The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."ScubaSigGuy wrote: . . . Just for the record, extremism in any form is bad.
Quite. I find it difficult to believe that there is any kind of fear whatsoever that any and every TV news outfit hasn't exploited at some point.ScubaSigGuy wrote:My favortite part was when Boehler said:
"It's incredibly irresponsible. We've never seen a televison news oufit sort of exploit these kinds of fears before"
Looks like CNN had it taken down.Revet wrote:New video: CNN engages in some fear-mongering of their own while accusing 2A supporters and the conservative media of fear-mongering. (warning: you'll want to throw your shoes at the screen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBIpfAl8 ... annel_page
If you have to quote Barry Goldwater in order to support your position, its probably not a position worth supporting.jimlongley wrote:"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."ScubaSigGuy wrote: . . . Just for the record, extremism in any form is bad.
Barry Goldwater
NO, they don't. "Competing" means that you play by the same rules as everyone else in the market. NPR does not do that. Most of that 98% of their funding comes in the form of donations and grants, not advertising revenues; so they don't really compete in the marketplace of ideas on the same level playing field as CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, et. al. Besides, if that 98% is true, then they don't need the 2% of taxpayer funding. Let them scale back their operations 2% so that they don't have to fleece the taxpayers. I don't care if it's "only" a million dollars; part of that tax money is mine. I don't want one red cent of it spent on a corporation that doesn't need it for the purposes of propagandizing against my personal beliefs. Period.nitrogen wrote:They DO make it in the marketplace of ideas. 98% of their money comes from private individuals or corporations.The Annoyed Man wrote:But I can't appreciate that they do it on my taxpayer nickel. Let them go fully commercial, and then they can spew whatever garbage they want, and we'll see if they survive in the marketplace of ideas. But as long as they receive a significant chunk of their support from taxpayer dollars, then I have a right to expect political neutrality. Until they make that moral connection and begin to act with integrity, I genuinely hope they go under; because there is NO legitimate reason that I should be compelled to support a propaganda machine with which I am in total disagreement.nitrogen wrote:NPR, while usually accused of being a leftist pit of dispair, tries its best to keep its obvious biases obvious, and up front. I can appreciate that, at least.
I hate them.
In 2007, we I think we gave them around a million bucks (at least according to the tax form I remember seeing. They very well could have gotten more.) The National Endowment for the arts gave away almost $20 million that same year. Harry (g)reid got 7 million for a blimp in NV. I'm personally far more annoyed at wastes like that, but to each his own.
nitrogen wrote:The things that liberals that hate Fox News don't take into account is that their real NEWS division does quite well at reporting news....
I refuse to subject myself to the abuse of watching any of them. I'd rather set up a reciprocating sledgehammer out in the garage and insert my head into it.nitrogen wrote:Personally, I watch both because watching Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow give me great insight to the left, as much as watching Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush give me to the right. Sometimes I agree with Olbermann, sometimes with Beck. They all are twerps to some degree, but entertaining ones.
The Annoyed Man wrote:But I can't appreciate that they do it on my taxpayer nickel. Let them go fully commercial, and then they can spew whatever garbage they want, and we'll see if they survive in the marketplace of ideas. But as long as they receive a significant chunk of their support from taxpayer dollars, then I have a right to expect political neutrality. Until they make that moral connection and begin to act with integrity, I genuinely hope they go under; because there is NO legitimate reason that I should be compelled to support a propaganda machine with which I am in total disagreement.nitrogen wrote:NPR, while usually accused of being a leftist pit of dispair, tries its best to keep its obvious biases obvious, and up front. I can appreciate that, at least.
I hate them.
Although television "news" is the worst, the entire mainstream US "news" media isn't worth a cup of warm spit --print media included. While they usually lie by omission, instead of outright, virtually nothing they have to say amounts to the truth about anything.baldeagle wrote:I refuse to subject myself to the abuse of watching any of them. I'd rather set up a reciprocating sledgehammer out in the garage and insert my head into it.nitrogen wrote:Personally, I watch both because watching Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow give me great insight to the left, as much as watching Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush give me to the right. Sometimes I agree with Olbermann, sometimes with Beck. They all are twerps to some degree, but entertaining ones.
And he didn't get 5 years in the pen for FSRA(Failure to Stop and Render Aid)? That is a felony in every state of which I am aware. Actually a double felony if you're drunk too.flb_78 wrote:Rick Sanchez was drunk and ran over someone. He drove away and came back 2 hours later. This hit and run paralyzed the man and caused him to go into a nursing home. He died a couple years later from complications from his paralysis.
http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+san ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;