Page 84 of 84 FirstFirst ... 3474828384
Results 831 to 838 of 838

Thread: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

  1. #831
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    No, there efforts are presenting facts that support their political agenda.

    There are numerous examples of fact check, and other similar groups claiming things false that we're verifiable fact.
    yes, we all know facts have a liberal bias. That's a given. I've cited a valid and accurate fact check. That is what you have to contend with.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #832
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Ah, but it does Joe. Your whole premise in this thread is that your hat is hung on this pap being fact, when you fail to read possibly the most important part of the so called studies you cite to back you up, and that is that they are "inconclusive". Making your hypothesis based on your emotional appeal, rather that solid fact.

    Sorry, but it is what it is, and your theory is little more than your opinion, backed by inconclusive data....



    See, that's the funny thing, I know there are people that save every post of others they frequently clash with in order to minutely pour over their past words to try and trip up their debate, which is imho, sad. I don't do that, and many others, regardless of your over inflated ego, don't hang on your every word either, so regardless of how many times you post something in other places, or think you have laid it out before, in a new thread you must back your claims again, each time you make them not only because it is the proper way to approach reasoned thought, but because it is a huge fail to just make a statement, then proceed to droll on for page after page dancing to NOT provide a source. It makes you look foolish.

    As to fact checking orgs. they have been shown to not be reliable in their "fact checking" due to the method of checking in many cases to fit the narrative they are forwarding. Hell, the one linked to the St. Pete Times was shown to be ran out of the editorial dept. by the same people, and surprise their conclusions matched up with their editorials which even the ombudsman said leaned left.
    First, the studies I link are valid. Completely accurate and valid.

    Second, they don't address gun violence. So, no, you're off point. Way off point.

    And lastly, I used a valid fact checking site.

    I'm sorry, but you are trying to get around the fact that we we kill ourselves with guns more than anyone else. This does not mean that gun legislation will prevent any crimes. Or that they are effective. Only that who we kill most often are each other.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #833
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    First, the studies I link are valid. Completely accurate and valid.
    That's a bold statement to make considering that any study is only as accurate as its methodology. Second, even the studies you cite, in their conclusions say that they are "inconclusive", not my words, theirs. So you are cherry picking what you want to see from those studies to bolster your argument, and dismissing the rest including their own disclaimer that says that they are inconclusive.

    Second, they don't address gun violence. So, no, you're off point. Way off point.
    However, the entire premise being used today to go after gun rights is based on violence to portray a picture of fear in the populace in order for the government to act.

    And lastly, I used a valid fact checking site.
    The only way I can answer this bit of stubbornness, is to have you read some relevant points from an opinion on fact check sites I happen to agree with:

    "If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

    That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

    Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

    Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

    snip

    Always consult different sources and make your own decisions. Only a con man tries to get you to ignore other sources and only listen to what they have to say. Don't allow these devious people to shut off your mind and fill it with their one sided propaganda. Don't allow them to prevent you from listening to other people's versions of the truth. Anyone who tries to do that is a fake. And most importantly, don't take what any so called "fact check" Web site has to say as "truth." When you drill down to the who actually owns this type of site, you will invariably find connections to the political left. Creating these sites is a tactic the political left likes to use to fool people with gullible minds. Don't be gullible. Consult many sources, with differing points of view, and make up your own mind. Anyone who encourages you not to do that or to rely solely on a so called "fact check" site is a fraud."

    Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

    I'm sorry, but you are trying to get around the fact that we we kill ourselves with guns more than anyone else. This does not mean that gun legislation will prevent any crimes. Or that they are effective. Only that who we kill most often are each other.
    Well, I had no idea you were trying to make this about suicide....

    Firearms and Suicide

    Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.

    Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.


    Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.

    Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.

    Firearms and Suicide

    AFSP: Facts and Figures: National Statistics
    You need a better argument.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #834
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That's a bold statement to make considering that any study is only as accurate as its methodology. Second, even the studies you cite, in their conclusions say that they are "inconclusive", not my words, theirs. So you are cherry picking what you want to see from those studies to bolster your argument, and dismissing the rest including their own disclaimer that says that they are inconclusive.



    However, the entire premise being used today to go after gun rights is based on violence to portray a picture of fear in the populace in order for the government to act.



    The only way I can answer this bit of stubbornness, is to have you read some relevant points from an opinion on fact check sites I happen to agree with:

    "If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

    That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

    Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

    Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

    snip

    Always consult different sources and make your own decisions. Only a con man tries to get you to ignore other sources and only listen to what they have to say. Don't allow these devious people to shut off your mind and fill it with their one sided propaganda. Don't allow them to prevent you from listening to other people's versions of the truth. Anyone who tries to do that is a fake. And most importantly, don't take what any so called "fact check" Web site has to say as "truth." When you drill down to the who actually owns this type of site, you will invariably find connections to the political left. Creating these sites is a tactic the political left likes to use to fool people with gullible minds. Don't be gullible. Consult many sources, with differing points of view, and make up your own mind. Anyone who encourages you not to do that or to rely solely on a so called "fact check" site is a fraud."

    Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



    Well, I had no idea you were trying to make this about suicide....



    You need a better argument.
    The funny thing is j, the source you use is what you claim fact check.org to be. It's funny reading, but your sources only purpose is to keep true believers believing.

    I also don't believe you could even articulate my argument. I suspect you don't even know what it is, as you're always too busy arguing with some liberal stereotype.

    But let's review:

    Suicides are us killing ourselves and not in self defense.

    Accidental shootings are us shooting ourselves or others accidentally and bit in self defense.

    Shooting a family member or friend in anger, and don't self defense counts as a weapon not used in self defense.

    These numbers far out number any valid self defense number.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #835
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I also don't believe you could even articulate my argument.
    Ok we're done....Bite me.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #836
    Advisor Dammitboy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Meridian, Mississippi
    Last Seen
    04-13-13 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    343

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I also don't believe you could even articulate my argument.
    That's not surprising, as your argument is inarticulate...
    Some apes are more equal...

  7. #837
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    That's not surprising, as your argument is inarticulate...

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #838
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    That's not surprising, as your argument is inarticulate...

    BWHAHAHAHAHAH! So true....hehehehheh.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 84 of 84 FirstFirst ... 3474828384

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •