Many laws are derived from court decisions. Courts make laws in three different ways. First courts decide how laws are interpreted and how they will be applied. When you see a suspect read his rights that law comes from a court decision.
Second, a body of court decisions that is used to determine how future cases are decided. You will often see an attorney site how other cases were decided and let the judge review those decisions.
Third, the judges determine whether a law is constitutional.
I can see you never had any law classes.
I think the reason that you don’t see gun nuts pulling guns as often is because brandishing laws are more likely to be enforced now.
When a gun nut has a gun, they think they own the world.
You are lucky your gun did not go off and kill the prowler your just one spasm of your trigger finger away from that.
California had 82 incident of road rage involving guns. Road rage with guns have more than doubled in three years nationally. Not everybody in California is from California and you can bet their guns are in the glove box.
Road Rage Cases With Guns More Than Double in 3 Years ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2017/04/25 › road-rage-guns
Apr 25, 2017 - It found that cases of road rage involving a firearm — where someone ... the increase in reported road confrontations involving firearms. ... 1, with 147; followed by Texas, 126; California, 82; Tennessee, 68; and Pennsylvania, 62. ... “More guns in more cars may simply equate to more road rage incidents in ...
MSNBC is a real news organization and has panel members from both sides of the aisle. The former head of the RNC is a frequent panelist along with neoconservatives. I don’t watch MSNBC at the house but mom has it on when I am over there.
How about NBC news at whatever local channel you get it on. Most network news programs cover the same big stories with the exception of Fox which is busy working for the Trump campaign.
Looks like your Dayton mass murderer was posting “likes” on white supremacists’ posts after the EL Paso shooting.
Sexual orientation does not indicate someone’s politics. Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republican’s or baby Bush’s vice president daughter? You would be surprised how many gay Republicans there are.
Trump is deliberately agitating the crazies and the crazies are just looking for a cause. The right mind ser is that violence is just a means to an end.
I read your link but there are several different definitions to what a mass-shootings is some require 5 people to be killed or wounded but the most popular and accepted definition is a simple one that is just four or more people killed or wounded.
The Pulse Night club is private property not public property. Walmart in El Paso is private party.
If they all ran into the street before the uncle shot them would you consider that a mass shooting? Whether they were hells angels or Spanky and Our Gang members, if four are shot we have a mass shooting.
You can’t explain why the term especially is in your definition, can you?
I have posted that source at least twice but let me draw you a picture.
Arming Teachers Has Already Led to a Slew of Gun Accidents ...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/...
May 05, 2018 · May 5, 2018 Arming Teachers Has Already Led to a Slew of Gun Accidents in Schools A report finds that teachers, principals, officers, and students have fired guns by mistake at least 30 times since...
All told, an Associated Press review of news reports collected by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive revealed more than 30 publicly reported mishaps since 2014 involving firearms brought onto school grounds by law enforcement officers or educators. Guns went off by mistake, were fired by curious or unruly students, and were left unattended in bathrooms and other locations.
There were several sources posted in reply to your post.
I think you have probably reached the point where you need glasses. At around 40 your eyes find it harder to read small print but I recently found that I can copy the actual search results so I will post the exact copy of those results.
I use to be able to copy and post anything but as the version of windows changed it would no longer work but I recently found if the cursor is on the highlighted area copy and paste works.
Since there will be a whole paragraph posted you might not miss the sources.
I do reference things that are on broadcast news or in books. It is hard to remember the exact page of something in a book but I am not going reread the entire book to give you a page number.
In any post on political philosophy there is going to be opinions but opinions are constructed from facts and facts can be referenced from sources but you might have to start reading a few books and that would do you some good.
The only reason Martin is dead is because Zimmerman did not do what the Police department told him to do. They told him to stop following Zimmerman. When Zimmerman refuse to follow the police department's orders he was responsible for what happened.
The police department told Zimmerman to stop following Martin. If you were being followed at night by a stranger would you not feel threatened. Zimmerman had assumed, he had police powers, and believed he could enforce the law. Actual witnesses say that it was only an argument and there are no marks on Martin that would show that an attack took place.
