(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
I guess the public editor of the New York Times is an idiot as well then.
Me ----> <---- JohnnyZero
again, you are an idiot.
@ you
You are incapable of admitting you are wrong. Even when the public editor of the very paper in question says on video that the New York Times has a liberal bias you continue to defend your erroneous claim that they don't. You are like the three year old caught with chocolate icing all over their hands and face insisting they didn't sneak a piece of cake.
But just to pile on, let's see what one of her predecessors as public editor said about it.
In a piece called : THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? written in 2004 by Daniel Okrent he has this to say:
Quote:OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
Quote:Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish -- but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).
Quote:But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine (''Toward a More Perfect Union,'' by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.
I guess that makes two New York Times public editors that are idiots too.
hey buddy, next time you cite a source, do a little bit of background research. the guy you are citing started working for the NYT just MONTHS before that article and ended up working at the NYT for only a year and a half.
And kal, on top of all that, his thought process is completely delusional, especially the part where he cites gay marriage. being on the right side of history =/= having a liberal bias. would you fault a newspaper in the 1960s for being liberal because they view the civil rights movement as a positive? It's cr.ap like this that proves my premise that reality is a "liberal bias"
(09-29-2014 12:02 AM)Kaplony Wrote: JohnnyZero in a nutshell
you cite only two talking points, both of which are complete horse sh.it
sorry but you need to get off your partisan line of thought and accept reality.
i've already touched base on the gay marriage positive/negative thing, but the op-ed example is also BS because no media group whether it is FNC or MSNBC needs to be 50/50 lib/con to be considered neutral. If the republicans have nine bad stories compared to the democrats three, should a newspaper cover an equal amount of bad stories for each party? of course not. it doesn't matter anyway because opinion sections are setup to not be reflective of a newspapers actual reporting. hence the reason they are so clearly marked as opinion and separated from the rest of the paper. Same goes for websites, although I must admit CNN does a much better job at that than FNC.
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2014 12:11 AM by john01992.)
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death...
Newsflash: A number of studies verify the claim that owning a house with stairs makes you more likely to fall down stairs in your home, versus if you owned a home that doesn't have any stairs. And a number of studies also verify the claim that riding in a your own car makes you more likely to die of a car wreck in your own car, versus if you're never in a car that's yours. And a number of studies indicate you can't die by a drug overdose unless you overdose on drugs. And a number of studies indicate you can't die by drowning in your pool, unless you have a pool.
And reality (regardless of a number of studies about it) proves that if you want to kill yourself badly enough, you'll find a way, with or without having a gun--with or without owning a pool, and with or without OD'ing on drugs. Ask Robin Williams.
But guess what?
You can't very easily kill an intruder who has his own gun and is hellbent on doing evil to your family: by forcing him to get into your car and then crashing it; making him go up your stairs so you can push him down them; force feeding him a lethal concoction of drugs and alcohol; dragging him to your outside pool and wrestling him to death underwater; or making him get on a chair and tying a rope around his neck to something sturdy above the chair, and then kicking the chair out from under him.
Guess how you can most easily kill him?
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2014 12:34 AM by G-Man.)
Quote:And reality (regardless of a number of studies about it) proves that if you want to kill yourself badly enough, you'll find a way, with or without having a gun--with or without owning a pool, and with or without OD'ing on drugs. Ask Robin Williams.
Quote:We also did not have data for attributes such as mental illness, isolation, alcohol and other drug abuse, exposure to violence, and a prior criminal history, that earlier studies have found to have a relationship, independent of household gun ownership, to risk for homicide or suicide.
(09-28-2014 10:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Guns have one job. To kill. Get one and the chances that something gets killed increases significantly. Therefore, don't get a gun unless you are prepared to deal with something or someone getting killed.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Yep all those clay pigeons and silhouette targets I use when competition shooting have died a horrible death.
(09-29-2014 09:33 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Funny how Johnny 0 hasn't answered the question regarding Australia and the violence since the guns have been confiscated.
(09-28-2014 08:52 PM)john01992 Wrote: A study in the journal Injury Prevention found that the purchase of a handgun was associated with 2.4 times the risk of being murdered and 6.8 times the risk of suicide. Several other studies confirm that a gun in the house significantly increases the risk that a person in the home will be murdered or commit suicide.
I'm not going to try to dispute the numbers as this point, but I would think that people living in more dangerous areas are more likely to own a gun - for self-defense. (That could be wrong but seems likely) Thus it is the area they live in that could result in the increased deaths, and the gun is just a symptom of that same issue.
Although I've also seen "statistics" that say murders went down after concealed-carry was legalized (or some other pro-gun measure) when the fact is that the numbers were already decreasing before the legislation. It's really hard to find unbiased numbers.
A gun is a tool that allows the user to kill something, and I think that's great. The right to defend yourself or provide food to yourself is a fundamental human right.
I can think of instances when it would be very helpful and save my life. I can also think of things I could do with it that would hurt other people who don't deserve it. I can also think of ways in which it could accidentally hurt people.
Then again, that's really what it all comes down to; it's an object. The circumstances depend entirely on the person wielding it.
(09-29-2014 09:51 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: A gun is a tool that allows the user to kill something, and I think that's great. The right to defend yourself or provide food to yourself is a fundamental human right.
I believe that it is not a fundamental human right, if you have shown that you are not a responsible person and are a threat to others.
(09-29-2014 09:51 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: A gun is a tool that allows the user to kill something, and I think that's great. The right to defend yourself or provide food to yourself is a fundamental human right.
I believe that it is not a fundamental human right, if you have shown that you are not a responsible person and are a threat to others.
You DON'T believe a human being has a fundamental right to self defense? Understand that if you prove yourself to be a criminal you usually lose your right to carry a concealable firearm (aka handgun) in almost every state.
(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: sorry dude but a number of studies verify the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of a firearm related death. and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
And owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car accident than not using a car at all..
Having mountain climibing equipment means you're more likely to die from falling off a mountain.
Sorry John, but the original opinion piece uses a site is completely bogus and you know it.
(09-29-2014 09:51 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote: A gun is a tool that allows the user to kill something, and I think that's great. The right to defend yourself or provide food to yourself is a fundamental human right.
I believe that it is not a fundamental human right, if you have shown that you are not a responsible person and are a threat to others.
If a person does not pass a background check then they will not be able to purchase a weapon. Your post makes no sense.
It is a human right to protect one's self. Responsible gun owners have never been involved in illegal shooting.
<---- JohnnyZero
@ you
