it just transfers more of that wealth to the richest.
Again, I have a hard time understanding that phrasing. It assumes that anything the federal government spends money on is worthwhile to the universal benefit. Is that true? Why should it be spent at the federal level? Take the Department of Education. Since 1980, has American education been improved with the billions of taxes we spent? I am not sure there are many successful measures to say that education has been better primarily because we spend more taxes on the DoE. Education in the US has been characterized by dwindling performance and increasing costs. Taxing Bill Gates more doesn't make the poor wealthier just as taxing him less doesn't make the poor poorer.
a paper from a libertarian think-tank, publish in 1996, arguing that the middle class was growing in 1991.
It was about the tax cuts from Reagan and whether the traditional arguments of income inequality hold water. As the editors note mentions: "Nevertheless we believe that, regardless of the possible motives of those involved in the debate, the authors' presentation usefully reveals marked discrepancies between what often is casually asserted as "fact" about income inequality and what a critical analysis of the pertinent data may suggest". I think talking about the effect on tax cuts from the past is entirely relevant. As is any insight into our assumptions of income inequality particularly so when taxes are proposed as the fix or as you describe as "wealth transfer to the rich" as the defense for a particular policy.
Just my opinion.
Evidence?
Um I am not sure what evidence you are wanting for my opinion but. That is just what I observe and how I interpret his actions and through that motivation his behavior makes sense to me. I think he understands things well enough and particularly good with people and timing. He knew the timing to run for POTUS. He understands people well enough to play the media like a fiddle. However, being a "people" person doesn't address some very obvious short comings. The steel tariffs are an example. Why 25%? Because it is a round number divisible by 5. Making policy on factors of 5 doesn't scream Einstein. He is more bumbling than scheming.
Go out there and vote Bernie (and the Justice Democrats,
No thanks. I disagree with many items on their platform and frankly Cenk is a buffoon. Additionally, anyone that thinks "ban on assault weapons" is "common-sense" is an idiot which tends to be the type of person to push for more gun regulation because they don't understand guns or the existing laws we currently have. Anyone that thinks suicide will be solved by banning guns is in an idiot (US is average for suicide). Using suicides to inflate the statistics is dishonest, at least they mention only a third are homicide related. However, there is some serious cognitive dissonance when they say "End constitutional overreaches" yet want the government to ignore the 2nd amendment. Any party that wants a gun ban I am vehemently against. Any other plank of their platform is rendered moot even if I agree with it.
Yes, DACA is amnesty that started by Obama executive order. There are court battles over DACA renewals and the proper fix is immigration reform via Congress. Trump offered amnesty for DACA for other compromises. That proposal was sank. I don't understand your point. How has he lied about his position on immigration? He brought the conversation of DACA front and center by not renewing it.
I am working class. Sanders doesn't give a shit about working class or poor people. He pays lip service but his policies are a joke that he can't even pass in his own state. He doesn't want to lift all boats. He pays lip service to covetous greed and selfish nature of people.
...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.
Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.
"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich
A) DACA wasn't mentioned in campaign. How was that a lie? Immigration law is being enforced. Illegal immigration is down. Travel bans in place. Promise kept from what I can tell. B) What does Carrier have to do with anything during the campaign promises? He tried to keep them in the US and htey are leaving anyway... so he kept a promise to try and help. Ok? I think you misunderstand what promise being kept means. C) Okay. D) People paying less taxes is lying to them? Lowering corporate tax rates and regulation to expand business to hopefully create jobs in the US is lying to them? Again, you can disagree how that will work or the economics but that isn't a lie that is a promise being kept. The purpose was to create jobs. E) Wow, you did it. You got one example. Congrats. An over the top slogan. F) Hillary wasn't elected, Obama appointees are being replaced and fired. Seems like promise kept to me.
You have demonstrated that he has kept his promises more than he has lied about them. And he still has time to fulfill those promises! It seems like your problem is that you don't like it what he is doing. You didn't like his promises and you don't like them being kept.