Everything from the position of the body, to the lack of injuries to Martin, to witness statements say that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Even the police department knew Zimmerman was the aggressor and ordered him to stop. Martin was not following Zimmerman, Zimmerman was following Martin.
That still makes Zimmerman bigger than Martin. If there had been a fist fight there should have been some marks on Martin. Zimmerman is running on adrenaline and should have done a lot of damage to Martin.
If Zimmerman had stopped following Martin when the police department told him to it would not have mattered if Martin was seven feet tall.
Travon was not the bully Zimmerman was following him after the police department told him not to.
The fight took place because Zimmerman did not stop following Martin as instructed by the police department.
Read the "Heller Decision" that states "you are not entitled to any weapon whatsoever for any reason whatsoever," if you think that is an absolute right you need to reread the definition of "absolute."
Shall not be infringed applies only to "a right to keep and bear arms." An as long as you have an arm to bear that right has not been infringed.
Since the second amendment is the right most likely to be repealed it is not very important.
Not all assault weapons have a selective fire switch
and most assault weapons used in massacres in America don't have one.
It is on record that the Pulse Night Club mass murderer was firing his assault weapon at a rate of 130 rounds per minute.
They have actual recordings that verify that speed. If you were in a crowed bar and had a mass murderer firing at a 130 rounds per minute rate do you think you would have a chance of getting away?
they got the definition of assault weapons exactly right.
Some of the information about how Remington marketed assault weapons is already out there and the rest will come out in court. According to Remington they were targeting the most aggressive gun nuts to sell assault weapons to. To get your man ticket punched you need an assault weapon and it does not have a selective fire switch.
They are also trying to outlaw high capacity magazines.
I think the magazines should be limited to one round. That would give them two one in the chamber and one in the magazine.
Assault weapons are assault weapons both the semi-automatic version and the automatic version come down the same assembly line getting all the same parts only after the assault weapons is nearly complete do most of the assault weapons get one trigger mechanism and the automatics get another trigger mechanism.
I read the whole article looking for that exact definition and I did not find it.
Nazi Germany lost and they don't get to decide anything.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie it will never be true.
NASCAR has banned all advertisement for assault weapons due to a “gradual shift.”
Nothing to do with school shootings?
Where do you think one of the most popular locations for mass murders? Schools, if you study mass shootings you can’t get away from one of the most popular locations.
You have a real problem with reality you think if you can’t find it on the internet it didn’t happen.
There is a whole world out there and not all of it is on the internet.
If there is a shooting on school property it is a school shooting whether it is in the parking lot, football field, or classroom.
This is the study I was talking about. These are mass casualty shootings.
So, you acknowledge that all we need to do is make a law against it to put a limit on a right.
So mass murderers had there right to happiness limited by making a law against murder.
You know that your second amendment is limited or you would have a Thompson sub machine gun and a M-16 but the reason you don’t have them is that the supreme court ruled that you are not entitled to any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever. That statement is extremely clear.
It is hard to get around facts, every right has its limits even free speech.
The reason I don’t like the numbers is because there is no reality to back them up.
1. Cached
Aug 6, 2019 - There were a pair of tragic shootings over the weekend which means it's time for hysterical liberals to vastly overstate the lethal capabilities of ...
What's The Rate Of Fire For An AR-15? The Liberal Answer ...
This isn’t the site that I wanted but is does show an AR-15 firing 150 rounds in 15 seconds.
The second video shows a modified AR-15 firing 830 rounds before the barrel melted down.
This video used a bump stock but it was firing so fast that I could not count the rounds.
There is rate of fire and actual number of bullets fired in a minute. If it fires 150 rounds in 15 seconds it is firing at a 600 rounds per minute rate.
Laws are written down so it is easy to trace their country of origin. The laws are that way because when they were written that part of America was under the control of different foreign countries. The laws and the facts speak for themselves.
