Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Shooting in California


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Shooting in California Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Shooting in California - 12/5/2015 7:02:09 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I watch it, purely for their faux outrage at the crap they focus on.
Its really a shame that their brand of stupid isnt damn painful like shingles is..


They can spew this stuff, especially the ridiculous stuff, with a straight face, that's what gets me...


I'd imagine they feel the same as left-leaning newscasters feel when they push their own agendas.

Interestingly, Business Insider has an article on the most and least trusted news organizations according to a Pew survey, and it appears only the WSJ is universally trusted.


when it is almost a daily thing. and the depths they sink to are equal to fox I will believe what you say about LL newscasters.
Of course you could give us say....three examples from this year where CNN or MSNBC or hell any news channel have made LL claims like fox has.
I will await your links.

BI isnt reliable, LOL
I get my sources from outside the US and inside the US and Im still aware of the bias, of all of them, but nobody lies like fox
BTW Alex Jones, that great lover of donald trump says san bernadino is a false flag..


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: Shooting in California - 12/5/2015 7:17:04 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
when it is almost a daily thing. and the depths they sink to are equal to fox I will believe what you say about LL newscasters.
Of course you could give us say....three examples from this year where CNN or MSNBC or hell any news channel have made LL claims like fox has.
I will await your links.

BI isnt reliable, LOL
I get my sources from outside the US and inside the US and Im still aware of the bias, of all of them, but nobody lies like fox
BTW Alex Jones, that great lover of donald trump says san bernadino is a false flag..



You appear to be under the impression I am a fan of Fox News. I am not, nor am I a fan of Alex Jones, who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like, even if it conflicts with other conspiracy theories he likes. You are also missing the Pew Research data cited by the BI article. "lol" indeed.

One can usually spot the underlying anti-firearm agenda of CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Huffington Post, etc by the words chosen (or that one of them employed Piers Morgan). If you'd really like I can go cite sources but I'd much prefer that to be a two-way street; you cite articles wherein left-leaning outlets show no bias and I'll cite articles wherein they do.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: Shooting in California - 12/5/2015 7:27:22 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
I typically ignore all of them and look for the benjamins. The l/r paradim is a farce. Sorta like looking down into a garbage pail full of magots and trying to decide which is the pretty one. Only another magot knows which one is the prettiest.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: Shooting in California - 12/5/2015 10:19:47 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
Commentators have described MSNBC as having a bias towards left-leaning politics and the Democratic Party. In November 2007, a New York Times article stated that MSNBC's prime-time lineup is tilting more to the left.[1] Washington Post media analyst Howard Kurtz has stated that the channel's evening lineup "has clearly gravitated to the left in recent years and often seems to regard itself as the antithesis of Fox News".[2] In 2011, Salon.com noted that "MSNBC’s prime-time lineup is now awash in progressive politics."[3]

That same year, Politico referred to MSNBC as "left-leaning".[4] In reference to changes in the channel's evening programming, senior vice president of NBC News Phil Griffin said that "It happened naturally. There isn't a dogma we're putting through. There is a 'Go for it.'"[1]

A study conducted by Harvard University on media bias during the 2008 presidential election found that "A positive tone pervaded (on MSNBC) coverage of candidates from both parties. Nearly half (47%) of the stories about Democratic candidates were positive, vs. 19% negative and 34% neutral. Coverage of Republican candidates was not quite as rosy but still more stories were positive (38%) than neutral (33%) or negative (30%)."[5]

In the February 2008 issue of Men's Journal magazine, an MSNBC interviewee quoted a senior executive who said that liberal commentator Keith Olbermann "runs MSNBC" and that "because of his success, he's in charge" of the channel.[6] The New York Times has called Olbermann MSNBC's "most recognizable face".[1] In September 2008, MSNBC stated that they were removing both Olbermann and Chris Matthews as live political event anchors, and replacing them with David Gregory, due to growing criticism that they were "too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign".[7][8]

Olbermann continued to broadcast Countdown both before and after the presidential and vice-presidential debates, and both Matthews and Olbermann joined Gregory on the channel's election night coverage. In September 2009, a Pew Research Poll showed that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate the channel favorably and Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to see MSNBC unfavorably.[9][10]

On November 13, 2009, in the days leading up to the release of 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan used photoshopped pictures of Palin on the channel's Morning Meeting program. Ratigan apologized a few days later stating, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin's upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."[11]

In October 2010, MSNBC began using the tagline "lean forward", which was described by some media outlets, including msnbc.com, as the network embracing its politically progressive identity.[12][13][14]

Assertions of pro-Obama bias Edit
Some Democratic Party supporters, most notably Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Bill Clinton advisor Lanny Davis,[15] criticized MSNBC during and after the 2008 Democratic primaries, as covering Barack Obama more favorably than Hillary Clinton.[16][17] [v]A study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that MSNBC had less negative coverage of Obama (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and more negative stories about Republican presidential candidate John McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).[18]

MSNBC's on-air slogan during the week of the 2008 presidential election, "The Power of Change", was criticized as being overtly similar to Obama's campaign slogan of "Change".[19] Following the 2008 presidential election, conservative talk-show host, John Ziegler worked on a documentary called Media Malpractice.... How Obama Got Elected, which was very critical of the media, especially MSNBC's role, in the election. While promoting the documentary, he engaged in an on-air dispute with MSNBC news anchor Contessa Brewer, on how the media, especially MSNBC, had portrayed Sarah Palin.[20]

After Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann made controversial on-air comments during the 2008 Republican National Convention, NBC News correspondent David Gregory replaced them, but Matthews and Olbermann continued working as analysts.[21] On November 4–5, Matthews teamed with Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, Gregory, and Olbermann to cover the presidential election.

