The exact same could be said about why you think Fox isn't as bad. In any case, I don't pay much attention to any mainstream news network. They're all objectively bad but Fox is objectively worse. Their entire business model is based around inaccurate news.

I remember when around 9-11 our cable network here in the Netherlands decided to add some American news channels to the mix. So far we only had CNN, but now we also got Fox and MSNBC.

I had never heard about Fox before, but I still remember watching it for the first time. After watching an hour or two I called over my two roommates to come check it out. I remember being totally outraged and hilariously amused at the same time... this was definitely the most biased form of journalism we had ever seen.

You don't even have to know a lot about American politics to see that every single Fox reporter is forcing his opinion on events down your throat with a -not so very clever- suggestive use of words that imply all sorts of things. It's a disgrace to journalism.

Compared to Fox, our national networks are at worst only very slightly biased. I'd say it's about BBC level of objectivity. I mean even the most notoriously biased newspaper in our country, De Telegraaf, isn't half as bad as Fox.

And a newspaper is one thing, but I was shocked to see something of that level on TV. And then I'm not even mentioning all the -not so accidental- 'mistakes' Fox is notorious for.

Citing sources? It's not a goddamn paper, I just gave you some links from Google. I gave you links from Google because I knew if you were to do a search, you wouldn't bother to click on anything because you'd say "hah they're idiots I won't believe anything they write!"


I actually tend to disagree with Jon on several things. Gun control is one of them, though I'm not personally clear where I stand on the matter. For other things, I happen to agree with him. And at least he does a pretty good job of getting his point across, unlike you, which is "Hurr, Ubama, democrats, liebrals, massassi intellectual elite!"


Have you ever bothered to check anything he claims? I don't think you have. I think you persist in fantasy because it's easy. You watch Fox news because they spout what you already believe. Have you ever bothered to argue, honestly to sit down and disprove what you believe in? I doubt it. You're a follower, Wookie. You don't think for yourself. You take in new information and facts just like everyone else, but whereas a smart, rational person will reform their opinions in the face of new evidence, you distort the evidence so that your opinion does not change. I mean, at least when I argue with someone like JM I can be reasonably sure they arrived at their opinions on their own through some kind of logical thought. You? No, I don't have that confidence. I have the confidence that while you read your Ann Coulter book you sat there nodding the entire time, "Heh yeah, she's right! Damn liberals!"

And before you try to turn the tables on me, I have done this. Many times. My beliefs now are radically different than what they were a decade ago or even five years ago. It's highly disheartening to do a complete turnaround on something that is central to your beliefs and your person, which is why most people never even bother to go there. But I have, more than once. It sucked, but in the end more satisfying because reality is better than fantasy, no matter how reassuring.

Um, I didn't bring up Fox News. It's the "intellectuals" here that bring it up to dismiss my argument on any topic. "Well, he does watch Fox News, afterall."

I think Jon brought it up because your terminology cluster**** was highly reminiscent of the crap Fox tries to pull. And the fact that you think Fox is an acceptable source of news is highly disturbing. It's so far from any kind of rational conclusion that no one takes you seriously.

Yeah, but links to Mad Magazine would have had more credibility.



Most of what he "claims" is ideologically based like most of what I claim. You can find "for and against" arguments for practically any position.



Where to begin? I guess I'll just keep it short and simple. No, I'm not going to try to disprove my beliefs in the abilities of people to make their own way and improve their own life. My opinions have been formed by a pretty varied life experience and as I move into a new phase I will have new experiences and we will see how my opinions change. Interestingly, opposite of many here, I have spent most of my life working, making a family, and being educated through "real world" experience. As I move into the academic period of my life I know I will have a far different perspective than the teenagers and twenty-somethings around me. And, believe it or not, I still haven't read those Ann Coulter books on my shelf. I really need to get around to that.



I know what you mean. I used to think we should be entitled to health care from the government. My father had pretty bad health problems for quite some time and I remember once being quite angry at something Rush Limbaugh said. As I further understood that my core beliefs had always been conservative, I learned how my opinion on health care was wrong. Especially troubling having a close family member without the means to afford health care.

If you'll actually take an earnest look at something I post then maybe I'll dig up something better when I get home.

Believe it or not, I understand your meaning and I know this makes me appear bull-headed but it is not in my nature to disprove my belief in the individual to accomplish great things on their own. Other beliefs, sure, but not that one. In my experience, people who do turn away from that belief are those who have quit after severe defeats and that is very depressing for many reasons.

And don't bother posting references to shoddy reporting by Fox News. Any news organization is going to have examples that reflect poorly on them. I would just argue that other outlets have far more extreme examples (such as NBC News and CBS News).

