What liberal doctrine? Be specific.
>> ^quantumushroom:

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.
>> ^packo:
PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.

>> ^packo:

PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means?

Not sure who you're referring to.

The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level.

That's hard to believe with Obama in the Red House and Congress under taxocrat control since 2006.

Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

Well, here's your chance. List 3 things the occupoopers accomplished. Hope these achievements outweigh the chaos, drug-dealing, rapes and deaths it caused, plus the expense of keeping society safe from these trust fund barbarians and other nogoodniks












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.
Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?
Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.


This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means? The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level. Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.
Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?
Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.


>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.



This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means? The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level. Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.

Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?

Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.





>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mike lofgren, bill moyers, religious fundamentalism' to 'mike lofgren, bill moyers, religious fundamentalism, middle class' - edited by messenger

figured i would whore my video which ties into this one and is also a bill moyers video:
http://videosift.com/video/bill-moyers-and-company-ralph-reeds-rise-fall-and-return

yep..reed is back and with a jesus induced vengeance.

>> ^kymbos:

So what was the point of saying 'Brazil is worse'?
I would love to hear an honest argument from the pro-gun lobby. Something like this: "Ok, so we understand that guns kill people - that's what they're for. We understand that the more guns there are in a society, and the more high powered they are, the more people will get shot and killed. But we like guns, and we as a society are willing to accept the consequences of these preferences. Now fuck off and leave us to our guns."
At least it's honest. There's no bullshit, inverted logic, blind refusal to accept reality. It's a genuine acceptance of fact and consequence.
And if I'm not mistaken, support for gun use is growing all the time in America. So why not?


You obviously haven't read anything I have posted, so I'll sum it up and be done with you. Guns are more often used to prevent crime or save lives than they are used to murder or commit crimes (but you won't hear that from the mass media networks). Only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. Other countries that have made it illegal for private citizens to own guns, crime went up after the guns were confiscated, so your idea that less guns = less crime is flawed. Your own link said America is more violent than all other advanced countries, but if 90% of violent crimes don't involve guns, obviously guns aren't the problem and less guns won't stop the violence.

>> ^kymbos:

I think when you're using the worst as a benchmark to say America is ok, you've given up.
But this is my favourite quote: "it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense."
Causation, not correlation. But enjoy your guns.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said America is OK. Guns aren't making the U.S. more violent, so we need to be doing something to find out why Americans are more violent, not taking guns away from law abiding citizens which are used for self defense and crime prevention as I have already shown.

A long time ago I had the unfortunate experience where I had to use a gun to save my life. Luckily I lived in a place where you are allowed to carry a gun in your vehicle without requiring a permit, otherwise I wouldn't be here to have this lovely conversation. I now have a carry permit, and I do carry a gun. Perhaps if more people exercised their 2nd amendment rights in Colorado, the psycho could have been stopped before more people were hurt.

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

>> ^direpickle:

It was a terrible thing to happen, but you have to realize that some people are just crazy. These things happen occasionally even in the most nonviolent cultures. The finger-pointing isn't helping.


He wasn't pointing fingers, he's just saying it'd be nice if the tools of destruction this particular crazy person used had been harder to obtain.

Make it like health care is right now, where you can be denied for pre-existing conditions. Make it take a long time to set up, make it require boatloads of paperwork to get the bullets you need. Then, when it's all said and done, make it cost $5,000 for the cheapest possible gun, with bullets being hundreds of dollars each.

On the flipside, make it so anyone can walk into a hospital and get treatment. No background checks, no waiting periods, and if it costs anything at all, make it so cheap that a couple hundred bucks is enough to buy the lives of more than 10 people.

A better world is possible.

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."

Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.

There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".

But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.

Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.

Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I wish mental health care were as easy to get as, say, a gun.

Mental health care is available to anyone with money.
Guns are available to anyone with money.


I wanted to clarify this. Lack of proper mental health care is a big problem in this country, but it was not this guy's problem. He had the money for a small arsenal, then he had the money for therapy and drugs. It's impossible to find actual verified information on this, but the lawsuit from the one guy targets doctors. So at least someone believes that he was receiving care and had access to medicine.

It was a terrible thing to happen, but you have to realize that some people are just crazy. These things happen occasionally even in the most nonviolent cultures. The finger-pointing isn't helping.

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.