See the Journalistic bias in the article?

Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press WriterThu Oct 20, 7:08 PM ET

Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a
bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits.

President Bush said he will sign it.

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding
manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led
by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry
from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle
against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun
lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered
industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.
Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against
the industry would be dismissed. Anti-gun groups say some lawsuits filed by
individuals could be thrown out, too.

The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush
and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top
GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and
unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through
litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic
process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told
his colleagues.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in
connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election
law.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with
the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar
measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans
made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe,
according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them,"
said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives
and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source
of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed
the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because
it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual
parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.
Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence
of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of
convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued
the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have
agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that
guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the
law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the
firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or
ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability,
negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has
garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of
its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election
cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or
$93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics.
___
The bill is S. 397.
___
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/...ngress_guns_16


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Yes.
jw

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind, or go see an
optometrist (for new glasses) and/or a psychiatrist (for your problem
with denial), Arty.

Twice she mentioned Delay's indictment, something which had no
connection with the bill. (Note that she didn't mention any other
members who did not vote.)

And she mentioned only NRA contributions, not anti-gun contributions
(which would have gone mostly to the Democrats.)

Reread it and find more.


----------------------------------------------------------------
* OPERA: A Latin word * Wondrous Website Design
* meaning * Save your Heirloom Photos
* "death by music" * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,

The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 21 Oct 2005 08:42:31 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques says...

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,

The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

47 lawsuits which blamed a non-criminal for the actions of a criminal.
That's 47 too many, and when it costs 6 or 7 figures to defend against
something like that, dismissing it as 'not a problem' is a bit, well,
wrong.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

Oh, it's you, Jim. Well, I guess you won't see this. But, fact
remains, the "death of a thousand cuts" was one of the methods the
anti-gun people were trying to use, and soon they won't be able to.
They'll come up with another way to lie, of course, but this takes care
of the immediate threat.

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Why am I not surprised?

This is a perfect example of why the Left believes there is no media
bias. Im not sure if its because all yall are so used to propaganda
that you no longer see it, or stupidity. In your case I know its NOT
stupidity, as you are a very smart man...so it has to be the first.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 21 Oct 2005 08:42:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,

The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

Jim

Yep..at Least that many law suits. Lawsuits by entities such as the
City of Chicago..against 15 different manufactures at a wack. Or the
NAACP against the entire industry, for two of many many

The legislation has been long neeeded. Do some research on the subject
in depth before inserting your foot in your mouth. Again.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/ge.../26&ID=Ar00600

http://www.google.com/search?q=firea...-US%3Aofficial

http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/03...tro-239920.htm

Appeals court throws out Detroit, Wayne County gun lawsuits

By Amy F. Bailey / Associated Press


LANSING -- The Michigan Court of Appeals has thrown out lawsuits filed
by the city of Detroit and Wayne County against more than 30 gun
manufacturers and dealers.

Snip

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:17:11 GMT, Ignoramus15297
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2005 08:42:31 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques says...

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,

The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

You do not need many lawsuits to destroy gun manufacturers -- you only
need a few very large judgments. Very large judgments were asked for by
plaintiffs. I am rather happy about this law.

i

To the best of my knowledge..there has been only ONE (1) judgement
against a manufacturer.

On the other hand...literally billions have been spent defending
against these lawsuits, which have time and time again been tossed
out of court. I can cite at least 5 small manufactures that simply
went tits up because of litigation costs.

When a small 20 man shop such as AMT is sued by the City of
Detroit..and the case drags out for years, there isnt any money in the
kitty for payroll and legal fees, even when the case is dropped by the
a city government, or found to have no legal merit.

And that in a nutshell..is exactly the tactics they employ. Bleed em
until you put them out of business, even when you know you have no
case. Hence the legislation.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

Jim -
Guess you need to read the paper or take different subscriptions.

When this started - companies would not stand up against the common threat. Not all of them,
one in specific ran others stood and some charged.

City after city started to sue the 'problem' - every drug hit was naturally the makers
fault. Not that the gun was stolen, or smuggled in from Mexico (automatic that is).

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



jim rozen wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques says...


Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,


The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

Jim



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:18:12 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind, or go see an
optometrist (for new glasses) and/or a psychiatrist (for your problem
with denial), Arty.

Perhaps you're just being too sensitive, Larry-lar.

Reread it and find more.

IOW, re-read it until I find some bias? Is this what you'd normally do?

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:18:12 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Reread it and find more.

I thought I might add another point in order to clarify my original
response to Gunner's post.

