Jon Stewart Dismantles Weak GOP Rep on Gun Control

[Roadglide]

Well, but be fair. This wasn't a trick question. The basis of Stewart's whiny question here was "where do you get off regulating 1A, when you claim 2A cannot be regulated?"

I think that's a very fair premise for a question. The jibbering-idiot State legislator had no good answer.

I agree in this case. But how often do you see these D bag types ask fair questions? And I also agree with your larger point that R senator was an unprepared idiot. But my overall point is be better prepared. Avoiding the discussion as some might suggest is not the answer.

 

[Roadglide]

Everyone knows Trump is an egomaniac, he is his worst enemy. He was warned NOT to talk to Woodward but can't help himself. He envisions himself the ultimate salesman, wheeler dealer.

I agree to a point. But warning him NOT to talk to Woodward is a bad look IMO. LEARN how to engage people like him properly. How to do that.....someone smarter than me needs to sort that part out

 

[SFC13557]

I agree to a point. But warning him NOT to talk to Woodward is a bad look IMO. LEARN how to engage people like him properly. How to do that.....someone smarter than me needs to sort that part out

It's not the interview it's the editing and commentary afterwards. Still waiting for Leslie Stahl to apologize to Trump for her hack interview.
DeSantis got it right by refusing to talk to lamestream media until Andrea Mitchell "corrected" her lies about him.

 

[drgrant]

But my overall point is be better prepared. Avoiding the discussion as some might suggest is not the answer.

There are certainly cases where not entertaining discussion maintains an upper hand. Especially when the venue and conditions are rigged against you.

Also bear in mind that by default, the antis don't have a lot of default legitimacy as much as they try to dance on the corpses of toddlers and schoolchildren etc, anyone with more than one
brain cell sees that and tastes vomit.

This isn't like rejecting a talk with a constituent whose 7 yr old son has a brain tumor about why health care costs are so high or something. There's literally no bad look in rejecting a conversation with people who can easily be shown to be scumbags.

Yes, he should have been more prepared but "saying no" is hardly bad. People forget that in a lot of situations whether its a financial negotiation or whatever, saying no is literally the most powerful thing you can do.

Reporter: "Sir can you tell us why you declined a meeting with representatives from NAMBLA about reforming sexual offender punishments?"
Politician: "I really don't think I need to have a conversation with people who think that "consensually" having sex with children is OK, there's not exactly a lot of common grround there. "

Antis IMHO are just like f***ing diddlers. It's time we started treating most of them and deriding them that way. Nobody should be talking to antis in MSM format without ground rules, a moderated debate format, and some kind of guarantee of an unredacted recording of the event. Otherwise saying no is always the correct default answer.

 

[paul73]

Nobody should be talking to antis in MSM format without ground rules

the whole boston globe mill article fiasco comes to mind immediately...
what you say is exactly what it is - you cannot actually talk to your sworn enemy expecting a civilized conversation.

 

[Roadglide]

Nobody should be talking to antis in MSM format without ground rules, a moderated debate format, and some kind of guarantee of an unredacted recording of the event.

I agree......and thats what I call being prepared. And your NAMBLA analogy is way off. I would think most sane people know its not ok for adults to have sex with children. Doesn't warrant a discussion like you said. But how many people are walking around now who at the very least believe that common sense gun laws are a good thing. THAT does warrant a discussion

 

[Picton]

There are certainly cases where not entertaining discussion maintains an upper hand. Especially when the venue and conditions are rigged against you.

Also bear in mind that by default, the antis don't have a lot of default legitimacy as much as they try to dance on the corpses of toddlers and schoolchildren etc, anyone with more than one
brain cell sees that and tastes vomit.

This isn't like rejecting a talk with a constituent whose 7 yr old son has a brain tumor about why health care costs are so high or something. There's literally no bad look in rejecting a conversation with people who can easily be shown to be scumbags.

Yes, he should have been more prepared but "saying no" is hardly bad. People forget that in a lot of situations whether its a financial negotiation or whatever, saying no is literally the most powerful thing you can do.