I never said that Trump doesn't lie but you claimed: " Trump listened to them and told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter that he was lying. ". Yet you have demonstrated that he has kept his promises to those constituents he listened to more often than not.
Why in the blue fuck would I support the democrats or Sanders? I don't like the DNC behavior or rhetoric. Sanders is an idiot who rants and raves about the 1% yet doesn't care that the 1% means $389,436 annual income. He doesn't care about lifting all boats. He cares about sinking a few large ones by creating one massive boat everyone has to deal with.
Ok, that has nothing to do with Gorsuch. That was politics and a gambit that McConnell bet big and won. Saying Gorsuch is bad because politics is stupid. Saying that the POTUS nomination == confirmation ignores the Constitutional power of the Senate and again has nothing to do with Gorsuch.
You don't have a leg to stand on and that is apparent that your excuse is comes down to the constitutional power of the Senate.
How is Judge Gorsuch bad? Everything that I have seen and read about Gorsuch has shown a well tempered, honorable, intelligent, and principled man.
If you think he was soooo bad you have to explain why he was appointed to the Circuit court of appeals unanimously by the same people that voted against his Supreme court nomination.
You may not like Trump or what Trump does but Gorsuch is a good judge by every measure.
Was he lying? It seems to me that he is actually trying to fulfill those promises. You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help but I honestly do not believe he lied about trying to help those people. He has been keeping is campaign promises.
Honesty and accountability... But you just said the universe doesn't care about the law, which is concerned about those things. Now you are using the law to try and stop the inevitable. Here's a thought, when it comes to the law how things are done is important.
You're right. Non of the solutions for global warming would stop anything so why bother. At least then we wouldn't have to hear your sanctimonious opinion.
how exactly does hyper-leftist/Marxist biogeochemistry differ from (say) rightist/Conservative biogeochemistry Solutions. What is the proper role of government. If the current law is unable to deal with a particular biogeochemistry problem then what should happen; Can the government loosely reinterpret the law to get what you want?
You can't argue with science like you can't argue with a bullet flying in your direction.... He's saying that ignoring a scientific problem won't make it go away.
We are going to hit our Paris accord goals without being in the accord. What scientific problem are we ignoring? The politics of science isn't about the definition of the problem (although it can be). It's about the solution. Can the EPA redefine CO2 to be a pollutant within the existing law? I don't think it can and Congress is the one to act on the science. They are the ones that require consensus. When they do come to consensus the direction of the EPA won't change on the next administration.
What toxic substance is not being regulated by the EPA that was authorized by law to be regulated? The laws of physics do not care about how you classify CO2. The law sure as shit does though. Can the EPA, within the current law, redefine CO2 as a pollutant to be regulated? Can the EPA within the existing law regulate your breathing hole?
I am sorry but the existing law didn't regulate CO2. The EPA redefining it as a pollutant is an overreach. How to regulate is a contentious issue that should not be left to a federal bureaucracy left to be undone by the next administration. Scientists can help inform congress who then should argue on what it means to regulate CO2 and pass a law. HOW things done in government matter that the laws of physics are not concerned with.
This continues to be the legacy of Obama and frankly his failure as a president. I get tired of hearing about overzealous government doing more than the law allows it to do. The shoe is on the other foot which was an inevitably going to happen sooner or later. If it is important Congress should act that way it isn't so easy to undo. If Obama has a pen and phone to write something you like then don't be upset that when you lose power The Other Guy undoes it.
I find it really concerning when you have a video of white patriots holding guns and making speeches against anyone that is not white. There is an implicit threat of violence and intimidation at that point.
In the US you don't need the government to protect you if you think there is a wave of racism or threat of violence out to get you even with government complicity. Everyone can be or is armed. It's one thing to say "X people are inferior therefore genocide". It is quite another thing to actually try and commit that genocide especially when the people you want to get rid of are armed and can shoot back.
