Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fox news = false news
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 61 of 313 (616294)
05-20-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PsychMJC
05-20-2011 5:58 PM


PsychMJC writes:
If there was no doubt that it was a liberal crusade, you would have provided FACTS by now. At this rate your facts are starting to look like something I would expect to find in a post by ICANT or Buzzsaw.
That is the fact, there is no need for me to waste my life trying to prove something that everyone knows is true. That wasn't the issue here anyway. The issue is that news sources lie, and not just Fox.
It would be a hard thing to prove anyway, because getting to the bottom of something that is that old is tough. Anne Graham the commissioner of the CSPC at the time was a republican, but she may have forced into making a decision like that off the report made by CBS, and false information about the safety of those machines.
Maybe I shouldn't say liberals, but people who just hate atv's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PsychMJC, posted 05-20-2011 5:58 PM PsychMJC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PsychMJC, posted 05-20-2011 6:27 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 8:31 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 62 of 313 (616295)
05-20-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 5:46 PM


Logic, please.
riVeRaT writes:
There is no refuting that liberals (for the most part) head up most of the atv banning type laws. It has always been that way. Those reports on the atc were from CBS news, which has always been liberal/democratic biased. If you live in NY, you just know this.
So liberals are behind efforts to ban ATVs. Okay. And CBS is somehow being deceptive or showing a liberal bias by reporting this? Seems to me that either CBS is being accurate and unbiased in reporting what the supposedly liberal anti-ATV crowd was doing, or was showing a liberal bias by reporting something somehow untrue about the anti-ATV crowd.
Which is it?

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 5:46 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:33 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 63 of 313 (616296)
05-20-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rahvin
05-20-2011 6:07 PM


Rahvin writes:
Apparently our friend rat is not only confused about the role of judges in the legislative process, he's also confused about the freedom of speech and the ability of the state to legally restrict some of his behavior, particularly when it comes to endangering children...
Well enlighten me then, because I am not afraid to learn. It was my understanding that when the CSPC wants to get something banned, it goes to a federal court to decide.
As far as children and ATV's go, I am all for protecting our children, that is why in my post about the atc ban I mentioned that little kids do not belong on big machines. Machines made specifically for the kids is ok. As a parent of 5, I taught all my kids to ride and proud of it. I started them as soon as they wanted to learn. jar has no business telling me how to raise my kids and whether or not they belong on an ATV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 6:07 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 6:44 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 313 (616297)
05-20-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
05-20-2011 6:15 PM


jar writes:
Rahvin writes:
Apparently our friend rat is not only confused about the role of judges in the legislative process, he's also confused about the freedom of speech and the ability of the state to legally restrict some of his behavior, particularly when it comes to endangering children...
It is not unusual to find that Americans are totally clueless about the US and it's laws, structure and responsibilities.
It is also not unusual to find that the very people that created the media and news mess that exists in the US also seem unaware that they were the very people that created the problem.
It would be funny, if it didn't affect the rest of us so negatively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 6:15 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
PsychMJC
Member (Idle past 1301 days)
Posts: 36
From: Modesto, California
Joined: 11-30-2007


(1)
Message 65 of 313 (616298)
05-20-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 6:19 PM


Yes, you should have. Had you said that, I would have agreed. However, your statement now makes no sense. You start by saying "Duh you morons, it's them liberals doing it, and I don't have to prove shit." Then you switch over as if it were no big deal to say, "Well ok it was people who hate ATVs. I know it was a Republican who was ultimately behind it, but I am SURE she was pressured."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:39 PM PsychMJC has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 66 of 313 (616299)
05-20-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 5:59 PM


Re: people like
riVeRaT writes:
Now some of you will look at that web-site and go "omg" while the people with common sense will understand that yes atv's make ruts and trails. No they are not harmful to the forest as a whole. The trails can be moved around so that the growth comes back. Maybe these idiots in the pictures should stop making foot prints because they must be killing something when they walk. But a liberal will look for any reason to have things go their way.
To my mind, the public's right not to have their public forests fucked up by outdoor enthusiasts a bunch of yahoo's riding around in three-wheel monster-truck wannabes, trumps the rights of said outdoorsmen yahoos to indulge in the aforementioned forestfucking.
Now who's whining about not having things his way?