Reporter: "Sir can you tell us why you declined a meeting with representatives from NAMBLA about reforming sexual offender punishments?"
Politician: "I really don't think I need to have a conversation with people who think that "consensually" having sex with children is OK, there's not exactly a lot of common grround there. "

Antis IMHO are just like f***ing diddlers. It's time we started treating most of them and deriding them that way. Nobody should be talking to antis in MSM format without ground rules, a moderated debate format, and some kind of guarantee of an unredacted recording of the event. Otherwise saying no is always the correct default answer.

Another thing to think about is that this is John Stewart, who has a national platform. He should be able to call up anyone and talk to them. So if he wants to talk to Kevin West, who wrote the anti-drag bill, or Governor Stitt who signed it into law, he should have been able to. So... why this guy?

If he's talking to a term-limited legislator in Oklahoma, there's a reason for that. Probably everyone else told him to pound sand, and this guy was the only one dumb enough to say yes.

 

[Dadstoys]

I agree......and thats what I call being prepared. And your NAMBLA analogy is way off. I would think most sane people know its not ok for adults to have sex with children. Doesn't warrant a discussion like you said. But how many people are walking around now who at the very least believe that common sense gun laws are a good thing. THAT does warrant a discussion

You would think that , but then you have people defending perverts flashing their junk at little kids at "Story hours" and "Family Friendly" drag shows.
More than just a few.

 

[Roadglide]

You would think that , but then you have people defending perverts flashing their junk at little kids at "Story hours" and "Family Friendly" drag shows.
More than just a few.

Thats why I said most sane people but all the more reason to be prepared. I'm willing to bet if you went around knocking on doors you would be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks that's acceptable. Knock on the same doors and ask about red flag laws. Having said all that, my original point of being better prepared to back these types of people into a corner still applies

 

[Dadstoys]

Thats why I said most sane people but all the more reason to be prepared. I'm willing to bet if you went around knocking on doors you would be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks that's acceptable. Knock on the same doors and ask about red flag laws. Having said all that, my original point of being better prepared to back these types of people into a corner still applies

I agree except backing them off a cliff would be a time saver.

 

[daveyburt]

I think that the (state) senator's main problem is being put on the spot - he doesn't seem to do well under pressure. E.g. I can easily fight back against Stewart on every point, but it would be very hard to do so in a live interview situation when he keeps interrupting.

The interrupting is a tactic to change the narrative a little at a time until the entire conversation changes to benefit the 'interruptor'.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I always thought that Jon Stewart, deranged leftist scum that he is, was a lot smarter than he shows us in this video.

Nah. He's not THAT left. We THINK he is. But go back to Daily Show. He abused EVERYONE. And he is pretty smart.

There was a number of times he could have shut him down hard.
Stewart is good at picking his targets and then running all over them.

Exactly. Notice he didn't pick Colloin Noir.

 

[Junior314]

Nah. He's not THAT left. We THINK he is. But go back to Daily Show. He abused EVERYONE. And he is pretty smart.



Exactly. Notice he didn't pick Colloin Noir.

Colin Noir would never agree to that.

Stewart isn’t smart he’s quick witted. To defend drag queen story hour to kids makes you pretty far left in my book.

 

[Picton]

Colin Noir would never agree to that.

Stewart isn’t smart he’s quick witted. To defend drag queen story hour to kids makes you pretty far left in my book.

To restrict 1A makes you a fascist in mine. I’d have loved to hear the state senator’s defense of doing so.

Drag Queen story hour at the library is easy to avoid. Just don’t go.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Colin Noir would never agree to that.

Why wouldn't he?
He's been on Maher's show.
He knows he's one of the quicker and better spoken faces of the community.

 

[Junior314]

Why wouldn't he?
He's been on Maher's show.
He knows he's one of the quicker and better spoken faces of the community.

Maher doesn’t typically do gotcha interviews like Stewart does.

 

[Junior314]

To restrict 1A makes you a fascist in mine. I’d have loved to hear the state senator’s defense of doing so.

Drag Queen story hour at the library is easy to avoid. Just don’t go.

Ok. I didn’t say they should toss them in jail. I’m saying defending it makes you fat left.

Edit: Far Left even though fat left sounds pretty cool too

 

[Picton]

Ok. I didn’t say they should toss them in jail. I’m saying defending it makes you fat left.