During MSNBC's coverage of the Potomac primary, Matthews said of presidential candidate Barack Obama, "I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."[22]

This led many on the right to assert that both he and MSNBC were biased toward Obama.[23]

Phil Donahue cancellation Edit
[Donahue presents a] difficult public face for NBC in a time of war ... He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives.

—NBC internal study[24]
See also: Media coverage of the Iraq War
Phil Donahue's 2002 program Donahue was canceled in late February 2003 during the buildup to the Iraq War. Despite earlier statements tying the cancellation to low ratings,[25] Donahue was MSNBC's highest rated show that month.[24]

A leaked NBC internal study revealed that the studio was concerned that Donahue would act as "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity".[24]

Michael Savage dismissal Edit
During the spring and early summer of 2003, MSNBC featured a weekend talk show hosted by conservative radio host Michael Savage. In July of that year, Savage responded to a prank caller on his show by calling him a "pig" and a "sodomite", and telling him he "should get AIDS and die". Savage's show was canceled and Savage was fired from the channel shortly afterward (with some reports placing the termination immediately after the episode in question went off air).[26]

Don Imus dismissal Edit
In early April 2007, Don Imus, whose radio show Imus in the Morning was simulcast on MSNBC, described members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team, as "some nappy-headed hoes". The comments sparked outrage, as many considered them to be racist and sexist. After sponsors began to withdraw advertisements from the show, MSNBC canceled the simulcast. Imus, as well as NBC News, apologized to the Rutgers Basketball team for the remarks.[27]

Rise of the New Right documentary Edit
In June 2010, a documentary airing on MSNBC and hosted by Chris Matthews titled Rise of the New Right drew significant criticism from conservatives and the Tea Party movement. The documentary features interviews with Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader, Orly Taitz, a leading figure in the "birther" movement, and radio host Alex Jones. The documentary also showed the Michigan Militia's survival training camp and hit the campaign trail with Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul.[28]

After the documentary aired, FreedomWorks, which is chaired by Dick Armey, issued a letter calling for a boycott of Dawn and Procter & Gamble, which advertises during Hardball with Chris Matthews.[29][30]

Olbermann suspension Edit
On November 5, 2010, MSNBC President Phil Griffin suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay for contributing $2,400 (the maximum personal donation limit) to each of three Democratic candidates during the 2010 midterm election cycle.[31] Contributions to political campaigns, under NBC News policy, are not allowed without prior permission. On November 7, 2010, Olbermann posted a thank you message to supporters via Twitter.[32] The same day, MSNBC announced that he would return on the air starting November 9.[33]

Two weeks later, Griffin announced the suspension of Joe Scarborough for the same offense, as the Morning Joe host had donated $4,000 to Republican candidates in Florida. Like Olbermann's suspension, Scarborough's suspension was brief, and he returned to the airwaves on November 24.[34]

Tucson shootings Edit
During the news cycle following the 2011 Tucson shooting, conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin threatened to sue Chris Matthews and several other MSNBC commentators who suggested that he might have influenced the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. Levin also defended Republican politician Sarah Palin from MSNBC punditry linking her political rhetoric to the heated political atmosphere surrounding the killings.[35][36]

Paul Bond of The Hollywood Reporter wrote "MSNBC was crucial in driving the narrative that the killer was egged on by violent political rhetoric, particularly from Palin". Bond also wrote "even after it was learned that the shooter was an atheist, flag-burning, Bush-hating, 9/11 Truther who enjoyed joking about abortion (not exactly the portrait of a Palin supporter), MSNBC still did not let up on that story line".[37]

Mitt Romney Video Edit
Anchorwoman Andrea Mitchell was caught showing a doctored video clip of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a rally in Pennsylvania. In the edited version it has Mitt Romney saying how amazing it is to get a custom made sandwich, using a touch screen ordering device at a Wawa convenience store. What viewers didn't see or hear was nearly three minutes of Romney discussing the extensive amount of paperwork faced by an optometrist he'd talked to in trying to get the post office to change his address. He expressed mock amazement at Wawa's efficiency to underscore how the private sector is often more efficient than Government. [38][39]

Romney-Ryan Chant Video Edit
On Morning Joe, a discussion about Romney relying on his running mate Paul Ryan's popularity was begun with a clip from a Romney Rally that showed the crowd chanting. In the clip Romney instructs them to chant "Romney-Ryan". According to the subtitle added by the show, they were chanting "Ryan", which along with the introduction to the clip, made it appear that Romney was injecting his own name into a "Ryan" chant. A caller called into TheBlaze TV’s “Pat & Stu” saying she was at the rally and they were chanting Romney.[40]

