Pew Research Journalism Project has a slightly interesting survey out:
Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:
- Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
- Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
- Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
- Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:
- Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
- Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
- Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
- Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.
The survey results were characterized in this manner at HuffPo Politics:
Conservatives are more likely to distrust news sources that don’t reflect their point of view, the study said.
The delicious irony is in how liberals continue to fail to perceive the obvious: That the reason why conservatives trust “one” major news source than “trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured”, is for similar reasons as to why liberals gravitate toward all those other news outlets. The other ones- NPR, NYTimes, MSNBC, etc.- tilt center-left to far left. FOX News is the only cable news network that leans conservative.
What is deeply frustrating is in how so many liberals fail to see the bias in mainstream publications like the NYTimes, CBS, NPR, WaPo, etc. They tend to think of these news organizations as non-biased, non-partisan, and objective in their straight news coverage- and accurate (Re: “Facts have a liberal bias.“).
The Pew Research survey itself fails to draw this conclusion:
When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news, as do almost a third (31%) of those with mostly conservative views. No other sources come close.
Consistent liberals, on the other hand, volunteer a wider range of main sources for political news – no source is named by more than 15% of consistent liberals and 20% of those who are mostly liberal. Still, consistent liberals are more than twice as likely as web-using adults overall to name NPR (13% vs. 5%), MSNBC (12% vs. 4%) and the New York Times (10% vs. 3%) as their top source for political news.
This “wider range of main sources for political news” makes it sound like liberals are much more exposed to diverse news and worldly-wise because of it; however, this is just not the case. Not only do the news outlets these self-identified liberals tend to like, lean with a leftward tilt; but in some cases, they are merely parroting/intellectual-plagiarizing from one another. Of course this happens with the AP and Reuters. But it also occurs when you have a traditionally very influential paper like the NYTimes. It reports a certain story, and other outlets- from national to regional and localized rags- essentially parrots and cites what was written in the NYTimes.
A great example of this type of group-think occurrence happened when the 2007-8 Pentagon-funded study, The Iraqi Perspectives Project, was mischaracterized by McClatchy’s reporter, Warren Strobel, who wrote about an important report that he hadn’t even read, because it hadn’t been released yet. Other news organizations ceased upon the same bullet points, which prompted the Pentagon to release the study itself, because reporters were mischaracterizing the actual findings.
As Scott wrote back in March ’08:
His [Mark Eichenlaub of Regime of Terror fame]article highlights in perfectly plain sight just how a single, biased writer will bite on a rumor from a single anonymous source about a report that hadn’t even been revealed, and then a total falsehood becomes propagated by the Old Media. When the actual report came out, anyone and everyone reading it could see that it listed innumerable documented and confirmed connections between Saddam’s regime and the network of terror groups called, Al Queda.
~~~ This one is definitely worth the read. Think about what it shows: NO ONE in the McLatchy Newspaper chain of editors, no one at ABC, no one at the New York Times, no one at CNN, no one at the Washington Post, no one at AFP, and no one at any of the blogosphere sites that posted the original article actually read the report. NONE. Old Media/traditional media outlets are supposed to be special because they have armies of fact checkers yet no one in any of these armies ever saw the actual report. The actual report contradicts the original article at almost every turn.
Is there a fact checker anywhere, or have these outlets collapsed into rumor parrots? Were it not for spellcheck, I wouldn’t have been surprised if a spelling error from the original made it to all the outlets. Would yuo?
For the record, Scott took the time to read the entire report, in blogging about it. So did Mata. I’ve only read parts. And unlike so many journalists who are not experts on the topic, Scott is, having read a great number of government documents, declassified intell reports, etc., going directly to the source and not always relying upon the filter of a journalist’s reporting. Scott’s authored a couple of books worth checking out on Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda; and on Iraq.
The report described in the article was finally released to the public, and its contents are almost completely contrary to the leaked “article” that described it beforehand.
In fact, if anything this new study should finally put to rest the false perception that Saddam’s regime was too secular to work with radical Islamic holy warriors, and it should be a genuine wake up call for people who continue to ignore the threat posed by state-sponsors of terror like Saddam Hussein once was.
