Forum: pol
Page 3459
Subject: Rightist Media


  Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - [37838313] Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 11:44

I thought about sending Guru a request to reinstate the deleted "Conservative Media Bias" thread since it's still under 200 posts. But it didn't seem worth the trouble. The last post is over 3 years old and the discussion there is primarily dominated with Disney's refusal to air an anti-Bush documentary on ABC in mid 2004, a handful of issues related to the 2004 presidential campaign and the Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon scandals.

Also, let's be honest, the phrase, "conservative media bias" is redundant.

Anyway, Media Matters took a look at Andrew Breitbart's Shirley Sherrod writer:
In two posts on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that "if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn't Sherrod." The racism criticism is ironic coming from Pezzi, who has repeatedly used racial epithets like "Japs" and "Chinks," and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites.

Pezzi, who says that "Breitbart asked me to write for BigGovernment.com," has a peculiar self-described history. Pezzi claims to be responsible for "over 850 inventions" and schemes such as a "magic bullet" for cancer, a "robotic chef," and sexual inventions like "penile enlargement techniques" and "ways to tighten the vaggina" (because "men like women with tight vagginas"). Pezzi has started multiple websites, from term paper helpers to a sexual help site that answers "your questions about sexual attraction, pleasure, performance, and libido" (Pezzi is qualified to do so because "No doctor in the world knows more about sexual pleasure than I do").

Pezzi also claims to have "beaten Bill Gates" on a math aptitude test, turned down a blind date with Katie Couric, and says he's "bigger than some porno stars."
No need to recreate the whole post, all their work is sourced. Just a window into Breitbart's standards for "journalists" in his employ.

*note- Several words copied from the article were altered to get past Guru's profanity filter.
 
1Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 12:17
Jake Fowler at National Review:
Tomorrow night (Friday, August 6) at 10 p.m. eastern, Fox News will broadcast Bill Hemmer’s one-hour special investigating the case, and the risk Muslim girls face at the hands of their male relatives if they act too . . . American. I watched a preview: It will make your blood boil.
Side note for Boldwin: Since you have shown some difficulty with what does and does not qualify as a stereotype of a group of people, Fowler has provided a textbook example for you.
 
2Frick
      ID: 1273167
      Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 13:39
Liberal or conservative, media bias is the redundant with any current American news agency.

 
3Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 07, 2010, 19:03
I would argue that "conservative media bias" is more redundant, since I don't really know of a major right-leaning media outlet (save possibly for Politico) that I feel makes any reasonably earnest attempt at political objectivity.

Don't take my word for it. When you have some time do a little research. Pick a random FNC report on a political topic from almost any news show or quasi-news show (I will admit that Shep Smith these days seems to make journalistic integrity a priority - and he gets more viewer hatemail than any other anchor on the network for it - and that there does seem to be a higher standard for balance on Special Report than you see on the network's other news shows, save for the 2 hours hosted by Smith) and check corresponding reports from other (comparably presented: news vs quasi news) media and decide for yourself which reports included fewer pro-opposition facts and perspectives and which reports better resisted any negative implications regarding the opposition.

Objective news reporting gives you facts. It isn't supposed to tell you how you should feel about the facts. Another good test is to try to determine the journalists' (anchor, field correspondant) opinion of a political story as or after s/he reports it. If it seems clear enough, that's blatant bias. Watch almost any report from FNC anchor Gregg Jarret. You know exactly where he stands almost every time.

If you score it objectively, I'm betting you'll find the FOX reports at or near the top of the bias scale much more often than not.
 
4Frick
      ID: 1273167
      Sat, Aug 07, 2010, 22:27
I think it depends on your political leaning. I don't disagree that Fox might be at or near the top, but that doesn't mean that other sites are any better. Fox might be a bit more blatant or obvious, but that doesn't mean that other sites like CNN or MSNBC aren't slanted as well. Is it worse if the bias is disguised? I will agree that Fox's claim to fair and balanced is well past ironic and leaning towards criminal though.
 
5Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 07, 2010, 22:52
Is it worse if the bias is disguised?

Well I think it's better to display less bias than more, whatever the journalist's actual opinions are. There's nothing wrong with having personal opinions or bias about a news event. But professional journalistic integrity means keeping it out of your work.

I agree it's very hard to find objective reporting, especially in the mainstream outlets. You'll never likely see me defend MSNBC on this forum. But in my opinion, neither CNN nor any of the nationally broadcast network news shows are as thoroughly and committedly biased as the general tone of FNC news reporting.

But I haven't disagreed with your original point; 'liberal media bias' of course is redundant by nature, too.
 
6Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 07, 2010, 23:09
Also, for the record, there are still at least two still active (as in not yet "deleted" and therefore still accepting new posts) liberal media bias threads:

The 900+ post "Liberal Media Bias" thread

The "Just incase you think the media isn't Liberal....." thread.
 
7Boldwin
      ID: 43753723
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 00:53
A liberal rationalization has a lot better chance getting on Fox than a conservative one has of being rationally presented in any MSM news channel, and that is why I accept Fox's description.

While we are at it I don't think you will find on Fox, the visceral 'so-angry-they-are-almost-shaking' attacks on the network target of the day that you will find in the MSM.
 
8Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 02:53
Dude. Beck cries. Megyn Kelly bristles. O'Reilly screams.
And yes, Carlson shakes, not 'almost'; she shakes. I've seen
all of those things so many times, I'm certain I could find
YouTubes of each. Find me video of a national network
talent "attacking" with such anger that s/he is almost shakng,
whatever that looks like.

You don't ever watch national net news. All you see are clips
of shows as presented by anti-liberal and anti-media outlets.
I have no problem acknowledging that FNC isn't as wholly
biased as Media Matters or Keith Olberman would have you
think. I know because I get in 5 to maybe 15 hrs a week with
FNC on the tv. You have no idea what a typical hour of
World News Tonight is like.

Judging by some of your claims, I wonder if you even watch
FNC.

I've called you out on your denial before and challenged you
to effectively make your case. Still waiting. By all means,
make me look silly.
 
9Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 07:29
You have no idea what a typical hour of
World News Tonight is like.


Either do you, because it is a 30 minute program.

By all means,
make me look silly.


Done.
 
10sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 07:50
I get in 5 to maybe 15 hrs a week with
FNC on the tv.


Dont suppose the thought occurred to you B7, that maybe he watched more than 1 1/2 hr segment over the course of the week, thus seeing "an hours worth" of the show in question?

 
11tree on the evo
      ID: 4251457
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 07:51
Mith never said that the program was
more than a half hour. He said Baldwin
hadn't watched an hour of it....
 
12Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 09:10
Look how silly I am! I work for a company that provides
content to (and receives content from) CBS, FOX and ABC.
Trust me, from the workflow alone, I know very well when
their flagship news programs are on the air. In fact I work in
the building from which one of those shows is broadcast.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 5877812
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 13:13
MITH

How quickly they forget Rather interviewing Bush.
 
14Boldwin
      ID: 5877812
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 13:15
Or anyone on the Today Show interviewing anyone to the right of Whoopie Goldberg. There are actual daggers coming out of their eyes. Watch when the lighting is just right.

 
15Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 13:17
Show me.
 
