PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 06, 2019, 12:16:20 PM
-
-
Azure, are you the one who keeps saying you don't like what Trump said about Charlottesville? Does this video change your mind at all?
-
Azure, are you the one who keeps saying you don't like what Trump said about Charlottesville? Does this video change your mind at all?
Damn. And that was a CNN political analyst? Hard to believe, except that he was telling the truth.
-
Remember Joe Biden launched his campaign based on this lie.
-
Remember Joe Biden launched his campaign based on this lie.
What democrat presidential hopeful hasn't based his/her campaign on lies?
-
Remember Joe Biden launched his campaign based on this lie.
He also told a group of Black people the Republicans were going to put them all back in chains. Biden is a serial LIAR. Charlottesville was about Leftist, Racist groups making trouble.
-
Azure, are you the one who keeps saying you don't like what Trump said about Charlottesville? Does this video change your mind at all?
The video? No, I don't trust what is said in partisan videos. But I just found the complete transcript of the Q & A at Trump Tower in an LA Times article from 2 years ago, and it pretty well confirms that Trump's "very fine people" comments were about the people peacefully protesting the taking down of the statue. So I stand corrected on that point.
I'm not sure I would characterize the media statements as lies though. I think that, to reporters on the left, anyone who wants a statue of Robert E. Lee kept standing must want to bring back the Confederacy, and so by definition they couldn't be "very fine people". The questions from the reporters make that pretty clear... and Trump fell into the trap by trying to argue that if you tear down Lee's statue, you have to tear down those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too, because they were slave owners, which completely misses the point. In the later parts of the transcript, Trump comes off as indulging in sophistry. To folks on the left, he's just an apologist for people who are hiding their white supremacist beliefs by saying they don't want to rewrite history. And in some cases, that might even be true.
My impression is that Trump is a poor communicator and he might not even have good social "intelligence". On the recent events surrounding his comments about the Squad, it's hard to believe that he didn't realize that the press would jump on his "from which they came" phrase. But maybe he really is that tone deaf on matters of race. Maybe he uses phrases that he has heard people around him use without any understanding of what they mean to people of color. I'm just not sure any more.
-
wow - what a bunch of ..... spin.
-
My impression is that Trump is a poor communicator and he might not even have good social "intelligence". On the recent events surrounding his comments about the Squad, it's hard to believe that he didn't realize that the press would jump on his "from which they came" phrase. But maybe he really is that tone deaf on matters of race. Maybe he uses phrases that he has heard people around him use without any understanding of what they mean to people of color. I'm just not sure any more.
I agree that in the traditional politician's sense that Trump is a poor communicator. I don't think he really cares about "social intelligence". I also don't think he really cares how the media will spin his comments against him. Is this unwise, as a politician? Probably. However, it does create a sense that Trump "tells it like it is", says what he means, in a damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead manner that many see refreshing in today's politically correct, scripted, carefully parsed world.
I don't think he is racist, sexist or homophobic at all. He's a New Yorker. That ship sailed a long time ago there. Tone deaf? No. He just doesn't care, as he knows in his mind he is not being degrading, nor MEANING to be degrading to minorities, nor other groups.
-
wow - what a bunch of ..... spin.
I almost fell over dizzy from all of the spinning.
-
I agree that in the traditional politician's sense that Trump is a poor communicator. I don't think he really cares about "social intelligence". I also don't think he really cares how the media will spin his comments against him. Is this unwise, as a politician? Probably. However, it does create a sense that Trump "tells it like it is", says what he means, in a damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead manner that many see refreshing in today's politically correct, scripted, carefully parsed world.
I don't think he is racist, sexist or homophobic at all. He's a New Yorker. That ship sailed a long time ago there. Tone deaf? No. He just doesn't care, as he knows in his mind he is not being degrading, nor MEANING to be degrading to minorities, nor other groups.
I think he cares enough to want to clarify his position - and to argue as he thinks the peaceful protestors in Charlottesville might argue, equating Washington with Lee because both were slave owners. But if he had better social smarts, he would have realized that that argument would only dig the hole he was in deeper.
It's probably true that he doesn't care about trying to win over people on the left, so in that sense I agree with you. But I think he just doesn't know how to lead, to bring people together, and that he doesn't care in part because he doesn't know how. That's not one of his talents. So it all comes down to whether you think that's important or not. I think it is because of all the time and energy that's wasted on both sides arguing about and defending Trump's awkward statements. I don't think it's absolutely disqualifying, but it is a negative. I would still rather have Trump than Sanders in the White House, but I'd rather have a competent solid conservative with good communications skills (like Tom Cotton) than Trump. And I'd settle for one of the more moderate Dem candidates, if one of them can secure the nomination. I'm starting to think, though, that that's not going to happen, and it's going to be either Sanders or Warren, or MAYBE Cory Booker, going up against Trump next year. That's kind of my worst nightmare, politically speaking.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/08/06/america-is-drowning-in-the-lefts-lies-about-trump-n2551237
-
But I think he just doesn't know how to lead, to bring people together, and that he doesn't care in part because he doesn't know how.
I think the thing he doesn't know is how to tell the truth without the Dems and the MSM spinning ANYthing he says, and/or taking it out of context, to make him look bad. Even if they have to lie. Imagine how well he would be doing if the press got a tingle up their leg when he spoke to them, and covered for him the way they covered (and still cover) for Obama.
-
I think he cares enough to want to clarify his position - and to argue as he thinks the peaceful protestors in Charlottesville might argue, equating Washington with Lee because both were slave owners. But if he had better social smarts, he would have realized that that argument would only dig the hole he was in deeper.
It's probably true that he doesn't care about trying to win over people on the left, so in that sense I agree with you. But I think he just doesn't know how to lead, to bring people together, and that he doesn't care in part because he doesn't know how. That's not one of his talents. So it all comes down to whether you think that's important or not. I think it is because of all the time and energy that's wasted on both sides arguing about and defending Trump's awkward statements. I don't think it's absolutely disqualifying, but it is a negative. I would still rather have Trump than Sanders in the White House, but I'd rather have a competent solid conservative with good communications skills (like Tom Cotton) than Trump. And I'd settle for one of the more moderate Dem candidates, if one of them can secure the nomination. I'm starting to think, though, that that's not going to happen, and it's going to be either Sanders or Warren, or MAYBE Cory Booker, going up against Trump next year. That's kind of my worst nightmare, politically speaking.
All good cogent thoughts, and I'm not being patronizing. Agree, that Trump shoots himself in the foot A LOT when it comes to opening himself up to a very leftist media. I would love to advise him on his tweets, and statements. But again, it shows the honesty of the man.
I'm a results guy. I see the positives like low unemployment, and historically low for the Black community, and other economic and quality of life indicators that the Media and Democrats said would all be horrific if Trump won. NONE of that has come true, quite the opposite in fact. No new wars, good economy, low inflation, still low interest rates, low unemployment. All good. All better than what we had under Obama. ALL of it.
Would I like to have a diplomatic, well spoken conservative/libertarian/Constitutionalist? Yes, but would that person be as effective as Trump? Dunno.
-
wow - what a bunch of ..... spin.
The proper word for that response is “bullshit.” Utter bullshit, spun to protect the illusion of an open mind in the modest blind partisanship.
-
I think the thing he doesn't know is how to tell the truth without the Dems and the MSM spinning ANYthing he says, and/or taking it out of context, to make him look bad. Even if they have to lie. Imagine how well he would be doing if the press got a tingle up their leg when he spoke to them, and covered for him the way they covered (and still cover) for Obama.
But that's just it, I don't think it's outright lying. Their world view is so different from Trump's that to them, his words confirm what they already think about him. To them it's impossible for someone to use the language Trump uses without being a racist. And because journalists have forgotten how to report the news without slanting it, they keep repeating their interpretations as if they were facts. (e.g. "Trump's racist tweets")
I'm a little disappointed that even conservative-leaning David Brooks, whom I usually agree with, has taken to saying things like "Trump is no longer using dog whistles, he's gone to straight-up human whistles now". He seems to have bought into the MSM line that Trump really is a racist. But at least he is in the business of giving analysis and opinions, he's not functioning as a reporter. People like Judy Woodruff and Yamiche Alcindor should know better.
The last two nights PBS Newshour has really jumped from journalism into advocacy and is using the El Paso and Dayton tragedies to actively push for gun control, putting on strong advocates for more restrictions on guns and giving them friendly questions, while aggressively cross examining weak and not-very-articulate 2nd A supporters. I'm ashamed for them that they call this a NEWSCAST - it is pure propaganda.
-
And I'd settle for one of the more moderate Dem candidates, if one of them can secure the nomination.
There is no such thing. Some might to PRETEND moderation but it is just an act.
-
There is no such thing. Some might to PRETEND moderation but it is just an act.
I don't think they even act anymore. Who is a Moderate Democrat these days?
-
I don't think they even act anymore. Who is a Moderate Democrat these days?
I think Delaney and Hickenlooper are true moderates. I don't think it's an act. Biden too, in his heart, but let's face it, the party has moved so far to the left that even moderates are getting pulled in that direction. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think the more leftist policy statements from those guys are the real act.
Of course, of those three the only one who stands a chance of winning the nomination is Biden... and he's showing signs of not being as sharp mentally as he once was. So I don't think his chances are very good. I still think it's going to be Sanders or Warren, and I think Sanders might actually be able to beat Trump.
And that is not wishful thinking. :(
-
Hickenlooper is a pathetic joke on the order of joe Biden.
-
I think Delaney and Hickenlooper are true moderates. I don't think it's an act. Biden too, in his heart, but let's face it, the party has moved so far to the left that even moderates are getting pulled in that direction. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think the more leftist policy statements from those guys are the real act.
Of course, of those three the only one who stands a chance of winning the nomination is Biden... and he's showing signs of not being as sharp mentally as he once was. So I don't think his chances are very good. I still think it's going to be Sanders or Warren, and I think Sanders might actually be able to beat Trump.