To this day, due to the strength and power of mainstream media, most people are unaware of Saddam’s ties to Islamic terror and have simply been told, “There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11” or before OIF. They were led to believe that it was all just a Wolfowitz/Feith/Cheney neocon fantasy/fabrication. A recent example of the influence and reach of the NYTimes is in seeing how many people expressed shock when Chivers article came out, talking about chemical weapons found in Iraq that so many people apparently were unaware of.
They were unaware, probably because they read only the wide diversity of liberal news outlets.
Further on in the Pew study report:
Liberals, overall, trust a much larger mix of news outlets than others do. Of the 36 different outlets considered, 28 are more trusted than distrusted by consistent liberals. Just eight earn higher shares of distrust than trust. Still, among those eight, the levels of distrust can be high: fully 81% of consistent liberals distrust Fox News, and 75% distrust the Rush Limbaugh Show.
This is just silly. Rush Limbaugh?! Rush Limbaugh is a pundit, openly and unashamedly partisan. He is not “straight news” but more like the op-ed section of a newsrag. Why are they including him and others like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert as a source for news? And when one looks at the filthy laundry list of “36 different outlets”, a big “duh” as to why they trust 28 of them.
Politifact characterizes this Pew point, this way: Pew study finds Rush Limbaugh least trustworthy news source. But then, Politifact is another outlet that should be better self-labeled as “PolitiPartisan”. It would be the honest thing to do.
Liberals with a wider swath of media outlets to trust from just means they have a wider echo chamber for them to inhabit. That’s all.
Hot Air’s Allahpundit’s takeaway from this is that liberals really are jerks (on account of being defriended for political views expressed on Facebook- whee!).
Bernard Goldberg’s Arrogance is a great read for any doubting Toms out there in regards to liberal bias in modern, mainstream journalism.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@George+Wells: That is the problem with the “gay rights” movement; people are not allowed to have their personal beliefs. Simply NOT ALLOWED. Phelps or retire05 may believe homosexuality is a sin. Justices on the Supreme Court may believe it is a sin. What difference does it make? Our laws are not based on sin; they are based on a person’s personal rights. Murder may be a “sin” in a biblical context, but it is illegal because it violates someone else’s right to live. You sexual preference should NOT be the basis of any diminished rights, but neither does it entitle you to any rights others don’t have… such as the right to redefine an historical union.
Republicans may not see your “rights” defined as broadly as you would like them to, but Democrats simply use your demands in order to pander for your support. I have gay friends and I most likely have friends I don’t know are gay. However, I find the overtly, oppressively gay repulsive, just as I find a trampy woman in public disgusting and embarrassing.
What I have a problem with is the propensity of the left wing gay group to demand more and more, a suspicions borne out by the Houston Mayor vastly overstepping her legal bounds in order to try to control human thought, when it disagrees with what she thinks the thought should be. So, I believe, “gay marriage” won’t be enough, just as “gay rights” and protection against discrimination for being gay has not been enough. You may be different, but the radical gay rights crowd wants, not just equality and tranquility, but control and alteration.
So, good luck with your quest. I hope to God that the Republicans never pander to any group in order to maintain power and I hope that Democrats will be severely punished for the pandering and using they have done.
@retire05 #100:
“And you have already said… that the rest of us can go to hell.”
Yes, I said that, with the first part being that as long as you continued to fight as hard as you do AGAINST my equal rights… you can go to hell.
Nothing’s changed. You still feel the same animus, and I still vote accordingly. I’ve told you the condition to gain my vote, and you don’t want it. Fine with me, like I said: Y C G T H.
@George+Wells:
Forcing your political, and sexual, agenda is not fighting for equal rights. It’s tyranny, in it’s purest form. You don’t want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
And your GTH comment was applied to anyone, and all of us, that don’t support your perversion or consider it to be a normal condition of mankind.
@Bill #101:
“You sexual preference should NOT be the basis of any diminished rights…”
Ah, but Bill, it HAS been for so very long… and in most places in the United States it is STILL grounds for dismissal from work – simply ones orientation. But I’m glad that you disagree with that.
“…but neither does it entitle you to any rights others don’t have… such as the right to redefine an historical union.”