Everyone that is threatened by any racist can defend themselves. Everyone that feel they need to defend their lives can equalize any encounter with any mob or person. You may have your rally in the streets to say my skin is shit. Good luck trying to take my life or liberty because I will defend myself to the extent needed. As will any American willing to take on the responsibility of freedom into their own hands. Everyone can defiantly stand for liberty against those who seek to take it, as is the tradition and foundation of the United States. This idea has been too easily forgotten by those who wish the government ban guns or ban ideas.
I do not fear a rise of racism or sentiment willing to commit genocide because any race deemed inferior has the freedom and capacity to prove otherwise and defend themselves regardless of the government.
No the troll mod is appropriate. How is generalizing millions of people to a caricature and a stereotype in any way not a troll?
Also, wtf do you mean "dealt with"? That alone is retarded trollery. Are you going to have a Final Solution to the "nazi" problem? Seriously, are you one of those morons that think that the only way to have free speech is to restrict free speech for opinions you don't like? You do realize that the point of free speech is to protect the speech that is hated not what is universally accepted? You do realize that in that last half century that allowing nazi's/kkk/racists/whateverlabelyoubemoan to speak has had their numbers decreased? You and people that think like you are fuckin moronic.
NN prevented service providers from discriminating against content providers.
How did Title 2 do that? Why is the FCC better able to pre-emptivly handle anti-competitive behavior over the FTC on an individual basis? How would the NN rules open up competition?
Did you hear the thunderous applause after Rubio jokingly suggested banning all semi-automatic rifles while he was at the CNN town hall?
And that will be used as evidence that many on the left want a complete gun ban.
What would you have them retract?
They don't' need to retract it or change the video but make something known in the description or something. If you make a mistake you own up it. Something to say "this is false.. this is misleading". I thought part of what made MSM institutions more reputable was that they made corrections when they get something wrong.
because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it. All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality.
A lack of means and motive does not prove CERN right. I would suspect that most people are indifferent to the discoveries made by the LHC. The point of science is that experiments can be repeated and claims can be verified. Yes, functionally you put a lot of trust in the accumulated knowledge we have. That is fine for things like the Higgs Boson but not so great for politics. If some billionaire really wanted to he could build an equivalent accelerator to try and disprove CERN which is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
A difference without a distinction. If you make a claim that is falsifiable I can verify it. Falsifiability necessitates others to verify results. Science is not built on trust.
I think part of that piece was just griping about semi-automatic rifles
I could probably agree with this. The problem is that the push recently is to "ban AR-15" and some ignorant people could use that segment as justification why the AR-15 should be banned even though it applies to all semi-automatic rifles meaning a near complete ban on most guns in the US.
They are pushing an agenda. I wouldn't even accuse FoxNews of deliberately presenting misinformation.
Misinformation was presented as factual. Whether that was malice or ignorance is another story. Whether it was deliberate is hardly redeeming if it is still up without any kind of correction or clarification.
How many other stories are like this? How many go unnoticed by their viewers who then push for legislation based on misinformation?
Mark Hertling is an activist with an agenda yet they do not mention this (#vetsforgunreform). He maybe experienced being in the military but he is pushing a particular agenda and purposefully obfuscates information to push that agenda. As demonstrated by the poor handling and mentor-ship of the CNN presenter (seriously that opening with the guy flaccidly shooting the gun is ridiculous under that kind of mentor).
Blurs the line between civilian and military weapons. That is what they are doing when they talk about the looks and appearance. If I put spoiler on my car, racing stripes, and racing numbers does that make it a race car? Yet, black plastic is supposed to be more dangerous like the M-4?
In the 1950's Colt did market the AR-15 to the military which was a basis for the M4 but that doesn't mean the rifles are the same nor does it mean that their looks mean they functionally the same. The AR-15 is just like any number of civilian semi-automatic rifles.
"a defining characteristic of the AR-15 is the speed and power of the bullet.".. Absolute non-sense. the speed and power of the bullet are defining characteristics of the bullet, not the rifle. Any rifle with that caliber will have the same speed and power regardless what it looks like. You can get most gun models in different calibers.