I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting that self revelation is a character flaw or somehow a bad idea? Seriously, this keeps shouting "I'm afraid to question what I believe in!"

I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea to change your beliefs for the sake of change. That doesn't even make sense. I'm talking about the level of personal reflection, rationality and clarity in sense of thought that allows one to arrive at conclusions highly contrary to existing beliefs and prejudices. Are you suggesting that going back on your beliefs is a weakness? It's not about "sticking to your principles" or something. Being able to accept that a belief you hold dear is incorrect is a sign of strength and perseverance.


Exactly. "I don't care, there are others just as bad! I'll go on thinking what I think and you won't convince me otherwise."

As we all know, the real world is a great place to get a good education because it's full of so many smart people.

I have a contradictory opinion, based on all of the people I know who've signed up: you joined the military because you didn't have a ****ing clue what you wanted out of life and you bought a recruiter's bull**** about how the military gives you direction. And you enjoyed the experience so much that you've since based every decision and opinion you've ever made on bull**** from people who are literally paid to lie to you.

(The latest? "If I get a degree, I will get a good job!")

Congrats on working and making a family, though. Sustenance earning and having sex without a condom are the grandest of accomplishments.

Fantastic. Another mature student who thinks he knows **** because he managed to fumble his way through a terrible job for a few years. Make sure to tell everybody, especially the professors, during lectures, how your real life experiences affect your understanding of the material. The teenagers and twenty-somethings will be happy to hear your insights and the faculty will be impressed.

Hey, remember when this thread was about gun control and not Wookie06?

Well, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter. It's "real life" which I think a reasonable person would agree is a significant component to being a well rounded individual.



I love how when I make a comment the intellectuals here find absurd, it routinely devolves into a Fox News and psycho-analyze Wookie06 thread rather than just taking it for what it is worth to you. Now it appears the topic of Gun Control, the Supreme Court, and the Chicago Gun Ban is well lost and the false assumptions of me continue again.

I always had an interest in the military. When I was a senior in high school I decided it was time to seriously research which service to join. I checked out the Army, Navy, and Air Force. I decided to join the Army due to the fact that it offered guarantees in the enlistment contract that surpassed what the other services did. More would have been left to chance in the other services. I was a recruiters wet dream. I called out of the blue, aced the test, and had no disqualifying conditions. Had I realized that at the time, I would have made him work harder, although he still did a fair job. The rest of your assertions on the matter are even less worthy of a response.



Um, no. I actually don't really care all too much about getting a "good job" other than insuring I continue to provide well for my family. I'm going to college for a number of reasons. Increase my knowledge, attain further qualification for entry into some line of work that I enjoy being a part of, supplement my income due to the GI Bill (it will pay me to go to school in addition to paying for the school). I will have much more time to travel in leisure and experience life in a different way. Way to go with more false assumptions, Jon'C!



And another insightful moment! Wow, couldn't be I was thinking at all about the responsibility of successfully raising and providing for a family. I know those sort of things are foreign to people like you because you might tend to believe that all the stupid people in the real world need to be provided for. You know, because we all be so dumb!



Another wonderful assumption! Actually, I don't really intend to discuss too much except the inevitable occasions where somebody wants to know why I'm twice their age with white in my hair and beard. It's a new chapter and I look forward to experiencing it.

Really, I have no idea why some of you seem to feel so insecure that you feel the need to respond to comments you disagree with by falling back on the same old, tired, BS. There are always a select few here, Sarn comes to mind, that seem to be able to understand where I'm coming from and even if you don't, or don't like the explanation, then just continue on. It probably won't kill you to not bring up Fox News or post your silly fantasies about my existence in the real world. However, if you really want to turn every thread where we have a disagreement into one about me, I'll be flattered. I just don't have the time to fully respond to all the posts.

Because JM was thanking the ALOT for getting Reagan elected, obviously.



Don't call it gun control.

lolololol

blah blah blah, I'm not reading that mess of Fox News catchphrases.

Oh, and Emon, I meant to respond earlier but I forgot after serving Jon'C a dish of ownage. You completely misunderstood my point or you think it is unreasonable for me to not care to disprove my belief in the ability of individuals to accomplish great things.



Why? The original topic of the Chicago Gun Ban certainly is an example of Gun Control.

You can be honest. It's the fact that the relatively low grade level at which I communicate with can't hold your interest for very long, isn't it?

I'm not really sure what this sentence means.

My bottom line argument is this: If you go through life never seriously challenging your own beliefs, especially your core beliefs, you will never know if they are true. From the sounds of it, this is exactly what you do. You were brought up a certain way, you experienced things a certain way, but you never bothered to think twice if they were correct. And this is exactly the definition of a "sheep."

If you try to argue with a brick wall for too long, you eventually just try to tear it down.