The Biblical history includes polygamy and slavery. Modern man is not held to the “norms” of millennia-old culture, and we “redefine” the parameters of our society as WE see fit, not as people long dead thought would be best FOR us. Why should they know better? My cup is half full: I believe that wisdom accumulates over time, and that in at least some subjects, our understanding is vastly superior.
It is to be expected that differences of opinion will always exist. You may note above that ill-mannered Retire05 continues to dwell on “sodomy,” indicating a preference for archaic terminology, the selective accounting of Biblical “sin” and a marked unwillingness to be civil to her political opponents. It is certain that she will never change.
But the world IS changing.
I am sorry that some gay activists are over-reaching, but I understand their reasons. Gays have yet to gain the equality that you suggest is deserved, and perhaps are asking for too much in the hope of negotiating downward. Or maybe they are over-playing a weaker hand than they think they have – a distinct possibility.
But I DO have faith that some wisdom will come from the top: This Supreme Court has already handed down a number of defeats to liberal causes, and I expect it to side with those favoring religious freedom over those asking for trivial gay rights – to cakes and photos, for example. As I explained before, the consideration of relative harm weighs heavily in the minds of the SCOTUS. I doubt that you have much to worry about.
@retire05 #103:
“You don’t want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.”
No, Sweetheart. I ALREADY have all I wanted. My battle is over, WON. My marriage in Virginia is now grandfathered, and there will be no turning that clock back in my lifetime.
AS far as “forced acceptance” goes, what part of my support for religious freedom don’t you understand? I GOT my state rights. That was all that mattered to me. You and your Bible-thumping friends are free to hate me with my blessing! I don’t want or need your cakes or your photos. You are free to say and do and serve as you like in your 44% of the pie, and I’ll be perfectly content in my 56%.
@Bill:
Welcome to the world of our resident queer. You see, he says things like this:
but if you were to say that while you think the nutcases of Westboro Baptist Church were “over-reaching”, but you understood their reasons, you would be labeled a
radical.
He will then go on to say things like:
but never admit that it is not people who have changed, but the courts the radical gay movement uses as a way to thwart the will of the people to define the parameters of our society.
George is here for one reason, and one reason only, to promote his “I’m here, and I’m queer” on the rest of us. Just look at any thread that George gets involved in. No matter the subject, he will eventually turn it into his agenda propagandizing.
@George+Wells:
I have told you before, don’t call me “Sweetheart.” I am not queer, and I find you despicable, not because you’re queer, but because you’re you.
@retire05 #106:
“but never admit that it is not people who have changed”
So much hatred, so much B.S.
Even FOX “News” reported that public support for gay marriage has increased drastically. What planet are you talking about?
@retire05 #107:
XOXO!
@George+Wells:
You mean like your hatred, and ridicule, for anyone who holds Christian beliefs?
@George+Wells:
Kisses and hugs? Do you really think I would want to kiss you considering where your mouth has been?
@Bill:
So how exactly are your personal beliefs being infringed upon? Are you going to be forced to attend a gay wedding by Obama’s black panther storm troopers? Let’s be honest, gay marriage will likely remain an abstraction for you just like gays before gay marriage did. What your asking for is incredibly selfish. You’re asking for real people to suffer real pain just to satisfy your mental abstraction of what is “right”. No less than Dick Cheney changed his tune when he realized, oh sh*t this is hurting someone I love. You have nothing on the line, nothing to gain or lose, gay marriage will never cause you an ounce of harm, yet you choose to inflict pain needlessly.
@^Tom #112:
Thanks, Tom.
How are personal beliefs being infringed upon?
Lets say you bake wedding cakes for a living or are a pastor giving a sermon, you now risk you livelihood if you violate state sanctioned thought.
Selfish? What’s selfish is the gay movement and progressives dismissing domestic partnerships, all Obama and Congress had to do was recognize the partnership at same level they do marriages. But that wasn’t enough. First you stole the rainbow, now you redefined marriage. Next it will be a hate crime if you disparage gays and are openingly against homosexuality. We got a glimpse of that in Houston.
@Bill: For long periods throughout our history Conservatives(Dems and Repubs) thought women shouldn’t have full rights. They (Conservative Dems) thought blacks shouldn’t have full rights. Now Conservatives (Repubs) think Gays shouldn’t have full rights.