@1:05 "now those are single shots. If I wanted to fire this on full semi-automatic all I do is keep firing.". There is no such thing as "full semi-automatic". All he means is that he is pulling the trigger faster. 1 trigger pull == 1 bullet. Any semi-automatic can be fired faster if you pull the trigger faster. There is only one firing mode the AR-15 has. His "switching" is him operating the weapon differently. Semi-automatic. "Full semi-automatic" is a blatant misinformation designed to misinform laymen.
"this weapon in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than most weapons because of its capability to do a lot of damage in a short period of time and is irreversible". Why? Because he can pull the trigger faster? Because it looks scary? Because of the bullet it shoots? It isn't more dangerous than any other semi automatic gun in the market. Name a gun whose damage can be reversed. Name a gun that is semi automatic that can't fire faster if you pull the trigger faster. The AR-15 isn't unique or special from any other weapon. Not the caliber of bullet. Not the speed at which you can fire it. Not the damage it can do. That is nature for every gun for every caliber ever made.
I have to wonder if it is stupidity or malice that they got so much wrong in a 2 minute segment. They are pushing an agenda using misinformation and ignorance.
The idea that every fact checker has an axe to grind is in itself a bias.
or it's the basis of skepticism.
I am not looking for a source to say "Yep I knew it! I was right all along". I am looking at different sources to see what is different and what overlaps between the different sources.
Slashdot Mirror
it just transfers more of that wealth to the richest.
Again, I have a hard time understanding that phrasing. It assumes that anything the federal government spends money on is worthwhile to the universal benefit. Is that true? Why should it be spent at the federal level? Take the Department of Education. Since 1980, has American education been improved with the billions of taxes we spent? I am not sure there are many successful measures to say that education has been better primarily because we spend more taxes on the DoE. Education in the US has been characterized by dwindling performance and increasing costs. Taxing Bill Gates more doesn't make the poor wealthier just as taxing him less doesn't make the poor poorer.
a paper from a libertarian think-tank, publish in 1996, arguing that the middle class was growing in 1991.
It was about the tax cuts from Reagan and whether the traditional arguments of income inequality hold water. As the editors note mentions: "Nevertheless we believe that, regardless of the possible
motives of those involved in the debate, the authors' presentation usefully reveals marked discrepancies between what often is casually asserted as "fact" about income inequality and what a critical analysis of the pertinent data may suggest". I think talking about the effect on tax cuts from the past is entirely relevant. As is any insight into our assumptions of income inequality particularly so when taxes are proposed as the fix or as you describe as "wealth transfer to the rich" as the defense for a particular policy.
Just my opinion.
Evidence?
Um I am not sure what evidence you are wanting for my opinion but. That is just what I observe and how I interpret his actions and through that motivation his behavior makes sense to me. I think he understands things well enough and particularly good with people and timing. He knew the timing to run for POTUS. He understands people well enough to play the media like a fiddle. However, being a "people" person doesn't address some very obvious short comings. The steel tariffs are an example. Why 25%? Because it is a round number divisible by 5. Making policy on factors of 5 doesn't scream Einstein. He is more bumbling than scheming.
Go out there and vote Bernie (and the Justice Democrats,
No thanks. I disagree with many items on their platform and frankly Cenk is a buffoon. Additionally, anyone that thinks "ban on assault weapons" is "common-sense" is an idiot which tends to be the type of person to push for more gun regulation because they don't understand guns or the existing laws we currently have. Anyone that thinks suicide will be solved by banning guns is in an idiot (US is average for suicide). Using suicides to inflate the statistics is dishonest, at least they mention only a third are homicide related. However, there is some serious cognitive dissonance when they say "End constitutional overreaches" yet want the government to ignore the 2nd amendment. Any party that wants a gun ban I am vehemently against. Any other plank of their platform is rendered moot even if I agree with it.