They may mean the same thing but you should use the correct word.
All that is necessary is to enforce the 2nd amendment as written it is not a license for “any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever.” The problem isn’t the second amendment it is how it has been broadly interpreted.
The constitution has been changed in the past and it will be changed in the future.
The limits I claimed have been specified by the supreme court.
You then believe than anyone can be stripped of their rights as long as there is due process.
When someone is convicted of crime, they are not allowed to own a gun but I don’t know of any hearing held on their gun rights the only hearing on their crime. After they have paid their debt to society their gun rights are not restored.
You can live in your illusion if you want but history teaches no super power in history has ever stayed in power all some day are pushed aside.
America has peaked and been on the decline since conservatism first took over in the 80s.
When the conservatives stopped paying off the national debt that had been paid down by every president since WWII
tripled it to give huge tax cuts to the ungodly greedy tripling spending on the military, we don’t have, it puts America on a path downhill slide.
You cannot live on credit forever and the interest on the debt is going to next superpower.
I don’t believe that 297 number for minute.
That does not even come close to covering hunting accidents. /quote]
Do you think every hunting accident leads to death?
https://www.targettamers.com/guides/hunting-accident-statistics/#fatality
Quote:You are very susceptible to NRA propaganda and anything you read on the internet. Someone can write anything and you will believe it.
You discredit yourself. Those numbers came from the FBI, not the NRA. Why is it when the propaganda gets disproved, you want to blame the NRA? Just about every stat I use in relation to guns comes from the US govt, not from anti-gun groups. It's ok for you to use anti-gun propaganda but when I use govt sources, it's the evil NRA boogieman.
The problem you want to look at is a subset of gun violence and not the overall problem of gun violence which far exceeds just murders.
When you go to solve a problem, you solve a piece at a time.
The massacres are terrorist acts intended to create terror throughout America and they have done just that.
Now set off a few firecrackers in a mall and you set off a stampede because people think it might be a mass murderer.
The problem is gun violence as a whole not a subset of gun violence.
You do realize that life is not a Tom Cruise movie where you can be arrested for thinking about a crime.
For someone who believes in rights you would lock people up for free speech. Your website has nothing to do with mass murders.
I really don’t know how much worse it can get than 59 killed and 500 wounded in one incident.
You want to break it down further into long guns and short guns.
Next you will want to break it down into separate brand names of guns.
That way you keep getting smaller and smaller numbers. You might even find one model of gun that no one was killed with. That way you could say no one was killed by that model of gun.
It is not projection there is a stack of bodies to prove it. /quote]
No, it's projection. Mass shootings are the smallest subset of shootings and you want them to be the largest subset and you talk about them like they are. I say projection because of how you speak about guns. You are the only one between us who has talked about killing innocent people. Remember "kill the rich" subject from about a year ago? You are the one obsessed with mass shootings. You are likely to do one simply so you can show how deadly they are. So yes, projection is your affliction.
Quote:The Heller decision is a simple search even for a first grader. I’ll draw you a picture.
I knew what it said, I was waiting on you to produce the entire quote instead of just the dozen or so words you think make your argument. I knew you would never post the whole thing, it says nothing about me now being able to own an AR-15, which was the point you were trying to make and failed. Below is the entire portion you keep pointing to. It doesn't say what you think it says and already provides the examples of what they were talking about, such as dealing with carrying guns in govt buildings and restrictions on felons.
I'll also point out that a couple years later, McDonald vs Chicago also ruled in favor on gun owners and the 2nd Amendment and clarified protection under the 14th Amendment for gun owners and their due process Rights.
Quote:(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
McDonald vs Chicago:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
Quote:The BLM standoff was just more common thieves and now they are in jail.
How many people do you think were found guilty? Not the Bundy's, they were cleared and the courts read the riot act to the federal agency for misdeeds.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/bundy-family-charges-dropped-nevada-armed-standoff
You would be surprised to know very few people did any time for this "crime" and most of them had charges dropped against them.
https://www.drovers.com/article/bundy-case-ends-final-sentencing
Quote:The word that is used is the one in the Constitution. Where were they written down at? By who? The founding fathers were bound by what entity? Surely you have a copy of those rights.