Listen up Conservatives “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” MLK Gays will get full rights.
You hear those sounds out there Conservatives –that’s the animals. They are next. Right minded people are coming after Corporations and Big. Ag owned, run and supported by Conservs. ( Repubs.), that deny them their Rights. It’s not if, for we know how the moral arc bends. It’s simply when.
Oh, goody. My dog’s gonna get to vote.
Interesting comment.
I realize you were commenting to Bill and not to me, however I have some news:
Coeur d’Alene changes stance, agrees that for-profit chapel need not perform same-sex weddings.
In Idaho a couple of ministers who perform religious weddings at a Wedding Chapel were going to be forced by ”non-discrimination laws” to perform gay weddings or face both jail time and fines.
But not now.
The City will refuse to prosecute.
MORE:
This is good news for the US Constitution.
Over-reach by some gay activists keeps taking them to the brink of this same cliff. (Freedom of Worship)
And it always will.
The US gov’t cannot replace the human conscience with a gov’t-approved one.
@Richard+Wheeler:
@Tom:
Now Conservatives (Repubs) think Gays shouldn’t have full rights.
Horseshit. Just like the War on Women, and this exasperation, Republicans budget cuts caused Ebola. A Republican boogeyman behind every door! Some people would question how that type of thinking is not a mental disorder. But I don’t know & wont judge, Nature vs Nurture.
Obama and Congress only had to recognize domestic partnerships. But the moral arc marches on and everyone gets a blue ribbon. Congratulations everyone.
What rights don’t you have R+W/Tom? What rights would you not have under domestic partnerships? How is the elephant keeping you down?
Changing the definition of marriage is not a right. Morphing the definition of ‘rights’ is not a right. Censoring a minister for bad thought is not a right. Having a cake baked for you is not a right; no cake for you, oh the travesty. Activist judges are not a right. I don’t even think you know what that word ‘rights’ means.
@mossomo:
Is this really how you lead in your argument? The cake baker again. And a pastor strawman. From twenty feet away I watched members of the the Westboro Baptist Church preach their sermons about gays for a good hour outside of a synagogue because it happened to welcome gays. They weren’t hauled away by the police. They had police protection. Try to put your hangups in perspective. There are people on this Earth whose children are stolen from them by fanatics and sold into slavery. There are literally millions of people with real reasons to sound an alarm. What is your empty noise?
@Tom:
Meanwhile, the lesbian Mayor of Houston, Lenise Parker, and her cowardly bunch of city councilmen, are trying to sue five pastors because they objected to Parker’s multi-sexual bathrooms now required in every public place of business in Houston. 50,000 signatures were signed on a petition to put the ordinance on the ballot, when only slightly over 17,000 were required, and the corrupt city council refused claiming the signatures were not valid, although they never offered any proof of that. Never mind that the pastors did not sign the petition themselves.
Now Parker wants all their text messages, including those to the pastor’s family members, all emails and any “speeches” (i.e. sermons) that “might” mention homosexuality, bi-sexuality or any criticism of Mayor Parker.
But then, I guess you would approve of those actions. Anything to force the progressive (Socialist) ideals on Americans in spite of the fact that most Americans don’t want that.
@mossomo:
All straw men. No one can force a baker to bake a cake. And no one can force a pastor to preach contrary to his beliefs. What you can’t do, under the law, is operate a business that unlawfully discriminates against fellow citizens. You can’t refuse service, by law, because of sexual orientation. The fact that so many conservatives think that this one stupid incident can somehow morally balance a scale that justifies a counterweight of denying millions of people the right to be legally married is quite amazing to me. Didn’t this cake incident happen like a year ago? Is that supposed to convince me the sky is falling?
@retire05:
Do you not understand the concept of staying on topic? Theoretically, I supposed humans could communicate through random statements of fact within a random sequence of topic changes, but the efficiency and the efficacy, not to mention the sheer comprehensibility, of the linear conversation model cannot be denied.
@Tom:
Lol. How you lead in your argument? Do you know what a bell curve is? An outlier? Westboro Baptist Church is so so mainstream. Yeah, that’s how to start a retort – with an outlier. So very solid.
From twenty feet away I watched members of the the Westboro Baptist Church preach their sermons…for a good hour.