Reporters who attended the event from the website BuzzFeed, and the New York Times both confirm that the crowd was chanting Romney, and he added the name of his running mate. In response to criticisms Joe Scarborough Tweeted that they were chanting Ryan, and that he would "take note of those who link to the lie". Lauren Skowronski, a spokeswoman for Morning Joe, sent out an email claiming that, "the tape clip was untouched and was played as it was recorded", though the "Ryan" subscript was clearly added to the clip.[41][42]

Bias against Romney and for Obama week before 2012 presidential election Edit
A study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week of the 2012 presidential campaign (68% negative with NO positive stories in the sample), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28, when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.[43] On the other hand, their coverage of Obama improved in the final week before the presidential election. From October 1 to 28, 33% of stories were positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were NO negative stories at all about Obama in the sample.

Up Late with Alec Baldwin cancellation Edit
Alec Baldwin's show Up Late with Alec Baldwin was suspended due to an anti-gay slur Baldwin made to a photographer in New York.[44]

Host Martin Bashir resignation Edit
Host Martin Bashir resigned after making a controversial comment about Sarah Palin.[45] On November 15, 2013, Bashir criticized Sarah Palin for comments that she made comparing the Federal debt to slavery.[46] Bashir attempted to counter Palin's comparison by referencing the cruel and barbaric punishment of slaves described by slave overseer Thomas Thistlewood, specifically a punishment called "Derby's dose" which involved forcing slaves to defecate or urinate into the mouth of another slave as punishment. Bashir then concluded by saying "When Mrs. Palin invokes slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate."[47][48]

Host Melissa Harris-Perry and guest panel ridicule Mitt Romney's adopted black grandson Edit
Political commentator Melissa Harris-Perry and her guest panel, in a look back on 2013 segment on her show, showed a picture of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his extended family. Mr. Romney was holding on his knee his adopted grandchild, Kieran Romney, an African-American. Harris-Perry and her guests, including actress Pia Glenn and comedian Dean Obeidallah, joked about coming up with captions for the photo. Glenn sang out, “One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same.” Obeidallah said, “It sums up the diversity of the Republican Party and the [Republican National Committee], where they have the whole convention and they find the one black person.” Afterwards, Harris-Perry issued an apology in a series of Tweets.[49][50]

Biracial Super Bowl Cheerios Ad Tweet Edit
On January 29, 2014, a tweet was posted on MSNBC's official Twitter feed suggesting conservatives hate biracial families: "Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family". Led by conservative blogger and news contributor Michelle Malkin, many conservatives tweeted pictures of their biracial families with the hashtag #myrightwingbiracialfamily. Many criticized the network for its constant race-baiting and desire to spread negative stereotypes, while others pointed back to many similar incidents by the network as part of a disturbing culture.[51]

MSNBC later deleted the tweet, posting a new one with an apology, stating the original tweet did not represent the network's position. MSNBC Executive Editor Richard Wolffe also tweeted that "The Cheerios tweet from @msnbc was dumb, offensive and we've taken it down. That's not who we are at MSNBC".[52] Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus sent a letter to the network's president Phil Griffin stating he will encourage all conservatives not to participate on the network until there was a public apology. Griffin apologized a few hours later, stating the person who had posted the tweet had been fired. Priebus accepted the apology, saying they will continue to monitor the network's pattern of unacceptable behavior to see if it actually changes.[53]

Cinco de Mayo Celebration Edit
On May 5, 2014 during the show "Way Too Early", a segment was done about the historical background of Cinco De Mayo and featured Louis Burgdorf dancing around the set in a sombrero, shaking maracas and drinking tequila, which host Thomas Roberts referred to as "go-go juice". The segment came under quick criticism for its mocking of Mexican heritage and use of false stereotypes.[54] MSNBC apologized the next day, saying there was no intention to be disrespectful and that while the props were planned, Roberts and Burgdorf acted the way they did on their own. The two hosts also apologized, although they partially deflected the blame back at their producers for allowing the segment to begin with.[55]

Assertions of bias in coverage of financial issues Edit
In his book Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC, Michael Arria wrote that the issue is not so much left wing or right wing as MSNBC and other media serving their own financial interests. Arria said that an example of ignoring news that threatens its own financial interests was that MSNBC was silent about the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger.[56]

Comment about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Edit
In January 2015, Arsalan Iftikhar of TheMuslimGuy.com was on MSNBC to discuss Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's denunciation of supposed Muslim "no-go zones" in London. Iftikhar commented that Jindal, who is Indian-American, "might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin" ahead of a possible 2016 presidential run. Host Alex Wagner did not challenge the comment.[57] MSNBC later released a statement saying: “We found this guest’s comments offensive and unacceptable and we don’t plan on inviting him back.” [58]