And that is not wishful thinking. :(
I know Hickenlooper. He grew up in Narberth, PA near me and then he was Mayor of Denver when I lived in a Denver burb in Colorado. I will say this. He is a capitalist as he made his money in real estate development. However, he is rabidly anti (legal) gun and passed an assault weapons ban in Denver when I lived there, banning common semi automatic rifles from Denver city. He is an ideologue opportunist, nothing more. He is NOT a moderate.
Sanders is a far left loon, and too New York Jewy for America. He is unelectable.
-
I know Hickenlooper. He grew up in Narberth, PA near me and then he was Mayor of Denver when I lived in a Denver burb in Colorado. I will say this. He is a capitalist as he made his money in real estate development. However, he is rabidly anti (legal) gun and passed an assault weapons ban in Denver when I lived there, banning common semi automatic rifles from Denver city. He is an ideologue opportunist, nothing more. He is NOT a moderate.
Sanders is a far left loon, and too New York Jewy for America. He is unelectable.
Didn't know that about Hickenlooper. Okay, scratch him from the moderate list. Remember, though, that ALL the Democrats have to pay lip service to gun control now, especially after last weekend. A Republican controlled Senate is never going to let anything radical get through.
But don't write off Sanders. He's a loon yes, but he's a populist. New York Jewy? We already elected a black man from Chicago. I think if Sanders had been the nominee in 2016 he would be in the White House right now. He might not be as formidable an opponent 4 years later, but judging by how he did in the debates, he might still be.
-
Didn't know that about Hickenlooper. Okay, scratch him from the moderate list. Remember, though, that ALL the Democrats have to pay lip service to gun control now, especially after last weekend. A Republican controlled Senate is never going to let anything radical get through.
But don't write off Sanders. He's a loon yes, but he's a populist. New York Jewy? We already elected a black man from Chicago. I think if Sanders had been the nominee in 2016 he would be in the White House right now. He might not be as formidable an opponent 4 years later, but judging by how he did in the debates, he might still be.
Do you really think so? From what some say, Trump won on immigration, and Sanders would not have beat him on that issue.
-
But don't write off Sanders. He's a loon yes, but he's a populist.
Sanders doesn't have a prayer in getting the nomination. That ship sailed in 2016 when Hillary rigged the primary against him.
We already elected a black man from Chicago.
That's actually funny. Chicago? Or is it Hawaii? Or NY? Or DC? He's a carpetbagger much like the Clintons.
-
Do you really think so? From what some say, Trump won on immigration, and Sanders would not have beat him on that issue.
I'm not so sure. Obviously his "immigration reform" is very different from Trump's, but that isn't the point. Do the majority of Americans support Trump's view on immigration, or something closer to the progressives'?
Some say that crucial to Trump's victory was low turnout from progressives. Sanders is a good demagogue and I'd expect him to mobilize the progressive base to turn out en masse. That, combined with the MSM's demonization of Trump, could swing the tide in his favor.
If you're talking about 2016, then yes, because of the first reason I still think it's likely he would have won.
Next year I wouldn't bet on him, mostly because Sanders as the nominee would alienate moderates. But I wouldn't bet against him either, for both of the above reasons (his populism and the MSM).
-
Sanders doesn't have a prayer in getting the nomination. That ship sailed in 2016 when Hillary rigged the primary against him.
What does that have to do with Sanders's chances this time around?
-
What does that have to do with Sanders's chances this time around?
A lot. Sanders has others within the party he's seeking the nomination (he's an independent) that are more than happy to pull the knives out and take him down.
Next, while the lunatic fringe progressives have hijacked the democrat party, they are still a small minority. While that fringe may support Bernie, he can gain no traction with the moderate side of the party.
Next, when Bernie ran in 2016, nationally he was relatively unknown, thus why he garnished so much support. Those voters were listening to the message of the moment without realizing his background. We've now had almost 4 years of Bernie and now he's nationally known, and more about him is known, which is to his detriment.
I'll give Bernie this: He is what you see, he doesn't try to hide it. He's a full blown hard core socialist and proud of it. And he's made it clear he would have no problem taxing everyone into oblivion to achieve his goals.
The message "I will implement socialism and raise your taxes" is not a winner.
-
I think Delaney and Hickenlooper are true moderates. I don't think it's an act. Biden too, in his heart, but let's face it, the party has moved so far to the left that even moderates are getting pulled in that direction. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think the more leftist policy statements from those guys are the real act.
Of course, of those three the only one who stands a chance of winning the nomination is Biden... and he's showing signs of not being as sharp mentally as he once was. So I don't think his chances are very good. I still think it's going to be Sanders or Warren, and I think Sanders might actually be able to beat Trump.
And that is not wishful thinking. :(
Biden just went all in full far left by advocating assault weapon confiscation.
I don’t think he has any desire to win, and he’s trying ways to take himself out of the race.
-
But that's just it, I don't think it's outright lying. Their world view is so different from Trump's that to them, his words confirm what they already think about him. To them it's impossible for someone to use the language Trump uses without being a racist.
"lying", by definition, is not telling the truth. The people who believe that the moon landings were faked will say all sorts of things based on their own "world view", but when they claim that the moon landings were faked, those people are in fact lying.
To them it's impossible for someone to use the language Trump uses without being a racist.
It is very difficult to have a conversation/discussion with someone who doesn't understand the English language. It is even more difficult when that person makes no effort to understand. Bottomline: it's not President Trump's fault that many of his critics don't understand English (or American English).
-
I have been saying for years - the Democrats are working themselves up into a frenzy over evil Conservatives. They are convincing themselves that what Conservatives are is so bad that anyone who claims the label is just sub human and deserves the worst fate possible. My fear is, they will try to incorporate that into law the next time they are in power. They are already practicing disenfranchisement of conservative values - faith, patriotism, family - in favor of rabid fanaticism.
Stand by, it is getting worse.
-
Biden just went all in full far left by advocating assault weapon confiscation.
I don’t think he has any desire to win, and he’s trying ways to take himself out of the race.
What the Democrats, and the Media are calling "Assault Weapons" are very common, regular SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles that are the most popular in the U.S. There's probably over 30 - 50 million of them out there that could be classified as such, and it's just not AR-15's and AK-47 type cosmetic clones.
My 75 year old USGI Inland made M1 Carbine is the same as my AR-15 in operation. It takes a 15 round, or 30 round magazine, and shoots a small, intermediate round that is more like a handgun round than rifle round. The AR-15 shoots a small, varmint round.
I bought my first AR-15 during the first Assault Weapons Ban which we endured 1994 - 2004. It sun setted, and was shown to not do a thing to reduce crime by people using a gun. It also restricted all magazine capacities to 10 rounds. The ONLY reason I bought an AR was that it was banned. The only difference in the rifle I bought during the ban was that it could not have a flash suppressor. Big whoop. Magazines over ten rounds just became much more expensive due to the demand created by the ban.
I was not alone. What the BAN did was to open up the AR-15 to American gun owners as a useful firearm that was easy, and fun to shoot (low recoil), very reliable, and very accurate. It is also modular and easily adaptable by the average user for any use. Hunting, target shooting, competition, home defense, etc. It is the ideal all around rifle EXCEPT for big game as it shoots a small caliber, light round. However, there are AR-10's available in larger calibers suitable for game such as deer, mule deer, Elk, Moose, Bear, etc.
There is no way to round up all these legally owned, semi auto rifles. NONE. It can not be done. Yes, you can ban them, and make people turn them in like Australia did with their MANDATORY gun "buy back". Still many did not turn them in. The U.S. is not like Australia, and Americans will not turn in their guns. Never.
-
A lot. Sanders has others within the party he's seeking the nomination (he's an independent) that are more than happy to pull the knives out and take him down.
Sure, the front runner always has a target on his back. But that's a lot different from saying "that ship has already sailed".
Next, while the lunatic fringe progressives have hijacked the democrat party, they are still a small majority. While that fringe may support Bernie, he can gain no traction with the moderate side of the party.
Depends on whether the moderate side still has enough influence to veto a lunatic fringe candidate. There are far more fringe candidates running now than moderates. If it's not Sanders then it will probably be Warren, and there's not a whole lot of difference between the two except that Sanders is up front and in your face about his socialism.
Next, when Bernie ran in 2016, nationally he was relatively unknown, thus why he garnished so much support. Those voters were listening to the message of the moment without realizing his background. We've now had almost 4 years of Bernie and now he's nationally known, and more about him is known, which is to his detriment.
Yes, this point I will agree with. I'm not sure it will be enough to nix his nomination though, nor his winning the election.
The message "I will implement socialism and raise your taxes" is not a winner.
Except that is not his message. He claims that the middle class will save enough on health care costs to offset the increase in taxes. Don't underestimate the public's desire to believe in the tooth fairy.
-
I don't think Bernie, nor Biden are electable partially due to their age, and now Joe's dodge to the far left to fit in with the rest. It is obviously just a ploy. I stick by my thought that Bernie is too far left, and also too "ethnic" for many U.S. voters. Being Black is trendy, and Obama capitalized on that being half Black. Being Jewish, and having a thick New York accent is NOT trendy.
Biden looks and sounds old and frail. He tries admirably to mask it, but it isn't working. His Party still views him as a 70's style Democrat who is too moderate.
-
"lying", by definition, is not telling the truth. The people who believe that the moon landings were faked will say all sorts of things based on their own "world view", but when they claim that the moon landings were faked, those people are in fact lying.
Not by any definition I'm familiar with. Lying is not telling the truth when you *know* it's not the truth. Neither the people who accuse Trump of being a racist, not the people who believe the moon landings were faked, believe what they're saying is not true. They're simply wrong (and in the case of the moon people, probably deranged).
It is very difficult to have a conversation/discussion with someone who doesn't understand the English language. It is even more difficult when that person makes no effort to understand. Bottomline: it's not President Trump's fault that many of his critics don't understand English (or American English).