An hour… you could have walked away? Stupid is hard to correct but stupid speech should be protected nevertheless. Protected speech, that is a measure of freedom, by how vocal you can criticize protected groups and the ruling class.
They weren’t hauled away by the police.
Exactly, you’re an enemy of freedom. Determined to use the strong arm of the State to impose your will, your religion per se, to dictate proper thought.
I watched members of the the Westboro Baptist Church preach
Election year 2008, I watched an angry (msm blackout) Philadelphian, a Black Panther member of no descriptive color, with a billy club who intimidated voters. … yeah Rights.
@mossomo:
True.
No, I was pointing out how an extreme religious expression of hatred, likely more hateful than that favorite anti-gay pastor you keep fretting about, is protected by the First Amendment. I suspect the conservative pastor who will be, in your word, “censored”, is a complete fabrication.
That’s a rather strange leap of association. We’re talking about gays and the religious and you drag in black people. I would never in a million years have expected a religious, right-wing man who dislikes gays to harbor animosity toward black people, so I’m very intrigued.
@Tom:
You can’t refuse service, by law… sexual orientation.
Congratulations! You changed the definition of a word. We commend you. Now people with religious leanings have to conform to proper thought or risk their livelihoods. Religion in your house, not in the public square is a very Soviet type of thought. Freedom of Religion only behind a closed door.
cannot operate a business that discriminates against fellow citizens
Unless you fall not under the umbrella of protected groups and are an antagonist to ruling class proper and their proper thought. I am pretty sure you can discriminate, I am absolutely positive at every bar/restaurant i visit I see a sign, We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
@Tom:
We’re talking about gays and the religious and you drag in black people.
We were talking rights. Race bait a lot? You were crying about an outlier group crapping on homosexuality, perceived rights, and them haters not being locked up for their vocal importunity. Flag burning is expression. You PussyRiot a lot? I brought up blacks, now lesbians into the mix, am I fair and balanced? You cry about the inability to censor people, and I pointed out a true RIGHTS violation.
@mossomo:
You can extol the libertarian justification for discrimination. Someone might even agree with you! But why not give us your practical reasons why this is hurting you. Not the fake pastor story or the stale tale of the wedding cake.
harbor animosity toward black people
I harbor a little less animosity toward blacks than I do whites, and you just won that lottery son. Do you project much, RACIST? FU. Have you ever had a majority of black friends? Then STFU. You don’t know the color of my skin. You don’t know who I roll with, what I do, where I’m from, my history, what I’m about, or my circle of friends. I’ll take you to any inner city and will have a time while you hail a cab. CoD you pretentious prick.
But why not give us your practical reasons why this is hurting you.
Rights. Freedom of Religion. Like I started, I don’t think you know what the word Rights means.
This is something that will surely have to go to the SCOTUS, and given their recent ruling on Hobby Lobby, it will likely not go the way the far-left will like.
The First Amendment
There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that a person can be forced by the government to violate their religious exercise in performing the operation of their business. Nor can the law prohibit that person from operating their business in a manner of reflectance of their religious beliefs.
The left thinks using the IRS to target conservatives is OK. The left thinks targeting free speech is OK. The left thinks restricting Constitutional rights is OK. The left believes voter intimidation is OK.
As long as it is directed at the right people…. ie…. not them.
@retire05 #110:
“You mean like your hatred, and ridicule, for anyone who holds Christian beliefs?”
No. I mean hatred and ridicule for anyone who wants to impose their Christian beliefs on me.
I have my own faith in God and in Christ, and I don’t want or need anyone else’s religious freedoms to intrude upon my own, thank you very much.
@Mossomo #114:
“What’s selfish is the gay movement and progressives dismissing domestic partnerships, all Obama and Congress had to do was recognize the partnership at same level they do marriages.”
What is “FUNNY’ is that long before “gay marriage” ever surfaced in the political arena, gay folks TRIED to get domestic partnerships and civil unions… REMEMBER?
Do you REMEMBER that the Christian right… and REPUBLICANS… fought against civil unions tooth and nail…. REMEMBER?
Did you FORGET all of that? Gay people didn’t.