Coverage of Israel-Palestine Unrest Edit
A series of errors plagued MSNBC in October 2015 while covering the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and added to recurring claims of anti-Israel bias from the network. Ayman Mohyeldin was reporting live from Gaza, where he claimed to have witnessed an unarmed Palestinian man being shot by Israeli police at the Damascus Gate. The anchor in the studio immediately corrected him on-air, as photos and live shots of the crime scene clearly showed that the man was wielding a large knife, and video confirmed police had told him multiple times to stop as he swung it at them. Mohyeldin, who has a history of negatively covering Israel,[59] attempted to backtrack by claiming everything was moving too quickly for him to concentrate (despite having just been adamant that the man was unarmed). While he had initially claimed to have had a good vantage point of the incident as it unfolded, it was later reported that it did not take place in front of NBC News cameras.[60]

Also in October 2015, MSNBC was criticized for using a series of Israel-Palestine maps that have long been discredited as historically inaccurate and labeled as anti-Israel propaganda. The attempt by anchor Kate Snow and reporter Martin Fletcher was to show Israel's "encroachment" on "historically Palestinian land" since 1946. One of the biggest distortions was the first map claiming there was a State of Palestine that belonged to Palestinian Arabs in 1946, when in fact the territory was under British mandate at the time. The second map was the U.N.'s 1947 partition plan, which recommended the territory (still under British control) be divided into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs, but the network did not acknowledge that the Arabs rejected the plan. Israel also did not claim independence until 1948, which further proved the maps to be inaccurate.[61] After being called out, Fletcher, who had claimed that Jewish settlements will continue to eat up the land, acknowledged the errors on Facebook saying, "The first of the four maps was dead wrong and should not have been included. I wish I had pointed that out when I first saw it." A network spokesman said the attempt was to "shed light on the geographic context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue" and that it would re-broadcast the correct maps the following week, which it did.[62]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Do you suppose any of the above has helped to put MSNBC into the position it finds itself in now, as noted by these next two articles?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/msnbc-and-the-move-away-from-left-wing-tv/385798/

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/20/report-msnbc-ditch-liberal-hosts-move-left-wing-tv.html

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: Shooting in California - 12/5/2015 10:35:04 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Did you miss the part of my post that said, 3 examples this year ?
And assume that I think that they(MSNBC) dont have bias?


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: Shooting in California - 12/6/2015 10:24:45 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Did you miss the part of my post that said, 3 examples this year ?
And assume that I think that they(MSNBC) dont have bias?


No, I didn't miss that part. I gave you what could be easily found. But if you want more:

Don Lemon
On June 22, 2015, Lemon attempted to spark debate by holding up the Confederate flag and a sign with the N-word in large capital letters while asking, "does this offend you?" He received immediate criticism for the stunt.[84] It also started a series of memes on the internet, which featured the original screen shot of Lemon holding the sign, the headline "Does this Offend You?" and different images or sayings photo-shopped over the sign.[85]

Brooke Baldwin Edit
During the 2015 Baltimore riots, Brooke Baldwin suggested that veterans were responsible for the unrest, saying soldiers who become police officers "are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they’re ready to do battle." Baldwin initially pushed back critics, claiming she was just repeating something a city official had told her. She later apologized via Twitter and on-air.[86]

Fredricka Whitfield Edit
On June 13, 2015, while discussing the 2015 attack on the Dallas police headquarters, host Fredricka Whitfield referred to the gunman, James Boulware, as "courageous and brave, if not crazy". The comment received immediate backlash and calls for her to apologize. The next day, Whitfield stated on air that she misspoke and in no way believed the gunman was courageous or brave, but she stopped short of an actual apology.[87]After the backlash continued, she finally issued a formal on-air apology on June 15, saying she terribly misused those words, now understood how offensive it was and was sincerely sorry. She still stopped short of apologizing directly to the police.[88]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

Then there's this, by CNN about CNBC:

Los Angeles (CNN)Republican presidential candidates tore into CNBC's moderators at Wednesday night's GOP debate, issuing the sharpest attacks on the mainstream media of the 2016 election cycle.

Sen. Ted Cruz accused the moderators of trying to instigate a cage match, Sen. Marco Rubio called the media a super PAC for Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump slammed the "ridiculous questions."

The candidates took to the airwaves again early Thursday morning and continued to rip CNBC for the tone and substance of the debate. And in the days ahead, sources said, campaign representatives will air their grievances to the Republican National Committee.

Ben Carson even told reporters Thursday that he would be demanding a new debate format.

‎"We need a change of format," Carson said during a press conference in Lakewood, Colorado. "Debates are supposed to be to 'get to know the candidates,' what is behind them. What it has turned into is a gotcha." ‎

Carson declined to specify what changes he would ask for, but said his campaign was reaching out to the other GOP candidates to "lay out a plan" going forward. The next Republican debate is on November 10, hosted by Fox Business.

The campaigns will find a sympathetic ear in RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, who blasted CNBC late Wednesday night for asking "gotcha" questions and said the network "should be ashamed."

"I was very disappointed in the moderators. I'm disappointed in CNBC," he told reporters in the spin room in Boulder, Colorado. "I thought they would bring forward a pretty fair forum here tonight. But I think it was one gotcha question, one personal low blow after another."

