34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Perhaps they would be tax banners.
The Rage Builds
Kehoe argued against the school and complained constantly about the increase in taxes. Although he was an intelligent man, Kehoe was intolerant of other?s opinions.
Didn't want to pay taxes so he blew up the school, and children.
Intelligent people do cruel things?
IF he had a Glock things woulda' been different
So it's only the SECOND worst attack in history
Big difference to the victims and their families.
I agree that the media should not have posted the killer's photos and videos. The British don't give these people the fame they want. I wish our media outlets would similarly deprive them, but we can't make them do it. First Amendment and all...
having it only be "second" with number one not involving guns doesn't fit too well with the anti-gun agenda?
Or maybe they are not very rigorous with their research.
At any rate, I note that some of them are now rephrasing it as "the worst shooting incident" so someone must have clued them in.
Look overall at how many school attacks there have been, and how many kids have died or been seriously wounded, and how many involved guns and how many didn't. That this is "only" the second-worst doesn't really make a difference unless all you're interested in is statistics and not the lives that were lost.
That's not it at all...
It's simply that second worst does not sound nearly as dramatic and significant in your news story as worst. And if you say second worst people might ask, what the worst was. And they might find out.
And maybe that undercuts the agenda somewhat, eh?
Didn't Fox News also mistakenly call it the worst?
You think they have a left-wing anti-gun agenda too?
You make a mistake to think that their slant is all one way
Some of them, Shepard Smith springs to mind, express quite liberal views in his offhand comments.
They may have mistakenly echoed that claim, and more recently they have shifted to the "worst shooting" phraseology. I have heard NO ONE correctly say it's "second worst".
Clearly, CNN and the major networks have a bias and an agenda. It would naive in the extreme to deny that.
*more recently they have shifted to the "worst shooting" phraseology. I have heard NO ONE correctly say it's "second worst"*
confusing, are you saying that this is the "second worst" shooting or the "second worst" massacre?
I don't know how it's confusing...
It is the worst shooting. It is the second worst massacre. As I said.
Very weak, Ed
Of course they retain a few liberals just to perpetuate that "fair and balanced" nonsense but it wasn't just those few using the term "worst shooting ever." They had "worst shooting ever" on their front page just like everyone else did.
The media has an anti-gun agenda?
Why? Just because, on American Morning, co-anchor John Roberts was quoting the Brady bunch re: VA gun laws?
Naw, couldn't be - Mark
P.S. Here's something you might find amusing:
CARLSON: In February, you introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. It would regulate semi-automatic assault weapons, including weapons that have pistol grips, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud. Weapons with a barrel shroud would be regulated. What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?
MCCARTHY: I think the more important thing is that it also would have banned the large capacity clips that Colin Ferguson had used and also the killer. But we are talking about.
CARLSON: OK. But I read the legislation.
CARLSON: I?m sorry. I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate barrel shrouds. What is a barrel shroud? And why should we regulate that?
MCCARTHY: The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers. I?m not saying it was the best bill. But that was the best bill they could get out...
CARLSON: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
MCCARTHY: I actually don?t know what a barrel shroud is.
CARLSON: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
MCCARTHY: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
CARLSON: No, it?s not.
What was I thinking?
Of course the media doesn't have any agenda.
they aren't in any way BIASED about anything
The whole "agenda" saw is flawed and here is why.
Those whose messages one doesn't like are always going to be "agenda driven" or "biased". This tactic is most often used by people who believe in so called "conservative" values.
Using this criticism as the basis of an objection to an issue being discussed is a great method for making a debate disappear. It absolves anyone from actually discussing factual content. The concept simply allows an emotion driven appeal to discount and shut down any Aristotelean examination of an issue's components.
Now, before anyone jumps the gun here... I am not saying all major news outlets are always correct. I'm just saying that the frequent use of the objection "agenda driven and biased" is simply designed to put the person complaining on the moral high ground. However, just because one believes they are morally superior doesn't necessarily make it so. Nor does their adopted superiority make their moral decree capable of changing facts.