All congress and Obama needed to do? REALLY? When was that? WHAT B.S.!
Y’all never gave civil unions a second thought until gay marriage starting catching on in state after state.
Only THEN did your tune change, long after the civil union ship had sailed.
Too late now.
@George+Wells:
Designed by GLADD, I’m sure.
@Nanny #117:
See, Nanny.
I was right, wasn’t I?
I thought so. Cooler heads prevailed.
@Mossomo #125:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but unless I’m mistaken, those signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are but so much wishful thinking. The act of tacking up a sign that carries a printed message doesn’t mean that the sign carries the force of law.
Keep on wishing.
@retire05 #134:
“I have my own faith in God and in Christ,”
“Designed by GLADD, I’m sure.”
Would it make any difference?
Where, exactly, are you intending you to take your freedom of religion?
To The Church of RetireOGOD?
Your bigotry slip is showing.
Back to the subject of this thread: Media Bias, was it?
How about the quiet from the right over the constant stream of shootings at schools? Since 1990, there have been 259 shooting deaths and 351 wounded by guns in US schools. CHILDREN! DEAD!
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE “RIGHT”?
Are the Benghazi four dead that provide so very much political fodder for the ‘right” so much more important than the lives of these many children gunned down? Does the NRA pull Fox News’ plug?
Or doesn’t it matter because these casualties of gun violence can’t be turned against someone whose last name is Clinton?
Just wondering…
@George+Wells:
What is your seeing-eye dog’s name? Is it a sweet dog? I like dogs.
I assume you are blind, because you made such an ignorant statement and you aren’t ignorant, are you? I guess since the right does not act stupidly and say guns should be banned because some individuals go crazy and use them to kill. Or invent a new definition for specific weapons. Or restrict magazines. What you have missed is the right protesting over these “gun free zones” and leaving schools unprotected in obviously dangerous times. The left wants more laws, the right wants the laws in place enforced and violent criminals put in jail and kept there, not released by liberal judges.
Let’s extrapolate your line of thought; where is the liberal outrage over the failure of their anti-gun policies in cities like Detroit, Chicago (or course) and D.C. (before the stupid policies were reversed)? Your numbers are horrific, but were surpassed IN ONE YEAR in Chicago…. the result of liberals running the city, banning legal ownership of guns, economic malaise and kid-glove treatment of criminals.
You have difficulty separating politically-driven rhetoric with actual concern and outrage. While hundreds of millions of additional firearms legally owned has coincided with drastic reductions in violent crime and crime with guns (possibly a major contributing factor), the left drives blindly ahead with a gun-ban agenda. The left pursues the agenda of the left, not an agenda that seeks to make people safe. Where’s the outrage over that?
Further proof there is ‘no’ left wing bias in the MSM.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/
@Bill #139:
“the right wants the laws in place enforced and violent criminals put in jail and kept there, not released by liberal judges.”
There you are, Bill. Right on schedule. Offering something (that the right wants) that has nothing at all to do with the problem. Strict enforcement of the laws already in place would have prevented few – if any – of the school shootings, and putting and keeping violent criminals in jail would have prevented few – if any – of the school shootings – liberal judges or not – because it isn’t violent criminals who are shooting up children in the schools, IT IS OTHER CHILDREN! Children who get their hands on guns laying around loose at home, or children who take advantage of how RIDICULOUSLY EASY it is for ANYONE to buy a gun in the first place.
Personally, I own a few rifles that I inherited, and a S&W revolver. I’m not anti-2nd-amendment. But I AM fed up with all of the pathetic excuses given by the NRA for killing ANY new initiatives intended to stem the tide of increasing gun violence EVERYWHERE.
The laws we already have don’t touch the insides of schools. Since Republicans and the NRA clearly CONTROL the legislature and thus have the POWER to DO something about this problem, why has this problem been increasing steadily for the past 25 years? Cutting funding for EVERYTHING and then insisting that the solution to the problem is as simple as enforcing existing laws is absurd.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Republicans DON’T control EVERYTHING… yet. But it is sure looking like you will, quite soon. Then, if you DON’T fix this problem PRONTO, you’re going to look VERY BAD. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
@Bill:
And your source for those numbers?