Yes, DACA is amnesty that started by Obama executive order. There are court battles over DACA renewals and the proper fix is immigration reform via Congress. Trump offered amnesty for DACA for other compromises. That proposal was sank. I don't understand your point. How has he lied about his position on immigration? He brought the conversation of DACA front and center by not renewing it.
I am working class. Sanders doesn't give a shit about working class or poor people. He pays lip service but his policies are a joke that he can't even pass in his own state. He doesn't want to lift all boats. He pays lip service to covetous greed and selfish nature of people.
...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.
Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.
"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich
Taxing less is a wealth transfer? That doesn't make sense. Keeping more of the money you earned is a wealth transfer? I guess if you feel entitled to other peoples money. However, can you explain: "When upper-income Americans prosper, so do middle-income and lower-income Americans. Conversely, when high earners are stagnating, so are income-earners in all other categories." Economics is not a zero sum game. Taxing a person more doesn't help someone else. Just as taxing a person less doesn't hurt another person. Your choice of words "wealth transfer" is odd to me when talking about a tax cut.
nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?
He did make a good faith effort and he did succeed in ending the forced mandate. He can't repeal healthcare without Congress.
But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.
I think he is an idiot that likes the country. I think he does care more so than the average politician. Just my opinion.
lol. What are you talking about?
A) DACA wasn't mentioned in campaign. How was that a lie? Immigration law is being enforced. Illegal immigration is down. Travel bans in place. Promise kept from what I can tell.
B) What does Carrier have to do with anything during the campaign promises? He tried to keep them in the US and htey are leaving anyway... so he kept a promise to try and help. Ok? I think you misunderstand what promise being kept means.
C) Okay.
D) People paying less taxes is lying to them? Lowering corporate tax rates and regulation to expand business to hopefully create jobs in the US is lying to them? Again, you can disagree how that will work or the economics but that isn't a lie that is a promise being kept. The purpose was to create jobs.
E) Wow, you did it. You got one example. Congrats. An over the top slogan.
F) Hillary wasn't elected, Obama appointees are being replaced and fired. Seems like promise kept to me.
You have demonstrated that he has kept his promises more than he has lied about them. And he still has time to fulfill those promises! It seems like your problem is that you don't like it what he is doing. You didn't like his promises and you don't like them being kept.
I never said that Trump doesn't lie but you claimed: " Trump listened to them and told them what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter that he was lying. ". Yet you have demonstrated that he has kept his promises to those constituents he listened to more often than not.
Why in the blue fuck would I support the democrats or Sanders? I don't like the DNC behavior or rhetoric. Sanders is an idiot who rants and raves about the 1% yet doesn't care that the 1% means $389,436 annual income. He doesn't care about lifting all boats. He cares about sinking a few large ones by creating one massive boat everyone has to deal with.
Ok, that has nothing to do with Gorsuch. That was politics and a gambit that McConnell bet big and won. Saying Gorsuch is bad because politics is stupid. Saying that the POTUS nomination == confirmation ignores the Constitutional power of the Senate and again has nothing to do with Gorsuch.
You don't have a leg to stand on and that is apparent that your excuse is comes down to the constitutional power of the Senate.
How is Judge Gorsuch bad? Everything that I have seen and read about Gorsuch has shown a well tempered, honorable, intelligent, and principled man.
If you think he was soooo bad you have to explain why he was appointed to the Circuit court of appeals unanimously by the same people that voted against his Supreme court nomination.
You may not like Trump or what Trump does but Gorsuch is a good judge by every measure.
Was he lying? It seems to me that he is actually trying to fulfill those promises. You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help but I honestly do not believe he lied about trying to help those people. He has been keeping is campaign promises.
How has he lied to them?
Honesty and accountability... But you just said the universe doesn't care about the law, which is concerned about those things. Now you are using the law to try and stop the inevitable. Here's a thought, when it comes to the law how things are done is important.