Language is far subtler than that, with lots of nuance contained in many turns of phrase. Trump has repeatedly used phrases that are strongly associated with racism in the experience of people of color. Those phrases are part of the English language too, and they convey more than the superficial meaning of the words. It's virtually inevitable that reporters on the left would latch onto those phrases and dismiss Trump's attempts to explain them away as rationalizations or outright dishonesty.
I'm certainly not saying they're right, I'm saying that Trump is partly to blame for the misunderstanding because he's insensitive to those nuances, or doesn't care enough to filter his choice of words so that they don't trigger people's racial sensitivities. Part of being a good communicator is choosing your words carefully, and that's just not one of Trump's strengths.
-
I don't think Bernie, nor Biden are electable partially due to their age, and now Joe's dodge to the far left to fit in with the rest. It is obviously just a ploy. I stick by my thought that Bernie is too far left, and also too "ethnic" for many U.S. voters. Being Black is trendy, and Obama capitalized on that being half Black. Being Jewish, and having a thick New York accent is NOT trendy.
Biden looks and sounds old and frail. He tries admirably to mask it, but it isn't working. His Party still views him as a 70's style Democrat who is too moderate.
Agreed totally on the second point. It's why I don't think Biden will be the nominee. On the first, Sanders doesn't come across as too old, even though he is. Not sure whether being Jewish will hurt Bernie. Maybe some, but not necessarily enough.
I never thought Detroit (my hometown) would ever have a white mayor again. But here we are.
-
I have been saying for years - the Democrats are working themselves up into a frenzy over evil Conservatives. They are convincing themselves that what Conservatives are is so bad that anyone who claims the label is just sub human and deserves the worst fate possible. My fear is, they will try to incorporate that into law the next time they are in power. They are already practicing disenfranchisement of conservative values - faith, patriotism, family - in favor of rabid fanaticism.
Stand by, it is getting worse.
Exactly this. Roy Baumeister wrote a book about evil, he says when people divide into two camps (that typically end up in war or other atrocities) there is a time of buildup where each side paints the other as the pure face of evil. We are watching that happen again in real time.
Being cognizant of this I try real hard not to paint all Democrats or liberals as the face of evil but certain facts remain - namely that economic collectivism as a system does not work. That system itself is deeply evil and the minority of hard left self appointed elites that ride it to their own power and greed deserve the label “evil” in an objective sense. But I believe the average person on the left is merely misled, maleducated and misinformed.
But because most of the media is controlled by the left, the painting of the right as “evil” is far more complete than the reverse!
https://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-Cruelty/dp/0805071652?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0805071652
-
Biden looks and sounds old and frail. He tries admirably to mask it, but it isn't working. His Party still views him as a 70's style Democrat who is too moderate.
Agreed totally on the second point. It's why I don't think Biden will be the nominee. On the first, Sanders doesn't come across as too old, even though he is. Not sure whether being Jewish will hurt Bernie. Maybe some, but not necessarily enough.
I never thought Detroit (my hometown) would ever have a white mayor again. But here we are.
I agree. Bernie seems more vibrant than Biden. Maybe Bernie's health is just that much better than Biden's. You may be right, because Bernie was so close to beating Hillary in the last Primary that the party had to rig the election to get Hillary the nomination. I do think there is an underlying anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party in an effort to elevate Muslims nationwide.
-
What the Democrats, and the Media are calling "Assault Weapons" are very common, regular SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles that are the most popular in the U.S. There's probably over 30 - 50 million of them out there that could be classified as such, and it's just not AR-15's and AK-47 type cosmetic clones.
My 75 year old USGI Inland made M1 Carbine is the same as my AR-15 in operation. It takes a 15 round, or 30 round magazine, and shoots a small, intermediate round that is more like a handgun round than rifle round. The AR-15 shoots a small, varmint round.
I bought my first AR-15 during the first Assault Weapons Ban which we endured 1994 - 2004. It sun setted, and was shown to not do a thing to reduce crime by people using a gun. It also restricted all magazine capacities to 10 rounds. The ONLY reason I bought an AR was that it was banned. The only difference in the rifle I bought during the ban was that it could not have a flash suppressor. Big whoop. Magazines over ten rounds just became much more expensive due to the demand created by the ban.
I was not alone. What the BAN did was to open up the AR-15 to American gun owners as a useful firearm that was easy, and fun to shoot (low recoil), very reliable, and very accurate. It is also modular and easily adaptable by the average user for any use. Hunting, target shooting, competition, home defense, etc. It is the ideal all around rifle EXCEPT for big game as it shoots a small caliber, light round. However, there are AR-10's available in larger calibers suitable for game such as deer, mule deer, Elk, Moose, Bear, etc.
There is no way to round up all these legally owned, semi auto rifles. NONE. It can not be done. Yes, you can ban them, and make people turn them in like Australia did with their MANDATORY gun "buy back". Still many did not turn them in. The U.S. is not like Australia, and Americans will not turn in their guns. Never.
I am a grumpy old middle aged woman without a criminal bone in my body. That’s the hill I die on, they will NOT take my guns or they will over my dead body. If I feel that way, you can imagine many the other gun owners will. It will be civil war.
-
I am a grumpy old middle aged woman without a criminal bone in my body. That’s the hill I die on, they will NOT take my guns or they will over my dead body. If I feel that way, you can imagine many the other gun owners will. It will be civil war.
This is not going to happen anytime soon. The NRA is still quite powerful, and even if the Dems win the White House next year, I don't think there is any chance of them winning back the Senate. If the next president is from the far left, they will likely lose seats in both houses in 2022.
If mass shootings continue to happen, I think a ban on assault-type weapons is probably inevitable down the road - but not until the Senate goes Democratic with a President who is either a Democrat or a weak, ineffectual Republican.
-
The NRA is actually a very small lobbying group compared to most others with a very small budget, and little ability to donate to campaigns. Many have bought into the Media and Democrats assertion that the evil NRA is ALL Powerful. The NRA doesn't even make the top 50 in political donors.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=
They purposely demonize the NRA as just a representative of the "gun lobby" and "gun manufacturers". In reality it is the citizen gun owner that are the NRA members and donors. Bet you are surprised Azure. :)
-
Not at all. I knew that gun owners nationwide are the real source of their power and influence. They still do have that, regardless of their budget.
And I am NOT claiming that they are evil - far from it.
Anyway my main point was that Congress would have to be on board for anything to change drastically regarding gun laws on the federal level, and that is still many years away.
-
-
Anyway my main point was that Congress would have to be on board for anything to change drastically regarding gun laws on the federal level, and that is still many years away.
I agree conceptually, but States now are the ones that have passed many gun laws that violate the Second Amendment and the courts are upholding them, even though they are CLEAR infringements. The Sullivan Act of 1911, in NYC was clearly meant to restrict newer immigrants from being able to carry firearms. It still stands. It is a clear infringement to keep and BEAR arms.
NJ, NY, MD, CA, RI, HI, CT, MA, IL, and several other states, and CITIES have passed clearly unconstitutional laws restricting the ownership and carry of firearms.
-
Not by any definition I'm familiar with. Lying is not telling the truth when you *know* it's not the truth. Neither the people who accuse Trump of being a racist, not the people who believe the moon
Language is far subtler than that, with lots of nuance contained in many turns of phrase. Trump has repeatedly used phrases that are strongly associated with racism in the experience of people of color. Those phrases are part of the English language too, and they convey more than the superficial meaning of the words. It's virtually inevitable that reporters on the left would latch onto those phrases and dismiss Trump's attempts to explain them away as rationalizations or outright dishonesty.
I'm certainly not saying they're right, I'm saying that Trump is partly to blame for the misunderstanding because he's insensitive to those nuances, or doesn't care enough to filter his choice of words so that they don't trigger people's racial sensitivities. Part of being a good communicator is choosing your words carefully, and that's just not one of Trump's strengths.
Oh, I realize you NEED to pretend this to find sleep at night, but it is utter bullshit, babbled expressly because you think you can get away with such nonsense because you're gay and liberal.
The communist party (democrats) LOVE to lie about everything President says, doesn't say, does, doesn't do, thinks, or they think they can project onto him. It's nothing but lies and liars pretending they don't know the lies their engaged in, and you do yourself a severe disservice projecting their lies about this.
-
I agree conceptually, but States now are the ones that have passed many gun laws that violate the Second Amendment and the courts are upholding them, even though they are CLEAR infringements. The Sullivan Act of 1911, in NYC was clearly meant to restrict newer immigrants from being able to carry firearms. It still stands. It is a clear infringement to keep and BEAR arms.
NJ, NY, MD, CA, RI, HI, CT, MA, IL, and several other states, and CITIES have passed clearly unconstitutional laws restricting the ownership and carry of firearms.
I know - add to the list VT, where even our Republican governor drank the Kool-Aid last year after the Fair Haven incident and signed the first gun control bill, I think in the state's history. Luckily it's very measured, but arguably it's the camel's nose in the tent.
I was talking about drastic changes, like a ban on so-called assault weapons, NZ-style mandatory buybacks, etc. Yes they will chip away at the 2A, there's just too much ground level outcry, and the MSM is whipping this up every time there's a shooting. But I stand by what I said, they're not coming for your guns anytime soon.
-
I know - add to the list VT, where even our Republican governor drank the Kool-Aid last year after the Fair Haven incident and signed the first gun control bill, I think in the state's history. Luckily it's very measured, but arguably it's the camel's nose in the tent.
I was talking about drastic changes, like a ban on so-called assault weapons, NZ-style mandatory buybacks, etc. Yes they will chip away at the 2A, there's just too much ground level outcry, and the MSM is whipping this up every time there's a shooting. But I stand by what I said, they're not coming for your guns anytime soon.