To anyone wishing to confirm the above numbers of gun casualties (ref. post #138):
I have asked the very rude “Retire05” and “Redteam” to provide specific references (or links) to “information” that they have offered in argument, and these requests have repeatedly been turned down. Apparently, if I want such information, I must do my own research.
I will therefore respond to such requests from those individuals in the same manner.
However, for the convenience of anyone ELSE who may be interested in such information, I suggest that they search for exactly what I searched for:
“List of School Shootings in the United States”
Select the title, then scroll down…
Then… COUNT.
@George+Wells:
Well, what do you know? You mean to tell me that all the restrictions, regulations and bans the left has been successful in putting in place has not made anyone any safer? Gosh, I am totally shocked. However, if the rules in place would be enforced, it would eliminate the argument that but for a lack of regulation we would be safer. In fact, as I said, we ARE safer, due in part to MORE guns in MORE hands… legally.
Let’s take Sandy Hook, for example. Nancy Lanza wanted to put Adam in an institution because of his extreme and dangerous behavior, but the left wing ACLU blocked her ability to do so. So, Lanza was able to kill he and 22 others. But, of course, the left views this as the gun’s fault.
Further, since every mass shooting in the past decade has been perpetrated by liberals, perhaps liberals should be licensed, registered and restricted.
No, you are no different than any other liberal (I am aware you say you aren’t; that ain’t working). We have all the restrictions and regulations, limitations and bans we need, and then some, yet all these do is work on those who respect laws. What is NOT addressed is how to deal with criminals who laugh at your restrictions or the mentally ill who are going to follow their insanity regardless of how many restrictions are levied on the law-abiding. The fact that MORE guns in the hands of the public, legally, has coincided, if not contributed to, a sharp reduction in violent crime and gun crime is prominently ignored by you gun restrictionists. A CDC study showed the failure of past gun restrictions to reduce crime. Obama’s own recent study showed the opposite of what he wanted it to show; that more guns is not causing more crime and the tactics of the left is failing to reduce violence (it really gets old holding Chicago up as a gleaming example of liberal gun control failure, but there you go)
Well, see there, George? You are all worked up over nothing. The problem hasn’t increased… as I have stated, it has decreased. And, do you know who the NRA is? It’s me and millions and millions of other gun owners. The NRA is the public that wants the left to keeps its greedy paws off the 2nd Amendment and they are doing exactly what we want them to do.
@George+Wells:
When? Back up that claim.
List of School Shootings in the United States
The list goes all the way back to the 18th Century. Scroll down the page to recent years. It does appear that the pace of events has been picking up.
If you doubt the source, which seems to be a fairly common dodge around here, continue on down the page to the footnotes. You’ll find 541 independent references backing the numbers up.
@Greg:
Your Wiki link provides shootings that take place at universities, as well. University students are NOT CHILDREN. They are full adults who can vote, get married without parental permission, join the military or get a job. They only become children when you leftist loons decide to use them for statistics.
@retire05, #147:
Indeed it does. Since colleges and universities come under the general heading of schools, those are also listed. Don’t count them. What you’re left with will be elementary, middle, and high schools.
@Greg:
Universities should not be counted since campuses are open, just like the Killeen, Texas Luby’s was. But what did all those schools, including the Luby’s, have in common, Greggie?
THEY WERE ALL GUN-FREE ZONES.
@Greg #148:
We’re fighting a losing battle here, Greg. Retire05 and Bill won’t be happy until EVERY child comes to school armed to the teeth, because that makes schools safer. They DON’T want to keep ALL guns out of schools, which is something that COULD be done with the same sort of screening that we all go through in airports. Ah, but that would mean more government involvement = bigger government, and it would restrict the rights of the children to form an armed militia if they wanted to rise up against an oppressive regime of homework, not to mention costing the gun manufacturers the loss of potential sales. Yep, gotta get guns into the hands of hormone-crazed teenagers – it’ll help them prevail in those shoot-outs over drug-deals-gone-bad, and that’ll reduce crime. What a hog-washed line of reasoning.
And notice that nobody has suggested what laws should be enforced more aggressively to stop children from shooting each other. The target shifted to the absurd claim that all shooters are liberals! LOLOLOLOL! Can you not wait to see the proof of that?