-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
LMAO, yeah what Media Matters is doing is "chilling."
TacticalFox88
Banned
FreeRebulic..wow.
The APA needs to do several psychological studies of people this deluded.
The APA needs to do several psychological studies of people this deluded.
makingmusic476
Member
Woah. Leon Trotsky invented racism.
I thought he was cool. =(
I thought he was cool. =(
I just caught that myself. As I said elsewhere, she's definitely got a job in Hollywood if this gun advocacy gig doesn't work out for her. Fancies herself like Ellen Ripley.
I guess I never really knew how often these home invasions were occurring with 3, 4 or even 5 hardened, violent assailants. I can't deny that I want that young mother to have the peace of mind she needs to mow down the intruders with an AR-15 in enclosed quarters with her babies crying in close proximity....to all the shooting...
Henry Kissinger on Joe Biden:
I saw snippets of the Senate Judiciary hearing. Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords' husband) did a brilliant job. Democrats need to get him in front of the cameras more often. He just comes off as a very trustworthy guy. And he seems to have a knack for framing the pro-gun control argument in a way that doesn't turn off gun owners.
One thing I still can't figure out: why does the NRA oppose background checks so strongly? Most gun owners support background checks. And it seems like an easy gift to give to the other side so they can put their hands up and say, "look, we compromised!".
I saw snippets of the Senate Judiciary hearing. Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords' husband) did a brilliant job. Democrats need to get him in front of the cameras more often. He just comes off as a very trustworthy guy. And he seems to have a knack for framing the pro-gun control argument in a way that doesn't turn off gun owners.
One thing I still can't figure out: why does the NRA oppose background checks so strongly? Most gun owners support background checks. And it seems like an easy gift to give to the other side so they can put their hands up and say, "look, we compromised!".
what was it? I was wondering the same thing
reggieandTFE
Member
Gun manufacturers ain't into that shit.
A person who didn't command much respect as commander-in-chief is going to get even less when he's out of office.
Sure he can write books, or speak, but he won't have as much of a lot audience as he'd like and even then, he'd be wary of saying things that would upset Republican heavyweights or voters.
How much do you hear George w. Bush, Bill Clinton, talk about politicians who made their life hard for them or personally insult them?
Edit: I mean, it's not Obama's fault, it's just that Republicans have disrespected him a lot.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I didn't like what I saw of Warren on the stump or talking with people. The thing that helped her was that she had a VERY energetic, activist youth base that worked their ass off for her. She also kicked Brown's ass in the debates (overall)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Jeez. Markey might only beat Brown by 4.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Lol of course they got the liberal to write about Obama hating on Fox News.
empty vessel
Member
Delegitimizing a news organization requires a legitimate news organization. Premise fails.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Pretty much. I love how they feign outrage when Obama makes a rather tame (and true) comment when they pretty much paint the guy as a fucking supervillain.
If you think that message board is terrible, you should check out the "Where Liberty Dwells" boards.
It's like Free Republic except using some semblance of modern board software.
Black Mamba
Member
Because the NRA is a lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers. Their goal is to sell as much of the stuff as possible no matter what.
The NRA is was once a lobby for responsible gun owners but that is no longer the case. It changed drastically some years ago.
I'm not exagerrating. It lobbies for them and only them. That's why most NRA members support things like background checks. They're just unaware their voices mean shit in their own organization up against the money of gun companies.
There's always stormfront too!
Jack Remington
Banned
Right. I think I figured out the difference between MSNBC and Fox News; you guys can feel free to use this if you get in some facebook wall post debate or whatever.
MSNBC is a news organization whose hosts generally agree with the premise that right-wing social views and policy prescriptions would make the country worse off.
Fox News exists solely to push a platform.
It's actually a very key difference.
zero shift
Banned
MSNBC is biased.
Fox News is propaganda.
Fox News is propaganda.
Jack Remington
Banned
I'd even say that "biased" is too strong a word. The vast majority of the developed world disagrees with American right-wing social philosophy and policy prescriptions. On many issues, like the idea of healthcare being a right, or a progressive tax system being the most equitable system, there's basically a first-world consensus that our right wing alone disagrees with.