Edit: Far Left even though fat left sounds pretty cool too

Stewart's not necessarily "defending Drag Queen story hour," any more than I am.

He's defending "free speech and free expression." Which the government is absolutely enjoined against limiting unless it's a clear and present danger. Even if it's immoral, distasteful, or borderline obscene.

I don't care for Drag Queen story hour either, but I'd never ever ban it. And I'd vote against someone who wanted to. Talk about a slippery slope...

 

[Junior314]

Stewart's not necessarily "defending Drag Queen story hour," any more than I am.

He's defending "free speech and free expression." Which the government is absolutely enjoined against limiting unless it's a clear and present danger. Even if it's immoral, distasteful, or borderline obscene.

I don't care for Drag Queen story hour either, but I'd never ever ban it. And I'd vote against someone who wanted to. Talk about a slippery slope...

Did you watch the interview?

I completely disagree that he isn’t defending it.

ETA: When he starts saying things like who is being harmed by drag queen story hours and then immediately pivoting into how guns are harming people it pretty much tells you the whole story of what the agenda is.

I think Jon Stewart used to be funny and a somewhat logical person. I think he’s has been completely bought off by the machine now.

 

[Picton]

ETA: When he starts saying things like who is being harmed by drag queen story hours and then immediately pivoting into how guns are harming people it pretty much tells you the whole story of what the agenda is.

I'll bite.

Who is being harmed? Specifically? Recalling, always, that anyone who objects to it can choose to avoid it whenever they wish.

Spelling out specific, clear harms is the LEAST we should expect from a government official who is trying to infringe on 1A. I don't think that question is even remotely out of bounds. I'd even say that asking questions like that to elected officials is precisely what we should be expecting of a free press.

 

[Dadstoys]

Stewart's not necessarily "defending Drag Queen story hour," any more than I am.

He's defending "free speech and free expression." Which the government is absolutely enjoined against limiting unless it's a clear and present danger. Even if it's immoral, distasteful, or borderline obscene.

I don't care for Drag Queen story hour either, but I'd never ever ban it. And I'd vote against someone who wanted to. Talk about a slippery slope...

I disagree .

This is what it's about.
It's what it's always been about.
Pedos waving their junk at little kids has not one thing to do with 1A.
Don't get sucked in .
There was a previous arrest for pretty much doing the same thing not too long ago IIRC.

 

[Picton]

I disagree .

This is what it's about.
It's what it's always been about.
Pedos waving their junk at little kids has not one thing to do with 1A.
Don't get sucked in .
There was a previous arrest for pretty much doing the same thing not too long ago IIRC.

That particular performer should certainly be arrested for public lewdness, which is what it is when you expose your junk to kids. See? The law already has a fix for that.

But not every Drag Queen engages in nudity. They perform, clothed, though not to my (or your) taste. Those performances are as protected as opera, ballet, or Ozzy Osbourne biting off bat heads. Or RHCP performing wearing nothing but socks. Point being, if you're choosing to go to these things, you get what you get.

It just amazes me that a forum full of [usually] small-government people who advocate for individual accountability and the government stepping out of things that are already solved by the market, can so easily lose their minds when it's a question of cross-dressers. "wE nEeD To MaKe mOrE LawZZ! It's fOr ThE ChiLdReN!"

Don't like it? Don't go to it.

 

[Junior314]

I'll bite.

Who is being harmed? Specifically? Recalling, always, that anyone who objects to it can choose to avoid it whenever they wish.

Spelling out specific, clear harms is the LEAST we should expect from a government official who is trying to infringe on 1A. I don't think that question is even remotely out of bounds. I'd even say that asking questions like that to elected officials is precisely what we should be expecting of a free press.

Would you bring your children?

If not why?
If so why?

 

[Picton]

Would you bring your children?

If not why?
If so why?

I would not. Because it's my choice not to.

It's NOT the government's choice. THEY do not get to decide what I can and cannot see. Not without a clear reason.

Might this idiot who sat down with Stewart have had a clear, articulable reason why he wanted to step on the Bill of Rights? Perhaps, and if so, he should have been given the opportunity to explain it. He was given that. And he didn't have a good reason.

