayers
Michelle Bachmann
A pair of revolutionaries.
Right?"
And all the other scumbags!
Post a Comment