Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:16 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,506 Year: 3,543/19,786 Month: 538/1,087 Week: 128/212 Day: 44/14 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Fox news = false news
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 31 of 313 (616251)
05-20-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 2:17 PM


So where was the liberal media bias you claim.

What we have found it to boil down too was that most liberals are against ATV in general and looked to stop them where ever they can.

Evidence please? Don't you think it is more of a rural/urban divide? Wisconsin and Minnesota or historically very liberal states, we also ahve a huge # of ATV's. I do not see any "liberal" attempt to ban them.

Assertions here but no facts to back them up.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 2:17 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 4:42 PM Theodoric has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 313 (616254)
05-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
05-20-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Wehey!!
Nobody cares about anything other than America.

The idea that Fox news might not be wholly truthful is compared to "misconceptions" about assault rifles being dangerous.....?

I was comparing the banning of 3-wheelers to the banning of assault rifles in that the people who want the bannings don't know shit about what the things are or how to use them.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2011 2:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2011 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 313 (616255)
05-20-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Wehey!!
CS writes:

Nobody cares about anything other than America.

And we wonder why Americans are considered insular and parochial...?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 3:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 313 (616256)
05-20-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2011 2:44 PM


The people who want to ban "Assault Rifles" don't know the first thing about guns or what makes one more dangerous to another.

Don't you think just by calling it an "assault rifle" you've ceded the argument that we're talking about a firearm designed to kill a bunch of people all at once? And given that's the purpose, what's the argument that private ownership of mass murder weapons should be legitimate?

I think the best arguments against "assault rifle" bans come in that, as a legal term, it's a bit of a cypher, and trying to ban it by description ropes in legitimate hunting weapons and excludes similar dangerous guns (machine pistols, etc.) But just saying "I love my AK, you can't have it" isn't a reasonable position in a nation with a truly stupefying level of gun crime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 3:54 PM crashfrog has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 35 of 313 (616258)
05-20-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
05-20-2011 3:35 PM


Don't you think just by calling it an "assault rifle" you've ceded the argument that we're talking about a firearm designed to kill a bunch of people all at once?

I don't call them assault rifles... hence the scare quotes.

Part of the point is that a .22 rifle with a folding stock, front grip, and banana mag would be called an "Assault Rifle" even though it wasn't designed to kill a bunch of people all at once.

I think the best arguments against "assault rifle" bans come in that, as a legal term, it's a bit of a cypher, and trying to ban it by description ropes in legitimate hunting weapons and excludes similar dangerous guns (machine pistols, etc.)

That's what I'm gettinge at... "Assaut Rifle" is defined with things like folding stocks, grips and large round mags

But just saying "I love my AK, you can't have it" isn't a reasonable position in a nation with a truly stupefying level of gun crime.

Sure, whatever. Out of curiosity, does that level of gun crime include the breaking of inane laws that shouldn't be there in the first place? Or is it limited to just "violence"? Or what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 3:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 313 (616259)
05-20-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2011 3:54 PM


Part of the point is that a .22 rifle with a folding stock, front grip, and banana mag would be called an "Assault Rifle" even though it wasn't designed to kill a bunch of people all at once.

Why don't you think it was designed to kill a bunch of people all at once?

Out of curiosity, does that level of gun crime include the breaking of inane laws that shouldn't be there in the first place? Or is it limited to just "violence"? Or what?

Limit it how you please; there will still be an enormous amount of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 4:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2585 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 37 of 313 (616261)
05-20-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taz
05-20-2011 1:19 PM


Taz writes:

The law should clearly state that if you are a registered news organization then you can't lie.

And how exactly do you want to register news organizations, or determine who should be registered and who not? What would registration actually mean?

Seems like the First Ammendment might come into play here.


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 20 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 1:19 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 05-20-2011 4:14 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 05-20-2011 5:04 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 38 of 313 (616263)
05-20-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ZenMonkey
05-20-2011 4:09 PM


And how exactly do you want to register news organizations, or determine who should be registered and who not?

My guess would be those organizations that label themselves as news organizations.

