marc9000 writes:
The reality is that the media is your favorite whipping boy. You've blamed them for innumerable things over the years.
Just like law abiding citizens with guns are your favorite whipping boy?
Why not just accuse me of being a communist? It would be just as irrelevant and inaccurate. If you have no defense for your years of insupportable accusations against the media, just say so.
you'll see that they broke away to anchors saying that what the president was saying was untrue.
Anchors make this decision, for a sitting president?
Probably producers and anchors and other high ranking staff in consultation together make these decisions. And yes, of course for a sitting president when he uses the airwaves to undermine democracy. It was known Trump was telling lies then, and he's still telling the same lies.
Did they ever chop off Obama, or Biden, for saying untrue things? (Democrat presidents never lie, do they?)
I have often said that politicians are all of the same breed. They possess similar qualities, it goes with wanting the job. Naturally some are better than others when it comes to honesty and integrity, but did any previous president, Republican or Democrat, ever lie in ways that threatened the foundation of democracy?
Do you think maybe controls, licensing and safety requirements should be put in place for guns the way they are for cars and dangerous substances/viruses/bacteria?
No because cars and other substances aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Nothing in the Bill of Rights is absolute. We've been over this. It's why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, despite the First Amendment. It's why gun control is constitutional, particularly for an amendment about guns in the context of militia. Even you are in favor of gun control when you advocate for red flag laws.
That means it isn't a question of whether guns should be subject to government control. Of course they should. Even you believe that. It's only a question of where one draws the line between who should own them and who shouldn't.
Just the opposite, actually. I feel sorry for anyone who has to give up something they love.
I'll take your word for that, but you're in the minority. Most gun controllers, "progressives" get their rocks off giving people orders and depriving them of their freedoms.
Governing, regardless of party, involves balancing conflicting freedoms. For a simple example, your freedom to extend your arm stops at my nose. How would you balance someone's right to be safe in their own home or church or shopping mall against someone else's right to own a gun?
Would requiring that the gun be registered, the zoo worker be licensed, and the gun have additional safety features have prevented the saving of the child?
Yes, because there would have been NO GUN! When the zoo worker would have approached the gun permit czar, he would have been asked "What do you need a gun at a zoo for? These are tame animals in captivity. PERMIT DENIED!" Government agents are often not near as good at knowing what the general public needs as well as the general public does.
Now you're just employing scare tactics. Quality gun control would involve registration of firearms, licensing of firearm owners, and hopefully safety improvements to the firearms themselves.
The more government requirements there are for skilled marksmen, the fewer skilled marksmen there are going to be.
Uh, okay, possibly. So?
The zoo would have called the police, and everyone would have watched the child slowly die before the police got there.
I think we need laws that benefit the most people (i.e., result in the fewest firearm related deaths), not that address one-of events that pull at the heart strings.
Yes, Marc, that's what we've all been doing in this thread is questioning the skill of marksmen.
No, you've been mocking the "magical" craziness of gun nuts.
I see you chopped the alert to your sarcasm detecter off what you quoted. Anyway, what I've actually said about gun nuts is that they're in love with guns. The guns have an almost mystical power over them that allows them, and you're a good example, to simply deny or ignore all the evidence of their danger and the damage they're doing to our society.
Let's say I'm totally ignorant "of what the general public knows or does not know." Why do you think that's important or relevant?
That you have to ask that, makes it clear that you have no appreciation of the freedoms you enjoy in the U.S.
Why can't you explain why you thought that point relevant or important? Is it because you're talking through your hat again? To repeat the question, how is my familiarity with what the general public knows relevant or meaningful? Giving no response and just claiming it's obvious is an undeniable deflection that raises serious doubts about whether you have an actual point.
You are really fixated on Hunter Biden.
Because THAT is how the election was stolen.
Really? And yet you can't even find the poll data supporting your claim that people care about Hunter Biden. And Trump and all his supporters say it was the Dominion voting machines and illegals voting and dead people voting and ballot stuffing and scads of fake mail-in ballots.
The cover-up by the mainstream news and big tech of the unprecedented corruption that went on during the 8 years of the Biden vice presidency was the tipping point that got him elected.
Now you're just echoing false claims from the New York Post (Murdoch Corporation) and the Washington Times (Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church) and other conservative media that have little interest in truth and accuracy.
But you seem to see conspiracies built upon fantasies lurking around every corner.
It goes equally both ways. I'm just a little surprised that the left constantly accuses the right of conspiracy theories, while promoting so many of their own.
Let's keep the discussion anchored in reality. No one besides you is promoting conspiracy theories, including where you accuse others of promoting conspiracy theories.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
