3 ms·

I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis

by pstuart 13y ago

I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening. That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.

kbenson 13y ago
The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
  - xaviorm 13y ago
    You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
      - tekromancr 13y ago
        Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
        pstuart 13y ago
        There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
      - talmand 13y ago
        First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
        pstuart 13y ago
        Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
  - jff 13y ago
    Hi. I'm a member of the US Militia. You probably are too, if you're a male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. See the Militia Act of 1792. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 (Edit: this was reiterated by the Militia Act of 1903)
WalterSear 13y ago
They drop the ball more than they catch it.

by pstuart 13y ago

kbenson 13y ago

The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.

pstuart 13y ago
Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
- xaviorm 13y ago
  You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
    - tekromancr 13y ago
      Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
      - pstuart 13y ago
        There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
    - talmand 13y ago
      First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
      - pstuart 13y ago
        Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
- jff 13y ago
  Hi. I'm a member of the US Militia. You probably are too, if you're a male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. See the Militia Act of 1792. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 (Edit: this was reiterated by the Militia Act of 1903)

WalterSear 13y ago

They drop the ball more than they catch it.