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 5:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:36 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 67 of 313 (616301)
05-20-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ZenMonkey
05-20-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Logic, please.
ZenMonkey writes:
riVeRaT writes:
There is no refuting that liberals (for the most part) head up most of the atv banning type laws. It has always been that way. Those reports on the atc were from CBS news, which has always been liberal/democratic biased. If you live in NY, you just know this.
So liberals are behind efforts to ban ATVs. Okay. And CBS is somehow being deceptive or showing a liberal bias by reporting this? Seems to me that either CBS is being accurate and unbiased in reporting what the supposedly liberal anti-ATV crowd was doing, or was showing a liberal bias by reporting something somehow untrue about the anti-ATV crowd.
Which is it?
They weren't reporting what the anit-atv crowd was doing. They were the anti-atv crowd. When you report things the way you do with a biased towards one side or the other, that bothers me. News should be as unbiased as possible IMO. You do that by comparing apples to apples, and letting both sides of a debatable topic be heard in a non-threatening environment and leave it to the viewer to decide. That report forever changed the minds of a majority of Americans, most of who knows nothing about 3 wheelers. The rest of us who actually ride them accept the dangers involved, and I have yet to meet one single ATC owner that thinks his atc is more dangerous than a 4 wheeler or a dirt bike. Matter fact after 30 years of riding, I did not get hurt until my 600lb 4 wheeler flipped over on me. Wasn't serious, but it hurt more than any other crash I had on a 3 wheeler. Nothing I couldn't just walk away from and keep going. I've been hurt more playing basketball, falling off a ladder at work, and a car crash I was in a long time ago.
Should I stop breathing because I might get a whiff of the radiation from Japan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-20-2011 6:22 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 6:38 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 68 of 313 (616302)
05-20-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ZenMonkey
05-20-2011 6:32 PM


Re: people like
ZenMonkey writes:
Now who's whining about not having things his way?
For clarity, my way is to at least have a section of forest where people can ride, not the whole forest. I am sensitive to peoples feelings, and understand they don't want to see or hear them. But it is just as much my forest as it is theirs. I pay taxes, and have to register my machines, now give me a place to ride.....responsibly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-20-2011 6:32 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 6:38 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 313 (616303)
05-20-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 6:36 PM


Re: people like
For clarity, my way is to at least have a section of forest where people can ride, not the whole forest.
I've never been to a national or state park that didn't have that, already. It's pretty wide-spread especially in the north, where people want wilderness areas to take snowmobiles. Obviously it's part of the same allowance made for powerboats vs. canoes, etc.
So what exactly are you on about?
Here, just in your state:
http://www.trailsource.com/scripts/three.asp?REFERRER=GOO...
Is it really hard for you to find the ATV trails, or something?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:36 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 7:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 70 of 313 (616304)
05-20-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Logic, please.
riVeRraT writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
riVeRaT writes:
There is no refuting that liberals (for the most part) head up most of the atv banning type laws. It has always been that way. Those reports on the atc were from CBS news, which has always been liberal/democratic biased. If you live in NY, you just know this.
So liberals are behind efforts to ban ATVs. Okay. And CBS is somehow being deceptive or showing a liberal bias by reporting this? Seems to me that either CBS is being accurate and unbiased in reporting what the supposedly liberal anti-ATV crowd was doing, or was showing a liberal bias by reporting something somehow untrue about the anti-ATV crowd.
Which is it?
They weren't reporting what the anit-atv crowd was doing. They were the anti-atv crowd. When you report things the way you do with a biased towards one side or the other, that bothers me. News should be as unbiased as possible IMO. You do that by comparing apples to apples, and letting both sides of a debatable topic be heard in a non-threatening environment and leave it to the viewer to decide. That report forever changed the minds of a majority of Americans, most of who knows nothing about 3 wheelers. The rest of us who actually ride them accept the dangers involved, and I have yet to meet one single ATC owner that thinks his atc is more dangerous than a 4 wheeler or a dirt bike. Matter fact after 30 years of riding, I did not get hurt until my 600lb 4 wheeler flipped over on me. Wasn't serious, but it hurt more than any other crash I had on a 3 wheeler. Nothing I couldn't just walk away from and keep going. I've been hurt more playing basketball, falling off a ladder at work, and a car crash I was in a long time ago.
Should I stop breathing because I might get a whiff of the radiation from Japan?
There used to be something called "The Fairness Doctrine" that required offering equal time to opposing viewpoints.
There used to be limits on how many media outlets a single voice could control.
There used to be a clear line and distinction between reporting news and providing editorial content.
There used to be a Chinese Wall between media content and advertising sales.
Guess who tore down all of those?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:33 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 71 of 313 (616305)
05-20-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by PsychMJC
05-20-2011 6:27 PM