Yes, I forgot if that was VT, or NH as I often get them mixed up. :)
Well, there are already "Assault Weapons Bans" and magazine capacity bans in NJ, CA, NY, and MD, and maybe some others, maybe CT, and MA also, but I'm not sure. My point is that there are precedents on the State level to violate the Constitution that courts have upheld or refused to hear so they stand. In today's environment, I expect some if not may Republicans in Congress to defect and support more gun control, and if a Democrat or RINO Republican like Mitt Romney is President, it will get signed.
As our Rush says, it will probably get very ugly if bans, and confiscations (mandatory buy backs) are passed. This is not the UK, Canada, Australia, nor Europe.
-
What the Democrats, and the Media are calling "Assault Weapons" are very common, regular SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles that are the most popular in the U.S. There's probably over 30 - 50 million of them out there that could be classified as such, and it's just not AR-15's and AK-47 type cosmetic clones.
My 75 year old USGI Inland made M1 Carbine is the same as my AR-15 in operation. It takes a 15 round, or 30 round magazine, and shoots a small, intermediate round that is more like a handgun round than rifle round. The AR-15 shoots a small, varmint round.
I bought my first AR-15 during the first Assault Weapons Ban which we endured 1994 - 2004. It sun setted, and was shown to not do a thing to reduce crime by people using a gun. It also restricted all magazine capacities to 10 rounds. The ONLY reason I bought an AR was that it was banned. The only difference in the rifle I bought during the ban was that it could not have a flash suppressor. Big whoop. Magazines over ten rounds just became much more expensive due to the demand created by the ban.
I was not alone. What the BAN did was to open up the AR-15 to American gun owners as a useful firearm that was easy, and fun to shoot (low recoil), very reliable, and very accurate. It is also modular and easily adaptable by the average user for any use. Hunting, target shooting, competition, home defense, etc. It is the ideal all around rifle EXCEPT for big game as it shoots a small caliber, light round. However, there are AR-10's available in larger calibers suitable for game such as deer, mule deer, Elk, Moose, Bear, etc.
There is no way to round up all these legally owned, semi auto rifles. NONE. It can not be done. Yes, you can ban them, and make people turn them in like Australia did with their MANDATORY gun "buy back". Still many did not turn them in. The U.S. is not like Australia, and Americans will not turn in their guns. Never.
Sadly all mine fell overboard in a tragic canoe capsizing in the middle of Lake Michigan. 922’ deep.
-
Just out of curiosity, what would be the consensus of a Federal program that would "allow" anyone in the country to apply for a license to own a firearm. It would be completely separate from the purchase process, except that you have to have the license in order to own a gun.
The process would include things like criminal back ground checks, permanent address, personal contact information, past mental illness diagnoses, citizenship status and whether you are a Republican or not (ok, that last one was tongue in cheek). It would be sort of like have TSA pre-check.
Perhaps passage of such legislation could be tied to immigration reform. And I'll be the first to admit that I hate the term "reform" when both sides will have a completely different idea of what "reform" means, but if we are going to give up even that little bit of privacy, we should get something in return for it.
Just throwing that out to see what the objections will be.
-
Yes, I forgot if that was VT, or NH as I often get them mixed up. :)
Well, there are already "Assault Weapons Bans" and magazine capacity bans in NJ, CA, NY, and MD, and maybe some others, maybe CT, and MA also, but I'm not sure. My point is that there are precedents on the State level to violate the Constitution that courts have upheld or refused to hear so they stand. In today's environment, I expect some if not may Republicans in Congress to defect and support more gun control, and if a Democrat or RINO Republican like Mitt Romney is President, it will get signed.
As our Rush says, it will probably get very ugly if bans, and confiscations (mandatory buy backs) are passed. This is not the UK, Canada, Australia, nor Europe.
https://dps.vermont.gov/content/new-vermont-gun-laws-faqs (https://dps.vermont.gov/content/new-vermont-gun-laws-faqs)
So yes, VT's bill does ban the sale of high capacity magazines, though it doesn't make possession of them illegal.
And yes, I think lawmakers (the sane ones, anyway) are quite aware of how ugly it could get if anything drastic is passed. That's why I don't think it's something anyone should get too worried about - yet.
-
Just out of curiosity, what would be the consensus of a Federal program that would "allow" anyone in the country to apply for a license to own a firearm. It would be completely separate from the purchase process, except that you have to have the license in order to own a gun.
The process would include things like criminal back ground checks, permanent address, personal contact information, past mental illness diagnoses, citizenship status and whether you are a Republican or not (ok, that last one was tongue in cheek). It would be sort of like have TSA pre-check.
Perhaps passage of such legislation could be tied to immigration reform. (and I'll be the first to admit that I hate the term "reform" when both sides will have a completely different idea of what "reform" means, but if we are going to give up even that little bit of privacy, we should get something in return for it.
Just throwing that out to see what the objections will be.
"Mental Illness Diagnosis". And who will define this?
Remember, once you allow wording into legislation then it's up to the unelected bureaucrats at the federal level to draft regulations to comply with the laws. I can see where that wording alone could open up a can of worms.
I like this law and it's wording, I think it was careful crafted with purpose: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I really like the "shall not be infringed" part.
-
Just out of curiosity, what would be the consensus of a Federal program that would "allow" anyone in the country to apply for a license to own a firearm. It would be completely separate from the purchase process, except that you have to have the license in order to own a gun.
The process would include things like criminal back ground checks, permanent address, personal contact information, past mental illness diagnoses, citizenship status and whether you are a Republican or not (ok, that last one was tongue in cheek). It would be sort of like have TSA pre-check.
Perhaps passage of such legislation could be tied to immigration reform. And I'll be the first to admit that I hate the term "reform" when both sides will have a completely different idea of what "reform" means, but if we are going to give up even that little bit of privacy, we should get something in return for it.
Just throwing that out to see what the objections will be.
The vast majority of firearm sales already go through a background check and Federal from 4473. State's say they don't keep a registry, but the state police gets a copy of each transaction except for private sales, which make up a small minority of total sales. In my state only long guns can be transferred privately.
That all being said, once government gets MORE involved on a grand scale like this, the licensing fees will go up, and arbitrary restrictions on ownership will be added. It is opening a Pandora's box of fees, and restrictions to make gun ownership De Facto prohibited by all but the rich and politically connected. Just like at states like NJ, NY, CA, MD, CT, MA, HI, RI, and others. That's exactly what happened in those states that effectively have what you propose.
No effing way would I be for that.
-
Ok, here is a decent response to the killings:
https://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20190807/florida-sheriff-responds-to-mass-shootings-by-offering-advanced-firearms-training/1
Holmes County Sheriff John Tate’s training class includes shooting scenarios, mental and physical training
HOLMES COUNTY - Holmes County Sheriff John Tate is offering advanced firearms training to current concealed weapons permit holders in the wake of the horrific mass shootings that have gripped the nation in recent days.
-
The vast majority of firearm sales already go through a background check and Federal from 4473. State's say they don't keep a registry, but the state police gets a copy of each transaction except for private sales, which make up a small minority of total sales. In my state only long guns can be transferred privately.
That all being said, once government gets MORE involved on a grand scale like this, the licensing fees will go up, and arbitrary restrictions on ownership will be added. It is opening a Pandora's box of fees, and restrictions to make gun ownership De Facto prohibited by all but the rich and politically connected. Just like at states like NJ, NY, CA, MD, CT, MA, HI, RI, and others. That's exactly what happened in those states that effectively have what you propose.
No effing way would I be for that.
The difference between the current process and my idea is that currently, you get a background check before purchasing a weapon. The cops get a list and then they pretty much know everyone that has a weapon. My idea is that practically every citizen could be cleared to own a weapon, but that would have no real tie to who actually buys or owns weapons. Even my wife might be persuaded to get the license, but no way does she want to carry a gun.
-
"Mental Illness Diagnosis". And who will define this?
Doctors. Maybe psychiatrists. I wasn't saying everyone would have to be tested for mental illness. Just that if they have already been tested, then that would be taken into consideration. Sort of like the FAA does.
Remember, once you allow wording into legislation then it's up to the unelected bureaucrats at the federal level to draft regulations to comply with the laws. I can see where that wording alone could open up a can of worms.
Yeah, that can be a legitimate objection.
I like this law and it's wording, I think it was careful crafted with purpose: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I really like the "shall not be infringed" part.
I like the "shall not be infringed" part, but the first part sucks. Would you call those mass murderers part of a "well regulated militia"? Who does the regulating?
I like Trump's suggestion of swift execution of those mass murderers. Preferably while in the act. The only problem with that is that it opens up a viable procedure for suicide by cop.
-
I just read a posting on the AAAS forum that I thought was quite impressive, both for breadth and balance. I'm not sure whether it's legal to post it here, but I will chance it, deleting all identifying information to protect the poster's privacy.
Warning: it's long. tl;dr version: Universal background checks and some form of red flag laws might be the most reasonable and effective way to fight the problem of mass shootings.
This will be a rather long response as this is one topic where I have much knowledge and I take rather seriously. The first step here is to define what you mean by gun violence. Most Democrats and those of liberal ideology include any death or injury due to a gun as gun violence. Only by doing so can many of their talking points remain technically correct. The first response touched on this. Gun deaths includes suicide, which by far outweighs homicide (which includes justifiable cases), and accidents. The policy prescriptions will be different for someone who wants to kill himself versus the mass public shooters we have just seen. One reason why the power holders don't seem to care is just basic politics. Take a look at the competing policy proposals and how partisan the votes were. (www.texastribune.org/2016/06/20/...) and (www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/...) votes 97 through 105.
The claim that the government is bought by the NRA is an old talking point which lacks merit. This claim mainly relies on citing the money that the NRA gives candidates. However, using that standard, we would have to conclude that Planned Parenthood or the Chamber of Commerce buys seats to congress in the same way. I doubt many would make that argument. Organizations are free to support whoever they want and they will support candidates who share their views. In fact, the NRA supports many proposals, some of which have passed into law: confiscating guns from convicted domestic abusers, (docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/amendments/ab464/...), placing police at gun shows, ((2016 VA H. B. 1386 (to be codified at Va. Code Ann. 54.1-4201.2)), focusing on suicide prevention (depts.washington.edu/saferwa/about-us) and some which haven't.
