| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Rightist Media Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - [37838313] Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 11:44 I thought about sending Guru a request to reinstate the deleted "Conservative Media Bias" thread since it's still under 200 posts. But it didn't seem worth the trouble. The last post is over 3 years old and the discussion there is primarily dominated with Disney's refusal to air an anti-Bush documentary on ABC in mid 2004, a handful of issues related to the 2004 presidential campaign and the Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon scandals. Also, let's be honest, the phrase, "conservative media bias" is redundant. Anyway, Media Matters took a look at Andrew Breitbart's Shirley Sherrod writer: In two posts on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that "if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn't Sherrod." The racism criticism is ironic coming from Pezzi, who has repeatedly used racial epithets like "Japs" and "Chinks," and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites.No need to recreate the whole post, all their work is sourced. Just a window into Breitbart's standards for "journalists" in his employ. *note- Several words copied from the article were altered to get past Guru's profanity filter. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 119 | Mith ID: 4010542612 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 09:59 |
My impression comes from insuring a good chunk of people with gun collections Then the disconnect between your impression and reality makes sense. You are frequently exposed to one type of gun show attendee and have mistakenly assumed that this is what is most typical. The video of a typical gun show shows a very different range of products and different atmosphere than the antique collectors' event you seem to think they typically are. | ||||||
| 120 | Boldwin ID: 5408309 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:29 |
I used to sell Indian Jewelry at gunshows every week albeit many years ago. They defy any category. You can expect anything the local merchant class thinks they can sell to that crowd. Think insulated windows as likely as AR-15's. MITH thinking you can wander down there and see row after row of vulcan mini-gun cannons and not much else...silly. It's books and jewelry and lemonade and campers and decoys and tools of every desciption. Obscure and unusual junk that isn't quite antique. It isn't any more threatening or dangerous than any other gathering in America hardly. | ||||||
| 121 | Boldwin ID: 5408309 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:35 | And that show MITH produced a video of is far far more elite than the average gunshow around the country. Very atypical. I never saw the level of heavy caliber eq in that video in any gunshow I was ever at. | ||||||
| 122 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 14:16 |
I think that gun shows have moved beyond the flea market tables. And why wouldn't it? The free market says that when there is a place to sell these things without hindrance then both buyer and seller will appear. | ||||||
| 123 | sarge33rd ID: 45072817 Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 15:11 | that video, is for one of the two largest gun shows in the country. To think it typical, is absurd. | ||||||
| 124 | Mith ID: 4010542612 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 08:25 |
For the record it's not. If you watched the video, you heard the narrator explain that it's a seperate event and in a seperate building from the Crossrowds to the West Gun Show. Small Arms Review also has a video from the Crossroads of the West show (one of the two biggest shows in the country) which occurs next door. I specifically chose the video from the SAR show rather than the COTW video to present a more typical event. But anyway, the quantity of heavy munitions isn't the point. Post 103 took issue with the gun show loophole. Post 107 brushed it off, describing gun shows as little more than antique swap meets. The point is that at typical gunshows there are indeed stockpiles of modern weapons (including high caliber, high capacity firearms) where vendors can make their stock accessable to the public with considerably less legal regulation and scrutiny for both buyer and seller than is required when operating out of their place of business. | ||||||
| 125 | sarge33rd ID: 45072817 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 09:29 | Didnt realize the SAR building was not part and parcel to the gun show in the other 5 buildings referenced in the video. Thought it was an "attached" display/arena. | ||||||
| 126 | Boldwin ID: 140283018 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 11:30 |
I think that gun shows have moved beyond the flea market tables. And why wouldn't it? Give me a hint you have any personal knowledge to share with us on the subject of gunshows. I know the guys in the booths and you...what is your connection again? | ||||||
| 127 | Tree, not at home ID: 3910441615 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 12:40 |
I know the guys in the booths and of course you do. | ||||||
| 128 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 12:53 |