You should try reading our founding documents if you have any questions. If you think God doesn't exist so the Constitution is worthless, then you are a worse person than I thought and you really are a totalitarian at heart. The Constitution was meant to keep people like you check.
Quote:The lesson we learned from 9/11 was to bomb an innocent country back to the stone ages.
Afghanistan was already living in the stone age, I know, I've been there. That's the weak lesson you learned, I learned we shouldn't be so quick to give up our rights for protection. How do you account for Obama bombing more countries than Bush did and killing more people with drones?
Quote:It is not rocket science, it is simple any shooting where four or more are killed or wounded is a mass shooting.
Keep repeating the lie and exaggeration of mass shootings in the US. People have PTSD from such things because of people like you and the propaganda you push. Mass shootings are rate and getting killed with a rifle is even more rare.
Quote:The limit on the second amendment was decided by the supreme court and carries the force of law.
No such restrictions were placed on the 2nd Amendment by the SC. The Heller decision doesn't say what you want it to say and the examples they give in the ruling do not match what you want.
"The Supreme Court held:[46]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[47]"
Quote:That supreme court ruling is an exact reading of the constitution as written. The activist readings are one that say second amendment entitles you to the most deadly and dangerous weapons in the world.
Read above, they didn't say what you think they said. You limited the ruling to a dozen words and left out the examples of what they are saying as to the limitations.
Quote:They may be 1% of overall murder but they are responsible for 100% of massacres with 50 or more killed and massacres are the real problem.
Now look who's limiting the meanings of things to fit their agenda. There have only been 2 mass shootings with close to those numbers. Pulse had 49 dead and Las Vegas had 59. You want to base the 2nd Amendment off of what happened in 2 of the rarest of shootings in the US? One done by a guy with zero political ideology and the other done by a Muslim who was ashamed of being gay? These are the very types of things our Constitution was written to prevent, not the shootings but the overreaction by weak people.
Quote:We do have gangs but they are not armed with automatic assault weapons and submachine guns.
Most of them are not armed with any rifles. A majority of those people are using handguns.
Guess what, you still can't buy those types of weapons in most places unless you have a Class III firearms license.
Quote:Do you think automatic assault weapons would make them more dangerous or less dangerous? If the youth of today didn’t have guns it would be a far different world.
If you think guns are the reason for our violent youth, then you don't understand kids or guns.
Quote:That might fire a few lead balls in a few seconds, not 10 rounds a second like the AR-15. And the range would be far different. I always said a musket would be legal.
There are no limits placed on people with the 2nd Amendment, the limitations are placed on the govt, Shall not be infringed. Notice how anti-gun people leave this out of the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:It isn’t most mass shootings I am worried about it is the massacres. The stats are in my favor it is 100% of the massacres that kill 50 or more people are done with assault weapons.
Weak stat that only covers 2 mass shootings. You like to use the terms interchangeability, depending on what propaganda you are pushing.
Quote:I can prove how that bill was written because that is the same procedure is used for all bills.
You can't prove **** or you would have done so by now, you have nothing but excuses and more explanations. No firearms experts were talked to when crafting this law.
Quote:You don’t understand that even people that owned assault weapons cut them up and realize they should be banned.
People? You mean a dozen people who likely shouldn't have had those weapons in the first place. You should cut off your own dick to prevent more rapes in the US.
Quote:That is not the same principal. Gun manufactures market their weapons for the purpose of killing people.
They market their weapons as target shooting or self-protection devices, if that means killing someone who shouldn't have been in your house, then so be it. They do not market them for mass shootings, that's your own opinion that has no basis in reality.
Quote:They appeal to worst possible element.
Again, your own bias opinion.
Quote:Their advertisement that owning this gun will punch your man ticket.