Is the American government promoting policies that lead to killing more Americans? I don't think so. Sometimes the government passes laws that are unhelpful or have the opposite intentions (see Fast and Furious). However, saying that they are promoting such policies I think goes too far. At the worst, the government (both parties) refuse to acknowledge when they go wrong.
As far as what the science community can do, this is a long answer as this issue is actually very complex. However, one key point to remember here is that science may lead to a certain policy proposal which is unconstitutional. The same could be said for the 1st amendment or the 4th amendment (stop and frisk). If it your position that science has determined more guns are net harmful then the obvious and logical position is to repeal or re-write the second amendment so there will be no impediment to whatever control you want to impose. New Zealand was mentioned above by [redacted]. The reason those policies can't be enacted here, disappointing many of the harder gun control advocates, is the constitution itself. We could have a whole conversation on this topic but it is detached from the science issue here. The constitution exists, among other reasons, to prevent the majority from enacting certain provisions. It is my position that the reasons for the 2nd amendment far outweigh any evidence that science has established in favor of more restrictions.
One question that rarely gets asked of 2nd amendment advocates is: what would you do to lessen the carnage? Here are a few that I would suggest: follow the VA example and mandate that police are present at every gun show, pass a form of the red flag law that is acceptable to all, bolster the background check system, secure soft targets like schools, and allow concealed carry in more locations unless a serious checkpoint system is in place (like an airport or courthouse).
Expanding on the above list… One of the most sought after proposals by Democrats is universal background checks or closing the gun show loophole. This has many problems and I don't feel like writing out all of them so I will defer to others who done so before me (reason.com/2015/10/08/...) and (www.nationalreview.com/corner/...) citing a newer study on the issue (injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/24/6/431). However, a study by Cook et al. clearly showed how criminals get their guns doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.021 In fact, criminals are concerned about running into cops (perhaps undercover) at gun shows, therefore they do not get guns from this source as a large percentage. Individual citizens cannot access the NICS system so if two people who want to complete a sale that don't know each other will need to ask a dealer or in this case, the police can do it for them since police (in some states) actually conduct the checks anyway. This proposal will deter criminals from frequenting gun shows and allow private transactions to undergo a background check without mandating it (which has it own problems, registry, see the above links).
The second proposal is the much talked about red flag law. The wikipedia article is actually quite good and has some links to studies completed on various state statutes. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law) There are many states with this law but a recent senate hearing talked about this. I don't intend to dwell on this too much but this could be a game changer if done right. Unfortunately, this is somewhat partisan as explained by Dave Kopel in the hearing. Gun control advocates aren't really interested in listening to the concerns of gun rights advocates so they pass their version with the help of democrat controlled governments. (see also Kopel, pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2019/03/12/...). If the concerns of the gun rights community are met, this could easily pass and be meaningful. Almost all of the recent mass public shooters have displayed obvious signs of danger. The biggest obstacle to passage here is the ex parte order. The court order can be signed by a judge with no input from the accused which brings up due process concerns. This amounts to taking the guns with little evidence and the burden falls on the gun owner to get his guns back. I think there is much room for optimism here. If both sides settle down and think, this could pass.
The FIX NICS act was signed into law in 2018 after the Sutherland Church shooting which was entirely preventable. The military failed to forward a previous conviction of the shooter towards NICS which would have prevented him from buying a gun in the first place. Many of the shooters in recent times passed a background check but there were reasons that they shouldn't have been able to (Virginia Tech, Charleston Church etc.) Any holes in the NICS system should be plugged by ensuring that all prohibitory records are placed into NICS. This issue could still use some work. Any universal background check bill would have still failed to pick up the three shooters mentioned here because the info wasn't in NICS in the first place.
The school shootings in recent years (Sandy Hook and Parkland) are unbelievably terrible. The report from the Parkland Commission (www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf) outlined all the failures of this incident. There were many failures of the local Sheriff's office, the FBI, and of the school itself. School security would go a long way to stopping or preventing shootings (only at schools obviously). The NRA actually has a school safety program but even something like this is criticized in the toxic environment we have today. (see NRA School Shield) The Parkland report provides some guidance here. Also, leading to the next topic, the report mentions placing an armed person in the school under strict guidelines (Guardian Program).
Concealed carry is likely to be a controversial point here but I will make it anyway. The Parkland report outlines why this could help. Outside of schools, concealed carry is just as important because a recent FBI report showed that some mass public shootings have been stopped by this method (www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...). [line deleted to protect poster's privacy] Given the percent of concealed carry licenses held by Americans, it is understandable why the percentage of incidents stopped is low. Concealed carry holders are not everywhere and many of these shooting have occurred in places where this is banned. If more locations are available to carry concealed, such as the locations where these attacks have occurred and the carrying is banned, it is likely that some future attacks will be minimized. This is simply interpolation and probability but to me it seems reasonable.
-
Doctors. Maybe psychiatrists. I wasn't saying everyone would have to be tested for mental illness. Just that if they have already been tested, then that would be taken into consideration. Sort of like the FAA does.
Yeah, that can be a legitimate objection.
I like this law and it's wording, I think it was careful crafted with purpose: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I really like the "shall not be infringed" part.
I like the "shall not be infringed" part, but the first part sucks. Would you call those mass murderers part of a "well regulated militia"? Who does the regulating?
I like Trump's suggestion of swift execution of those mass murderers. Preferably while in the act. The only problem with that is that it opens up a viable procedure for suicide by cop.
Actually the first part makes perfect sense when read in the context it was written under. We had just got out from under the British and our founding fathers realized guns were necessary " being necessary to the security of a free State". The militia? That's all of us who will pick up a gun and defend our country.
-
Actually the first part makes perfect sense when read in the context it was written under. We had just got out from under the British and our founding fathers realized guns were necessary " being necessary to the security of a free State". The militia? That's all of us who will pick up a gun and defend our country.
I guess its the "well regulated" part that needs a little clarification. Like I asked before, are those mass murderers part of the well regulated militia?
-
You need to privately own firearms to be even considered unorganized militia. That being said the Right of the PEOPLE (not government, the state, nor militia) shall not be infringed.
Also, "Well Regulated" does not mean controlled, nor restricted. It means practices, and well equipped. The Left always like to trot that one out too. They think only government should have guns.
-
I guess its the "well regulated" part that needs a little clarification. Like I asked before, are those mass murderers part of the well regulated militia?
See my post above. Militia is separate from the People. Well Regulated in this sense, means practiced, and well equipped, not controlled or restricted in anyway.
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated
Clocks used to be called "Regulators".
-
It is confusing to me when liberals proclaim that somebody needs to do something whenever a shooting occurs that meets their standard for outrage.
Liberals hate everything except total confiscation and lie constantly pretending that isn’t the agenda but offer NOTHING when the topic is black on black gun violence, which excuses them from serious consideration.
Black on black violence FAR out strips all other forms of gun violence but isn’t politically advantageous to the lying asshole left, so we are not supposed to make mention of it, notice it, or think about ways to curb it.
That lack of integrity precludes even including liberals in a discussion about gun violence.
-
See my post above. Militia is separate from the People. Well Regulated in this sense, means practiced, and well equipped, not controlled or restricted in anyway.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated
Clocks used to be called "Regulators".
First, remember that I am on your side here. But I still think it needs discussing.
To be honest, I don't see your definition anywhere in the link you provided, but I do see:
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.]/quote]
-
I guess its the "well regulated" part that needs a little clarification. Like I asked before, are those mass murderers part of the well regulated militia?
Please go read up on the history of the second amendment. It's quite extensive and there is hours upon hours of reading on it.
For a quick review
-
First, remember that I am on your side here. But I still think it needs discussing.
To be honest, I don't see your definition anywhere in the link you provided, but I do see:
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
It's in the link when I click on it. I copy and pasted from that link. It isn't "MY" definition. If you read documents the Founders wrote at the time, it is clear that in that era "Regulated" meant practiced, timed, proficient, well equipped, properly functioning, etc.
Even if they did mean, (and they didn't), that the "Militia" should be controlled, and restricted, the Second Amendment clearly states after the COMMA, that the Right of the PEOPLE (not militia, state, nor government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed with this and upheld the 2A as an Individual Right in the Heller decision which incorporated the amendment.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
-
The vast majority of firearm sales already go through a background check and Federal from 4473. State's say they don't keep a registry, but the state police gets a copy of each transaction except for private sales, which make up a small minority of total sales. In my state only long guns can be transferred privately.
That all being said, once government gets MORE involved on a grand scale like this, the licensing fees will go up, and arbitrary restrictions on ownership will be added. It is opening a Pandora's box of fees, and restrictions to make gun ownership De Facto prohibited by all but the rich and politically connected. Just like at states like NJ, NY, CA, MD, CT, MA, HI, RI, and others. That's exactly what happened in those states that effectively have what you propose.
No effing way would I be for that.
It’s interesting that the feds are required to purge their records of background checks, yet within hours of any mass shooting the press reports where and when and by whom the firearm was purchased.
Every. Single. Time.
-
Just out of curiosity, what would be the consensus of a Federal program that would "allow" anyone in the country to apply for a license to own a firearm. It would be completely separate from the purchase process, except that you have to have the license in order to own a gun.
The process would include things like criminal back ground checks, permanent address, personal contact information, past mental illness diagnoses, citizenship status and whether you are a Republican or not (ok, that last one was tongue in cheek). It would be sort of like have TSA pre-check.
Perhaps passage of such legislation could be tied to immigration reform. And I'll be the first to admit that I hate the term "reform" when both sides will have a completely different idea of what "reform" means, but if we are going to give up even that little bit of privacy, we should get something in return for it.
Just throwing that out to see what the objections will be.
