Jon Stewart on Fox News trashing the Bill of Rights

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-FbDzAHSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-FbDzAHSs

[freejack]

Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

[jmdrake]

Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

I wonder if Jon Stewart would approve a "one hour waiting period" before he could say something controversial on the air? Or how about a background check for free speech?

[Xhin]

Uh, sorry, wasn't he actually *defending* the constitution in this? I mean yes, he mentioned his stance on the 2nd amendment, but he thoroughly defended everything else in the bill of rights.

[green73]

Uh, sorry, wasn't he actually *defending* the constitution in this? I mean yes, he mentioned his stance on the 2nd amendment, but he thoroughly defended everything else in the bill of rights.

I guess I could have worded the title better. It's the fools on Fox doing the trashing. Jon wasn't actually on Fox as you can see.

[Brett85]

Uh, sorry, wasn't he actually *defending* the constitution in this? I mean yes, he mentioned his stance on the 2nd amendment, but he thoroughly defended everything else in the bill of rights.

What good does the rest of the Bill of Rights do if we don't even have the right to defend ourselves?

[affa]

Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

Um...

While I disagree with Jon on his interpretation of the 2nd, his point is that he gets a massive amount of flack from sources like Fox for his stance on the 2nd, but they routinely talk about stripping all the other ones, and don't get any heat for it. He's pointing out that -they- pick and choose. He's well aware of his own stance on the 2nd.

And secondly, while I disagree with him completely and totally, you can pick and choose. You don't need to like one of the amendments just because you like the others. While I think it's wildly short sighted to be against the second, I realize plenty of intelligent people aren't exactly supporters of it. I don't agree with their logic, nor their reasoning, but I understand that's the conclusion they've come to. But ultimately, as a human being, I reserve the right to disagree with one, or all, amendments at any time... I reserve the right to 'pick and choose', simply because limiting myself in any way would be silly.

[ctiger2]

Denninger wrote a nice piece on where our rights come from:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220166


The Government never possessed a single right, therefore it cannot grant them. Instead, we the people granted a limited set of privileges to Government. That's what a Constitutional Republic is.

The Second Amendment is formal recognition of your, my, and everyone else's Right to Life. Since the police cannot be everywhere nor do they have a duty to prevent or stop a crime in process (and they cannot be held legally accountable if they fail to do so, never mind that even if they could dead is still dead) you have the right to self-defense which flows from your right to life.

[affa]

What good does the rest of the Bill of Rights do if we don't even have the right to defend ourselves?

I agree with you. But it's not a requirement to agree with you.

You know how we had a recent disaster, and there are people here that instantly insult, mock, and otherwise continuously post that anyone looking into it is a "paranoid"/"stoner"/"delusional"/"stupid", etc. for simply researching? (I suppose not researching things is "smart"?)

Well, that's exactly how many people feel about this 'need to defend yourself' in the modern day. They don't see the threat. I absolutely disagree with them. But they compare the possibility of 'needing a gun to defend yourself' to 'accidental gun violence' and think one outweighs the other. They side with the slain children the media loves to keep talking about, and reduce anyone talking about 'defense' to 'paranoid'. I side with liberty. But I can understand why someone who has never experienced any serious threat, completely trusts the gov't/police, doesn't want to own a gun, is scared of guns, hears about gun violence all the time, and otherwise already lives in a gun-free bubble would want guns banned. I think that's an absolute shame, and an attack on liberty. But I get it. Even though I think it's laughable, because obviously it would never work in the first place.

[jbauer]

Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

In fairness, Fox wants to pick and choose between the second and fifth.

[PaulConventionWV]

Uh, sorry, wasn't he actually *defending* the constitution in this? I mean yes, he mentioned his stance on the 2nd amendment, but he thoroughly defended everything else in the bill of rights.

The point is that he's criticizing everyone else for trashing the WRONG amendments, the ones that HE thinks should be taken away. It's as if the only debate in this country should be over which ones are destroyed. Noting the hypocrisy of Republicans does not constitute defending the amendments that they trash. He's simply being divisive by making it issue of WHICH amendments should become obsolete, not IF ANY amendments should. He's a con artist.

[Brett85]

You know how we had a recent disaster, and there are people here that instantly insult, mock, and otherwise continuously post that anyone looking into it is a "paranoid"/"stoner"/"delusional"/"stupid", etc. for simply researching? (I suppose not researching things is "smart"?)
.

I don't recall using any of those terms. I criticize people who basically think that every event that happens is some kind of government conspiracy, because it just seems like those people lose credibility when they just think that everything is a government conspiracy. It's basically like the boy who cried wolf. There are times when there are government conspiracies, and all of these conspiracy theorists could be right every once in a while, but most Americans just tune these people out since they just claim that everything is a government conspiracy.

[economics102]

You don't need to like one of the amendments just because you like the others. While I think it's wildly short sighted to be against the second, I realize plenty of intelligent people aren't exactly supporters of it.

Right. If a liberal agrees that the right to speech, privacy, duie process, etc, are important, we should view that as "we're half-way there," not "you selective hyprocrites!"

[Czolgosz]

Y'all still have all your rights.


Problem is, nobody is willing to stand shoulder to shoulder and defend them...even fewer are willing to remind the oppressors, in blood. Unfortunately, perpetual violence is required as a reminder.

[Seraphim]

He did not say he wanted the 2nd amendement repealed. In fact, his point was very much like yours. He was telling Fox to fuck off with the picking and choosing.

Jon Stewart may be naive on economic issues and is not "there yet" on understanding that economic freedom is wooven into freedom...but he is on the side of Liberty.

No one is perfect but Jon Stewart is a media figure that if this mvoement could trule get him on our side - his following is enormous. He's very close.


Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

[Brett85]

Right. If a liberal agrees that the right to speech, privacy, duie process, etc, are important, we should view that as "we're half-way there," not "you selective hyprocrites!"

Would you say the same about conservatives who support the 2nd amendment but aren't as supportive of some of the other amendments?

[AGRP]

Sure, defend the fifth but repeal the second. You can't pick and choose Jon.

It sounded like he was mocking Faux News because they used statistics to justify trashing the BOR. It doesn't matter whether or not hes serious. They both used stats; bs stats or not, it doesnt really matter.

[PaulConventionWV]

Y'all still have all your rights.


Problem is, nobody is willing to stand shoulder to shoulder and defend them...even fewer are willing to remind the oppressors, in blood. Unfortunately, perpetual violence is required as a reminder.

Last time I checked, our rights are violated on a daily basis. The amendments don't matter anymore.

[jtstellar]

had a question that popped up in my mind that gave me a slight dilemma--do we torture nazis in ww2 for military info if we ever captured them.

probably not.. i hope we have technologies in place to intercept info and crack codes for upcoming conflicts (if legitimate and declared) for military intelligence because torture do compromise the moral compass that makes this country worthwhile in the first place

[talkingpointes]

Probably it sounds to close to Bill O' Rielly.

[Czolgosz]

Last time I checked, our rights are violated on a daily basis. The amendments don't matter anymore.

Violated, but not gone, my friend.