Vs owning the rifle of their competitor. You know much like Chevy vs Ford?
Quote:Or this is the way to win a firefight.
Yes because many of those weapons are sold to military or police forces only. Those would be true assault weapons with a selective fire switch. Have you ever been to Smith and Wesson website? They have a section for military and LEO only, civilians can't buy those weapons. Govt and police contracts are worth a lot of money. Why do you think Remington stopped making AR platforms? It had nothing to do with the weapons and everything to do with losing their military contract a couple of years ago and them not selling as many of the AR platforms as their competitors do.
Quote:The purpose of a car is to get place to place the purpose of a gun is to kill people. Killing people is there intended purpose.
That's true, but those weapons are more often never used or not fired in self-defense. You are worried about the bad guys, but you want to disarm the good guys, that's totalitarian thinking for you.
Quote:The definition is four or more people killed or wounded there are no exception listed. You just want to make up exceptions.
Yes there are, as the article I posted showed, there are several different definitions for mass shooting. Yours isn't the only one and it isn't even the most accepted one. That definition is only used to hype deaths and scare people, propaganda.
Quote:A regular 22 would be semi-automatic ordinary rifle. It could never be converted to a full-automatic.
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you, you are hung up on converting things even though no mass shootings have been done with such weapons? They sell full auto 22 rifles, if you have the license for it. You should really do more research before saying such things, it just makes you look stupid.
The vote to impeach was indeed by partisan.
Justin Amash was elected as a Republican from Michigan. When it became obvious that he was supporting impeaching Trump he was drummed out of the Republican party and became an independent.
I think it should be against the law to switch political parties after you are elected. If you want to switch do it before the election. We have governor that was elected as a democrat and switched to a republican after he was elected. That is a fraud as far as I am concerned.
What hurts this country now is people are not exposed to both sides of political arguments. You did not have this toxic partisan environment that we have now until Regan eliminates the Fairness Doctrine.
As long as people were exposed to both sides of a political argument, they were free to decide for themselves on each issue. People were free to considered each political issue on its merits.
America is no longer like that people decide to join a political cult where all the political views are dictated by a political cult. Political parties now more closely resemble a religious cult where the head of the cult dictates how its members think.
News papers had editorial boards that were both Republican and Democrat and you knew which was which but that nothing like the far-right radical Fox News that was a full participant in Trump campaign.
I know that was true for a fact. As llong as television stations reported the news, they were fine but when they decided to start doing editorials on the news casts, they were required to give broadcast time to someone on the other side of the issue.
There is no such thing as a left-wing press and there never will be.
There is a corporate press which is owned by big corporations and is about as opposite left-wing political philosophy as possible. /quote]
I'm beginning to think you are naive.
Quote:Where is the left-wing Rush Limbaugh?
You mean Ed Shultz, Thom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, Mario Solis Marich, Stephanie Miller or The Ring of Fire radio show? Those left-wing radio hosts? I didn't have to look all these people up, I used to listen to them when there was leftist radio here in Denver. The only reason such radio has failed to take root is because left-wing radio just doesn't do well and it's unpopular.
Quote:Fox News may have two people but they are being paid to say the exact same thing. I believe it was a first for a television station to be an active member of Trump political campaign.
Who said anything about 2 people? I'm not talking about paid contributors, those aren't the opposing sides I'm talking about, those are paid hacks. I'm talking about when there is real news with some opposing views, they will bring on the person behind the story and someone else who has a different opinion and neither of them are paid by Fox News.
Quote:I believe it was a first for a television station to be an active member of Trump political campaign.
Haha, is that what you call not being 100% negative about Trump all the time? They had plenty of negative reporting against Trump, just not to the same level as the other Clinton fan networks.
Quote:MSNBC used the former head of the Republican party as a panel member do you think Fox News ever had on a former head of the democratic party as a panel member?