He continued, "It's like they tried to design a Rubik's cube for every question to take the worst element, I think, of what the moderators and what the media should bring to the table. And all I can tell you is that while I'm pretty much proud of our candidates for pretty much sticking together, I'm very disappointed in the moderators and I'm very disappointed with CNBC."

Priebus went even further in an official statement: "One of the great things about our party is that we are able to have a dynamic exchange about which solutions will secure a prosperous future, and I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange," he wrote. "CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled."

The candidates' attacks on the media were red meat for the conservative base, which already has a deep mistrust of the mainstream press. But even by conservative standards, the candidates' broadsides on Wednesday night were aggressive and unrelenting, and delighted the audience in Boulder.

The candidates' fierce criticism of CNBC -- the first sustained volley against the media of the current campaign -- immediately called to mind the frequent attacks against the press during debates in the 2012 elections.

Brian Steel, CNBC's senior vice president for public relations, stood by the moderators' performance.

"People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions," he said in a statement late Wednesday night.

Yet the morning after the debate on Thursday, GOP candidates continued to criticize CNBC and the mainstream media generally. In an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day," Rubio took issue with the tone and substance of the debate and said he hoped future debates would do a better job of focusing on important issues.

Carly Fiorina, appearing on "New Day" with Alisyn Camertoa, chided the "liberal media" and The Washington Post specifically for continuing to focus on her remarks about Planned Parenthood.

Later in the show, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie told Camerota that he was going to keep standing up to debate moderators. "I'm not going to allow them to ask stupid questions," he said.

The campaigns will further address their frustrations in a conference call with the RNC in the days ahead, campaign sources said. Their goal is to ensure that the Fox Business debate on November 10 focuses on more substantive issues, skips the "gotcha" questions, and provides all candidates with more equal speaking times.

On Wednesday night, CNBC's moderators struggled to maintain control of a debate that, according to many journalists on Twitter, they appeared ill-equipped to handle. The panelists, usually familiar with covering Wall Street and finance, were left scrambling to talk about a presidential race they seemed to know little about.

At one point during the debate, Jeb Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz began pounding on the control room door, shouting at the CNBC producers about how the network wasn't giving equal time to all the candidates, a source with a rival campaign told CNN.

The night left GOP hopefuls and reporters wishing for the previous Republican debate moderators from Fox News and CNN.

Politico's John Bresnahan joked that CNBC was frantically calling CNN and Fox "to ask how to run a debate," while Matthew Continetti, the editor of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, wrote: "Winners of GOP Debate so far: Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper."

On stage, Cruz was the night's most vocal media critic, condemning CNBC for trying to instigate fights between the candidates while ignoring issues that mattered to voters.

"The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media," Cruz said, after being asked about the debt ceiling. "This is not a cage match."

"How about talking about the substantive issues people care about," Cruz added to thunderous applause from the audience.

The audience in Boulder was electrified by Cruz's attack. Social media mentions of Cruz blew up during his attack on the media -- it was the top moment on Facebook, the social network said -- while pollster Frank Luntz said his focus group "burst out in applause at Ted Cruz's media attack."

"Ted Cruz's focus group dials [hit] 98 with his attack on media bias," Luntz wrote on Twitter. "That's the highest score we've ever measured. EVER."

The Texas Senator wasn't the only one to slam the mainstream media at the debate: Rubio, asked to respond to a Florida Sun Sentinel editorial that had called on him to drop out of the race, charged that it "evidence of the bias that exists in the American media."

Later in the debate, Rubio declared that the mainstream media was so biased in favor of Clinton that it was effectively functioning as her Super PAC.

Trump, who had predicted before the start that the debate would be "unfair," criticized CNBC's moderators for asking "ridiculous questions," and later called a question posed to Mike Huckabee "nasty."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie looked one moderator in the eye and said, "Even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude."

At various points in the debate, both Rubio and Trump accused the moderators of having their facts wrong.

CNBC's problems were further compounded by the network's meandering commentary between the night's two debates, which was widely panned on Twitter.

"CNBC does underscore that the only people sometimes more vapid than candidates are journalists talking about candidates," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted, echoing the sentiments of many journalists and political operatives.

"Is this a public access channel?" asked Jon Favreau, the former speechwriter for President Barack Obama.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/politics/republican-debate-media/

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 5:45:07 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

...the depths they sink to are equal to fox...

but nobody lies like fox



this is close to being consistent with the aphorism "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts"

fox pretty much runs 24/7, and they cover in any given day, dozens of stories, hundreds a week, thousands a month, tens of thousands a year, and many hundreds of thousands in their lifetime.

exactly what "depths" in the midst of all of that, have they sunk? and that independent from the disagreement over "no go zones"---the left believes they don't exist, at least some on the right do. plenty of evidence, and I showed it, exists for the latter interpretation.

and even then, assuming you are correct for the sake of the next question: does something like that characterize fox? (like the plethora examples cd gave for some of the other networks) if so, then you should be able to give examples from what, how many---one a day? a week? month?