You knew the guys in flea market booths. How long ago, exactly? Seriously--when was the last time you went to a real gun show? The world has moved past you. You can't possibly believe that the gun shows would not become magnets of gun sellers when they are restricted elsewhere from selling their guns. Likewise for gun buyers. Instead of agreeing to this commonsense point, you start "whipping it out" about knowing the guys. Back in the day. | ||||||
| 129 | Tree ID: 320371412 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 14:27 |
a timely article... According to a transcript from one investigator’s purchase of a Sig Sauer pistol at the Phoenix show, the exchange went like this: Investigator: “So, you’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?” Seller: “No. No tax, no form, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing.” Investigator: “Yeah, yeah.” Seller: “Just see an Arizona ID and that’s it with me.” Investigator: “So no background check?” Seller: “No.” Investigator: “That’s good, because I probably couldn’t pass one, you know what I mean?” The seller sold the gun for $500. and another article, with video footage... how anyone with rational thought - ANYONE - can think that gun shows are basically a bunch of collectors buying, trading, and selling antiques like some swap meet - is beyond me. | ||||||
| 130 | Pancho Villa ID: 597172916 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 15:02 | Fortunately, this mom had a gun to defend herself from her mouthy teenage children. | ||||||
| 131 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 15:15 |
Hmm, I'm getting confused. So I'm not supposed to take my small chunk of information based on actual dealings and interactings with people and apply it to the general populace of gun shows. However others can take a speciality video thats not even part of the main gun show and apply that to all gun shows as representative of the general attendee? Either way, I think this debate is getting a bit off point. In post 103 Tree brought up the loophole about buying guns at gunshows. I actually agree with him to an extent. My whole point was that there are perfectly capable, reasonable and safe gun owners who use these shows. a) any changes to the law should not hurt their ability to do what they've been doing b) no matter what, if you go to a gunshow, people are going to swap guns. So how do you realistically propose to regulate that? The reality is you cant. The closest I can think of is registration. Any gun exchange must have a simple registration form filled out. But again, "Hey bill, thats a nice .345. I'll trade ya my .322 for it." "Sure Ted. I'd love a .322 for my collection" cannot be enforced/monitored/regulated. Its dealing with reality. b) | ||||||
| 132 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:38 |
So I'm not supposed to take my small chunk of information based on actual dealings and interactings with people and apply it to the general populace of gun shows No you should certainly apply it, but not to an an overgeneralized and assumptive but definitive statement based only on that small chunk of knowledge. others can take a speciality video thats not even part of the main gun show and apply that to all gun shows as representative of the general attendee Well they can take that video of a gun show and add it to Sarge's account from personal experience and decide which narrative is more likely closer to the truth. And I'm not sure why an event that sets up next to the 2nd largest show in the country makes for a more representative example of a gun shoe (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway) but by all means, here's the SAR video from the main show: Here's a video from an event called Gun Show 2006 at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, VA. It looks like there are dozens of gun show videos on YouTube. So it doesn't seem to be very hard to get a feel for what they're like. None of the ones I skimmed through look like antique swap meets to me. | ||||||
| 133 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:54 |
My whole point was that there are perfectly capable, reasonable and safe gun owners who use these shows. That's much more reasonable than the way you initially presented it. a) any changes to the law should not hurt their ability to do what they've been doing b) no matter what, if you go to a gunshow, people are going to swap guns. So how do you realistically propose to regulate that? The reality is you cant. Do you come to this conclusion after waying the impacts on society? For example, how many guns purchased through the loophole wind up getting used in crimes? I don't know the answer, but I'd clearly have to know whether and how much damage this law potentially does before any concern for the convenience of law-abiding but unlicensed gun traders promptly ends the discussion. | ||||||
| 134 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:06 |
For example, how many guns purchased through the loophole wind up getting used in crimes? I'm not disputing that at all. But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this. How can you stop Joe-jim and Billybob from trading their guns whether its at a show or in their backyard? Best way I can think of is registration and something along the lines of: "the registered owner of a gun can be held liable for crimes committed with that gun unless it is reported stolen." Then of course 'the owner' is the last person to register it. So if Im going to trade my gun I'd darn well better make sure its registered to the new guy. But I can still envision too many situations where a truly innocent person can get royally screwed (gun stolen and used and the owner doesn't realize its been stolen). | ||||||