Illinois already has a FOID (Firearm Owners IDentification) card requirement. In order to buy or possess a weapon in Illinois, or even to buy ammo, you have to have this card on your person, along with a valid ID.
You can see how well that has worked in places like, say, Cook County, Illinois.
-
It’s interesting that the feds are required to purge their records of background checks, yet within hours of any mass shooting the press reports where and when and by whom the firearm was purchased.
Every. Single. Time.
The States maintain their own registries. In PA, we have a state law specifically saying that gun registries are ILLEGAL. Yet our state police gets away with one as they call it a "List", not a "Registry", and say it is incomplete as it does not include private sales, which are very small in number, btw. Also, ALL hand gun sales MUST go through an FFL dealer so are in their registry. Only rifles and shotguns may be privately transferred. So much for freedom.
-
Not by any definition I'm familiar with. Lying is not telling the truth when you *know* it's not the truth.
hmmmm, I guess you aren't familiar with the standard definition of the word "lying"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/lying: "Not telling the truth."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying: "marked by or containing untrue statements"
A lack of intent to deceive doesn't make a lie suddenly become truth.
-
hmmmm, I guess you aren't familiar with the standard definition of the word "lying"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/lying: "Not telling the truth."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying: "marked by or containing untrue statements"
A lack of intent to deceive doesn't make a lie suddenly become truth.
Correct, but it doesn't make it a lie either, not in the sense we are talking about. Your definition isn't what I find when I go to Merriam-Webster.
lie:
intransitive verb
1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2. to create a false or misleading impression
The examples they use show that meaning #2 does not apply to a human (e.g. statistics sometimes lie) whereas meaning #1 does.
The only meaning attached to the word that's close to the way you're using it is under lie as a noun:
b. an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
But the examples there are more of a colloquial usage: e.g. the lies we tell ourselves, historical records containing numerous lies.
When people accuse the media of telling lies, they clearly mean:
a. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
-
Correct, but it doesn't make it a lie either, not in the sense we are talking about. Your definition isn't what I find when I go to Merriam-Webster.
lie:
intransitive verb
1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
I agree. It is just like GWB was NOT lying when he claimed Iraq had WMDs. If anything, he was mistaken, but personally I don't even believe that. I still believe they had WMDs. Bush just spent so much time trying go the the UN and the rest of the world to buy in that Hussein had time to dispose of them, and any and all witnesses.
But I never heard a liberal that would accept yours (and my) definition of "lie" then.
-
I agree. It is just like GWB was NOT lying when he claimed Iraq had WMDs. If anything, he was mistaken, but personally I don't even believe that. I still believe they had WMDs. Bush just spent so much time trying go the the UN and the rest of the world to buy in that Hussein had time to dispose of them, and any and all witnesses.
But I never heard a liberal that would accept yours (and my) definition of "lie" then.
I read somewhere that when under interrogation Sadam admitted he did not have WMD but he purposely put out misinformation that he did, in order to make Iran think he did. I have no idea if that is true or not but it is another explanation why our intel thought they had them.
-
hmmmm, what people seem to be claiming is that a statement can be (1) true, (2) not true (but not be a lie), or (3) not true and is a lie (because of the intent of the liar). ::)
Regardless of the validity of that view, I submit that the people who continue to lie about what President Trump said do so out of willful ignorance or deliberate intent to deceive. There is no excuse for either behavior. But are equally reprehensible.
-
hmmmm, what people seem to be claiming is that a statement can be (1) true, (2) not true (but not be a lie), or (3) not true and is a lie (because of the intent of the liar). ::)
You are making this more difficult than it has to be.
If my wife tells me she is going to the shoe store, but instead she is going to Home Depot to buy me a drill press that I have been coveting for my birthday, she lied. (Good for her).
When My MIL calls and asks where my wife is and I tell her she went to the shoe store, did I lie? I was wrong, but would you call it a lie?
Regardless of the validity of that view, I submit that the people who continue to lie about what President Trump said do so out of willful ignorance or deliberate intent to deceive. There is no excuse for either behavior. But are equally reprehensible.
If people continue to falsely repeat something, even though they have been informed it is wrong, then as you say, they are either speaking out of willful ignorance (they don't believe you and don't verify it) or they are intentionally reporting a lie, and you are correct, they are both reprehensible.
But there is a difference.
-
If people continue to falsely repeat something, even though they have been informed it is wrong, then as you say, they are either speaking out of willful ignorance (they don't believe you and don't verify it) or they are intentionally reporting a lie, and you are correct, they are both reprehensible.
But there is a difference.
There is a difference, but I maintain that what is happening here is a little more complex.
I don't think anyone who reads the full transcript can doubt that "very fine people" on the protestors side was the people who were peacefully protesting. Many people, though, do not read the full transcript - I myself wasn't able to find it until yesterday.
But then there are those who have read, or listened to, the whole Q & A who say that it doesn't matter.
Some people say it doesn't matter because they think that anyone who would want to preserve the statue must be pining for the Confederacy, which means they must be at least a racist, and maybe a white supremacist.
Other people will admit that those people, individually, may not have had racist motives, but they will still point to the later exchange where Trump suggests that if you tear down Lee's statue, you have to tear down Washington's and Jefferson's too, as showing that his sympathies are still with the racists, because they believe that those arguments are mainly used by racists.
In their minds, it really doesn't matter that Trump mouthed the words "white supremacy is evil" because of the other stuff he says when he's not reading from or reciting a script.
So it's not a matter of lying, even if they refuse to admit that factually, Trump did condemn the neo-Nazis, because in their minds, it's irrelevant.
I think it's mostly a loss of objectivity - Trump's rhetoric is very triggering for some people, and when he persists in using what they call "dog whistles", they tune out everything else he says. Essentially, they are biased and interpret everything Trump says through a biased lens.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190807/69f2cddd0500b89dd2e6ae3d9c72ca14.jpg)
-
There is a difference, but I maintain that what is happening here is a little more complex.
I don't think anyone who reads the full transcript can doubt that "very fine people" on the protestors side was the people who were peacefully protesting. Many people, though, do not read the full transcript - I myself wasn't able to find it until yesterday.
But then there are those who have read, or listened to, the whole Q & A who say that it doesn't matter.
Some people say it doesn't matter because they think that anyone who would want to preserve the statue must be pining for the Confederacy, which means they must be at least a racist, and maybe a white supremacist.
Other people will admit that those people, individually, may not have had racist motives, but they will still point to the later exchange where Trump suggests that if you tear down Lee's statue, you have to tear down Washington's and Jefferson's too, as showing that his sympathies are still with the racists, because they believe that those arguments are mainly used by racists.
In their minds, it really doesn't matter that Trump mouthed the words "white supremacy is evil" because of the other stuff he says when he's not reading from or reciting a script.
So it's not a matter of lying, even if they refuse to admit that factually, Trump did condemn the neo-Nazis, because in their minds, it's irrelevant.
I think it's mostly a loss of objectivity - Trump's rhetoric is very triggering for some people, and when he persists in using what they call "dog whistles", they tune out everything else he says. Essentially, they are biased and interpret everything Trump says through a biased lens.
<good grief>
Is there some deep pool of excuses that you keep reaching into to keep, well, excusing those who lie about what President Trump says?
It seems to me that you are still blaming President Trump for the errors of other people.
Call them liars, don't call them liars, it doesn't really matter... unless you care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bottomline is that many people aren't being truthful about what President Trump says. Whether because of their bias, or ignorance, or deliberate lying, or <insert whatever lame excuse>, they are still not being truthful.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/9UqRcQHzBou6A/giphy.gif)
-
There is a difference, but I maintain that what is happening here is a little more complex.
The reason it seems more complex is because you are adding layers trying to diffuse the blowback on the original liars.
The original liars are the people (the MSM and liberal politicians) that knew what the President said, and distorted it on purpose.
The additional layers are the ignorant liberal citizen that believe them only because they want to. I'm not sure what you call that besides dupe. Is believing a lie because you want to, and you are too lazy and dishonest to verify it, a lie?
Trump made several statements. The press took part of one statement and flooded the airways with it. The liberal dupes took that to heart and when told there was more to it, just assumed it was Trump and his supporters trying to weasel out of what he said. How in the world is trump supposed to beat that. If he stays quiet, he is guilty by default. If he speaks out, he is making excuses.
Call me simple, but telling a lie is when you say something you know isn't true.
-
<good grief>
Is there some deep pool of excuses that you keep reaching into to keep, well, excusing those who lie about what President Trump says?
It seems to me that you are still blaming President Trump for the errors of other people.
Call them liars, don't call them liars, it doesn't really matter... unless you care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bottomline is that many people aren't being truthful about what President Trump says. Whether because of their bias, or ignorance, or deliberate lying, or <insert whatever lame excuse>, they are still not being truthful.
You're misreading me. I'm not excusing anything. I'm trying to describe what things look like from *their* point of view, because I think I understand it pretty well. I bought into that line of thinking for a long time myself.
It's easy to think, they're just lying, or willfully misinformed. But I don't think that's what is going on. They just have a different worldview than you do, and interpret Trump's statements differently. Over the last two nights I heard people being interviewed on PBS say that it doesn't matter what Trump says now, he can't use divisive rhetoric for two years and then talk about bringing the country together.
It all depends on which side of the fence you stand on.
To them, you and everyone who supports Trump are making excuses for HIM.
My main point is, until both sides stop demonizing each other and start listening to what the other side is saying, without bias, we're going to continue to have extreme polarization in this country.
-
The reason it seems more complex is because you are adding layers trying to diffuse the blowback on the original liars.
The original liars are the people (the MSM and liberal politicians) that knew what the President said, and distorted it on purpose.
I'm trying to defuse the blowback because I think it's unhelpful and only serves to continue the polarization. I'm not convinced that the MSM distorted what Trump said on purpose. I think that for them, everything in Trump's statements that you and I point to as showing that he didn't have racist intent, is just dissembling.