I think a better option (and directly on topic) would be for certain "news" stations to better and more clearly identify which of their programs were opinion pieces. For example, certain programs are in a time slot that garners a majority of the target viewership where they are looking for news, but they are getting "opinion" labeled as news, on a "news" channel, that claims to be fair and balanced.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-20-2011 4:09 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 39 of 313 (616265)
05-20-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
05-20-2011 3:56 PM


Why don't you think it was designed to kill a bunch of people all at once?

Because the guy who made it did it because he like the way that it looked and intended to use it to put holes in paper and never to shoot a person.

Limit it how you please; there will still be an enormous amount of it.

Oh well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 3:56 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 313 (616270)
05-20-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Theodoric
05-20-2011 2:53 PM


Theodoric writes:

So where was the liberal media bias you claim.

What we have found it to boil down too was that most liberals are against ATV in general and looked to stop them where ever they can.

Evidence please? Don't you think it is more of a rural/urban divide? Wisconsin and Minnesota or historically very liberal states, we also ahve a huge # of ATV's. I do not see any "liberal" attempt to ban them.

Assertions here but no facts to back them up.

Yes, that is another smart assumption. And if that is true, then most liberals live urban, not rural. So that point only strengthens my case. The people who made that broadcast were liberals. The people who I know that got atv's banned in the forest behind my house are liberals. And no doubt the dumb ass judges that passed the laws were probably liberals too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 2:53 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 4:47 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 5:10 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 313 (616271)
05-20-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 4:42 PM


You still have provided no evidence for any of these assertions. Until you do all this is is bullshit coming from your fingers.

The people who made that broadcast were liberals.

Evidence?

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 4:42 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 5:19 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1366 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 313 (616272)
05-20-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ZenMonkey
05-20-2011 4:09 PM


ZenMonkey writes:

And how exactly do you want to register news organizations, or determine who should be registered and who not? What would registration actually mean?

Seems like the First Ammendment might come into play here.


What the hell is with the slippery slope these days?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-20-2011 4:09 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1262 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 43 of 313 (616273)
05-20-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 4:42 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Theodoric writes:

So where was the liberal media bias you claim.

What we have found it to boil down too was that most liberals are against ATV in general and looked to stop them where ever they can.

Evidence please? Don't you think it is more of a rural/urban divide? Wisconsin and Minnesota or historically very liberal states, we also ahve a huge # of ATV's. I do not see any "liberal" attempt to ban them.

Assertions here but no facts to back them up.

Yes, that is another smart assumption. And if that is true, then most liberals live urban, not rural. So that point only strengthens my case. The people who made that broadcast were liberals. The people who I know that got atv's banned in the forest behind my house are liberals. And no doubt the dumb ass judges that passed the laws were probably liberals too.

...rat, judges don't pass laws.

What defines a "liberal" to you? How do "the people" who made broadcasts and got ATVs banned qualify as "liberals?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 4:42 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 44 of 313 (616274)
05-20-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Theodoric
05-20-2011 4:47 PM


Theodoric writes:

You still have provided no evidence for any of these assertions. Until you do all this is is bullshit coming from your fingers.

The people who made that broadcast were liberals.

Evidence?

It's pretty much common knowledge that liberals and tree hugger type people have headed up everything atv-ban related. This is fact, not something I just made up. I am not gonna get into it. Whether or not liberals have done this or not is really not what we were getting at here, it was how the media reports things in a biased manner. The people who wanted atc banned got it, and they did it by lying.

You really don't think conservative republican type people would be heading up atv ban stuff? Use your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 4:47 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 5:24 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 5:25 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2011 5:26 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2011 5:36 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 313 (616275)
05-20-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by riVeRraT
05-20-2011 5:19 PM


riVeRraT writes:


You really don't think conservative republican type people would be heading up atv ban stuff? Use your head.

Barry Goldwater was a strong supporter of outlawing dune buggies and motorcycles from many of the wilderness areas. I know because I worked with him when I lived in Phoenix about just that issue.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 5:19 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 05-20-2011 5:46 PM jar has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019