| 135 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:15 |
But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this Actually, there is: Get rid of the gun show loophole. Have all sales within a state follow the laws of that state regardless of whether at a gun show or at a regular gun shop. To me, that is step 0. | ||||||
| 136 | WiddleAvi ID: 32559 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:17 | I think guns should be registered and you have to show up every x amount of years and show that you still have the gun in your possesion. | ||||||
| 138 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 18:21 |
But you are completely ignoring the overall point that there is no way to realistically legislate this. How can you stop Joe-jim and Billybob from trading their guns whether its at a show or in their backyard? I think you mean to say that there is no way to realistically enfore a law mandating background checks, although that isn't necessarily true, either. And there's no need to charge sellers with the crimes committed by their customers. Recently there were civil suits filed against weapons manufacturers when their products were used in murders. They didn't fly and neither would such an oppressive criminal law approach to retailers and private sellers. Of course sellers could be made to face less draconian charges with reasonable penalties for under-the-table deals. FWIW I don't care if Billybob buys Joe-Jim's gun over beers in the backyard and never commits a crime with it. But if John Smith from Washington DC answers Joe-Jim's craigslist ad and drives into VA, buys his gun and then uses it in an armed robbery, why wouldn't he give up Joe-Jim's identity in exchange for a chance at a reduced sentence? Sure, you won't track down every seller (would you apply that reasoning to any other criminal law?) but you might catch enough to deter others. Again, I'd have to know more before I'd support such a law but I certainly don't dismiss the possibility of any solution out of hand. There are common-sense things that can be done to deter sellers from providing guns to people who wouldn't pass a background check. It looks like the federal background check is not prohibitively expensive and that you can download the paperwork on line. If they can't already, I'd support potential buyers being allowed to file for it themselves and have the paperwork sent or emailed directly to the seller to ease the process. | ||||||
| 139 | Mith ID: 5631099 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 21:23 | On World Net Daily's journalistic standards. | ||||||
| 140 | DWetzel ID: 31111810 Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 21:50 | WND -- also not intended to be a factual statement, obviously. | ||||||
| 141 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 23:21 | FOX unable to get a reaction from the White House on a coincidence only they noticed. Or cared about. | ||||||
| 142 | Mith ID: 4310402110 Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 10:53 | Friends of Hamas rumor deconstructed. | ||||||
| 143 | Perm Dude ID: 201027169 Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 16:15 | Not the Right Wing Journalism's Finest Hour | ||||||
| 144 | Tree ID: 371392017 Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 21:31 | re 142 - goes a long way in showing how Breitbart.com is hardly a reputable media outlet. i mean, most of us know this already, but still...it defies logic that a thinking person would view that site as reputable. | ||||||
| 145 | Boldwin ID: 14158212 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 04:04 | For 20%-30% of the population the slogan "Breitbart lives" are either words they live by or words their favorite thot leaders live by. Consciously and daily. | ||||||
| 146 | Tree ID: 2510132311 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 09:11 | Every last one of them is either a moron, or a person who accepts lies and deception as a proper way of living their life. | ||||||
| 147 | Seattle Zen ID: 4811181319 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:12 | The percentage is certainly less than .2 or .3, Baldwin, and Tree is right, those people are hapless fools. | ||||||
| 148 | DWetzel ID: 59149910 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:35 | I would bet my house that if you asked 1000 random people on the street, not more than 200 of them would be able to identify Breitbart's profession if asked, let alone agree with him. | ||||||
| 149 | boikin ID: 430211013 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:45 | DW-I think you mean 20 or even 2, I don't even know the answer to that question, he is on the internet? | ||||||
| 150 | Perm Dude ID: 201027169 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 10:51 | But that becomes self-confirming too. It just shows that everyone else who hasn't bought into the cult of pesonality that is Breitbart are just "sheeple" and undeserving of the "truth." | ||||||
| 151 | Tree ID: 1910562515 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 11:26 |
i wonder if 20 to 30 percent of the population could even tell you Breitbart's first name. (although i was mildly pleased and amused to find out that his in-laws are actor Orson Bean (himself the son of one of the founders of the ACLU) and Wonder Years mom, actress Alley Mills) | ||||||