16Boldwin
      ID: 5877812
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 14:42
Rather sandbags Bush
 
17Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 16:30
I believe MITH was referring to your #14.
 
18Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 19:04
Actually I meant either, PD. But I admit I didn't know what he was talking about in #13. I assumed he was mistakenly referring to the faked memo on (the Dan Rather hosted) 60 Minutes 2 during the 2004 presidential campaign regarding George W. Bush's national guard service record.

So I was surprised to click the link and see a 22 year-old video (recorded 7 years prior to the launch of FNC, I think) presented as an argument that other mainstream TV media are currently more politically rabid than FNC.

But if that's the best he's got,lets take a look. From my watching, Rather begins the interview with tough questions about a topic they dispute the relevency of. Since at the time I was as following the 1988 GOP primary season as closely as most other 15 year olds that year, I can't offer anything on the relevency of Rather's questions. One thing I do know is that if that were Megyn Kelly opening a 2012 election season interview with Obama by grilling him about the Trinity United Church of Christ, Boldwin would be demanding her Pulitzer be sent directly to her house the next day.

Anyway, Bush clearly begins to lose composure first, in reaction to Rather's persistant questions about Iran, rather than the softballs about his campaign platform that he apparently expected. Obiously we can't know whether CBS was dishonest with the president on the interview topics. I suspect they were deliberately ambiguous enough to cover their asses, which is probably common enough, these days anyway.

But then at around 7:40, with both men having stepped several times over the line between spirited and unprofessional, Rather says, "You made us hypocrits in the face of the world..." Unless someone to show me a powerful case to support this extremely bold statement, that's apalling. And the cutoff at the end, while probably necessary, was an opportunity for Rather to embarass the Presdent, and he exploited it.

But a single 22 year old example is not evidence of a trend you claim persists today. And moreover not evidence that it happens more than it does on the oppositions' outlets.

Anyway, good clip. Since 2004 I haven't thought much of Rather. Now I think even less of him.
 
19Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 08, 2010, 19:32
The President has to answer tough questions for taking the country to war, and that's it?

Baldwin hails righteous anger as "authentic" when from the Right but is evidence of pervasive consistent bias when exhibited by someone against a Republican President, it seems.

If Obama had started the Iraq war the current Right would have had even less patience than the Left did with Bush. And Rather would have been hailed as a hero, speaking truth to power.

The Right and Shame haven't seen each other in years.
 
20The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Mon, Aug 09, 2010, 13:01
That link Boldwin gave us was for Bush Sr. and the first Iraq War Perm Dude. Not Bush Jr. and the latest Iraq War.

If Obama had started the Iraq war the current Right would have had even less patience than the Left did with Bush. And Rather would have been hailed as a hero, speaking truth to power I don't remember anybody being against the first Iraq War.
 
33Boldwin
      ID: 537571014
      Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 16:07
Please explain the meaning of your handle, LB.
 
35The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 17:14
Please explain the meaning of your handle, LB.

I like the books and its also a funny handed slap at Democrats. Sane Democrats are good in moderation but in overdose like we have now is the worst.
 
36Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 17:19
And all this time I thought it referred to Tea Party leaders and what happened to them when their classmates got to move onto second grade... they were The Left Behind.

Don't know how that is a slap at Democrats.
 
37Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 18:23
ah, End Times literature. can't complain about it too much though - for a bunch of drivel, The Left Behind DVDs helped pay my rent for years.
 
38The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 09:50
Awesome tolerance of Christianity.

Can a moderator remove post #37? I highly doubt we'd be tolerant of that if it was against other groups.
 
40Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 10:02
You regard The Left Behind series as a collection or religious tomes?

I assume you're currently headed over to the Tea Party thread to ask mods to delete Boldwin's post declaring the Koran is void of any message of tolerance.
 
41The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 10:05
You regard The Left Behind series as a collection or religious tomes?

That's not what Tree said.

And yeah if people are going to pigeonhole Christians, Muslims or whatever they probably should think before they post. There's good and bad of everybody.

In all honesty Mith, this boards tolerance of a couple people around here is pretty pathetic.
 
42Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 10:13
Yeah I'm pretty sure you misunderstand tree here. Read it
again, with the understanding that he used to work for a
media distribution company.

On the last sentence I don't disagree. But then, showing up
with a moniker which you brag is intended to mock people
who think differently from you isn't exactly raising the bar.
 
43Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 11:06
Awesome tolerance of Christianity.

i said NOTHING about religion.

i commented about "End Times literature", which is exactly as described - literature. if someone said they didn't like Latin American themed literature (Sandra Cisneros, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Junot Diaz, etc), would that mean they were intolerant of hispanics? if someone didn't like Nikki Giovanni or Maya Angelou or Amiri Baraka would that mean they were intolerant of african-americans?

not at all - it may mean they just don't like a particular style of literature. i happen to think End Times literature is particularly not interesting, much like other genres i don't like.

You regard The Left Behind series as a collection or religious tomes?

That's not what Tree said.


exactly. you hit the nail on the head with this statement, and that's what mith is pointing out.

that is NOT WHAT I SAID. so how on earth can my opinion on a genre of fiction be tied into a tolerance of Christianity?

i'd still be willing to bet i've been to a church service more recently than you've been to a synagogue service.
 
44Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 12:24
Don't know how that is a slap at Democrats.

Left=democrats
Behind=arse

The democrats are a bunch of arses.
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 477201118
      Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 19:43
What a great handle.
 
46Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 20:57
Right Wing News-conducted poll of 43 "conservative" blogs asked to name the "25 Worst Figures in American History"
23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)

 
47Boldwin
      ID: 217531415
      Sat, Aug 14, 2010, 23:52
Just for starters, not really well ranked.

1) Margaret Sanger
2) George Soros
3) Saul Alinsky
4) FDR
5) Barack Obama
6) The Clintons
7) Jimmy Carter
8) Woodrow Wilson
9) Tom Hayden
10)Timothy Leary
11)Sidney Gottlieb
12)Walter Cronkite
13)John D. Rockefeller
14)Arthur Sulzberger
15)Anthony Romero
16)Noam Chomsky
17)Andrew Heyward
18)Dr. Martin Haskell
19)Peter Singer
20)Ward Churchill
21)Matthew Lesko
22)Micheal Morre
23)Morris Dees
24)Chris Dodd and his father Thomas
25)Claiborn Pell
 
48Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 00:02
Lesko is worse than any terrorist? Leary? Really?

Here's Bainbridge's, for what its worth.
 
49biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 00:10
Obama worse than the Clintons?1?

Man, Obama's been working hard to move up the list so fast!

Must be doing something right.
 
50Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 00:57
How about some of the following:

Early secessionist, Vice President John Calhoun?

Perpetrator of Native American genocide, President Andrew Jackson?

Director Birth of a Nation (highest grossing film of the silent era, which promoted white supremecy, portrayed the KKK as heroes and inspired their refounding in hate) D. W. Griffith?

Al Capone?

Ken Lay?

Champion of the sub-prime mortgage craze, Angelo Mozilo?

Not sure exactly what damage to the country you'd attribute to Michael Moore (for example) but I have to believe he's pretty easily trumped by all of them.

Curious to see you put FDR so high up on the list. He was an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led America through perilous times.