It seems to me that many people, yourself included, Larry, see
politics as something akin to a football game; Right versus Left,
Dems versus Reps, Your Team versus Their Team. You seem to be aching
for a fight, reading everything with a magnifying glass, trying to
find something to argue about. I'll bet that when you can't find
anything to argue about, after multiple re-readings and much
scrutinizing, you feel empty and frustrated.

I really wonder what guys like you would do if, by magic, every
Lefty (or whoever it is that's not on Your Team) were suddenly
to vanish, never ever to be heard from again. Ever. How would
you and Gunner fill your time with nothing to complain about?
I think you'd be bored and miserable without the other team
around to fight with and complain about.

I find the whole thing tiring, myself. Never was much for
team sports anyway.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:14:09 +0000, Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Why am I not surprised?

This is a perfect example of why the Left believes there is no media
bias. Im not sure if its because all yall are so used to propaganda
that you no longer see it, or stupidity. In your case I know its NOT
stupidity, as you are a very smart man...so it has to be the first.

I believe you're right in that I am used to propaganda. So much so
that I have learned to read through it and pay it no mind, and I think
most people do the same thing. I think you'll find some amount of
"propaganda", "spin", whatever you want to call it, in all human
communication. It's unavoidable because everyone has opinions and
it is almost impossible to keep them from tinting one's reporting
to some degree. But the discerning reader accepts this reality and
navigates around it as a matter of course.

"Artemia Salina" wrote in message
news

I believe you're right in that I am used to propaganda. So much so
that I have learned to read through it and pay it no mind, and I think
most people do the same thing. I think you'll find some amount of
"propaganda", "spin", whatever you want to call it, in all human
communication. It's unavoidable because everyone has opinions and
it is almost impossible to keep them from tinting one's reporting
to some degree. But the discerning reader accepts this reality and
navigates around it as a matter of course.


It's an undeniable fact that, if you can't detect bias in a statement, it's
because you agree with that bias.

This is, after all, the fundamental reason that college Journalism classes
teach their students just HOW to "slant" their stories to match the
institutional bias of the publication for which they're writing. [So said my
Journalism teacher - way back in '64. G]

Your inability to discern the inherent bias in the quoted article simply
goes to prove the level, and direction, of YOUR bias.

In article , RAM^3 says...

Your inability to discern the inherent bias in the quoted article simply
goes to prove the level, and direction, of YOUR bias.

That's not what he said. He said most readers detect biases, and
'navigate around them' which I took to mean considering the bias
itself when evalutating the information in the story.

Not all strongly held opinions or strongly stated points are
"bias." Sometimes they are rooted in fact. It's a mistake
to dismiss information out of hand simply because it is strongly
worded.

Again, a deeper examination of other sources would give perspective
that a single source could not provide.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.

I believe you're right in that I am used to propaganda. So much so
that I have learned to read through it and pay it no mind, and I think
most people do the same thing. I think you'll find some amount of
"propaganda", "spin", whatever you want to call it, in all human
communication. It's unavoidable because everyone has opinions and
it is almost impossible to keep them from tinting one's reporting
to some degree. But the discerning reader accepts this reality and
navigates around it as a matter of course.


It's an undeniable fact that, if you can't detect bias in a statement,
it's
because you agree with that bias.

This is, after all, the fundamental reason that college Journalism classes
teach their students just HOW to "slant" their stories to match the
institutional bias of the publication for which they're writing. [So said
my
Journalism teacher - way back in '64. G]

Your inability to discern the inherent bias in the quoted article simply
goes to prove the level, and direction, of YOUR bias.



Except that sometimes when you can't find bias in an article it's because
there isn't any. It is not a fact that all articles have bias. Believe it or
not some people actually write objective pieces. If you haven't read any
then you need to broaden your reading list.

Hawke

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:41:24 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

In article , RAM^3 says...

Your inability to discern the inherent bias in the quoted article simply
goes to prove the level, and direction, of YOUR bias.

That's not what he said. He said most readers detect biases, and
'navigate around them' which I took to mean considering the bias
itself when evalutating the information in the story.

Thank you, and yes, it becomes second nature to the point that
you don't even notice that you're doing it (unless the bias is
so pervasive that it grabs your attention).

When I was much younger and less experienced I might have been influenced
by a reporter's bias, but my experience has shown that there is bias
everywhere (an exception might be CSPAN, where there is nothing but a
camera pointed at a speaker. Period.) and I've learned to discount it
and focus on the facts. I don't think that I'm special in this regard.
At least I hope not.

