Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs

Trevor Noah – who inherited “The Daily Show” from Jon Stewart – took a swipe at the restaurant in Lonsdale that had the infamous “Muslims Get Out” sign (which may have been less a matter of “hate” than “crummy editing”, by the way).

Noah (with emphasis added):

You know what’s also strange is this man genuinely thought people who go around blowing people up would be stopped by a sign? You realize you’re talking to terrorists, not vampires. They don’t need to be invited in, alright? Or maybe he’s onto something, because if you think about it, we’ve never tried that. We’ve never actually tried to repel terrorists with signs.

Sure we have.  But I digress.  Noah:

Yeah, maybe that’s all the airports need is a sign that says “No Terrorists,” yes? Yeah, and then guys are going to be walking going, “Oh, I was going to blow up the airport, but the rules are rules and they said I can’t come in. They said I can’t. They said I can’t come in.”

So, Trevor Noah: you’re saying that putting up a sign that impugns the vast, innocent majority, doesn’t actually prevent evil people from carrying out their plans, then?

According to Trevor Noah, the Mall of America might not be completely safe in perpetuity because of these signs. This could cause problems, couldn’t it?

Huh.  Let’s continue to explore this, Trevs.  Have your people call my people.

After they sweep your jaw up off the floor.

27 thoughts on “Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs

  1. Well, of course, signs won’t keep terrorists from coming into the country to slash mall shoppers. Terrorists don’t obey laws so signs are a stupid idea.

    But signs will totally keep whackos from shooting mall shoppers. Whackos always obey laws so signs are a great idea.

  2. We really have to find a way to keep on this, it’s such an awesome (though unintended on this idiots part) take down of gun free zone signs. Are lefties completely without self awareness? Does anybody here watch this show, or do you know if he has addressed this contradiction? I’m sure he has some smug, condescending bs answer as to why signs he approves of will work.

  3. Ah, but the signs aren’t trying to keep terrorists out. They’re used only because the legislation you (presumably) and Deplorable Mitch favored included a provision that obligated those signs if the building’s owners or tenants didn’t wish to have gun owners toting firearms within the owners/tenants spaces. Your side (which claims to abhor governmental over reach) even specified the font, font size and size of the sign owners/tenants had to use for the signs to be considered adequate to enforce the preferences of the owners/tenants.

    Now you can return to pondering Drumpf the Youngsters Skittles challenge.

  4. After they sweep your jaw up off the floor.

    Not likely. As been proven time and time again, libturds are devoid of a sense of irony and satire. Actually, they are devoid of any sense of anything that has to do with cognitive skills.

  5. As Kinlaw notes, his ratings are headed down the sewer faster than the water coming out of a Democrats Birmingham fire hose. He’ll fail soon enough, but hopefully not before he (and Samantha Bee and unfunny Colbert) tank the Lefty ‘speak truth to power, unless they are a Democrat’, anti-comedy show genre.

  6. By the time he’d contact you he’d probably be trying to hit you up for a job. They are months away from cancelling his unfunny ass.

  7. Your side (which claims to abhor governmental over reach) even specified the font, font size and size of the sign owners/tenants had to use for the signs to be considered adequate to enforce the preferences of the owners/tenants.

    On what do you base the assumption that the sign restrictions are considered an example of government overreach? It wouldn’t surprise me if the restrictions were included to prevent an unscrupulous business owner and/or lawyer from taking law-abiding citizens to court for failing to abide by a sign that may be easily missed or difficult to read.

  8. They’re used only because the legislation you (presumably) and Deplorable Mitch favored included a provision that obligated those signs…

    Pretty sure that was to shut the mouth breathing DFLers down. As I recall, the aforementioned mouth breathers suddenly, inexplicably, and fleetingly gave a shit what churches wanted.

  9. Noah is on scholarship, just like Maher and John Oliver. Especially Maher and Oliver, on HBO cuz they are raving lefties. They are not journalists, and they are not funny. If they had to get ratings to keep a show on they would be selling vacuum cleaners for a living.

  10. It seems Rick desires secret laws he can whip out to punish people he doesn’t like. Conservatives don’t operate that way.

    If the property owner intends to have the police eject me for trespassing when I’m engaged in lawful activities on his premises, he ought to warn me so. And not in tiny type on a label stuck to the bottom of his cash register, in big bold letters on the front door. That’s not really an embrace of big-government, it’s more a matter of fundamental fairness.

    Which explains why Rick doesn’t get it.
    .

  11. “Common Sense”

    Which signs do you think the learned Mr. Noah was referring to? “No Guns Allowed” signs? Before condescending, you should really make sure you understand what you’re trying to condescend about. Just saying.