I don't know that another President better engrained American optimism and the sense of hope he so brilliantly summoned and mobilized during the Great Depression.
 
51biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 09:50
It's sounding like you are starting from the supposition that bloggers on the right use rational criteria.

Silly MITH.
 
52Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 18:38
TPM:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/okeefe_
and_the_gang_the_young_conservatives_who_tr.php

(sorry Guru's hyperlink tool doesn't work with my phone and I
don't have the code memorized)
When CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau flew to Maryland to meet with James O'Keefe, she thought she was meeting him in his office to talk about a documentary she was working on about young conservatives. Instead, she found herself at his house, where his organization's executive director was near tears as she warned Boudreau that O'Keefe was trying to lure her onto his boat in order to seduce her in front of hidden cameras in order to "punk" CNN.
Now can we stop taking him seriously?
 
53Razor
      ID: 265539
      Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 19:44
Nobody has taken that clown seriously in years except Boldwin. And Congress.
 
54Boldwin
      ID: 27822917
      Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 22:51
I think the evils of Acorn have well and truly been taken seriously.
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 27822917
      Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 22:54
For that matter no one has taken the MSM seriously in the investigative journalism dept. for years thus abandoning the field to independent internet pioneers like O'Keefe.
 
56Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 01:33
internet pioneers like O'Keefe.

if liars, fakes, and frauds are your idea of pioneers, it says a lot about your character.
 
57Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 01:59
internet pioneers like O'Keefe.

Too funny. I guess it doesn't matter how much he lies, if he makes an organization Baldy hates look bad, he's a hero.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 27822917
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 02:58
All you have to do is listen to the acorn people talk. Lying isn't even an issue on whether they were guilty as charged. You guys are just blowing smoke to cover the obvious success he had.
 
59Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 03:00
Good point, zen. I guess his pioneering efforts begin and end with "It's OK, because he's OUR liar."

Whatever they have to do to sleep at night, I guess.
 
60Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 10:21
You guys are just blowing smoke to cover the obvious success he had.

so, in your world, the end justifies the means, even if the means includes lies and fraud, and potential felonies?

really? you're ok with that. that is acceptable in your personal moral compass? in your religious moral compass?
 
61Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 10:27
from Baldwin's film-making hero, re: the script for the aforementioned planned "seduction":

CNN then obtained emails and a 13-page document outlining the plan. The plan, which Santa confirmed was real, had a list of "props," including a "condom jar," "dildos," sexy music (like Alicia Keys, as Marvin Gaye was dubbed "too cliche") and a camera on a tripod, which the filmmakers dubbed "an obvious sex tape machine."

There's also a script O'Keefe was supposed to read on camera before meeting with Boudreau.

"I've decided to have a little fun," reads the script. "Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath."


props for his use of a Don Henley song in his script-writing, but really, O'Keefe is obviously an upstanding moral youjng man Baldwin that holds in high regard.
 
62Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 10:36
The fact that in a couple days someone can hold James O'Keefe up as a pioneer in investigative journalism, while slamming Michael Moore, only shows that being a slave to partisan ideology trumps any real honest thought process.

 
63Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:12
John Cole
And stop calling this a prank. WHat they wanted to do to this woman was much darker than a prank. If someone took one of my sisters onto a boat under false pretenses, filmed them without their knowledge, and deliberately sexually harassed them with the intent to intimidate or have sex with them or both, I’d probably be in jail right now.
Just imagine the rightist outrage if some liberal hack had attempted this with Megyn Kelly or some other FNC darling. This chump is a proven liar and the epitome of a creep and now possibly a sexual preditor, to boot.

He deserves credit for uncovering Planned Parenthood employees who sought to cover up statuatory rape cases, which they are legally obligated to report. He also exposed Acorn employees who were willing to assist them in illegal activity in 3 offices; Baltimore, Washington and Brooklyn.

He'd have some respect from me if his record stopped there.

But he also edited out of his released video the statements from office supervisor in San Bernadino who that Acorn would have nothing to do with their prostitution business and that any help for them didn't stand a chance at getting past her supervisor. She was fired.

In the San Diego office, the employee played along with them and then immediately called the police wen they left. He was fired anyway.

In Philadelphia, O'Keefe and Giles were literally kicked out of the office, but they released the video of the meeting anyway, heavily edited to seem like the office was willing to help them launder earnings from prostitution.

Source.

And of course he was arrested in New Orleans for attempting to tap the phone of Senator Mary Landrieu.

And we learn now that he wasn't nearly satisfied with his previous accomplishments in dishonesty and abject creepiness. Anyone conservative who supports this activity or thinks these are examples of good investigative journalism is so far gone in his bias and hate that he is out of his minds.
 
64walk
      ID: 517172117
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 11:54
Word.
 
65Boldwin
      ID: 10843012
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:20
I think he was expecting it to be a hit piece on independent investigative reporters and didn't want to get the hatchet to the neck without trying to give a few whacks back.

I think his plan was sophmoric and his expectations unrealistic [even if she does belong to the libertine party].

I think there is a slight possibility the original CNN piece would have been fair and useful to the Tea Party.

Given the massively unfair treatment he has received from the MSM and the left I can understand why he wasn't expecting anything more fair than a hatchet job or anything worth being respectful to.
 
66Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:29
Thus, if you perceived you might be wronged by someone you've never met, it's okay to wrong them.

Ya, like I said, no one takes that buffoon seriously. Except Boldwin and Congress.
 
67walk
      ID: 517172117
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:32
66, LOL.
 
68Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 13:34
And of course he was arrested in New Orleans for attempting to tap the phone of Senator Mary Landrieu.


it should be noted he plead guilty to crimes related to this.

Given the massively unfair treatment he has received from the MSM and the left I can understand why he wasn't expecting anything more fair than a hatchet job or anything worth being respectful to.

there was nothing massively unfair in the treatment - he DID these bad things, and the "MSM" reported as such.

he is a criminal and a liar and a fraud. and possibly a sexual predator.

and someone you call a hero.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 10843012
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:04
He investigates what the MSM won't and thus is a treasure for those of us who actually want investigative journalism to take place.

I actually want to know why Mary Landrieu's livid constituents can't get thru to her about healthcare and about her lying claims about jammed phone lines making communication with them impossible.
 
70Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:06
What nonsense. You like him because his lies about people you don't like hurt them. This is a double whammy against the very principles you say you believe.

You've no standing to make such statements either as a citizen or as a active person of religion.

You're lying to yourself, to your religion, and to your God. You need to reconcile your relationships before you continue down this path of sin you like to trod.

Trust me: When you are standing before your God, he won't ask you a single question of how you feel about ACORN.
 
71Boldwin
      ID: 10843012
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:07
Balderdash.
 
72DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 15:20
Boldwin: supporting fraud, sexual harassment (and possibly assault) in the name of conservatism since 2010 (?).

Bolderdash, indeed.
 
73Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:49
I actually want to know why Mary Landrieu's livid constituents can't get thru to her about healthcare and about her lying claims about jammed phone lines making communication with them impossible.

and you are willing to praise felons in the process.

pretty soon you'll be praising Jeffrey Dahmer for helping to reduce the illegal immigrant population.
 
74Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:28
Boldwin -

If this clown "investigated" the JW church by clandestinely video recording people and then editing it to make it sound like they are nothing more than a front for child molesters, there are certain fundamentalist Christians who would applaud and say, "see, that's what we have been saying all along", and I bet you could name one or two of these people.

Notice that Building 7 is not coming to your rescue here, you have really lost your mind defending this guy. You are practicing the very situational ethics that you deplore. You really should rethink your support.
 
75DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 19:09
"326 Boldwin
ID: 46834294
Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 11:23 I'm deliberately stepping down my participation for the next two months. Lots of great stuff I read, not getting posted. "

Hehe.
 
76Boldwin
      ID: 55873018
      Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 19:12
SZ

You are drawing all that out of an aborted plan.
 
77Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 21:21
The comedy of Glenn Beck

Beck also joked about the flurry of medical tests he had to undergo -- with needles, MRIs, PET scans and x-rays all being administered.

One doctor, he said, told him that he would be receiving "only about as much radiation as people received at Nagasaki."


Whenever I need a good laugh, I always think of a couple hundred thousand people dying in a nuclear explosion.
 
78Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 08:46
Is there any conservative media with ongoing coverage of this story?

I'm not interested in propping it up to support any argument against violent or offensive rhetoric on the right, but it is certainly fair to ask why the rightist media seemingly won't go anywhere near it. Especially since anytime the liberal media passes over a story that might cast an unfavorable light on the left, they are roundly attacked by the opposition for perceived bias in their reporting.
 
79Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 09:07
One more person turned into the authorities by the minutemen and ignored by the authorities only to go on to commit crimes.
 
80Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 09:23
The rightist media is avoiding the story because the FBI dropped the ball?
 
81Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 09:39
No, the right is ignoring this, knowing full well you are going to blame everyone to the right of and maybe including Mitt Romney of being violent murderous racists.
 
82Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 09:53
So you're saying it's justifyable for the media to omit news from it's coverage when it fears the story might prompt a propaganda backlash from the oppostion?

If so there's an awful lot of anti-liberal media criticism that has been thrown around this place over the years that warrants revisiting...
 
83Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 10:23
Fox News covers a multitude of cop shootings this week

Authorities and a fugitive holed up in an attic fired more than 100 shots at each other Monday in a firefight that killed two officers, wounded a deputy U.S. marshal and led to an hourslong standoff that ended when the suspect was found dead inside the home.....

Monday's shooting comes four days after two Miami-Dade County detectives were killed by a murder suspect they were trying to arrest.

On Sunday, a man opened fire inside a Detroit police precinct, wounding four officers including a commander before he was shot and killed by police. The officers' injuries were not considered life-threatening, said Police Chief Ralph Godbee.

And on Monday, a Lincoln City, Ore., police officer was critically wounded when he was shot during a traffic stop.


So, the rightist media does report the incidents, but do they ask the obvious question,

"How is it that so many mentally deranged people, willing to kill cops, can so easily obtain these weapons?"

The answer is simple. The NRA, the most powerful lobby in Washington, doesn't allow this question to be broached among its bought and paid for politicians and media outlets. The NRA wants no limitations on who can obtain guns, and they're succeding beyond their wildest dreams.

The NRA is one of the most irresponsible power groups in this country. But don't look for anyone on the right to question their motives as long as they're pouring billions into political coffers and telling Americans that ACORN and SEIU are the really dangerous political organizations.

 
84Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 10:42
Anyone who thinks they've got a substitute to the constitution [including of course RTBA] is the irresponsible party unless they can present reasonable evidence their substitute can hold up longer and produce better.
 
85Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 10:47
Honestly, PV, do you think their power comes from arms manufacturer's dollars? It comes from having more highly committed single issue voters as members than any other organization. And the reason for that is that keeping all the other rights depend on that one.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 11:04
Actually, all the other rights depend more on the first amendment, by far, than the second.
 
87Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 11:23
Serfs don't have free speech.
 
88Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 11:42
Don't know about anyone else, but the last serf I met was in 1923 in Afghanistan.
 
89Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 11:43
No other country has a second amendment. No western country has serfs.

If you are going to rank the constitutional clauses (for some reason) at least get the order right. Surely you know the text of the First Amendment, yes?

Without the First Amendment virtually all rights you enjoy would disappear. What would be the point of having a gun if the rights you want to protect are already traded away?

I take pains to point out, again, there is no "armed insurrection" clause in the Constitution.
 
90bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 13:04
One more person turned into the authorities by the minutemen and ignored by the authorities only to go on to commit crimes.
You referring to the nine year old who was shot in the face?

Serfs don't have free speech.
And what do serfs have to do with this topic?

I think maybe I should call myself Mr. Obtuse.
 
91Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 13:30
I'm not sure that PV offered any substitute to the constitution.

This paranoia is a crock. From the end of the assault weapons ban to the Demcratic Party step back from gun control issues to more open-carry and conceiled-carry states and cities to two landmark SCOTUS rulings (one of which finally incorporated the 2nd Amendment) and as evidenced by the record numbers of guns purchased in the past two years, Americans have over the past decade become increasingly freer to obtain and possess firearms and can much more easly do so today than through, I believe, much of the 20th century.

The politics, including landmark SCOTUS rulings, have been swinging forcefully to the pro firearm side for years. Open your eyes - most of us aren't complaing about it very much. Meanwhile the pro-gun control left has been decreasing in number and influence. So give the shameless "libruls hate freedom" bit a rest.
 
92Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 14:38
#84&85

The question I asked was

"How is it that so many mentally deranged people, willing to kill cops, can so easily obtain these weapons?"

The responses in the following two posts don't attempt, in any way, to address that question. Of course, that's the intention, to distract from any sane discussion about the proliferation of gun violence into "rights."

Is it a "constituional right" to walk into a Detroit police station and start firing away; to initiate a 100 shot firefight when the cops come to your house with a warrant; to shoot a cop who pulls you over for a traffic stop?

Why do otherwise sane people respond to suggestions that steps are taken to keep guns out of the hands of these people with adamant protests, and hysterical claims of gun banning?

Irresponsible political lobbyists and their puppets, that's who.





 
93boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 14:46
How is it that so many mentally deranged people

who gets to decide who is mentally deranged? when someone has done nothing violent just acted a bit strange?
 
94Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 15:01
Is it a "constituional right" to walk into a Detroit police station and start firing away; to initiate a 100 shot firefight when the cops come to your house with a warrant; to shoot a cop who pulls you over for a traffic stop?


No, its not a constitutional right to do those things PV. But it IS a constitutional right to own the means by which you can do those things.

Correctly or incorrectly, people are guessing the path you are on with this discussion is, 'ban guns.' So rather than walk a path that we all know the end to, people are skipping ahead.

Personally, I think its a good, healthy discussion to have. One I'm not afraid of as long as its not laced with hyperbole and over-the-top examples designed to lead the debate to a predetermined conclusion.

 
95Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 15:09
There are a lot of rights which are restricted--in fact, most are. Felons, those who are institutionalized, and some others cannot own firearms.
 
96Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 15:54
Can we all agree that the NRA does not want any restrictions on gun ownership? They and their followers are perctly fine with the Arizona gun laws that allowed Loughner to buy that glock and the ammo for it. They don't want licensing and background checks. They don't want mandatory training and mandatory safe storage. They don't want state and local restrictions of any kind.
They don't want to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people who abuse them.