Perhaps Gunner thinks otherwise of people, but I doubt it. I think he
just wants something to complain about.

"Hawke" wrote:

I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.



--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

"Hawke" wrote:

I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.


Well you can tell me that but like most Lefties, it is a lie, a bald
face lie which seems to be the stock and trade of the left.

I have access to C-Span1 and C-Span2, I see your nutcases spouting
their bullchit and by the wonders of the internet, I can see where the
money comes from. The big bucks go to the dems, the big pile of
little bucks go to the republicans.

I'm one of the righties doing 20 bucks at a time and we are kicking
your arse. We, the people, out in flyover country do have a clue.

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

Artemia Salina wrote:

I really wonder what guys like you would do if, by magic, every
Lefty (or whoever it is that's not on Your Team) were suddenly
to vanish, never ever to be heard from again. Ever. How would
you and Gunner fill your time with nothing to complain about?
I think you'd be bored and miserable without the other team
around to fight with and complain about.

Actually we would be worried. As much as I detest most of the
opinions of the left you are part of checks and balances.

To a degree we need you to balance our ambitions as you do when you
are in power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

"RAM^3" wrote:

It's an undeniable fact that, if you can't detect bias in a statement, it's
because you agree with that bias.


I had a very liberal professor, Henry Jorgenson, that, was a flaming
left liberal Jew that escaped from Nazi Germany.

He told me to listen and pay attention to what I read and what was
left out. The omission of information is often the clue you need to
sense if the rendition is true or biased.



Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

Tweetie byrd is slapped again....
Well said, and true

wrote:
"Hawke" wrote:


I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.



Well you can tell me that but like most Lefties, it is a lie, a bald
face lie which seems to be the stock and trade of the left.

I have access to C-Span1 and C-Span2, I see your nutcases spouting
their bullchit and by the wonders of the internet, I can see where the
money comes from. The big bucks go to the dems, the big pile of
little bucks go to the republicans.

I'm one of the righties doing 20 bucks at a time and we are kicking
your arse. We, the people, out in flyover country do have a clue.

Wes

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:06:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:18:12 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind, or go see an
optometrist (for new glasses) and/or a psychiatrist (for your problem
with denial), Arty.

Perhaps you're just being too sensitive, Larry-lar.

Nah.


Reread it and find more.

IOW, re-read it until I find some bias? Is this what you'd normally do?

Of course not. Don't you ever, while reading an article, find yourself
questioning the author's intent? Don't you sometimes just feel
something isn't right in an article? That's what I felt with the one
in question. With a fair, open mind, one should be able to sense a
bias or an agenda toward either side. Give 'er a go, wot?


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:16:55 -0400, clutch wrote:

Artemia Salina wrote:

I really wonder what guys like you would do if, by magic, every
Lefty (or whoever it is that's not on Your Team) were suddenly
to vanish, never ever to be heard from again. Ever. How would
you and Gunner fill your time with nothing to complain about?
I think you'd be bored and miserable without the other team
around to fight with and complain about.

Actually we would be worried. As much as I detest most of the
opinions of the left you are part of checks and balances.

To a degree we need you to balance our ambitions as you do when you
are in power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Wes

"Me?"


--
Tired of Getting Ripped Off?
Send $10.00 to
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118

On 22 Oct 2005 21:41:24 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, jim rozen
quickly quoth:

In article , RAM^3 says...

Your inability to discern the inherent bias in the quoted article simply
goes to prove the level, and direction, of YOUR bias.

That's not what he said. He said most readers detect biases, and
'navigate around them' which I took to mean considering the bias
itself when evalutating the information in the story.

Not all strongly held opinions or strongly stated points are
"bias." Sometimes they are rooted in fact. It's a mistake
to dismiss information out of hand simply because it is strongly
worded.

Again, a deeper examination of other sources would give perspective
that a single source could not provide.

What did you feel about the article in question, Jim? Biased or not?


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:27:13 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
quickly quoth:

"RAM^3" wrote:

It's an undeniable fact that, if you can't detect bias in a statement, it's
because you agree with that bias.


I had a very liberal professor, Henry Jorgenson, that, was a flaming
left liberal Jew that escaped from Nazi Germany.

He told me to listen and pay attention to what I read and what was
left out. The omission of information is often the clue you need to
sense if the rendition is true or biased.

Very good. My Civics teacher in high school brought in an unretouched
photo of the transcontinental railroad final connection ceremony. It
had the prostitutes and whiskey bottles whereas our history books did
not. He showed us that propaganda was also possible in our own country
and to be aware of it. My dad thought he was a commie bastid while I
held him in the highest respect for doing that. I directly learned
that it was a good idea to pay attention to what was presented to me.
I indirectly learned to question authority and to speak out against
lies.