You're right. Non of the solutions for global warming would stop anything so why bother. At least then we wouldn't have to hear your sanctimonious opinion.
how exactly does hyper-leftist/Marxist biogeochemistry differ from (say) rightist/Conservative biogeochemistry
Solutions. What is the proper role of government. If the current law is unable to deal with a particular biogeochemistry problem then what should happen; Can the government loosely reinterpret the law to get what you want?
You can't argue with science like you can't argue with a bullet flying in your direction.... He's saying that ignoring a scientific problem won't make it go away.
We are going to hit our Paris accord goals without being in the accord. What scientific problem are we ignoring? The politics of science isn't about the definition of the problem (although it can be). It's about the solution. Can the EPA redefine CO2 to be a pollutant within the existing law? I don't think it can and Congress is the one to act on the science. They are the ones that require consensus. When they do come to consensus the direction of the EPA won't change on the next administration.
What toxic substance is not being regulated by the EPA that was authorized by law to be regulated? The laws of physics do not care about how you classify CO2. The law sure as shit does though. Can the EPA, within the current law, redefine CO2 as a pollutant to be regulated? Can the EPA within the existing law regulate your breathing hole?
I am sorry but the existing law didn't regulate CO2. The EPA redefining it as a pollutant is an overreach. How to regulate is a contentious issue that should not be left to a federal bureaucracy left to be undone by the next administration. Scientists can help inform congress who then should argue on what it means to regulate CO2 and pass a law. HOW things done in government matter that the laws of physics are not concerned with.
This continues to be the legacy of Obama and frankly his failure as a president. I get tired of hearing about overzealous government doing more than the law allows it to do. The shoe is on the other foot which was an inevitably going to happen sooner or later. If it is important Congress should act that way it isn't so easy to undo. If Obama has a pen and phone to write something you like then don't be upset that when you lose power The Other Guy undoes it.
I find it really concerning when you have a video of white patriots holding guns and making speeches against anyone that is not white. There is an implicit threat of violence and intimidation at that point.
In the US you don't need the government to protect you if you think there is a wave of racism or threat of violence out to get you even with government complicity. Everyone can be or is armed. It's one thing to say "X people are inferior therefore genocide". It is quite another thing to actually try and commit that genocide especially when the people you want to get rid of are armed and can shoot back.
Everyone that is threatened by any racist can defend themselves. Everyone that feel they need to defend their lives can equalize any encounter with any mob or person. You may have your rally in the streets to say my skin is shit. Good luck trying to take my life or liberty because I will defend myself to the extent needed. As will any American willing to take on the responsibility of freedom into their own hands. Everyone can defiantly stand for liberty against those who seek to take it, as is the tradition and foundation of the United States. This idea has been too easily forgotten by those who wish the government ban guns or ban ideas.
I do not fear a rise of racism or sentiment willing to commit genocide because any race deemed inferior has the freedom and capacity to prove otherwise and defend themselves regardless of the government.
No the troll mod is appropriate. How is generalizing millions of people to a caricature and a stereotype in any way not a troll?
Also, wtf do you mean "dealt with"? That alone is retarded trollery. Are you going to have a Final Solution to the "nazi" problem? Seriously, are you one of those morons that think that the only way to have free speech is to restrict free speech for opinions you don't like? You do realize that the point of free speech is to protect the speech that is hated not what is universally accepted? You do realize that in that last half century that allowing nazi's/kkk/racists/whateverlabelyoubemoan to speak has had their numbers decreased? You and people that think like you are fuckin moronic.
Karma be damned but you are a idiotic troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
NN prevented service providers from discriminating against content providers.
How did Title 2 do that?
Why is the FCC better able to pre-emptivly handle anti-competitive behavior over the FTC on an individual basis?
How would the NN rules open up competition?
Did you hear the thunderous applause after Rubio jokingly suggested banning all semi-automatic rifles while he was at the CNN town hall?
And that will be used as evidence that many on the left want a complete gun ban.
What would you have them retract?