If a person, in most states, is pulled over driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more, they stand to lose their driving privileges, have their vehicle impounded, heavily fined, higher insurance, and possibly jailed. But they can keep their deadly weapon. Are there any cries of protest that the government wants to "ban cars?"

Of course not. It's a public safety issue. Don't the families of Gabby Giffords, Judge John Roll and 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green have a right to ask how to keep weapons out of the hands of the Jared Loughners of the world? Don't the families of all those cops killed and wounded last week have the same right? Doesn't my brother, whose son was tragically murdered with a handgun a few years ago, have a right to ask how a deadly weapon ended up in the hands of an irresponsible 18 year old?

Truthfully, I'm dumbfounded that owning a deadly weapon is so casually accepted in this country, with little to no consideration of the huge responsibility such ownership entails. And, yes, the NRA is the major component for this lack of consideration.
 
97boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 16:11
Jared Loughners of the world? what does that mean? What had he done before he started shooting?
 
98Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 16:40
Doesn't my brother, whose son was tragically murdered with a handgun a few years ago, have a right to ask how a deadly weapon ended up in the hands of an irresponsible 18 year old?

Absolutely people have the right to ask and have the right seek the answer. And when there is an answer, there can be further debate.

But answer me this: How can you insure that the Jared Loughners of the world won't get guns? The answer is you can't. It can't be gauranteed. Which means a law to ban guns is ineffective against the people you want to ban guns from and detrimental against those who do not need to have them taken away.

Take me for example. I do not own a gun. However if I did, I would not be a threat to society. If it was ever out, it would only be out for 2 reasons:

1) to shoot somebody posing as an imminent danger breaking into my home.
2) at the shooting range so that if/when #1 comes up, I won't miss.

If you ban guns, I, as a law abiding citizen, have no way to get one. But that guy who is breaking into my house - not so law abiding. I'm assuming he's armed.

The other side of the story is stopping violence. Hate to say it, but we have some real world examples in disarmed countries of violence still happening:


April 28, 2010 Grade school stabbing spree.

2004 incident

2nd attack in 2 days

Those that want to commit these violent acts don't have it any easier because they have access to guns. Nope. When access to guns is restricted/denied, they turn to other weapons and other victims. These were completely random acts of the same kind many anti-gun activists are saying would stop if guns were banned.

As to your other point, the NRA is not the sole representative of those who support gun rights. They don't represent me. In fact, nobody in this thread has even touched on the NRA except for you. Can we agree to leave them out of the debate?

Things I see as viable options that I do not feel violate the 2nd amendment:

1) application period of 30 days to purchase a new gun.

2) background check into criminal *and* mental history which certain events disqualifying an applicant

3) mandatory gun safety courses

4) mandatory registration

This could cut down on the Jared Loughners, though as stated he is likely to turn to other means to carry out bodily harm. This could cut down on the crimes of passion. This won't do a thing to cut down on the guy shooting a cop who is being arrested for suspicion of murder (see Miami recently). But nothing will really cut down on that.

But it also will not prevent responsible citizens from arming themselves and securing their own property.
 
99Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 17:25
What had he done before he started shooting?

Let's see. He was thrown out of school for unstable mental behavior, and not allowed to return until he was given a clean mental bill of health. Call me an alarmist, but I'm OK with laws that prohibit those with such brittle mental health from buying weapons of mass destruction as easily as a Big Mac.

That's what that means.
 
100Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 17:39
But nothing will really cut down on that.

Not as long as we have loopholes so big that the NRA could drive a Sherman tank through them.

 
101Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 17:47
Truthfully, I'm dumbfounded that owning a deadly weapon is so casually accepted in this country:

I'm with you, PV.
 
102Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 18:09
but I'm OK with laws that prohibit those with such brittle mental health from buying weapons of mass destruction as easily as a Big Mac.

I like to start with finding some kind of commonality to work from. At least this point we agree on.
 
103Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 19:03
how about the Gun Show loop holes? that's a HUGE one for me...

the whole
Firearm Owners Protection Act from 1986 is one gigantic crock of $hit.

quoting from wikipedia, that "law" allows individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

ya know who's behind that law? the jackals at the NRA.
 
104Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 19:10
Jared Loughners of the world? what does that mean? What had he done before he started shooting? - Boikin

Enuff that fellow students sat as close to the exit of the classroom as possible.
 
105Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 19:10
I agree with your 4 bullet points in #98, Khahan.

 
106Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 19:17
I tenatively agree with the 4 bullet points of #98 Khahan tho #4 makes me really queasy thinking what PV would do with that list if he could.
 
107Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 19:34
103, tree, that is a law that deals with reality more than anything. The reality is people collect guns the way some people collect baseball cards. They trade them, they sell them to each other.

I have a number of insureds who have gun collections. Very nice ones. One guy has an 1892 Winchester. Its a collectors item. Its functional in only the most basic sense. Nobody keeps ammo for it anymore. But he shows it and occasionally gets offers on it from other collectors who would love to have it for their own collection. If that loophole wasn't in place, he couldn't make a simple collectables transaction.

The people at gunshows are mostly like this. Again, like my major point in 98, how do you close the loophole without taking away from people legitimately using it?

 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 20:21
The problem with the gun show loophole is that it applies to anyone who comes in the door--not just a collector.

The purchase of a non-working gun by a collector isn't the issue.
 
109Boldwin
      ID: 17082720
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 20:25
It always makes me nervous seeing copies of the liberal classic 'The Anarchists' Cookbook' for sale at a gunshow. Might attract liberals to the show.
 
110Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 20:57
I guess you must go to more gun shows than I do...
 
111Tree on the Evo
      ID: 28045819
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 21:51
I've never seen a baseball card used to kill somebody....
 
112sarge33rd
      ID: 45072817
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 22:00
I dont really think anyone here, is opposing, or truly intends to oppose; the ability of a bona-fide collector to engage in such hobby.

But when dealing with unstable individuals (known as such and previously identified as such), t seems ludicrous to require the courts to intervene and "declare" an individual ineligible to purchase firearms. As I understand the law in AZ, THAT is why Loughner was able to procure the weapons/ammo.He had not been legally "declared" incompetent, and therefore was assumed to BE competent. Despite a lengthy history of a dubious nature re his competency.

Khahans 4 pts in 98, I have LONG held should be codified.
 
113Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 22:05
One guy has an 1892 Winchester... shows it and occasionally gets offers on it from other collectors... the people at gunshows are mostly like this.

My impression is far different from yours.
 
114sarge33rd
      ID: 45072817
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 22:20
my experience MITH would seem to be more along the lines of your own then.
 
115Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 22:20
Here's a video produced by Small Arms Review Magazine, which produces the event seen. This pretty well fits my impression:



Sure, some collector's items, but for the most part not really an antique swap type of event.
 
116Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 16:55
My impression comes from insuring a good chunk of people with gun collections that go to gun shows and with interacting with them.

And tree, 111, instead of making insiduous remarks, why not clearly state your point? I can clearly state my point that the majority of gun collectors are enthusiasts who care for their hobby and their weapons and won't be careless in the use of firearms." Also that aside from occasional show use, most gun collectors do not even use their guns.