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

On 21 Oct 2005 08:42:31 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, jim rozen
quickly quoth:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Either read it again, this time with an -open- mind,

The whole thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I heard that there have been a total of 47 such lawsuits, ever.

The gun lobby is starting to sound like Sarah Brady here,
whining for legislation they don't really need.

If you were a business, how would you like to pay court costs to
defend yourself against 1, let alone 47, frivolous lawsuits? How
many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars did those lawsuits cost?

Several states' courts have overturned some suits, taking away from
other serious matters which should have had their court time. How
would you like to have your court time bumped for them to take care
of that crap?

Q: Do you -like- paying more for every single item you purchase, Jim,
just to cover manufacturer's court costs? Doctors aren't cheap, but
look at the cost of their malpractice insurance due to frivolous
lawsuits. Look around, there are many more instances where costs have
skyrocketed due to greedy *******s and their sillyarse lawsuits.

50% (WAG) of attorneys and perhaps that many judges should be
disbarred/disrobed (disgavelled?) for their bringing/allowing so
many of these stupid suits into court.

Damn, ya got me started on the legal system... g


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:27:38 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:18:12 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Artemia Salina quickly quoth:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Reread it and find more.

I thought I might add another point in order to clarify my original
response to Gunner's post.

It seems to me that many people, yourself included, Larry, see
politics as something akin to a football game; Right versus Left,
Dems versus Reps, Your Team versus Their Team. You seem to be aching

Hell's Bells, boy. I disdain both Dems and Reps. Now what?


for a fight, reading everything with a magnifying glass, trying to
find something to argue about. I'll bet that when you can't find
anything to argue about, after multiple re-readings and much
scrutinizing, you feel empty and frustrated.

You'd lose that wager, Arty, at least with this solo player.


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

In article , Larry Jaques says...

What did you feel about the article in question, Jim? Biased or not?

I never did beat my wife.

:^)

But the short answer is, exactly as the man said:

"All articles have bias."

And it's true here too. Part of critical thinking is
understanding where the bias is, why it's there, where
it comes from, and what the author is pushing. Some
folks think that critical thinking simply means you
read only stuff that agrees with your position, and
disregard the rest, or denigrate it. But surrounding
yourself exclusively with information that bolsters
your own world view is a very limiting plan.

Using "you" in the general sense here of course, not
you in particular.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Was there only 1 picture ?
Not one for the papers and one for the locals ?
Normally there are many pictures taken. Not just one.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:27:13 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
quickly quoth:


"RAM^3" wrote:


It's an undeniable fact that, if you can't detect bias in a statement, it's
because you agree with that bias.


I had a very liberal professor, Henry Jorgenson, that, was a flaming
left liberal Jew that escaped from Nazi Germany.

He told me to listen and pay attention to what I read and what was
left out. The omission of information is often the clue you need to
sense if the rendition is true or biased.


Very good. My Civics teacher in high school brought in an unretouched
photo of the transcontinental railroad final connection ceremony. It
had the prostitutes and whiskey bottles whereas our history books did
not. He showed us that propaganda was also possible in our own country
and to be aware of it. My dad thought he was a commie bastid while I
held him in the highest respect for doing that. I directly learned
that it was a good idea to pay attention to what was presented to me.
I indirectly learned to question authority and to speak out against
lies.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it
ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.


Well you can tell me that but like most Lefties, it is a lie, a bald
face lie which seems to be the stock and trade of the left.

It's clear that you couldn't be more wrong. If you are really so stupid and
misinformed as to not know where the Republican party gets its money from
you should know that most of it comes from big corporations and wealthy
donors not Mom and Pop. As to the honesty of Republicans all we need to do
is look at the honesty of Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby. Both of them have
been caught lying and will be indicted for doing so. So remember that
Republicans in the highest levels are known liars. It goes all the way to
the bottom too.


I have access to C-Span1 and C-Span2, I see your nutcases spouting
their bullchit and by the wonders of the internet, I can see where the
money comes from. The big bucks go to the dems, the big pile of
little bucks go to the republicans.

Wrong again Bonzo.


I'm one of the righties doing 20 bucks at a time and we are kicking
your arse. We, the people, out in flyover country do have a clue.


Yeah right, and a clue is about all you have. If you had any real knowledge
you'd be dangerous. Fortunately, you're less of a hazard than a lamb.

