Open carrier in the news, and not in a good way.

[Chaingun81]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

See, there's a few issues here and acouple of myths busted...



Myth #1: all legal gun owners are law abiding citizens

Reality: everyone is a law abiding citizen... until they break the law



Myth #2:it's unpossible for someone to grab your weapon from you when OCing

Reality: it's really not that hard at all, especially in a crowded area, retention holster be damned - if I really want it, I'll break that holster into a million pieces. Yea, I know YOU'RE superman, and it could never happen to you, I'm talkingabout everyone else.
:quirky


The biggest issue worth mentioning, is the mentality that all too many mall ninjas here have. I'm talking to you, the douche canoe with the handcuffs, and you,Mr. 18 backupweapons, 7 knives, and a portable jailcell - there's a bunch of you around here. As was said, this guy was obviously looking to lay down his own law and ended up getting more than he bargained for. You want to lay down the law? Become a cop, they'll take anyone. You want to play tacticool ninja? Join the military, they'll take anyone too. Aside from that, your gun is for self defense, nothing more. It's not there to prevent crime, enforce the law, make you feel cool/special/badass, impress the ladies, or make you superior to anyone else. If you feel the need to become a vigilantly when you strap on that pos Glock, then do us all a favor and stay home, or, better yet, sell all your guns and start shooting roids with the rest of the jackasses atthe gym. That'll make you feel badass without allowing you to make us all look bad and get our rights further restricted.

Gotta be freezing in hell today. I actually agree with you!

I am the same person whether I'm carrying or not. I would go to the same places/times whether I'm armed or not. I would avoid the the same places/times/people/situations armed or not. Being armed doesn't make me a superman and doesn't give me any additional authority.

I'm not a LEO, I'm just a regular person going about my daily business and I firmly believe that the best way to deal with any confrontation is to avoid it at all costs. I don't feel as less of a man by running away - call me chickenshit all you want.

Having a gun and/or any other defensive tool just gives me an extra option to save my life should Iever find myselfin a stituation with no other options. That's all. My gun is for the last resort defense of myself or a family member, period.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. What do you believe is the case?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. What do you believe is the case?

As we've explained to you. They're not an authoritative source. Citation to them is inappropriate.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. What do you believe is the case?

As we've explained to you. They're not an authoritative source. Citation to them is inappropriate.

Why? Because you claim they aren't an authoritative source? It is not for you to decide what is (or isn't) an authoritative source.

Beyond that, what do you base that upon?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. What do you believe is the case?

As we've explained to you. They're not an authoritative source. Citation to them is inappropriate.

Why? Because you claim they aren't an authoritative source? It is not for you to decide what is (or isn't) an authoritative source.

Beyond that, what do you base that upon?

Because they've admitted to fraud.

Seriously,

 

[wrightme]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

A statement by Fox that "broadcasters have the Right to lie or deliberately distort news reports" does not show that Fox actually DID lie or deliberately distort news reports. It also does not automatically discredit the link provided by Gordie; as you seem to attempt to do.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I can. What do you believe is the case?

As we've explained to you. They're not an authoritative source. Citation to them is inappropriate.

Why? Because you claim they aren't an authoritative source? It is not for you to decide what is (or isn't) an authoritative source.

Beyond that, what do you base that upon?

Because they've admitted to fraud.

Seriously,

So far, no one in this thread has shown that to be the case.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Wow, you must be real worked up over nothing.....again...

The applicable part which was bolded does not prove your point. At all. If a car is red, is it a tomato? Your story lacks a cause-effect connection to your attempted point.
Beyond that, your manner of response weakens your position considerably.

You are a royal fail at logic.

Faux News claims first amendment right to lie and distort news. Nothing further is needed.

No, the failure at logic is with you. Any claim that Faux News states that they can/will lie and distort does not make ALL of their news false.

No, see, that's strawmaning a conclusion I didn't make. Never did I say ALL their news was false. Even a chronic liar doesn't lie about EVERYTHING. The point was merely that they are not trustworthy. You fail at reading comprehension again.

There was no "strawmaning" (whatever that is) involved by me. You presented a statement by Fox, and overstated it to claim that fox lies.


Since you seem to deny it now,just what did base your point about Fox news and the Gulf war on? From your prior post, you used that position to support your contention that Fox DID lie about the war.

I did no such thing. I showed Faux to be an unreliable source of news that believes it has a right to lie, leaving people to draw their own conclusions.


As 357 stated, the point is that they are not an authoritative source.A "news" article from them has all the credibility of an op-ed piece, a private blog entry, or a myspace status message.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

Gotta be freezing in hell today. I actually agree with you!

I am the same person whether I'm carrying or not. I would go to the same places/times whether I'm armed or not. I would avoid the the same places/times/people/situations armed or not. Being armed doesn't make me a superman and doesn't give me any additional authority.

I'm not a LEO, I'm just a regular person going about my daily business and I firmly believe that the best way to deal with any confrontation is to avoid it at all costs. I don't feel as less of a man by running away - call me chicken@#$% all you want.

Having a gun and/or any other defensive tool just gives me an extra option to save my life should Iever find myselfin a stituation with no other options. That's all. My gun is for the last resort defense of myself or a family member, period.

Hell has indeed frozen over. You really hit the nail on the head.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

So far, no one in this thread has shown that to be the case.

HAHAHAHAHA :quirky


I guess direct quotes from them aren't enough.



If I made a statement saying that I have every right to cheat in a poker game, denied no accusations of cheating, and defended my right to cheat in the future... would you want to play poker with me?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Hormones in milk, are you kidding me?