When they continue to repeat the mantra "Trump's racist tweets", they're doing the same thing. I'm not excusing it, in fact I said before that journalists should know better than to do this. From journalism students I talked to many years ago I had the impression that they were taught how to avoid bias in reporting news. It seems that has all gone by the wayside, and now the media is one of the main groups feeding the polarization.
As I said in my previous post, I think we all need to start listening to each other and hold back on accusations of lying, dissembling, racism, etc.
-
I'm trying to defuse the blowback because I think it's unhelpful and only serves to continue the polarization. I'm not convinced that the MSM distorted what Trump said on purpose. I think that for them, everything in Trump's statements that you and I point to as showing that he didn't have racist intent, is just dissembling.
Well, I think the MSM which is at least 95% of the media, did in that instance, and many other instances distort what Trump says on purpose. It is pretty clear to me. I don't see how it isn't to you, but we all have a different perspective I guess.
-
Well, I think the MSM which is at least 95% of the media, did in that instance, and many other instances distorts what Trump says on purpose. It is pretty clear to me. I don't see how it isn't to you, but we all have a different perspective I guess.
Simple. They're not doing it on purpose because they don't think it is a distortion. They think they are accurately recounting the essence of what Trump said. They listen selectively, form an opinion, and then go back and interpret everything in light of that opinion.
Everyone has biases and it's difficult to avoid injecting your own bias into a story about emotionally charged events without a lot of self-discipline. Journalists are supposed to know how to avoid doing this, but I'm fairly convinced that they've forgotten how, or maybe that skill isn't taught any more.
Come to think of it, my former institution dissolved their journalism department several years back for lack of funding. Maybe that's widespread. Where do the MSM people get their training these days? That's an honest question, I really don't know.
-
Simple. They're not doing it on purpose because they don't think it is a distortion. They think they are accurately recounting the essence of what Trump said. They listen selectively, form an opinion, and then go back and interpret everything in light of that opinion.
Everyone has biases and it's difficult to avoid injecting your own bias into a story about emotionally charged events without a lot of self-discipline. Journalists are supposed to know how to avoid doing this, but I'm fairly convinced that they've forgotten how, or maybe that skill isn't taught any more.
Come to think of it, my former institution dissolved their journalism department several years back for lack of funding. Maybe that's widespread. Where do the MSM people get their training these days? That's an honest question, I really don't know.
Fascinating. So you think the MSM has INSTUTIONAL Bias? And instead of a cognizant effort to distort what Trump says, does so blindly, and without malice? I will agree that they do have an institutional bias. Start with the Columbia University School of Journalism and go from there. However, I do think it is a concerted effort, and with the goal of advancing a Far Left agenda, and narrative. Their stories have to fit a leftist narrative so they either change them, or create them to do so. The stories that clearly don't fit the agenda do not get reported. Bias by omission.
-
Oh sure they have a far left agenda. Everyone, or almost everyone it seems, has some kind of agenda. The question is how far are they willing to go to further it? Will they willfully and maliciously lie or omit facts they know are material? In some cases, probably yes - there are bad apples in every bunch. But I don't think most journalists do this deliberately. I think there are probably pressures to stuff as much content as possible into the time slot, and that means showing some parts of each story and omitting others. I think what they omit is what they sincerely believe is not germane to what they feel is the true picture.
And yes, I think the bias is institutional as well as personal. I don't know how much of it is pressure from management to slant stories in a particular way, maybe that's not even needed. These people live and swim in that leftist, progressive culture, they see things that way, and their interactions with colleagues, probably everyone in their lives, reinforce that bias. And that bias informs their reporting, because they have forgotten, or were never taught, how to report the facts objectively.
I saw things that way too, back when I was active in the lesbian community. It was really only after moving to VT, where there really isn't a lesbian community per se, that I started opening my mind to other ways of thinking. And partly, because the Democrats started moving much further left than I ever was.
-
Azure is not wrong. Baumeister makes clear each side truly believes themselves to be righteous. I think some deliberately lie but believe it is justified. But many truly believe they are “interpreting” things.
-
Goebbels would have been down right envious of the modern MSM.
And while we're on the subject:
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
-
So you think the MSM has INSTUTIONAL Bias?
You think they don't?
Institutional means it's the culture. To the people there, it's normal. They believe all these bad things that are said. If there's a white on black hate crime and Trump doesn't firmly denouce it, they KNOW it's a dog whistle to white supremacist. Because of what they KNOW to be "correct", they tend to hire others that are just like them, reinforcing the culture. Any conservatives that happen to get through keep quiet because they want their job or they quit. Either way, it's an echo chamber.
This happens all over. Google is doing it. Most colleges are doing it and worse are probably doing this in the admissions process to some extent. Anyone who expresses traditional conservative values is passed over as "inappropriate" for the environment. Meanwhile, conservatives stay quiet because they are outnumbered or believe themselves to be.
Very anti-american...
-
You think they don't?
Institutional means it's the culture. To the people there, it's normal. They believe all these bad things that are said. If there's a white on black hate crime and Trump doesn't firmly denouce it, they KNOW it's a dog whistle to white supremacist. Because of what they KNOW to be "correct", they tend to hire others that are just like them, reinforcing the culture. Any conservatives that happen to get through keep quiet because they want their job or they quit. Either way, it's an echo chamber.
This happens all over. Google is doing it. Most colleges are doing it and worse are probably doing this in the admissions process to some extent. Anyone who expresses traditional conservative values is passed over as "inappropriate" for the environment. Meanwhile, conservatives stay quiet because they are outnumbered or believe themselves to be.
Very anti-american...
I hope you're wrong about college admissions doing it, but I know that Ivy League colleges vet candidates based on how well they would fit into the culture, so you may be right. Anti-American, indeed. :(
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/08/08/they-will-still-hate-you-even-if-you-disarm-n2551257
-
You think they don't?
Institutional means it's the culture. To the people there, it's normal. They believe all these bad things that are said. If there's a white on black hate crime and Trump doesn't firmly denouce it, they KNOW it's a dog whistle to white supremacist. Because of what they KNOW to be "correct", they tend to hire others that are just like them, reinforcing the culture. Any conservatives that happen to get through keep quiet because they want their job or they quit. Either way, it's an echo chamber.
This happens all over. Google is doing it. Most colleges are doing it and worse are probably doing this in the admissions process to some extent. Anyone who expresses traditional conservative values is passed over as "inappropriate" for the environment. Meanwhile, conservatives stay quiet because they are outnumbered or believe themselves to be.
Very anti-american...
Yes, I do think the MSM has an Institutional Bias, but I also think that their bias is purposeful, and they KNOW when they are doing it. I think what Azure is saying is that it is so embedded, they no longer realize their bias. I disagree. It think they know, are proud of it, and in the journalism field purposely to "Change the World" to be more Progressive and "Fair".
They are no longer reporters and journalists, they are Far Left ACTIVISTS.
-
What scenario can anyone envision that will expose the lies? Historically elsewhere in the world war has ensued. People have to see destruction in their own village before they realize what’s really going on.
Hard to believe in this day and technological age that we can’t expose the liars and make the truth known. But we’re up against what’s been stated here ... people line up and stand stubbornly behind what they want to hear, even if it is patently untrue.
-
Yes, I do think the MSM has an Institutional Bias, but I also think that their bias is purposeful, and they KNOW when they are doing it. I think what Azure is saying is that it is so embedded, they no longer realize their bias. I disagree. It think they know, are proud of it, and in the journalism field purposely to "Change the World" to be more Progressive and "Fair".
They are no longer reporters and journalists, they are Far Left ACTIVISTS.
I think it is a lot of both. Certainly some are knowingly lying, and maybe they sincerely believe they are doing it for justifiable reasons. They truly believe Trump is the next Hitler and hence ANYTHING is justified to stop him.
Others are lying, and know it, but only for personal power and greed, not because they believe in any compassionate idealism, and I think a lot of the politicians are in this camp. Some may also be under threats from the other two types, such as Chuck Schumer, whenever he seems to bend a bit he gets mobs of activists outside his home. I personally believe many politicians are probably under direct threat of harm by these people. Thuggery is typical leftist tact.
But I think there are probably individuals who aren't deliberately lying, but are seeing things through such distorted lenses that they truly believe they're relaying the truth when actually what they are doing is making assumptions about others' intent, and twisting the meaning of others' language. This is the category azure is talking about.
I think you can't paint everyone with one brush, it's a case by case thing, like everything else in life.
-
How does a person come to believe that someone is “Hitler?” There is NO evidence and NO similarity in the case of POTUS. In fact, the total REVERSE is true!
But “evidence” and “similarity” are spun from clips and skewing and 24/7 repeating of the skews, which are demonstrably false.
Clinging to untruth usually isn’t too sustainable. Truth has a way of popping its head up over and over.
-
Yes, I do think the MSM has an Institutional Bias, but I also think that their bias is purposeful, and they KNOW when they are doing it. I think what Azure is saying is that it is so embedded, they no longer realize their bias. I disagree. It think they know, are proud of it, and in the journalism field purposely to "Change the World" to be more Progressive and "Fair".
They are no longer reporters and journalists, they are Far Left ACTIVISTS.
No, I'm not saying they are not aware of it. I'm saying they (on the whole, there are probably individual outliers) are not purposefully lying to advance their cause. The difference is between intentionally making false statements because you think it's justified, and perceiving events and the words of people they're reporting on from a distorted perspective because you are immersed in a different worldview.
What I'm suggesting is that their bias blinds them to the distortions they inject, and even to the fact that they are injecting bias into their stories. I also think you're right that they are out to change the world and that they're conscious activists. But those are not contradictory positions. It can be embedded and conscious at the same time. They are, after all, aware of the "enemy", so I think they are aware of their own politics.
-
No, I'm not saying they are not aware of it. I'm saying they (on the whole, there are probably individual outliers) are not purposefully lying to advance their cause. The difference is between intentionally making false statements because you think it's justified, and perceiving events and the words of people they're reporting on from a distorted perspective because you are immersed in a different worldview.