perhap more importantly, in terms of fox "lying"---same question, since they "lie", you should be able to provide evidence of it occurring regularly. like Hillary Clinton.

and for the sake of the argument, a lie is when someone knows the truth, but chooses instead to tell something other than that truth. that implies a couple of things---one is, that you yourself as arbiter of the truth know that. that is, you have to know fox knew x, y and z but instead told a, b, and c. and the other is, its not a matter of interpretation or disagreement or causing offense or getting something initially wrong, which is to say "I don't like this, I don't value that, or fox interprets this in a way i disagree with or hadn't thought of before, or their apologizing, or they had to amend their story" therefore its a lie.

so yes---the facts and, and given that "depths" and "lies" are plural and fairly much imply regularity, and given that the left more or less believes this is fox's modus operandi---plenty of them?

otherwise, its all pretty much just casting aspersions and i'll chalk it up the left being aggrieved by not just the existence of a dissenting voice, but by having one as popular and successful as fox's...


< Message edited by bounty44 -- 12/7/2015 5:51:17 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 6:56:29 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
Hey Bounty - have you thought of sending your support for Fox News to Fox News? I mean, that's a news story right there. You could be famous!

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 8:57:21 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

...the depths they sink to are equal to fox...

but nobody lies like fox



this is close to being consistent with the aphorism "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts"

fox pretty much runs 24/7, and they cover in any given day, dozens of stories, hundreds a week, thousands a month, tens of thousands a year, and many hundreds of thousands in their lifetime.

exactly what "depths" in the midst of all of that, have they sunk? and that independent from the disagreement over "no go zones"---the left believes they don't exist, at least some on the right do. plenty of evidence, and I showed it, exists for the latter interpretation.

and even then, assuming you are correct for the sake of the next question: does something like that characterize fox? (like the plethora examples cd gave for some of the other networks) if so, then you should be able to give examples from what, how many---one a day? a week? month?

perhap more importantly, in terms of fox "lying"---same question, since they "lie", you should be able to provide evidence of it occurring regularly. like Hillary Clinton.

and for the sake of the argument, a lie is when someone knows the truth, but chooses instead to tell something other than that truth. that implies a couple of things---one is, that you yourself as arbiter of the truth know that. that is, you have to know fox knew x, y and z but instead told a, b, and c. and the other is, its not a matter of interpretation or disagreement or causing offense or getting something initially wrong, which is to say "I don't like this, I don't value that, or fox interprets this in a way i disagree with or hadn't thought of before, or their apologizing, or they had to amend their story" therefore its a lie.

so yes---the facts and, and given that "depths" and "lies" are plural and fairly much imply regularity, and given that the left more or less believes this is fox's modus operandi---plenty of them?

otherwise, its all pretty much just casting aspersions and i'll chalk it up the left being aggrieved by not just the existence of a dissenting voice, but by having one as popular and successful as fox's...


you have been given links, you been given videos, you have been given source after source, the fact that you cant or refuse to accept it is not my issue.
Im not wasting more time on any idiot that wont read anything bad/truthful/proof about anything you consider sacred.
The article you posted by american thinker the other day was so unbalanced, it was almost as bad as the rants by beck or alex jones.

You have never posted an unbiased "link" not once. You have never even given a link that proves anything.
Why should I make the "no go zones an outlier, it wasnt.
Not one of cds pathetic attempt at "proof" is anywhere as shitty as getting a mayor and a prime minister of 2 different countries calling out emersons/fox's continual bullshit of lies and threatening to sue them..
Oh then there was the other "terrorist expert, who wasnt, remember him???

DO you think you can teach granny to suck eggs?? you think you are being smart or funny giving me a definition of what a lie is?

YOU simply cant handle facts and or truth outside your own tiny made up world.
If you cant handle having aspersions thrown at you then maybe dont use them as your primary method of defence, you have been proven wrong at every turn, because you dont respond or accept responsibility for your "mistakes" makes you worthless to any discussion so far... Mr "all lefties are islamist supporters".



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 9:30:58 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Hey Bounty - have you thought of sending your support for Fox News to Fox News? I mean, that's a news story right there. You could be famous!


that is a thought...I am indeed a general fan of the network.

but that said, unfortunately, I suspect im but one of many who defend fox against more or less baseless attacks by fox bashers.

show me some other network that although on the whole does lean conservative/libertarian, does such a good job of bringing in the "other point of view" on a regular basis. its one of the reasons why I watch fox.

its my position that a leftie viewer of the mainstream media and more particularly, the cable alternatives to fox, if they were honest, would be/should be ashamed of the bias.

and again, that the main reason one hears "criticisms" is not because of a lack of journalistic integrity, but rather because of the presentation of a viewpoint the left cannot tolerate (irony emphasis on "tolerate" given that's such a paradoxical word for the left).

have you ever watched the last few minutes of "the oreilly factor?" he devotes the time to reading viewer mail and responding to it. its instructive. for example. he'll read one email that'll say "o'reilly, you're a cheerleader for Donald trump" and then the very next one will say "o'reilly, good job/tough interview with Donald trump."