    As re the signs: again, you really need to learn the facts before going for the arrogance. The size and composition of the signs was spelled out to prevent passive-aggressive Minnesota liberals from creating legal traps for law-abiding carriers.

    Not sure why you think arrogance is your strong suit, Rick. You really don’t pack the gear to justify it. Try another tack #hinthint

  12. Which explains why Rick doesn’t get it.

    Rick’s a perfectly fine guy. We’ve met.

    But in his years managing the old (and ironically-named) Saint Paul “E-Democracy” forum, he had kind of a thing for making up rules as he went along. Presumably he figures the law should be the same.

  13. Ah, Mitch … you’re still trying to beat old horses. The rules of the forum were already written when I was moderator and I didn’t make up any new ones.

    Now, as to your characterization of my being arrogant and condescending. Read my comment … it’s pretty clearly in response to the prior comment by Doakes. But I must bear in mind that when a Liberal points out facts, (s)he will be considered “uppity” on this blog. Mayhaps even smug. Or a latte-drinking, clog-wearing and Volvo-driving miscreant who forces you into over reach. After all, Conservatives are merely victims of the Liberal cabal.

    ;-p

  14. It’s ironic that Rick complains about posting rules in plain sight since he moderated a forum where there was a secret rule against fingering a leftist politician for lying, and a secret banning offense to post documentation proving that leftist was a liar.

    Heh…

  15. Ah, Mitch … you’re still trying to beat old horses.

    Don’t flatter yourself. Just giving the audience some background.

    The rules were written – you were just utterly partial in how and on whom you used them.

    If you were a conservative posting on any liberal blog I’ve run across, you’d have already been blocked.

  16. Anyway, Rick – to focus on the point?

    Noah notes, with snarky condescension, exactly what we conservatives have pointed out correctly for thirty years; signs – like “gun free zones” or “tough gun safety laws” – are utterly useless at deterring evil.

  17. Your side (which claims to abhor governmental over reach)
    Don’t liberals abhor government overreach? If liberals don’t abhor government overreach, why do they call themselves liberal?

  18. Swiftee – exactly who did I ban for posting “documentation that proved a leftist was a liar?”

  19. I questioned a member of the SPPS board named Anne Carrol about a donation the board made to a reprehensible leftist pressure group called Progressive Minnesota. She responded that it was payment for “Latino Outreach” to the districts’ minority population.

    She probably didn’t know I had copies of documents that proved money from the general fund, money for the children mind you, used to cover the the board’s donation to a political fund raiser…but I did. I even had a picture of some of the broadly smiling board in attendance.

    In fact, I had also called the Reprobate in Chief at Prog MN and he confirmed receipt of the money, and admitted they never had any sort of Latino Outreach program. Right after I posted the evidence, I was summarily booted from the list.

    There is nothing a leftist hates worse than having their thievery and lies rubbed all up in their feral snouts.

    Mitch is correct, of course. The liberal commenting rules at SITD are unknown anywhere in the leftist electronic media; welcome to the Free Speech side of the internet, Rick!

  20. “Read my comment … it’s pretty clearly in response to the prior comment by Doakes . . . .”

    Really? I contrasted the comedian’s mocking No Muslims signs at the border to keep out terrorists with store owner’s No Guns signs at the door to keep out permitted carriers.

    “Ah, but the signs aren’t trying to keep terrorists out. They’re used only because the legislation you (presumably) and Deplorable Mitch favored included a provision that obligated those signs . . . .”

    I suppose it’s technically possible that Rick is so much smarter than me that this comment makes sense (“possible” in the sense that Elvis could be alive and living in the UP under an assumed name – it’s “possible” but I don’t think it’s very likely).

    The signs the comedian was mocking were expressly to keep out terrorists; that’s why he included the bit in the funny Arab voice about not being able to come in. The signs Mitch and I favor have nothing to do with terrorists and we never claimed they did.

    Snarky condescending sarcasm can work; but not if you’re a blithering

  21. Swiftee – ’twasnt I who banned you. You were off the list when I began as moderator and did not return during the time I served in that capacity.

    Benito – I recommended banning — as in revoking their privilege to post at all in the future — Sharon Anderson after she continued to violate the forum’s rules. (She’s a perennial candidate for office in St Paul so you may recognize her name.

    I also blocked the ability of people who registered under a nom de plume and refused to post under their true name as the forum rules required. Only two objected: one was a Republican political operative; another a St Paul DFL politico who borrowed a page from the same playbook. The Republican left, the DFLer later conformed to the rules.

    Most folks who didn’t follow the rules self-corrected after an email from me. Some were more recalcitrant and an escalating level of sanctions were applied for serial offenders, up to suspension of posting privileges. (And, Mitch, that included the erstwhile Grace Kelly, Bill Kahn, Dann Dobson, et. al.)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.