PsychMJC writes:
Yes, you should have. Had you said that, I would have agreed. However, your statement now makes no sense. You start by saying "Duh you morons, it's them liberals doing it, and I don't have to prove shit." Then you switch over as if it were no big deal to say, "Well ok it was people who hate ATVs. I know it was a Republican who was ultimately behind it, but I am SURE she was pressured."
I didn't say it was a republican ultimately behind it. She was just the commissioner(figure head). There were chairmen, and federal courts involved, all influenced and under pressure from the ill-informed American public due to that inaccurate news report.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PsychMJC, posted 05-20-2011 6:27 PM PsychMJC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 8:34 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 72 of 313 (616306)
05-20-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 6:24 PM


riVeRraT writes:
Rahvin writes:
Apparently our friend rat is not only confused about the role of judges in the legislative process, he's also confused about the freedom of speech and the ability of the state to legally restrict some of his behavior, particularly when it comes to endangering children...
Well enlighten me then, because I am not afraid to learn. It was my understanding that when the CSPC wants to get something banned, it goes to a federal court to decide.
Laws are made by the legislature, not the judiciary. Judges can rul, after a law has already been made, whether that law is Constitutional, contradicts other laws, etc, and decide how to interpret that law. The do not make laws. Judges do not ban anything; they rule on whether a ban from the legislature is legal, or whether a given law effectively banned something, but they themselves do not actually decide what is and is not banned. They don't make the law.
As far as children and ATV's go, I am all for protecting our children, that is why in my post about the atc ban I mentioned that little kids do not belong on big machines. Machines made specifically for the kids is ok. As a parent of 5, I taught all my kids to ride and proud of it. I started them as soon as they wanted to learn. jar has no business telling me how to raise my kids and whether or not they belong on an ATV.
Jar has business to say whatever he chooses, just as you are free to ignore him. That's what "freedom of speech" means, rat. It means that people can tell you what they think you should or shouldn't do, any time, for any or no reason. The expression of a personal opinion cannot be restricted, it's a basic right. If I want to say "JimBob is a bad parent, he should totally have his kids taken away, because he did x" then that's my right. I can't actually take away his kids, but I can express my personal opinion all I want, and if he doesn't think it's any of my business, he can suck it.
Unless there's a law against it, nobody can stop you from letting a 12-year-old ride an ATV. But anybody, for any reason, can tell you they think you shouldn;t do it if they want.
What do you think "freedom of speech" means, rat?
As for the thread topic - your furious backpedal a minute ago, retreating from "those damned liberals" to "well, just people who hate ATVs led by a Republican" is exactly why we demanded evidence from you. "Common knowledge" isn't worth shit - it's usually wrong. And aside from that, none of us presumably live where you do - "common knowledge" to you certainly isn't so for the rest of us. When one party is in possession of a certain amount of facts, and a second party possesses no facts, it's perfectly reasonable for the second party to ask for the facts that justify the first party's opinions before simply adopting those opinions themselves. In fact, I'd think doing anything less would be stupid.
After all, if I said "those damned conservatives, they pushed a law that mandated eating babies!" and then claimed it was "common knowledge," would you believe me? Wouldn't you demand that I prove my claim before you went ahead and believed that some unnamed conservatives pushed an unnamed law that forced an undisclosed population to eat some number of babies sometime in the unmentioned past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 6:24 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 7:12 PM Rahvin has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 73 of 313 (616308)
05-20-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
05-20-2011 6:38 PM


Re: people like
crashfrog writes:
For clarity, my way is to at least have a section of forest where people can ride, not the whole forest.
I've never been to a national or state park that didn't have that, already. It's pretty wide-spread especially in the north, where people want wilderness areas to take snowmobiles. Obviously it's part of the same allowance made for powerboats vs. canoes, etc.
So what exactly are you on about?
Here, just in your state:
http://www.trailsource.com/scripts/three.asp?REFERRER=GOO...
Is it really hard for you to find the ATV trails, or something?
Yes, it is. There are no public trails to speak of near me at all, and I have to travel 60 miles or more to get to private land that I could join and ride limited. 180 miles for good land to ride on. I live near Sterling forest, which is on the NY-NJ border 45 miles out of NYC.
The only public riding we have here is to ride on the ice on the lake when it freezes (if it freezes) and that lasts only a month or two depending the winter.
Those forests up north that allow snowmobiles mostly don't allow atv's in the summer. I would have to drive over 4 hours to get to one.
I mean there is like 14,000 acres behind my house, why couldn't they at least open up a few for us to ride, AND maintain. Especially for people that live here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 6:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 74 of 313 (616311)
05-20-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rahvin
05-20-2011 6:44 PM


Rahvin writes:
Jar has business to say whatever he chooses, ........I can express my personal opinion all I want, and if he doesn't think it's any of my business, he can suck it.
Or I don't have to suck it....I can tell him not to say that, and to fuck off, that is my right just as much as it is his.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 6:44 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 7:40 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 75 of 313 (616316)
05-20-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 7:12 PM


riVeRraT writes:
Rahvin writes:
Jar has business to say whatever he chooses, ........I can express my personal opinion all I want, and if he doesn't think it's any of my business, he can suck it.
Or I don't have to suck it....I can tell him not to say that, and to fuck off, that is my right just as much as it is his.
Exactly. But you can't actually make him shut up, he has every bit as much right to tell you you're wrong as you do to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 7:12 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 05-24-2011 9:21 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024