Michael Steel? If I recall, he was anti-Trump, so much for a balanced panel. As for having any heads of the former DNC on, they have mostly been active politicians and refused to appear on Fox News because they knew they wouldn't get the softball questions they get from the DNC friendly MSNBC and CNN. Also the former head of the DNC had to step down the week of the convention because of several scandals including the CNN question hand off prior to the debate.
To be fair, they do have the former head currently working for Fox, Donna Brazile is a paid contributor. What I find funny about that, is that she was also the one who gave Hillary the questions... If you haven't figured it out by now, they are all a big scam.
Quote:Oh, that right they never have panels, just indoctrinators.
If you consider a panel to be people all saying the same thing, then that is indoctrination. I'd rather watch two people with opposing views than a panel of 5 with one opinion.
Quote:When a station is founded by news people it one thing but when a station was founded by political operatives, we know they had one objective and that was to indoctrinate the gullible so they will vote Republican.
You mean like Bloomberg News? You know he has prevented his "news station/paper" from any investigation of him or his DNC fellow candidates during the election. Does that sound non-bias? News stations or papers are not started by journalists, they are started by businessmen who hire the "journalists" who write for the paper.
Quote:The fact was that Trump was given 10 times as much air time as Clinton during the run up to the election.
It was all negative press, the MSM was trying to destroy him. If you compared favorable coverage on the standard liberal MSM, you will see it was almost 100% positive for Hillary as well as the cover they provided her when she was caught falling down several times. They protected Hillary at all costs and they everything they had at Trump, including hot mic events. He still won. A good portion of the electorate are no longer falling for the leftist campaign tricks and are ignoring them. It's sad really because it has turned into a "party who cried wolf", they have used the same tactics so many times over the last couple of decades, it will be ignored when someone really is a threat. I made the same warning to GOP people and their constant anger of everything Obama did.
Quote:Tell me again how biased CNN was. The actual facts speak for themselves.
As noted, when you report 100% negative coverage of one candidate and cover-up stories for the other candidate, it shows plenty of bias. Did you read what Bloomberg was doing with his paper and news channel during the election? No investigations of him or the DNC candidates, but Trump is fair game. Yeah, no bias there from a news paper/channel.
Quote:If you go to library there are 5 times more fiction books then those based on fact. CNN was set up as a 24-hour news station, but lies are always more attractive than the truth.
Libraries have nothing to do with news reporting and the bias from the left. More distraction from you.
Quote:The right has been extreme from the time that Russian, Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, define what the modern conservative movement was about.
It's funny when you try to equate your lies about the Conservative movement to the anti-Communist movement. You being a supporter of socialism of course have to try and tar and feather the people who push your lies back into your face.
You have no idea what the Conservative movement was or is about, you are a big govt liberal who wants to see an end to states rights and the end of the Constitution.
Quote:Most political movements have their roots in America but the roots of modern conservative movement are as Russian as it founders. She changed America but not for the better.
Ayn Rand spoke out against the scourge of socialism/communism. She was also anti-religion, you should love her just for that. Leftists who try and discredit those who speak out against communism, always crack me up.
Quote:The guns purchased through private sales were already on the streets they don’t change the actual number of guns on the streets.
Pointless throw away statement that means nothing. Try again.
Quote:The estimate place private gun sales at 22% of sales. We also know that since 1994 3 million people that were stopped from purchasing a gun out of that group 35% were felons. No doubt 70% of private sales went to felons.
Who estimates what? This is another one of your bogus stats with zero proof or evidence to back it up. How can you quote these things with nothing to prove you aren't talking out your ass?
Quote:According to Fox the figures are 50% for impeachment and 41% against. But that is a moot point Trump has been IMPEACHED all we are talking about now is his punishment. Trump is the only president in history to be impeached during his first term in office.
Those polls were from 2 weeks ago, what do they say now? Much like the MSM polls, support for the fake impeachment is dropping and is turning against the Dems. 2020 is going to be ugly for the DNC, you are going to cry for months.
Quote:ISIS was the biggest threat to our national security since Hitler.