Did you miss the whole court case part? You must be another jackass like writeme that can't even read the size 9,000, bolded, red print.

The point of the article is that American media lies for views. Faux News isn't even ashamed of its lying. It admits to it and claims it's coveredunder the 1A.

Yet here you claim that they admitted to lying. Where do you get that from?

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

So far, no one in this thread has shown that to be the case.

HAHAHAHAHA :quirky


I guess direct quotes from them aren't enough.


If I made a statement saying that I have every right to cheat in a poker game, denied no accusations of cheating, and defended my right to cheat in the future... would you want to play poker with me?

Direct quotes are fine. Where is the "direct quote" from them where they admit to lying?


I would likely choose to not play poker with you under your example. BUT, I would not subsequently accuse you of cheating falsely.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Yet here you claim that they admitted to lying. Where do you get that from?

Not refuting a claim that they lied is the same as admitting they lied. They claim a constitutional right to lie. If you can't add 1+1 then go back to kindergarten.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Yet here you claim that they admitted to lying. Where do you get that from?

Not refuting a claim that they lied is the same as admitting they lied. They claim a constitutional right to lie. If you can't add 1+1 then go back to kindergarten.

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.



Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.



Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.



Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

Go ahead and find the part where you allege that they admit to lying. Please.

For them to take the position that the media CAN lie under the 1st amendment does NOT mean that they DO lie. Nor does the testimony of another that something happened make it a fact. In this case, you seem to be willing to believe it based upon your own view of the media, and of Fox.


Now, where did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?" Is that something else you simply made up?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.



Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

Go ahead and find the part where you allege that they admit to lying. Please.

For them to take the position that the media CAN lie under the 1st amendment does NOT mean that they DO lie. Nor does the testimony of another that something happened make it a fact. In this case, you seem to be willing to believe it based upon your own view of the media, and of Fox.


Now, where did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?" Is that something else you simply made up?

LOL

Aren't semantics great? You can derail any losing argument by playing the semantics game.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.


Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

Go ahead and find the part where you allege that they admit to lying. Please.

For them to take the position that the media CAN lie under the 1st amendment does NOT mean that they DO lie. Nor does the testimony of another that something happened make it a fact. In this case, you seem to be willing to believe it based upon your own view of the media, and of Fox.


Now, where did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?" Is that something else you simply made up?

LOL

Aren't semantics great? You can derail any losing argument by playing the semantics game.

And yours appears to be fully derailed.

So far, other than where you state that they lose credibility with their stated position on lying and the 1st amendment, just about every claim you have made about what Fox said is false. Semantics are great.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.


Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

Go ahead and find the part where you allege that they admit to lying. Please.

For them to take the position that the media CAN lie under the 1st amendment does NOT mean that they DO lie. Nor does the testimony of another that something happened make it a fact. In this case, you seem to be willing to believe it based upon your own view of the media, and of Fox.


Now, where did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?" Is that something else you simply made up?

LOL

Aren't semantics great? You can derail any losing argument by playing the semantics game.

And yours appears to be fully derailed.

So far, other than where you state that they lose credibility with their stated position on lying and the 1st amendment, just about every claim you have made about what Fox said is false. Semantics are great.

You also continue to strawman like no other. The argument is not that they DID lie in the story in question, it's not that they HAVE lied, and it's not that they INTEND to lie. The argument is that they CLAIM THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE. That causes them to forfeit their credibility as a news agency and also as an authoritative source.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

No, it is not the same thing at all. To assume such is false logic.

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.


Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

Go ahead and find the part where you allege that they admit to lying. Please.

For them to take the position that the media CAN lie under the 1st amendment does NOT mean that they DO lie. Nor does the testimony of another that something happened make it a fact. In this case, you seem to be willing to believe it based upon your own view of the media, and of Fox.


Now, where did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?" Is that something else you simply made up?

LOL

Aren't semantics great? You can derail any losing argument by playing the semantics game.

And yours appears to be fully derailed.

So far, other than where you state that they lose credibility with their stated position on lying and the 1st amendment, just about every claim you have made about what Fox said is false. Semantics are great.

You also continue to strawman like no other. The argument is not that they DID lie in the story in question, it's not that they HAVE lied, and it's not that they INTEND to lie. The argument is that they CLAIM THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE. That causes them to forfeit their credibility as a news agency and also as an authoritative source.

I was presenting no strawmen. I took your statements verbatim, and showed them to be false. The part I colored in blue above is where you finally make a valid statement based upon the news story you quoted.

So now you agree that they did not admit to lying? Do you also now agree that they did not admit that lying was ok? Those were your actual positions. They were not strawmen created by me.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.

Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

There is your statement, verbatim.



WHERE did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?"

That is not a strawman. It is your statement. Verbatim.


AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

As for Operation Iraqi Freedom, you guys really need to learn some facts before you start spouting off.

It was not a preemptive war to gain control of Iraq. It was a continuation of Operation Desert Storm

Basically, Faux flat out lies and fabricates to give their neo-con fan base exactly what it wants to hear. American media is all about turning a profit.

Here is where you stated that they lie. You did make that statement. I did not present it as a strawman.

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Hormones in milk, are you kidding me?

Did you miss the whole court case part? You must be another jackass like writeme that can't even read the size 9,000, bolded, red print.

The point of the article is that American media lies for views. Faux News isn't even ashamed of its lying. It admits to it and claims it's coveredunder the 1A.

Here is where you state that Faus "admits to it and claims it's covered under the 1A. I did notpresent that as a strawman. It was your statement. Fox never admitted to lying. Thus, your statement was not supported by the article. Either you misread it, or you misstated it; either purposely or accidentally. In any case, it was a false statement by you.