< Message edited by bounty44 -- 12/7/2015 9:44:39 AM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 9:39:42 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Most of the time, baseless is the Faux Nuze. Not the people who point out they are factless propagandists.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 9:40:53 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.

The evolving situation has forced Republican leaders and presidential candidates to contort themselves: talking tough on terrorism, yet ignoring the fact that the two were armed to the teeth with two .223-caliber assault rifles and two 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistols, and hundreds of rounds, all purchased legally.

While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.

The measure has been introduced repeatedly since 2007. The Government Accountability Office has documented that over years of congressional blockage, hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watchlist bought guns.

Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday. The four Republican senators running for president — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham — all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watchlist measure.

In the hours after the attack in San Bernardino on Wednesday, President Obama specifically mentioned that legislation as an important security measure. “Those same people who we don’t allow to fly can go into a store in the United States and buy a firearm, and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them. That’s a law that needs to be changed,” he said on CBS News. The George W. Bush administration backed the terrorist-list bill in 2007.

No matter. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, issued his party’s weak defense of arming potential terrorism suspects on Thursday morning: “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” Mr. Ryan’s Senate colleagues demonstrated that they are more worried about the possibility that someone might be turned away from a gun shop than shielding the public against violent criminals.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition’s conference on Thursday, the Republican presidential candidates offered little but political attacks. Senator Cruz immediately blamed Mr. Obama: “Coming on the wake of the terror attack in Paris, this horrific murder underscores that we are at a time of war, whether or not the current administration realizes it or is willing to acknowledge it, our enemies are at war with us and I believe this nation needs a wartime president to defend it.”


Gov. Chris Christie injected more fear: “The president continues to wring his hands and say ‘we’ll see,’ but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semiautomatic weapons came there to do something. We need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war.”

From Jeb Bush, a bizarre slam: “The brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism exists, and this president and his former secretary of state cannot call it for what it is.”

And Donald Trump, true to his birther views, insinuated that Mr. Obama was hiding something: “Radical Islamic terrorism. We have a president that refuses to use the term. He refuses to say it. There’s something going on with him that we don’t know about.”

Since the Paris attacks, Republicans have been trying to outdo each other in describing how they’d crack down on global terrorism. But when a mass shooting at home calls attention to laws that put guns into the hands of suspected terrorists, they ask for a moment of silence, while taking action that speaks volumes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 9:42:53 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00321

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Manchin Amdt. No. 2908 )
Vote Number: 321 Vote Date: December 3, 2015, 05:09 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2908 to S.Amdt. 2874 to H.R. 3762 (Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015)
Statement of Purpose: To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 48
NAYs 50
Not Voting 2


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 12:13:41 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.


To vote against restricting guns to those on terrorist watch lists shows how so much American "logic" works.. just makes ya shake yer head in amazement...

I actually do think the attack was more of a workplace violence situation.. Imo, there was some trigger at the party that caused the male to instigate the attack at that time, but I also think that perhaps they had plans for a much different, bigger attack in mind so maybe if they had waited instead, the death toll & damage could have been greater.. They were certainly planning an attack, but was this one what they originally planned?

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 1:54:29 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.


To vote against restricting guns to those on terrorist watch lists shows how so much American "logic" works.. just makes ya shake yer head in amazement...

I actually do think the attack was more of a workplace violence situation.. Imo, there was some trigger at the party that caused the male to instigate the attack at that time, but I also think that perhaps they had plans for a much different, bigger attack in mind so maybe if they had waited instead, the death toll & damage could have been greater.. They were certainly planning an attack, but was this one what they originally planned?
Anything to negate the terrorism truth, eh?

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 1:55:59 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
LMAO hypocrite

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 2:15:53 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

...the depths they sink to are equal to fox...

but nobody lies like fox



this is close to being consistent with the aphorism "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts"

fox pretty much runs 24/7, and they cover in any given day, dozens of stories, hundreds a week, thousands a month, tens of thousands a year, and many hundreds of thousands in their lifetime.

exactly what "depths" in the midst of all of that, have they sunk? and that independent from the disagreement over "no go zones"---the left believes they don't exist, at least some on the right do. plenty of evidence, and I showed it, exists for the latter interpretation.

and even then, assuming you are correct for the sake of the next question: does something like that characterize fox? (like the plethora examples cd gave for some of the other networks) if so, then you should be able to give examples from what, how many---one a day? a week? month?

perhap more importantly, in terms of fox "lying"---same question, since they "lie", you should be able to provide evidence of it occurring regularly. like Hillary Clinton.

and for the sake of the argument, a lie is when someone knows the truth, but chooses instead to tell something other than that truth. that implies a couple of things---one is, that you yourself as arbiter of the truth know that. that is, you have to know fox knew x, y and z but instead told a, b, and c. and the other is, its not a matter of interpretation or disagreement or causing offense or getting something initially wrong, which is to say "I don't like this, I don't value that, or fox interprets this in a way i disagree with or hadn't thought of before, or their apologizing, or they had to amend their story" therefore its a lie.

so yes---the facts and, and given that "depths" and "lies" are plural and fairly much imply regularity, and given that the left more or less believes this is fox's modus operandi---plenty of them?

otherwise, its all pretty much just casting aspersions and i'll chalk it up the left being aggrieved by not just the existence of a dissenting voice, but by having one as popular and successful as fox's...


you have been given links, you been given videos, you have been given source after source, the fact that you cant or refuse to accept it is not my issue.
Im not wasting more time on any idiot that wont read anything bad/truthful/proof about anything you consider sacred.
The article you posted by american thinker the other day was so unbalanced, it was almost as bad as the rants by beck or alex jones.