That isn't even close to the truth, they were never a major threat to the US. Well they were a treat when Obama wasn't doing background checks on "refugees" and ISIS fighters were hiding in the civilian population, that was a danger to the US. ISIS was no threat, they were worried about creating their Muslim religious dictatorship.
Quote:Give them enough time and they would have built a movement far worse than we have seen in the last fifty years.
You are giving them way to much credit. I can see you were hooked by Obama's lies.
Quote:It was religious based and there is nothing more dangerous on earth than a religious cult because they are true believers. ISIS was a hundred time worse than Al Qaeda.
Only in their violence to non-believers. They did nothing else new that the Taliban did when they were coming to power, blowing up old Buddhist statues was my first introduction to the Taliban. Much like the American left, ISIS and the Taliban went around destroying histories they didn't agree with and erasing them from existence. That's what power hungry leftists do.
Quote:ISIS was born of baby Bush’s invasion of Iraq, when you attack an innocent country for no reason that is what happens.
ISIS was a full on creation of Obama's foreign policies. He couldn't wait to get troops out of the ME and claim a victory. In the process he fully armed ISIS with US weapons and technology and then they went on a holy war across Iraq and into Syria. Of which Obama then had to try and fix his own mistake by sending arms and troops to Syria. Sorry to tell you, but ISIS was an Obama invention and excuse to drop more bombs than Bush did and also use drones more than Bush did. Obama was called the bomber/droner in chief.
Quote:Bill O’Reilly has a new network that is no doubt worse than Fox.
Bias much? I'll be honest, I lost respect for him back during the 2008 DNC convention. He got the chance to interview and left-wing liar, Michael Moore and he hyped the interview for days. When it was finally time to lay into Mr. Moore, he did nothing but throw him softball questions. He was done with me from that point forward.
Quote:My mom had it on the other day. It looks like it is being filmed in someone back yard.
In this day and age, that actually doesn't mean much. You can find a lot better coverage of the news on Youtube sometimes, much less corporate spin and favoritism. It also forces you to be more selective about what you watch, instead of just accepting what the corporate overloads tell you.
Quote:They were running films about Hitler’s Germany. I don’t know whether it was for a role model or history lesson on what happens when the extreme right gets control of a country.
More revisionist history from the left. Hitler was a leftist, anytime you want more power for the govt and less power for the people, that is a leftist stance. Just because they favored "nationalism" doesn't make them right wing. Right wing doesn't mean more govt power, it supports the opposite. Hence the reason why your claims about the "modern conservative movement" are such a joke.
Quote:Tucker Carlson Goes There Again: Backs Russian Invasion Of ...
https://www.huffpost.com › entry › tucker-carlson-fox-news-russia-ukrain...
1. Cached
Dec 3, 2019 - Tucker Carlson Goes There Again: Backs Russian Invasion Of Ukraine ... apparently including Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea.
Fox News' Tucker Carlson admits 'I'm rooting for Russia' |
You will have to excuse me if I don't believe anything that comes from the Huff post, one of the most leftist mags in the US. Arianna Huffington is one of those people that when her political affiliation changed, so did the news coverage of the news organization she owned.
Quote:Trevon was staying with his father fiancé.
This is the 3rd time you have said someone different he was staying with. I've said from the start that it wasn't his families house, it belonged to his dad's girlfriend. Took you 3 weeks or more to finally admit the truth.
Quote:It was not only the 9/11 dispatcher that told Zimmerman not follow people. The Police Department that set up the neighborhood watch instructed him not to follow people. The people that owned the apartment complex told him not to follow people. Zimmerman was on notice and he ignored the instructions.
You have a habit of making things up when you get proven wrong. You know like he was staying with his Uncle...
Quote:If you found the link you have the quote.
Speaking of quotes, it would be nice to know what you are talking about. I checked the post you are replying to and there is nothing in that post that relates to what you said.
Quote:The trouble most of the guns are owned by a small percentage of people.
Still waiting for you to prove this one. Thankfully our Rights have never depended on how "popular" they are.