Not a coincidence. No, it's not the "intellectual elite" getting you down. You just don't get any of our arguments and you never want to hear them.

Of course it is. It's "a statute or ordinance that regulates the sale, possession, or use of firearms." But if you want to use "gun control" (or "Gun Control") to have another, narrower meaning, define your terms.

Incidentally, illegal immigration widens the income gap.

Just sayin.

Of course not. You failed to read my initial post on the matter and have derived misunderstandings that you fail to even realize. You continue with more incorrect assumptions. If this is just going to be an all about Wookie06 then fine, we can keep talking about it here.

Of course. It fits both the manufactured definition as well as mine which would be something along the lines of "government legislation, regulation, or judicial determinations which restricts, inhibits, or otherwise impairs the right of ordinary citizens, and legal residents, to bear arms". My primary difference with the manufactured definition is that I would not consider laws pertaining to the manner in which gun sales are regulated to be Gun Control unless the effect of the regulation meets my criteria. For example, if a state wants to do a background check on an individual, fine, unless the very process of the background check is constructed in a manner such that ordinary citizens, or legal residents, are still denied arms. It should also be said that I am applying this definition to the US. I understand that there are countries where the individual right to bear arms isn't acknowledged.

Uh, no, I don't understand it because it's poorly worded. You use the same poor wording in your first post and I didn't get it then, either. I have to make assumptions because your English is terrible. I then further clarify to avoid any confusion and to account for the possibility of my assumptions being incorrect: this is my argument, this is why I think it. Then you go skirting around it.

I'll reword it in very simple terms. Again. By not challenging your own ideas and your core beliefs, you will never be certain of their truth. I'm not suggesting that you need a turnaround in ideology... conclusions need not be contradictory. Being open minded to new ideas, being able to recognize that something very core to your beliefs is incorrect, this is the difference between being intelligent and being an idiot.

Now I certainly don't claim to be any master of philosophy or understanding of the universe. But at least I try. You don't. You run with the show. Go with what you already believe. Never thinking twice that something you think you know could be wrong. Debate is about the exchange of knowledge and ideas, so that everyone involved becomes more enlightened as a result. Judging by your posting history, and your very own words, you don't subject yourself to such processes. That's why these debates go nowhere, Wookie.

Okay, this is the part I'm referring to in all it's Terrible English glory:



I merely stated that I'm not going to attempt to disprove my core beliefs as they relate to what I say above. I never said I can't be persuaded by alternate views or won't investigate opposing positions in other matters. In fact I continue to learn all the time.

Yeah, no, that sentence makes no sense. Beliefs in the abilities of people. Who, what people? Make their own way and improve their own life. This isn't even the same conversation!

Wookie06 can't see the forest for the trees.

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it." - Adolf Hitler, Rupert Murdoch

I see. I'd say that the Black's definition is much more straightforward and makes it a lot easier to determine what is and is not gun control. The alternate definition requires knowing the scope of the right to bear arms (which I'm not sure anyone does for certain, unless you're using that term in some simpler sense than its constitutional one) and probably what an "ordinary citizen" is. But at least now we have some idea what we're talking about.

Are you opposed to all laws that fit your definition?

I would have to say, generally, yes. I think here is where we can get further into semantics, though. For example, if I support "gun control" against convicted felons am I now wavering in my opposition to Gun Control in the way I've defined it? Or is it that we should look at that as an example of "convicted felon control"? After all, the constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms. It merely acknowledges that we already have that right and restricts government from infringing upon it. Of course all of our rights are not defined by the constitution. We should all be able to agree that we have the right to liberty but do we get our panties in a wad when a felon goes to prison? No, because we understand that the choice to engage in criminal action will result in a reasonable society collectively stripping someone of some of their rights. I just engage in that quick discussion of one example that comes to mind. There certainly are other points to discuss here and thanks for helping to bring this back on topic Mike! It's such an interesting discussion and refreshing to get back to.



Sorry, the disjointed feel of the whole thing is a result of me not really being egotistical enough to want to engage in lengthy discussions of myself in this thread. I hacked up lengthy replies to be more concise. I'm more than willing to discuss this in another thread or forum, if you really want. It just doesn't seem appropriate here.

This is why I was wondering about "ordinary people." Are felons ordinary people? What about those with serious mental illnesses?

Suppose, though, that it did mean you weren't opposed to all Gun Control as you defined it. Would that be a problem?

Kind of. My sort of rationale around the matter is that when we have some sort of reason to disqualify a person, and this is very general here, it isn't so much that we are regulating the gun so much as the person. I understand that is a fine line there and why I referred to semantics a couple posts back. I hope I provided enough info for you to get the gist of the logic, though.