You have never posted an unbiased "link" not once. You have never even given a link that proves anything.
Why should I make the "no go zones an outlier, it wasnt.
Not one of cds pathetic attempt at "proof" is anywhere as shitty as getting a mayor and a prime minister of 2 different countries calling out emersons/fox's continual bullshit of lies and threatening to sue them..
Oh then there was the other "terrorist expert, who wasnt, remember him???

DO you think you can teach granny to suck eggs?? you think you are being smart or funny giving me a definition of what a lie is?

YOU simply cant handle facts and or truth outside your own tiny made up world.
If you cant handle having aspersions thrown at you then maybe dont use them as your primary method of defence, you have been proven wrong at every turn, because you dont respond or accept responsibility for your "mistakes" makes you worthless to any discussion so far... Mr "all lefties are islamist supporters".


Threatening to sue...but never doing so, right?

Really? You don't think Brooke Baldwin blaming veterans for the unrest in Baltimore or Frederica Whitfield calling the gunman who attacked a Dallas police station "brave and courageous" were shitty? You don't think laughing over the assault on Palin's daughter by a man she didn't know was shitty? You don't think making fun of Romney's black grandson was shitty? What DOES it take for you to think these leftist journalists have behaved shitty? Say something bad about Obama or Hillary?

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 2:28:37 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.

The evolving situation has forced Republican leaders and presidential candidates to contort themselves: talking tough on terrorism, yet ignoring the fact that the two were armed to the teeth with two .223-caliber assault rifles and two 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistols, and hundreds of rounds, all purchased legally.

While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.

The measure has been introduced repeatedly since 2007. The Government Accountability Office has documented that over years of congressional blockage, hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watchlist bought guns.

Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday. The four Republican senators running for president — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham — all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watchlist measure.

In the hours after the attack in San Bernardino on Wednesday, President Obama specifically mentioned that legislation as an important security measure. “Those same people who we don’t allow to fly can go into a store in the United States and buy a firearm, and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them. That’s a law that needs to be changed,” he said on CBS News. The George W. Bush administration backed the terrorist-list bill in 2007.

No matter. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, issued his party’s weak defense of arming potential terrorism suspects on Thursday morning: “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.” Mr. Ryan’s Senate colleagues demonstrated that they are more worried about the possibility that someone might be turned away from a gun shop than shielding the public against violent criminals.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition’s conference on Thursday, the Republican presidential candidates offered little but political attacks. Senator Cruz immediately blamed Mr. Obama: “Coming on the wake of the terror attack in Paris, this horrific murder underscores that we are at a time of war, whether or not the current administration realizes it or is willing to acknowledge it, our enemies are at war with us and I believe this nation needs a wartime president to defend it.”


Gov. Chris Christie injected more fear: “The president continues to wring his hands and say ‘we’ll see,’ but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semiautomatic weapons came there to do something. We need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war.”

From Jeb Bush, a bizarre slam: “The brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism exists, and this president and his former secretary of state cannot call it for what it is.”

And Donald Trump, true to his birther views, insinuated that Mr. Obama was hiding something: “Radical Islamic terrorism. We have a president that refuses to use the term. He refuses to say it. There’s something going on with him that we don’t know about.”

Since the Paris attacks, Republicans have been trying to outdo each other in describing how they’d crack down on global terrorism. But when a mass shooting at home calls attention to laws that put guns into the hands of suspected terrorists, they ask for a moment of silence, while taking action that speaks volumes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

It never looked like a workplace shooting.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 2:31:45 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Investigators now believe that what initially seemed a workplace shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., was a well-planned attack by a married couple with at least some contact with Islamic extremists.


To vote against restricting guns to those on terrorist watch lists shows how so much American "logic" works.. just makes ya shake yer head in amazement...

I actually do think the attack was more of a workplace violence situation.. Imo, there was some trigger at the party that caused the male to instigate the attack at that time, but I also think that perhaps they had plans for a much different, bigger attack in mind so maybe if they had waited instead, the death toll & damage could have been greater.. They were certainly planning an attack, but was this one what they originally planned?

This has been covered extensivly on various treads.
The No Fly and terror lists require no facts, and take years to correct a mistake.
Ted Kennedy got on it twice, Al Gore twice. We need to fix it before we can even count on them for what they are intended to do.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: Shooting in California - 12/7/2015 2:42:14 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LMAO hypocrite

Oh, I don't know that I'd call tj a hypocrite...misguided maybe. Mistaken in the assumption that this was workplace viilence? Most assuredly.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Shooting in California Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109