If one viewpoint is more or less an established consensus, to agree with it doesn't show bias, especially if that viewpoint is the one that's backed up by scientific evidence and the expert community.
I can't remember many instances where I thought MSNBC displayed an unreasonable bias. Not taking a middle position on any given ideological conflict doesn't make you biased. I don't think I'm biased in believing that a healthcare system without cost controls is unsustainable, or that gays should be able to marry, just to give a few examples.
zero shift
Banned
I don't call MSNBC biased for believing in universal healthcare, I call them biased because I found that sometimes they twist stories of happenings in congress or are very critical when one side does something and ignore or even support when their side does the same. I call Fox News propaganda because not only do they have a very clear and outlined philosophy, but they actively make shit up to support it.
I think this is fair. And you would expect CNN to be the middle ground, but its just plain shit except for a few shows.
Ad a Canadian, let me just say I find almost all of your news channels unbearable. I find it laughable to say it's only Fox News that pushes an agenda or has a bias.
The annual reporters without borders list was published on free press, journalism, integrity. Look how far down America ranks.
Now of course Fox News can't really be compared to MSNBC, but to say it's only fox news is wrong. MSNBC has its own corporate interests, it's own bias, etc. It's just more rational and in line with the majority of Americans than fox news is.
The one thing I've noticed is, your news channels don't allow viewers to form their own opinions. They bring these talking heads and pundits into every show to dissect every news item. Let the viewer form their own opinion.
I read a variety of news sources each day, from all countries. I even read fringe forums to see what people think.
The annual reporters without borders list was published on free press, journalism, integrity. Look how far down America ranks.
Now of course Fox News can't really be compared to MSNBC, but to say it's only fox news is wrong. MSNBC has its own corporate interests, it's own bias, etc. It's just more rational and in line with the majority of Americans than fox news is.
The one thing I've noticed is, your news channels don't allow viewers to form their own opinions. They bring these talking heads and pundits into every show to dissect every news item. Let the viewer form their own opinion.
I read a variety of news sources each day, from all countries. I even read fringe forums to see what people think.
Newspapers and similiar media tended to started as being created by a rich guy that wanted to advertise their viewpoint to the public. Another rich guy goes "nuh uh" and startss competing newspaper/channel. They tend to be biased in one way or another. For instance, the only newspaper in my hometown, the Omaha World Herald, are total corporate cheerleaders for the old money, so whenever a project starts to get built downtown, they'll cheerlead it. If someone is building in North or South Omaha, they'll shit on it.
What made it worse was the 24 hour news cycle and the need to fill up all the stations with "content". Most of CNN/HLN's schedule is actually talk show with maybe a couple of hours of actual news. HLN was pretty good when it was just a simple 1-hour news loop
PhoenixDark
Banned
All major media is corporate. Msnbc pimps their interests as much as Fox, they carry water for the government when needed, etc. The policy disputes we tend to focus on are window dressing for their main agendas, often. I don't think it's a coincidence that everyone on Msnbc and CNN except for a few people advocate entitlement cuts. Beltway groupthink is often corporate groupthink.
The Iraq war, the revolving amount of former generals who become "analysts," etc come to mind.
The Iraq war, the revolving amount of former generals who become "analysts," etc come to mind.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I read the comment sections of newspapers to watch racism in action. It's like reading YouTube comments.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Dhp should make this a hashtag.CHEEZMO;47096434 said:
Carpe Libertatem
Member
MSNBC is not the same as Fox because MSNBC acknowledges its biases and embraces them ("Forward"). Fox doesn't do this and instead calls itself "Fair and Balanced," which it almost assuredly is not.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Man sometimes it seems like the area where I'm the most radically pro-government is the news. Everyone is terrified of what "government controlled news" would mean for "free speech" but I find news that's controlled by private interests to be far more horrifying horrifying. While publicly run PBS frequently runs interesting content that examines issues and presents various sides of a debate the free market has given us the travesties that are FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, and the rest. And I do strongly dislike MSNBC. I agree with them on a lot of things, but I dislike them.