| 152 | DWetzel ID: 59149910 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 12:13 |
"DW-I think you mean 20 or even 2, I don't even know the answer to that question, he is on the internet?" Well, that's the number that I'd feel good about betting my house at; I'd need pretty good odds for that. I think you'd get over 2% that would know the name. If we were playing Card Sharks* and I had to put a number out of 100 that would know who he is, I'd probably guess 6. That's as distinct from actually agreeing with the majority of his his website, of course. That would be a significantly smaller number. *somewhat obscure and disturbingly self-dating reference alert | ||||||
| 153 | Mith ID: 4310402110 Thu, Mar 07, 2013, 16:25 |
On the July 11, 2007, edition of his since-canceled MSNBC program Tucker, Carlson attacked Michael Rectenwald of Citizens for Legitimate Government, the group that first published the phone records linking Vitter to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam," demanding of Rectenwald: "How could you justify doing something like this? Why is it your business?"Yes Tucker, Let's. | ||||||
| 154 | Boldwin ID: 382586 Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 07:35 | Being bribed with unaged prostitutes to deliver huge graft to the uber wealthy and powerful Salomon Melgen is an entirely different thing than just visiting a prostitute. | ||||||
| 155 | Mith ID: 23217270 Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 08:16 |
If the story were limited to allegations about underage prostitutes, you might have a point (depending on the reliability of the claims). I could even see a mention of allegations about 20something prostitutes as a supporting point. But for some reason the allegations about underage girls are only a small part of Tucker's narrative, which has included several video interviews and numerous quotes from and about women who are of legal age in the DR. So please just admit that Tucker Carlson is a hypocritical hack who has no place in serious journalism and move on. You have nothing to gain from protecting that flimflammer. | ||||||
| 156 | sarge33rd ID: 4609710 Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 08:17 | Do you have evidence Boldwin? Outside of righting blogs, there doesnt appear to be much steam behind the allegations. So unless you have evidence the FBI does not...I would suggest you cease with baseless attacks. | ||||||
| 157 | Boldwin ID: 2924816 Fri, Mar 08, 2013, 22:23 | I am not aware there was any doubt at all that Menendez is Melgen's pet Senator. And I've got news for you. Prostitutes do things for money. Like blackmail and shutting up. | ||||||
| 158 | Pancho Villa ID: 59645318 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 12:16 |
This October 2012 commentary in the Washington Times is typical of the rightist media's take on the post-election violence in Kenya following the 2007 elections. By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians. The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama’s father.... Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies.... Mr. Obama’s judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties. Posts 427-447 here expose the level of propaganda the rightist media was willing to commit in an effort to distort Obama's Kenya connection. As much as I searched the rightist media for some kind of balance or clarification to the charges that the violence following the 2006 Kenyan elections were entirely the work of Obama's evil cousin Odinga, I could find nary a mention of this development from January 2012. Two presidential candidates in Kenya are to stand trial over crimes against humanity following post-election violence in 2007, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ruled. Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former minister William Ruto will both face charges. They are among four prominent Kenyans - all of whom deny the accusations - who will stand trial. The violence began as clashes between supporters of the two rival presidential candidates - Raila Odinga and Mr Kibaki - but it snowballed into a bloody round of score-settling and communal violence. Fast forward to March 2013, and here is the headline: Kenyan election won by man wanted in The Hague for crimes against humanity headline The man in question isn't Odinga. So much for the rightist media caring about providing accurate information. | ||||||
| 159 | Boldwin ID: 31251917 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 19:01 | One of the two men charged was an ally of Odinga and the villages destroyed were christian villages. | ||||||
| 160 | sarge33rd ID: 4609710 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:02 |
re 157..Boldwin, someone not testifying, does not constitute evidence. If it did... "prostitutes do things for money, like shutting up..." which might explain.....your patronage, your endorsement of criminals, your endorsement of pedophiles, your STDs (which I can only assume exist, since we have silent prostitutes who have according to you, been paid to remain silent)..... Now Boldwn, with the shoe firmly upon your own foot, would you care to redefine what does or does not constitute evidence, into a more reasonable form? | ||||||