They don't' need to retract it or change the video but make something known in the description or something. If you make a mistake you own up it. Something to say "this is false.. this is misleading". I thought part of what made MSM institutions more reputable was that they made corrections when they get something wrong.
because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it. All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality.
A lack of means and motive does not prove CERN right. I would suspect that most people are indifferent to the discoveries made by the LHC. The point of science is that experiments can be repeated and claims can be verified. Yes, functionally you put a lot of trust in the accumulated knowledge we have. That is fine for things like the Higgs Boson but not so great for politics. If some billionaire really wanted to he could build an equivalent accelerator to try and disprove CERN which is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
A difference without a distinction. If you make a claim that is falsifiable I can verify it. Falsifiability necessitates others to verify results. Science is not built on trust.
I think part of that piece was just griping about semi-automatic rifles
I could probably agree with this. The problem is that the push recently is to "ban AR-15" and some ignorant people could use that segment as justification why the AR-15 should be banned even though it applies to all semi-automatic rifles meaning a near complete ban on most guns in the US.
They are pushing an agenda. I wouldn't even accuse FoxNews of deliberately presenting misinformation.
Misinformation was presented as factual. Whether that was malice or ignorance is another story. Whether it was deliberate is hardly redeeming if it is still up without any kind of correction or clarification.
How many other stories are like this? How many go unnoticed by their viewers who then push for legislation based on misinformation?
Mark Hertling is an activist with an agenda yet they do not mention this (#vetsforgunreform). He maybe experienced being in the military but he is pushing a particular agenda and purposefully obfuscates information to push that agenda. As demonstrated by the poor handling and mentor-ship of the CNN presenter (seriously that opening with the guy flaccidly shooting the gun is ridiculous under that kind of mentor).
Blurs the line between civilian and military weapons. That is what they are doing when they talk about the looks and appearance. If I put spoiler on my car, racing stripes, and racing numbers does that make it a race car? Yet, black plastic is supposed to be more dangerous like the M-4?
In the 1950's Colt did market the AR-15 to the military which was a basis for the M4 but that doesn't mean the rifles are the same nor does it mean that their looks mean they functionally the same. The AR-15 is just like any number of civilian semi-automatic rifles.
"a defining characteristic of the AR-15 is the speed and power of the bullet." .. Absolute non-sense. the speed and power of the bullet are defining characteristics of the bullet, not the rifle. Any rifle with that caliber will have the same speed and power regardless what it looks like. You can get most gun models in different calibers.
@1:05 "now those are single shots. If I wanted to fire this on full semi-automatic all I do is keep firing.". There is no such thing as "full semi-automatic". All he means is that he is pulling the trigger faster. 1 trigger pull == 1 bullet. Any semi-automatic can be fired faster if you pull the trigger faster. There is only one firing mode the AR-15 has. His "switching" is him operating the weapon differently. Semi-automatic. "Full semi-automatic" is a blatant misinformation designed to misinform laymen.
"this weapon in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than most weapons because of its capability to do a lot of damage in a short period of time and is irreversible". Why? Because he can pull the trigger faster? Because it looks scary? Because of the bullet it shoots? It isn't more dangerous than any other semi automatic gun in the market. Name a gun whose damage can be reversed. Name a gun that is semi automatic that can't fire faster if you pull the trigger faster. The AR-15 isn't unique or special from any other weapon. Not the caliber of bullet. Not the speed at which you can fire it. Not the damage it can do. That is nature for every gun for every caliber ever made.
I have to wonder if it is stupidity or malice that they got so much wrong in a 2 minute segment. They are pushing an agenda using misinformation and ignorance.
Part of the issue is that many fact checkers and news orgs are not transparent about their biases and they claim to be objective truth tellers.
The idea that every fact checker has an axe to grind is in itself a bias.
or it's the basis of skepticism.
I am not looking for a source to say "Yep I knew it! I was right all along". I am looking at different sources to see what is different and what overlaps between the different sources.
What bias and what source would that be?
I know I am biased. What is your point?