So please. If you wish to argue either of those points, do so directly. The only parallel I drew by mentioning baseball cards was that it is a collectible hobby. Nothing more.
 
117sarge33rd
      ID: 45072817
      Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 17:33
While it is probably true that: most gun collectors go to gun shows....

that does not mean that:....most people at gun shows are gun collectors.

I think Khahan, you are drawing an erroneous conclusion there.
 
118Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 17:42
And tree, 111, instead of making insiduous remarks, why not clearly state your point?

that WAS my point. baseball cards don't kill people, guns kill people.

collectors can swap baseball cards all day long, and i don't know of one example of a baseball card being used to kill somebody.

however, there are plenty of incidents of guns bought at gun shows being used to kill somebody.

guns should be legal. but they should be strictly licensed with background checks, and just because a gun is sold at a gun show should not exclude it from strict regulation.

 
119Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 09:59
My impression comes from insuring a good chunk of people with gun collections

Then the disconnect between your impression and reality makes sense. You are frequently exposed to one type of gun show attendee and have mistakenly assumed that this is what is most typical. The video of a typical gun show shows a very different range of products and different atmosphere than the antique collectors' event you seem to think they typically are.
 
120Boldwin
      ID: 5408309
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:29
I used to sell Indian Jewelry at gunshows every week albeit many years ago. They defy any category. You can expect anything the local merchant class thinks they can sell to that crowd. Think insulated windows as likely as AR-15's.

MITH thinking you can wander down there and see row after row of vulcan mini-gun cannons and not much else...silly. It's books and jewelry and lemonade and campers and decoys and tools of every desciption. Obscure and unusual junk that isn't quite antique. It isn't any more threatening or dangerous than any other gathering in America hardly.
 
121Boldwin
      ID: 5408309
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:35
And that show MITH produced a video of is far far more elite than the average gunshow around the country. Very atypical. I never saw the level of heavy caliber eq in that video in any gunshow I was ever at.
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 14:16
I think that gun shows have moved beyond the flea market tables.

And why wouldn't it? The free market says that when there is a place to sell these things without hindrance then both buyer and seller will appear.
 
123sarge33rd
      ID: 45072817
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 15:11
that video, is for one of the two largest gun shows in the country. To think it typical, is absurd.
 
124Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 08:25
For the record it's not. If you watched the video, you heard the narrator explain that it's a seperate event and in a seperate building from the Crossrowds to the West Gun Show. Small Arms Review also has a video from the Crossroads of the West show (one of the two biggest shows in the country) which occurs next door. I specifically chose the video from the SAR show rather than the COTW video to present a more typical event.

But anyway, the quantity of heavy munitions isn't the point. Post 103 took issue with the gun show loophole. Post 107 brushed it off, describing gun shows as little more than antique swap meets. The point is that at typical gunshows there are indeed stockpiles of modern weapons (including high caliber, high capacity firearms) where vendors can make their stock accessable to the public with considerably less legal regulation and scrutiny for both buyer and seller than is required when operating out of their place of business.
 
125sarge33rd
      ID: 45072817
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 09:29
Didnt realize the SAR building was not part and parcel to the gun show in the other 5 buildings referenced in the video. Thought it was an "attached" display/arena.
 
126Boldwin
      ID: 140283018
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 11:30
I think that gun shows have moved beyond the flea market tables.

And why wouldn't it?


Give me a hint you have any personal knowledge to share with us on the subject of gunshows. I know the guys in the booths and you...what is your connection again?
 
127Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 12:40
I know the guys in the booths and

of course you do.
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 12:53
You knew the guys in flea market booths. How long ago, exactly?

Seriously--when was the last time you went to a real gun show?

The world has moved past you. You can't possibly believe that the gun shows would not become magnets of gun sellers when they are restricted elsewhere from selling their guns. Likewise for gun buyers.

Instead of agreeing to this commonsense point, you start "whipping it out" about knowing the guys. Back in the day.
 
129Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 14:27
a timely article...

According to a transcript from one investigator’s purchase of a Sig Sauer pistol at the Phoenix show, the exchange went like this:

Investigator: “So, you’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?”

Seller: “No. No tax, no form, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing.”

Investigator: “Yeah, yeah.”

Seller: “Just see an Arizona ID and that’s it with me.”

Investigator: “So no background check?”

Seller: “No.”

Investigator: “That’s good, because I probably couldn’t pass one, you know what I mean?”

The seller sold the gun for $500.


and another article, with video footage...

how anyone with rational thought - ANYONE - can think that gun shows are basically a bunch of collectors buying, trading, and selling antiques like some swap meet - is beyond me.
 
130Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 15:02
Fortunately, this mom had a gun to defend herself from her mouthy teenage children.
 
131Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 15:15
Hmm, I'm getting confused. So I'm not supposed to take my small chunk of information based on actual dealings and interactings with people and apply it to the general populace of gun shows.

However others can take a speciality video thats not even part of the main gun show and apply that to all gun shows as representative of the general attendee?


Either way, I think this debate is getting a bit off point. In post 103 Tree brought up the loophole about buying guns at gunshows. I actually agree with him to an extent. My whole point was that there are perfectly capable, reasonable and safe gun owners who use these shows.

a) any changes to the law should not hurt their ability to do what they've been doing

b) no matter what, if you go to a gunshow, people are going to swap guns. So how do you realistically propose to regulate that? The reality is you cant.

The closest I can think of is registration. Any gun exchange must have a simple registration form filled out. But again, "Hey bill, thats a nice .345. I'll trade ya my .322 for it." "Sure Ted. I'd love a .322 for my collection" cannot be enforced/monitored/regulated.


Its dealing with reality.
b)
 
132Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:38
So I'm not supposed to take my small chunk of information based on actual dealings and interactings with people and apply it to the general populace of gun shows

No you should certainly apply it, but not to an an overgeneralized and assumptive but definitive statement based only on that small chunk of knowledge.

others can take a speciality video thats not even part of the main gun show and apply that to all gun shows as representative of the general attendee

Well they can take that video of a gun show and add it to Sarge's account from personal experience and decide which narrative is more likely closer to the truth.

And I'm not sure why an event that sets up next to the 2nd largest show in the country makes for a more representative example of a gun shoe (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway) but by all means, here's the SAR video from the main show:



Here's a video from an event called Gun Show 2006 at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, VA.

It looks like there are dozens of gun show videos on YouTube. So it doesn't seem to be very hard to get a feel for what they're like. None of the ones I skimmed through look like antique swap meets to me.
 
133Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:54
My whole point was that there are perfectly capable, reasonable and safe gun owners who use these shows.

That's much more reasonable than the way you initially presented it.

a) any changes to the law should not hurt their ability to do what they've been doing

b) no matter what, if you go to a gunshow, people are going to swap guns. So how do you realistically propose to regulate that? The reality is you cant.


Do you come to this conclusion after waying the impacts on society? For example, how many guns purchased through the loophole wind up getting used in crimes? I don't know the answer, but I'd clearly have to know whether and how much damage this law potentially does before any concern for the convenience of law-abiding but unlicensed gun traders promptly ends the discussion.
 
134Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:06
For example, how many guns purchased through the loophole wind up getting used in crimes?