What I'm suggesting is that their bias blinds them to the distortions they inject, and even to the fact that they are injecting bias into their stories. I also think you're right that they are out to change the world and that they're conscious activists. But those are not contradictory positions. It can be embedded and conscious at the same time. They are, after all, aware of the "enemy", so I think they are aware of their own politics.
I think that is a reasonable assertion, and agree that they can believe they are right, and telling their version of the truth. Well said.
-
I think it is a lot of both. Certainly some are knowingly lying, and maybe they sincerely believe they are doing it for justifiable reasons. They truly believe Trump is the next Hitler and hence ANYTHING is justified to stop him.
Others are lying, and know it, but only for personal power and greed, not because they believe in any compassionate idealism, and I think a lot of the politicians are in this camp. Some may also be under threats from the other two types, such as Chuck Schumer, whenever he seems to bend a bit he gets mobs of activists outside his home. I personally believe many politicians are probably under direct threat of harm by these people. Thuggery is typical leftist tact.
But I think there are probably individuals who aren't deliberately lying, but are seeing things through such distorted lenses that they truly believe they're relaying the truth when actually what they are doing is making assumptions about others' intent, and twisting the meaning of others' language. This is the category azure is talking about.
I think you can't paint everyone with one brush, it's a case by case thing, like everything else in life.
This. I think the only place we disagree is in the relative numbers of people in the different categories. Without evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe that most people, including most journalists, try to act with honesty and integrity (at least on a conscious level) and from sincere motives. That is, admittedly, my own bias, based on my own interactions with people. I'm open to being proven wrong on this, though I think it would be pretty hard to design a good scientific study to answer the question.
-
This. I think the only place we disagree is in the relative numbers of people in the different categories. Without evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe that most people, including most journalists, try to act with honesty and integrity (at least on a conscious level) and from sincere motives. That is, admittedly, my own bias, based on my own interactions with people. I'm open to being proven wrong on this, though I think it would be pretty hard to design a good scientific study to answer the question.
Yep I wouldn’t know to guess the relative numbers of each type. However if we are just talking about journalists, maybe most think they are objective but I think somewhere in their education they lacked a good grounding in actual unbiased reporting.
-
How does a person come to believe that someone is “Hitler?” There is NO evidence and NO similarity in the case of POTUS. In fact, the total REVERSE is true!
Because they want to. It starts with an intense dislike of Trump which began somewhere back when he was a joke of a candidate and then intensified into hate when he beat their golden girl.
You're looking for a rational explanation of an irrational feeling. Clearly they're sore losers.
-
Yep I wouldn’t know to guess the relative numbers of each type. However if we are just talking about journalists, maybe most think they are objective but I think somewhere in their education they lacked a good grounding in actual unbiased reporting.
Ask most if not all Journalism majors, why they want to be in that field. They will say "to make the world better", or "enact change". They no longer want to report the news, they want to mold public opinion to their Utopian views. EVERYTHING must have a leftist narrative, and agenda now.
Journalism schools, laws schools, and others promote this.
-
Ask most if not all Journalism majors, why they want to be in that field. They will say "to make the world better", or "enact change".
I suspect that you would find similar responses from students in all the other majors.
-
I suspect that you would find similar responses from students in all the other majors.
I don't even think that's true for the majority of students, but WTFDIK.
But people are usually only students during their younger, more idealistic years. That feeling seems to exist among so-called journalists that have been out of school in the "real-world" for decades. By then, most people become more cognizant of the real world and their own mortality.
-
How does a person come to believe that someone is “Hitler?” There is NO evidence and NO similarity in the case of POTUS. In fact, the total REVERSE is true!
But “evidence” and “similarity” are spun from clips and skewing and 24/7 repeating of the skews, which are demonstrably false.
Clinging to untruth usually isn’t too sustainable. Truth has a way of popping its head up over and over.
The same effect that transformed an ungodly number of Germans to march their neighbors off to ovens is what drives the far left to proclaim that the President is hitler.
The same need to elevate themselves when their talent, skill and cunning is pathetically lacking drives these failures to demonize those who succeed and move on to their total destruction.
Liberalism is at its core, all about unchecked ego, that transforms people into tyrants taking out the frustrations of their poor choices on those who chose more wisely.
Its a short leap from there to total annihilation.
From AOC to Stalin the leftist mind always seems to destroy what it can’t control.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/goodwyn_Condemning_lr_8-8-1920190808010200.jpg)
-
(https://i2.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/a-white7-1.jpg?resize=584%2C461)
-
https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/10/white-supremacy-like-manna-to-the-left/
Since the world has not heard enough about “white supremacy” lately, I thought I would say a few words about this neglected subject.
Please don’t turn up your nose and say “but ‘white supremacy’ is just a malignant fiction, a fantasy conjured up by the Left in order to beat up on conservatives, Trump supporters, etc.”
This is true. “White supremacy” is in this respect like “climate change”: a bugbear, a horror tale utterly without substance but scary—Oooo so scary!—nonetheless. In Through the Looking Glass, Alice scoffs when the White Queen tells her that she is more than 100 years old. “I can’t believe that!” says Alice.
“Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The whole “white supremacy” meme is a bit like that. The number of real, honest-to-goodness, card-carrying, union-affiliated “white supremacists” is vanishingly small. They could be crowded into a middle-school gymnasium in a small town with room left over for the cheerleaders and a popcorn machine. The idea that white supremacists or the ideology of white supremacism represent a threat to American society is preposterous. Everyone knows this, the pathetic commentators on CNN and MSNBC just as much as the gesticulating clowns running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Yet they keep screaming about “white supremacism,” hoping, I believe, that if they keep repeating the mantra, their incantation will bring the longed-for object into being.
Back in May, PJ Media’s Sarah Hoyt put her finger on what the rallies against “white supremacism” are really all about when she noted that “We Don’t Have a Problem with White Supremacy. We Have a Problem with Leftist Supremacy.” Bingo. “The left is obsessed with white supremacists,” Hoyt observed, “the way that children are obsessed with Santa Claus, and for more or less the same reasons.” Santa doesn’t exist, but the presents pile up every December 25 because the right people have a stake in perpetuating the myth of his existence.
-
The "White Supremacist" and "White Nationalist" narrative is PURPOSEFUL by the Media, in concert with the Democrats. This is very obvious. They are attempting to paint Trump and Trump supporters with this BROAD BRUSH. They don't care about individuality. We are all the same. Racist, bigoted, and Deplorables.
This is a purposeful, coordinated effort because they have nothing else in which to defeat Trump, and that is their only goal. Defeat Trump at all cost. Russia failed. They can't point to the economy or unemployment. So therefore Trump, and Trump supporters are Racists.
-
The "White Supremacist" and "White Nationalist" narrative is PURPOSEFUL by the Media, in concert with the Democrats. This is very obvious. They are attempting to paint Trump and Trump supporters with this BROAD BRUSH. They don't care about individuality. We are all the same. Racist, bigoted, and Deplorables.
This is a purposeful, coordinated effort because they have nothing else in which to defeat Trump, and that is their only goal. Defeat Trump at all cost. Russia failed. They can't point to the economy or unemployment. So therefore Trump, and Trump supporters are Racists.
There was a black call in, I think it was Rush, and he said, “As a black, I know racism when I see it. I have experienced it. Trump is not racist, there is less racism today than ever before in my life.”
It is very insulting for leftist whites to tell blacks what is and is not racism.
-
There was a black call in, I think it was Rush, and he said, “As a black, I know racism when I see it. I have experienced it. Trump is not racist, there is less racism today than ever before in my life.”
It is very insulting for leftist whites to tell blacks what is and is not racism.
It is very insulting and condescending, but the Left has no problem being condescending. They think that all Blacks require help from White people in everything and can't succeed on their own. Blacks were making great strides in employment, home ownership and education in the 50's and early 60's, then LBJ, the Great Society and War on Poverty helped to destroy the Black family unit.
-
It is very insulting and condescending, but the Left has no problem being condescending. They think that all Blacks require help from White people in everything and can't succeed on their own. Blacks were making great strides in employment, home ownership and education in the 50's and early 60's, then LBJ, the Great Society and War on Poverty helped to destroy the Black family unit.
This is correct along with the closing of manufacturing plants in inner cities and ironically desegregation of housing. The high quality blacks who kept communities strong and thriving fled the inner cities leaving the dregs who (because of the loss of jobs, and the implementation of public housing and welfare, and the War on Drugs) fell into a trap of crime and reliance on government programs. The family unit was destroyed and children are raised without fathers which is disastrous for the male psyche. Marriage rates among blacks were among the highest in the nation prior to 1970. Now they are the lowest.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz081419dAPR20190814104514.jpg)
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/stevecortes/2019/08/16/the-charlottesville-hoax-that-would-not-die-n2551787
Instead of helping President Trump unify the nation after the recent mass shootings, Democrats are once again peddling the Charlottesville hoax to further inflame America’s divisions.
For two years now, liberals have been brazenly lying about the remarks President Trump made in response to the 2017 Charlottesville tragedy, touting their fabrication as the most convincing evidence available that the president is actually the “white nationalist” they’ve always claimed. Following the twin shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio — which they blame on Donald Trump — Democrats and the mainstream media have predictably trotted out the Charlottesville canard once again.
As I explain in my new PragerU video, the president emphatically did not praise the white supremacists who showed up at the Charlottesville protests. Rather, he praised the “very fine people on both sides” of the lawful demonstrations over the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, by which he was very clearly drawing a distinction between the peaceful protesters on both sides of that debate and the violent thugs, also representing both sides, who turned a demonstration of free speech into a bloodbath.
-
Communists (democrats) don’t just pigeon hole republicans. They seriously believe all democrats (communists) are just like them and react very badly whenever confronted with an individual, fre thinking liberal.