| 161 | Boldwin ID: 31251917 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:12 | I'm happy to leave you alone to your own self-inserted troll hell. | ||||||
| 162 | sarge33rd ID: 4609710 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:28 |
IOW, you assume the right to attach allegations w/o evidence, but stand firm in your demand for absolute proof for any questioning of your views. Nice to know, you are beginning to recognize your own absurdity. | ||||||
| 163 | Pancho Villa ID: 59645318 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:52 |
I suppose when one gets their information from propagandists like Pam Gellar, Jerome Corsi, David Horowitz and Mark Hyman, it shouldn't be a suprise to get such a pathetically weak response as given in #158. The most egregious act of violence was the attack and burning of the Assembly of God Church in Kiambaa. Worshipers sang at Kiambaa Church in Eldoret, in the Rift Valley region of Kenya. It was here in early 2008 when young men from the Kalenjin and Kikuyu tribes fought around the church, which housed hundreds of people who had fled their homes during the initial post-election violence. According to some of the witnesses and survivors, about 200 Kikuyu men tried to defend their women and children inside the church. After more than an hour fighting, they say the Kikuyu men were overpowered by more than 1,000 Kalenjin youths who were attacking the church from all directions. According to Hyman, more than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians. This wasn't religious strife, and it wasn't a case of Muslims slaughtering Christians. It was a case of long-simmering tribal conflicts between the Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes. As the VOA link explains, In this election[2013], the political landscape is different as Kikuyu and Kalenjin are united in the Jubilee alliance. The Kalenjin tribes are not Muslims. Missionaries were allowed in to work with the Kipsigis where no Europeans had settled by 1933. Missionaries of the Africa Gospel Mission pioneered the work among the Kipsigis while missionaries of the Africa Inland Mission started the work among the Nandi and Tugen. Sources estimate that about 44% of the Kalenjin people are Christians. A small percentage of Kalenjin are Catholic while a much larger percent are claimed by Africa Gospel Church and Africa Inland Church. American missions seem to have done really well among the large clans of the Kalenjin, although the Okiek, Sabaot and Pokot have hardly been touched with the Gospel. And while the Odinga's Luo tribe was actively involved with the atrocities following the 2006 election, most Luos are Christians. These propagandists aren't concerned with Kenyans or Odinga or transparent elections. As propagandists, they saw an opening to accuse Obama as an unindicted co-conspirator in genocide, and have been willing to distort, or simply make up facts to support their agenda. Had these recent Kenyan elections featured a Raila Odinga as the one facing crimes against humanity, this crowd of propagandists would have been having a field day deluging their lapdog followers with a barrage of Obama promoting Christian genocide while turning Kenya into an Islamic Sharia state accusations. But, since the presidential candidate facing crimes against humanity charges at the international court in The Hague was Kenyatta, they are silent. Pathetic excuses for journalists, but good students of Joseph Goebbels. | ||||||
| 164 | Perm Dude ID: 201027169 Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 21:01 |
More silence from the rightist media: The three women were paid to say they had sex with Sen Menendez. Let's not wait up for an apology from the Right. | ||||||
| 165 | sarge33rd ID: 4609710 Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 22:17 |
And I've got news for you. Prostitutes do things for money. Like There ya go B. | ||||||
| 166 | Mith ID: 4310402110 Mon, Apr 29, 2013, 14:38 |
Grist National Review heralds the ‘wonderland’ of tar sands with a photo of a blighted hellscape | ||||||
| 167 | Tree ID: 573452911 Mon, Apr 29, 2013, 14:57 | omg. that's like a headline and image ripped from the Onion. lmao. | ||||||
| 168 | Mith ID: 29182720 Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 15:07 |
Some headlines from the past day: FOX News: Obama wants Marines to wear 'girly' hats Washington Times: U.S. Marines turn up noses at Obama’s new ‘girly’ hats; some fear it looks too French InfoWars: Obama wants Marines to wear ‘girly’ hats Newsmax: Marines Scoff at Obama's Proposed 'Girly' Hats Stars and Stripes: Marines shoot down Internet story on Obama’s alleged push for ‘girly hats’ In an email, Marine Corps officials said there is no truth to reports that President Obama is behind the potential change. | ||||||
| 169 | sarge33rd ID: 3871221 Sat, Oct 26, 2013, 02:19 |
Glenn Beck declares war on Grover Norquist/ Alleges MB connection.... Beck’s show Monday primarily concentrated on Norquist’s alleged connections to Islamists. He invited Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, and Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, to weigh in. “[Norquist] is the guy responsible for a lot of the Muslim Brotherhood stuff that goes on in the White House, isn’t he?” Beck asked the two. <---need more popcorn. This is gonna be a long, potentially entertaining, play. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: Rightist Media | ||||||||