I'm not disputing that at all. But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this. How can you stop Joe-jim and Billybob from trading their guns whether its at a show or in their backyard?


Best way I can think of is registration and something along the lines of:

"the registered owner of a gun can be held liable for crimes committed with that gun unless it is reported stolen." Then of course 'the owner' is the last person to register it. So if Im going to trade my gun I'd darn well better make sure its registered to the new guy.

But I can still envision too many situations where a truly innocent person can get royally screwed (gun stolen and used and the owner doesn't realize its been stolen).

 
135Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:15
But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this

Actually, there is: Get rid of the gun show loophole. Have all sales within a state follow the laws of that state regardless of whether at a gun show or at a regular gun shop.

To me, that is step 0.
 
136WiddleAvi
      ID: 32559
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:17
I think guns should be registered and you have to show up every x amount of years and show that you still have the gun in your possesion.
 
138Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:21
But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this. How can you stop Joe-jim and Billybob from trading their guns whether its at a show or in their backyard?

I think you mean to say that there is no way to realistically enfore a law mandating background checks, although that isn't necessarily true, either. And there's no need to charge sellers with the crimes committed by their customers. Recently there were civil suits filed against weapons manufacturers when their products were used in murders. They didn't fly and neither would such an oppressive criminal law approach to retailers and private sellers.

Of course sellers could be made to face less draconian charges with reasonable penalties for under-the-table deals.

FWIW I don't care if Billybob buys Joe-Jim's gun over beers in the backyard and never commits a crime with it. But if John Smith from Washington DC answers Joe-Jim's craigslist ad and drives into VA, buys his gun and then uses it in an armed robbery, why wouldn't he give up Joe-Jim's identity in exchange for a chance at a reduced sentence? Sure, you won't track down every seller (would you apply that reasoning to any other criminal law?) but you might catch enough to deter others.

Again, I'd have to know more before I'd support such a law but I certainly don't dismiss the possibility of any solution out of hand. There are common-sense things that can be done to deter sellers from providing guns to people who wouldn't pass a background check. It looks like the federal background check is not prohibitively expensive and that you can download the paperwork on line. If they can't already, I'd support potential buyers being allowed to file for it themselves and have the paperwork sent or emailed directly to the seller to ease the process.
 
139Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 21:23
On World Net Daily's journalistic standards.
 
140DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 21:50
WND -- also not intended to be a factual statement, obviously.
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 23:21
FOX unable to get a reaction from the White House on a coincidence only they noticed. Or cared about.
 
142Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 10:53
Friends of Hamas rumor deconstructed.
 
143Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 16:15
Not the Right Wing Journalism's Finest Hour
 
144Tree
      ID: 371392017
      Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 21:31
re 142 - goes a long way in showing how Breitbart.com is hardly a reputable media outlet. i mean, most of us know this already, but still...it defies logic that a thinking person would view that site as reputable.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 14158212
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 04:04
For 20%-30% of the population the slogan "Breitbart lives" are either words they live by or words their favorite thot leaders live by. Consciously and daily.
 
146Tree
      ID: 2510132311
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 09:11
Every last one of them is either a moron, or a person who accepts lies and deception as a proper way of living their life.
 
147Seattle Zen
      ID: 4811181319
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:12
The percentage is certainly less than .2 or .3, Baldwin, and Tree is right, those people are hapless fools.
 
148DWetzel
      ID: 59149910
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:35
I would bet my house that if you asked 1000 random people on the street, not more than 200 of them would be able to identify Breitbart's profession if asked, let alone agree with him.
 
149boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:45
DW-I think you mean 20 or even 2, I don't even know the answer to that question, he is on the internet?
 
150Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:51
But that becomes self-confirming too. It just shows that everyone else who hasn't bought into the cult of pesonality that is Breitbart are just "sheeple" and undeserving of the "truth."
 
151Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 11:26
i wonder if 20 to 30 percent of the population could even tell you Breitbart's first name.

(although i was mildly pleased and amused to find out that his in-laws are actor Orson Bean (himself the son of one of the founders of the ACLU) and Wonder Years mom, actress Alley Mills)
 
152DWetzel
      ID: 59149910
      Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 12:13
"DW-I think you mean 20 or even 2, I don't even know the answer to that question, he is on the internet?"

Well, that's the number that I'd feel good about betting my house at; I'd need pretty good odds for that. I think you'd get over 2% that would know the name. If we were playing Card Sharks* and I had to put a number out of 100 that would know who he is, I'd probably guess 6.

That's as distinct from actually agreeing with the majority of his his website, of course. That would be a significantly smaller number.



*somewhat obscure and disturbingly self-dating reference alert
 
153Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Thu, Mar 07, 2013, 16:25
On the July 11, 2007, edition of his since-canceled MSNBC program Tucker, Carlson attacked Michael Rectenwald of Citizens for Legitimate Government, the group that first published the phone records linking Vitter to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam," demanding of Rectenwald: "How could you justify doing something like this? Why is it your business?"

Carlson said Rectenwald was taking a "sleazy shortcut" and insisted that if it were then-Senator Russ Feingold in Vitter's place, he would be "making the same argument that Russ Feingold`s personal [life] ought to be off limits from creeps and scandal mongers like you who profit from digging into other people's sex lives. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."


Two days later, on the July 13, 2007, edition of Tucker, Carlson again insisted he'd defend a Democratic senator in the same position as Vitter, saying: "I wish David Vitter were a Democrat. I wish he were a liberal Democrat. I wish he were Russ Feingold, because then I would defend him every bit as zealously as I am defending not what David Vitter did, but his right to be unbothered by the rest of us for something that's none of our business." Carlson also specifically targeted the media for hyping the Vitter story:
CARLSON: It's not really the Democrats who are doing it; it's the press. It's us. It's the media. After humiliating David Vitter, putting his wife's picture on television, as many of us have, which is almost indefensible in my opinion, because she did not do anything -- the guy has four kids. We have helped destroy his life. We publicized this thing he did.
As for the criminal aspect of what Vitter is alleged to have done, Carlson dismissed it as not that significant: "It's against the law in the sense that double-parking is against the law. Let's be real here."
Yes Tucker, Let's.
 
154Boldwin
      ID: 382586
      Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 07:35
Being bribed with unaged prostitutes to deliver huge graft to the uber wealthy and powerful Salomon Melgen is an entirely different thing than just visiting a prostitute.
 
155Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 08:16
If the story were limited to allegations about underage prostitutes, you might have a point (depending on the reliability of the claims).

I could even see a mention of allegations about 20something prostitutes as a supporting point.

But for some reason the allegations about underage girls are only a small part of Tucker's narrative, which has included several video interviews and numerous quotes from and about women who are of legal age in the DR.

So please just admit that Tucker Carlson is a hypocritical hack who has no place in serious journalism and move on. You have nothing to gain from protecting that flimflammer.
 
156sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 08:17
Do you have evidence Boldwin? Outside of righting blogs, there doesnt appear to be much steam behind the allegations. So unless you have evidence the FBI does not...I would suggest you cease with baseless attacks.
 
157Boldwin
      ID: 2924816
      Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 22:23
I am not aware there was any doubt at all that Menendez is Melgen's pet Senator. And I've got news for you. Prostitutes do things for money. Like blackmail and shutting up.
 
158Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 12:16
This October 2012 commentary in the Washington Times is typical of the rightist media's take on the post-election violence in Kenya following the 2007 elections.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama’s father....

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies....

Mr. Obama’s judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.



Posts 427-447 here expose the level of propaganda the rightist media was willing to commit in an effort to distort Obama's Kenya connection.

As much as I searched the rightist media for some kind of balance or clarification to the charges that the violence following the 2006 Kenyan elections were entirely the work of Obama's evil cousin Odinga, I could find nary a mention of this development from January 2012.

Two presidential candidates in Kenya are to stand trial over crimes against humanity following post-election violence in 2007, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ruled.

Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former minister William Ruto will both face charges.

They are among four prominent Kenyans - all of whom deny the accusations - who will stand trial.

The violence began as clashes between supporters of the two rival presidential candidates - Raila Odinga and Mr Kibaki - but it snowballed into a bloody round of score-settling and communal violence.


Fast forward to March 2013, and here is the headline:

Kenyan election won by man wanted in The Hague for crimes against humanity headline

The man in question isn't Odinga. So much for the rightist media caring about providing accurate information.



 
159Boldwin
      ID: 31251917
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 19:01
One of the two men charged was an ally of Odinga and the villages destroyed were christian villages.
 
160sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:02
re 157..Boldwin, someone not testifying, does not constitute evidence. If it did...

"prostitutes do things for money, like shutting up..."

which might explain.....your patronage, your endorsement of criminals, your endorsement of pedophiles, your STDs (which I can only assume exist, since we have silent prostitutes who have according to you, been paid to remain silent).....



Now Boldwn, with the shoe firmly upon your own foot, would you care to redefine what does or does not constitute evidence, into a more reasonable form?
 
161Boldwin
      ID: 31251917
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:12
I'm happy to leave you alone to your own self-inserted troll hell.
 
162sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:28
IOW, you assume the right to attach allegations w/o evidence, but stand firm in your demand for absolute proof for any questioning of your views.

Nice to know, you are beginning to recognize your own absurdity.
 
163Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:52
I suppose when one gets their information from propagandists like Pam Gellar, Jerome Corsi, David Horowitz and Mark Hyman, it shouldn't be a suprise to get such a pathetically weak response as given in #158.

The most egregious act of violence was the
attack and burning of the Assembly of God Church in Kiambaa.

Worshipers sang at Kiambaa Church in Eldoret, in the Rift Valley region of Kenya. It was here in early 2008 when young men from the Kalenjin and Kikuyu tribes fought around the church, which housed hundreds of people who had fled their homes during the initial post-election violence.

According to some of the witnesses and survivors, about 200 Kikuyu men tried to defend their women and children inside the church.

After more than an hour fighting, they say the Kikuyu men were overpowered by more than 1,000 Kalenjin youths who were attacking the church from all directions.


According to Hyman, more than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians. This wasn't religious strife, and it wasn't a case of Muslims slaughtering Christians. It was a case of long-simmering tribal conflicts between the Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes. As the VOA link explains,

In this election[2013], the political landscape is different as Kikuyu and Kalenjin are united in the Jubilee alliance.

The
Kalenjin tribes are not Muslims.

Missionaries were allowed in to work with the Kipsigis where no Europeans had settled by 1933. Missionaries of the Africa Gospel Mission pioneered the work among the Kipsigis while missionaries of the Africa Inland Mission started the work among the Nandi and Tugen. Sources estimate that about 44% of the Kalenjin people are Christians.

A small percentage of Kalenjin are Catholic while a much larger percent are claimed by Africa Gospel Church and Africa Inland Church. American missions seem to have done really well among the large clans of the Kalenjin, although the Okiek, Sabaot and Pokot have hardly been touched with the Gospel.


And while the Odinga's Luo tribe was actively involved with the atrocities following the 2006 election,
most Luos are Christians.

These propagandists aren't concerned with Kenyans or Odinga or transparent elections. As propagandists, they saw an opening to accuse Obama as an unindicted co-conspirator in genocide, and have been willing to distort, or simply make up facts to support their agenda.

Had these recent Kenyan elections featured a Raila Odinga as the one facing crimes against humanity, this crowd of propagandists would have been having a field day deluging their lapdog followers with a barrage of Obama promoting Christian genocide while turning Kenya into an Islamic Sharia state accusations.

But, since the presidential candidate facing crimes against humanity charges at the international court in The Hague was Kenyatta, they are silent. Pathetic excuses for journalists, but good students of Joseph Goebbels.
 
164Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 21:01
More silence from the rightist media: The three women were paid to say they had sex with Sen Menendez.

Let's not wait up for an apology from the Right.
 
165sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 22:17
And I've got news for you. Prostitutes do things for money. Like blackmail lie and shutting upbear false witness.

There ya go B.
 
166Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Mon, Apr 29, 2013, 14:38
Grist
National Review heralds the ‘wonderland’ of tar sands with a photo of a blighted hellscape




National Review is not the worst conservative rag out there — it’s like the Daily Caller after it aged 10 years, bought a suit, stopped doing coke, and had to live through an uncomfortable coming-out conversation with its college buddy. But it sure prints some dumb BS...


If some closet liberal in the design department isn’t trolling the National Review editors with this, then National Review is definitely trolling us. “Go ahead,” it’s saying. “We DARE you liberal reactionary ninnies of the press to tell us this isn’t a photo of a beautiful, idyllic miracle wonderland.” Honestly, though, I totally support its contention that the tar sands represent a many-splendored bower of bliss. Go live there, guys! Live there in pastoral ease and leisure! Jealousy guard your miracle home against minorities and illegal immigrants! You deserve it. We will just wait here in our inferior non-wonderland and feel really, really jealous.
 
167Tree
      ID: 573452911
      Mon, Apr 29, 2013, 14:57
omg. that's like a headline and image ripped from the Onion. lmao.
 
168Mith
      ID: 29182720
      Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 15:07
Some headlines from the past day:

FOX News: Obama wants Marines to wear 'girly' hats

Washington Times: U.S. Marines turn up noses at Obama’s new ‘girly’ hats; some fear it looks too French

InfoWars: Obama wants Marines to wear ‘girly’ hats

Newsmax: Marines Scoff at Obama's Proposed 'Girly' Hats


Stars and Stripes: Marines shoot down Internet story on Obama’s alleged push for ‘girly hats’
In an email, Marine Corps officials said there is no truth to reports that President Obama is behind the potential change.

“The president in no way, shape or form directed the Marine Corps to change our uniform cover,” according to the Marine Corps statement. “We are looking for a new cover for our female Marines for one overriding reason: The former manufacturer went out of business. … The Marine Corps has zero intention of changing the male cover.”

 
169sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 02:19
Glenn Beck declares war on Grover Norquist/ Alleges MB connection....

Beck’s show Monday primarily concentrated on Norquist’s alleged connections to Islamists. He invited Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, and Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, to weigh in.
“[Norquist] is the guy responsible for a lot of the Muslim Brotherhood stuff that goes on in the White House, isn’t he?” Beck asked the two.




<---need more popcorn. This is gonna be a long, potentially entertaining, play.