Hawke

"Marc" wrote in message
news:7jK6f.7090$i31.1287@trnddc08...
Tweetie byrd is slapped again....
Well said, and true

Right, ha ha, and Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in the country
to be the next Supreme Court justice too. Dream on.


Hawke

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:27:38 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:


I really wonder what guys like you would do if, by magic, every
Lefty (or whoever it is that's not on Your Team) were suddenly
to vanish, never ever to be heard from again. Ever. How would
you and Gunner fill your time with nothing to complain about?
I think you'd be bored and miserable without the other team
around to fight with and complain about.


What makes you think we wouldnt have something to debate about?
Getting rid of the Libs would simply narrow the arena a bit.

I find the whole thing tiring, myself. Never was much for
team sports anyway.

Politics..usenet style..is a form of combat. Much preferable to the
real thing. It has multiple reasons..getting the "truth" out being
just one, others include stress reduction via combat, etc etc.

Few of us who engage in it on usenet, carry much of it over to real
life.

A gent commented to a friend the other day, a gent that had been
around me a few times...when he suddenly discovered I was the Gunner
on usenet....that I certainly was opinionated..like it was a bad
thing..but more importantly..was quite surprised I was the Gunner on
Usenet.

Chuckle...what you see here..while may be the core beliefs of the
individual posters..hardly is any major part of their life outside the
net.

Im probably one of the few who even makes the attempt to be publicly
opinionated..with my Cowboy Calvin ****ing on the word Liberals in the
rear window of my pickup truck.

And I simply use that for a geopolitical digital detection system. I
can tell which portion of So. California Im in, by which digit folks
in other cars give me. Orange County, Riverside, San Bernadino, San
Fernando..the digit is usually a thumbs up. In West Hollywood, The
Peoples Republik of Santa Monica..its another finger.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:50:11 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:14:09 +0000, Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:38:58 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:24:59 +0000, Gunner wrote:

See the Journalistic bias in the article?

No.

Why am I not surprised?

This is a perfect example of why the Left believes there is no media
bias. Im not sure if its because all yall are so used to propaganda
that you no longer see it, or stupidity. In your case I know its NOT
stupidity, as you are a very smart man...so it has to be the first.

I believe you're right in that I am used to propaganda. So much so
that I have learned to read through it and pay it no mind, and I think
most people do the same thing. I think you'll find some amount of
"propaganda", "spin", whatever you want to call it, in all human
communication. It's unavoidable because everyone has opinions and
it is almost impossible to keep them from tinting one's reporting
to some degree. But the discerning reader accepts this reality and
navigates around it as a matter of course.

On the other hand..the honest reader finds this sort of bias
disgusting and says so.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:05:29 -0400, wrote:

"Hawke" wrote:

I saw a bit but for the popular press that was pretty good. Leaving
out the Delay bit and forgetting that the powerful NRA is a citizens
interest group that defends the Second Amendment.

The campaign contribs at bottom were priceless. We know what pays for
liberals to run.

Wes

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.



Actually..it was. according to various groups that track
donations..the Republicans contributions come from myrids of
individuals who donate small amounts, while the Democrats come from a
rather small group who donate Large sums of money. Trial Lawyers being
one of the largest, most dollars donated group.

gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:39:53 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Martin H. Eastburn" quickly quoth:

Was there only 1 picture ?
Not one for the papers and one for the locals ?
Normally there are many pictures taken. Not just one.

The picture in question was the one used in the history textbooks.
He brought in an unretouched (or considerably less retouched) photo
which showed the actual happening, not some prudish and historically
inaccurate semblance.


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

In article , Gunner Asch says...

On the other hand..the honest reader finds this sort of bias
disgusting and says so.

What's the opposite of that - a 'dishonest reader?' Heh.

That's sort of an odd word choice, I would have said 'skilled'
or 'critical' or 'careful.' Not to nit pick but I truly don't
think that folks who are suckered in by propoganda (and by
this I mean anything done by an author with even a tiny ax
to gind) are being willfully dishonest.

Do you feel equally as disgusted when you see a blatant
right wing propoganda tract, as I do when I see the reverse?
If you say "there are no right wing propoganda tracts, only
strongly stated right wing opinions" then you fail the test.
LOL.

Propoganda has a continuum of subtlety. I think the extreme
ends do a poor job of advocating their position - to the point
of souring folks. I think the folks doing the *writing* are
the ones being dishonest in those cases, not the readers.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:05:52 -0700, Hawke wrote:

Yeah, but do you know who pays for Righties to run? I can tell you it ain't
large numbers of common folk chipping in twenty bucks each.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong then, Hawke. Or maybe you're, you know, wrong
again.