In short, I would rather see objections about reporting based on discussion of details, rather than a high handed discounting of something by tainting a report with the accusation of bias.
You know how much I respect your opinion...
I did not object to the way anyone reports anything. I did say that certain news organizations display an obvious political bias and agenda. This is very easy to see unless you choose not to see it.
What you think of me doesn't matter
Just pointing out there is a flaw in such comments as yours.
Which comment was that?
You didn't address anything I said. Instead you made an unsubstantiated claim and shifted to: "Using this criticism as the basis of an objection to an issue being discussed is a great method for making a debate disappear. It absolves anyone from actually discussing factual content." Which of course I did NOT do.
Why don't you "prove" to Josh that Fox News is not biased and has no agenda?
Sorry, Grim, my level of respect for your OPINIONS (take note OPINIONS) is unchanged.
Umm... so what?
The very fact that you have to make a comment about what you think of me and my opinions... not just once, but twice... would seem to run counter to the message you are trying to send.
To be more concise about my original statement... words like "agenda" and "bias" have become so cliche a response from certain individuals that they have lost all meaning.
BTW... I love this guy and have yet to see this link posted
So let me put up a link from an agenda ridden CNN that many of you might find enjoyable...
Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
Granted... it is pure Op/Ed... but then again most of the "agenda" stuff that is complained about with any accuracy by some here is mostly Op/Ed as well.
and that's NOT what you said in the first place. You are NOT being "more concise"; you are saying something completely different. You claimed, the whole "agenda" saw is flawed and here is why... but then provided no proof, and indeed, no evidence of that claim.
You said basically that some people claim there is a media agenda and that those are people who don't like the message (what message is not explained) and who are (gasp) usually of a conservative bent. NOW you are saying it's not valid to say there's a bias because it has become a cliche.
So maybe now you are getting a glimmer of why...
Your grasping at straws.
Are you saying...
Are you saying that in the case of this news story we should discuss it by trying to apply the "four causes" of Aristotelian examination?
I am saying...
that emotion driven responses hold little validity.
A blanket statement of "agenda" (I might add... compounded by sarcasm) discounts any chance of examination.
Do you disagree?
No, not even the second...
as one could well count Wounded Knee as the Native Americans were in their own school environment.
Other such could be cited, but the whole point is the basic FACT that the media is not reporting accurately nor checking their little facts as much as they are promoting an agenda and that agenda promotes copycats. " First Amendment and all..." -- FIRE in a crowded theater and all...
There are evil people. This was one of them.
There were numerous opertunities to stop him, but no one acted when they could have done so. The efforts of those who did act were nullified by those who failed to follow through. So sad on so many levels.
Sounds like 9/11
I'm just reading Richard A. Clark's book Against All Enemies. He states
Somewhere in the CIA there was information that two know al Qaeda terrorists had come into the United States. Somewhere in the FBI there was information that strange things had been going on at flight schools in the United States. What was buried in the CIA and FBI should have had red lights and bells going off. They had specific information about individual terrorists from which one could have deduced what was about to happen. None of that information got to me or the White House.
Like this several people had information that, when put together, should have sent off red lights and bells. Unfortunately, the information didn't get put together.
I read a lot of the techno-thrillers. There is always one or two people that put things together and stop the catastrophe. What is scary is, even if these people exist, the bureaucracy would stall them until it was too late.
or prevent them from acting.
Unfortunately, in this case, it was the front line defense people who didn't follow through. The court and the mental health professionals.
Re front line & court mental health profession
From reading newspaper reports in the past few years there is quite a bit of buildup in the number of mental deranged homeless who are not wine-o's being released from hospitals and on the street due to large fundings required. Course' they do not go to colleges and rarely hear of them shooting anyone, but it appears the court & mental health profession has quite a job in making determinations now-a-days.
Still think the larger issue is why was he still enrolled?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)