Why do I have to explain, on a New England-based gun forum, why it's so important that there be an insanely high bar for politicians who want to step on our rights? I confess, I'm a bit surprised. 1A guarantees that government needs to stay out of the regulation of individual expression. I shouldn't have to spell out how important that is. This guy had no reason to ban Drag Queens, or he'd have been able to explain it clearly and succintly.

 

[Junior314]

I would not. Because it's my choice not to.

It's NOT the government's choice. THEY do not get to decide what I can and cannot see. Not without a clear reason.

Might this idiot who sat down with Stewart have had a clear, articulable reason why he wanted to step on the Bill of Rights? Perhaps, and if so, he should have been given the opportunity to explain it. He was given that. And he didn't have a good reason.

Why do I have to explain, on a New England-based gun forum, why it's so important that there be an insanely high bar for politicians who want to step on our rights? I confess, I'm a bit surprised. 1A guarantees that government needs to stay out of the regulation of individual expression. I shouldn't have to spell out how important that is. This guy had no reason to ban Drag Queens, or he'd have been able to explain it clearly and succintly.

I’m not talking about the government. Go argue with someone else about that. You asked who it harms. Your also saying you wouldn’t bring your kids. So I’ll ask again.

Why wouldn’t you bring your kids?

 

[Picton]

I’m not talking about the government. Go argue with someone else about that. You asked who it harms. Your also saying you wouldn’t bring your kids. So I’ll ask again.

Why wouldn’t you bring your kids?

So many reasons. Mostly, because they're not into story hours. Also, because they get fidgety and would lose interest. Lastly, one of them dislikes things like costumes and masks, and is easily bored by live presentations.

Certainly NOT because I'm afraid they'd somehow catch The Gay or magically turn into trannies, that's for sure. Although, the beauty of freedom is that if I WAS afraid of those things?

I could choose not to go.

And I'm not sure why "the government" is not at issue here. You're saying Stewart was somehow wrong to ask a Government Official about a policy he supported. That policy is what we're discussing here, no?

 

[Junior314]

So many reasons. Mostly, because they're not into story hours. Also, because they get fidgety and would lose interest. Lastly, one of them dislikes things like costumes and masks, and is easily bored by live presentations.

Certainly NOT because I'm afraid they'd somehow catch The Gay or magically turn into trannies, that's for sure. Although, the beauty of freedom is that if I WAS afraid of those things?

I could choose not to go.

And I'm not sure why "the government" is not at issue here. You're saying Stewart was somehow wrong to ask a Government Official about a policy he supported. That policy is what we're discussing here, no?

I’m saying Stewart is being disingenuous about pretending the issue at hand is the 1A. Just like the whole interview was a complete setup.

I’d have more respect if he just came out and said I support story time with drag queens because reasons.

The guy who thinks Americans should have guns respects the bill of rights. Riiiiiggghhhtttt.

Edit: Shouldn’t* have guns

 

[Picton]

I’m saying Stewart is being disingenuous about pretending the issue at hand is the 1A. Just like the whole interview was a complete setup.

I’d have more respect if he just came out and said I support story time with drag queens because reasons.

The guy who thinks Americans should have guns respects the bill of rights. Riiiiiggghhhtttt.

I don't disagree that he has an agenda.

But if his agenda is holding politicians to account for their anti-BoR votes, why is that a problem? Be it 1A OR 2A?

 

[Junior314]

I don't disagree that he has an agenda.

But if his agenda is holding politicians to account for their anti-BoR votes, why is that a problem? Be it 1A OR 2A?

I get what your saying and I don’t disagree. Except for Stewart being an ahole that’s paid millions by the machine to push an agenda. It has nothing to do with the BOR.

 

[Picton]

I get what your saying and I don’t disagree. Except for Stewart being an ahole that’s paid millions by the machine to push an agenda. It has nothing to do with the BOR.

Sure, but here's my thing: I don't really care. Stewart's doing what the press is supposed to do. What he's paid to do. He's doing his job.

The guy he's talking to? Isn't.

And the guy he's talking to? He's the one who supposedly works for We, The People. And he's demonstrably a blithering idiot, and a statist to boot. Given all that, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would hold more disdain for Stewart than for that piece of shit he's talking to.