Do you know what you're talking about? PBS isn't government run or even publicly run, it's a non-profit but it receives more direct billionaire money than anyone.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Lenin was cooler.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, "pro-government" may have been the wrong way to frame that comment. What I'm talking about is news that isn't concerned with maximizing (or even making) a profit. PBS stations often are run "publicly" at a local level, including local government agencies.
Oh ok. I actually read that Obama interview and remember the quote, It's just that, well, it's true, so I didn't think anything of it lol.
This seems like a very good description to me.
RustyNails
Member
Why should the gun owners be subjected to things just for exercising their 2nd amendment rights? Why do you hate America?
Link
The Autumn Wind
More checks mean less guns being sold. It's about what gun manufacturers want when it comes to the NRA.
Exactly. Gun manufacturers don't care if people who shouldn't get guns get them. All they care about is their bottom line.
So, how do we square the circle that we as a country now apparently believe the new definition of the 2nd Amendment and that it guarantees and individual right to all "law-abiding citizens" to own and possibly carry a gun with the fact that a lot of them don't want people with mental problems to have guns? If that's the definition of the 2nd Amendment as we apparently believe it, then I don't see how we can restrict people with mental problems who have not committed a crime yet. If we're comparing it to free speech, we can't block the free speech of those with mental issues. We can't even block free speech of those who commit crimes, even.
Or do most people just not think about the overarching ramifications of their belief systems and how they're not really all that congruent sometimes? I mean, I know that's the answer, I guess...
Or do most people just not think about the overarching ramifications of their belief systems and how they're not really all that congruent sometimes? I mean, I know that's the answer, I guess...
We can block certain speech that poses a threat, like shouting fire in a movie theater. Giving a person with mental problems a gun is the same sort of threat.
I'm not really sure those are congruent in my mind. One is a direct threat, the other might be, depending on the definition of mental problems that we even use. And we only limit some speech. I don't think we ever limit all speech altogether by a person, do we? But the speech congruency is an aside to my actual question.
My actual question was more, if the definition of the amendment is now that law-abiding citizens can own and carry a gun, why could people with mental issues not, if they are indeed law-abiding citizens? Most people with mental problems don't shoot people.
I mean, I'm in favor of restricting it in some cases, but I personally don't believe the ability to possess a gun is a natural right like some do.
I agree with you, honestly if it were up to me gun ownership would be like car ownership (you have to take a test and prove you can handle it). Then add on a qualification you have to take every few years, like cops have. Is your gun stored safely, can you operate it properly, do you follow gun safety guidelines? I was just trying to hit on the sort of justification someone who felt owning a gun was a natural right. We do restrict our natural rights depending on the situation so it was just that sort of example.
Right, depending on situation, but usually not depending on the person. At least not much that I can come up with off the top of my head.
In other words I can see the congruency between not letting people yell fire in a crowded area and restricting gun use in public areas. I just can't see the congruency with restricting a someone who might have some mental problems, since that's restricting what is apparently a natural right to a person not based on something they've specifically done.
The funniest thing of the whole second amendment is that Private businesses can still refuse to let you into their stores for having guns on them. As they can deny you protesting, or even the particular language you use in the store is censored by them in the same manor.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Does anybody know how much less we added to the debt over the last quarter? Because if federal spending fell by 15%, then shouldn't the debt have increased at a slower pace over that same period?
Angry Fork
Member
The gotcha questions @ Hegel are funny, anyone else watching the nomination hearing?
The whole thing is dumb, they know they're going to confirm him I just wish they'd get it over with. So many dumb questions.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The Fox reaction to Obama's comments really proves his point. It was a rather mundane comment that has been said by David Frum, Joe Scarborough, and other moderate conservatives. In fact, multiple articles were written about it immediately following the election.
But this is what they do. They purposely mislead their viewers to incite anger and fear, all day.
But this is what they do. They purposely mislead their viewers to incite anger and fear, all day.
- Status