Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330922

Re: OT: Conservative sexism

Show all headers | View raw

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:47 PM, in article sfh49af.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but
>>>>>> the quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one
>>>>>> of the top two candidates they have for president.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that
>>>>> ol' gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>>>> 
>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>> with it.
>>> 
>>> By all means point a link to it. Have not seen it.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Dn-4LDUw4
>> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/hillary-clintons-gun-contro
>> l-ad-swells-gun-violence-number-66-percent-including-suicides/
> 
> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
> 
>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so not
>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>> 
>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
> 
> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
> deaths are very much related to that.
> 

How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
these people committed suicide in the past?

> Now if she implied or said these checks would end ALL such deaths that would
> be a lie, but she did no such thing.
> 
>> <quote>
>> For instance, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>> (CDC) reported 11,208 firearm-related homicides in the United States. An
>> additional 505 accidental firearm-related deaths occurred in the US???a
>> figure that pales in comparison to the 38,851 deaths by accidental
>> poisoning or the 30,208 deaths caused by falls. So Clinton and gun
>> control proponents who think like her increase these figures by adding
>> in suicides. In this way, 11,713 firearm-related deaths???homicides and
>> accidental deaths???quickly become 32,888 ???gun violence??? deaths in
>> 2013 and an impetus for gun control.
>> </quote>
> 
> She is talking about background checks. For that suicide is very much a part
> of it.
>  

Not it's not.

>>> Now we can argue the value of such a statistic at all, but from how YOU
>>> present it, it sounds as if she is being honest. She might use it in a
>>> dishonest way, though. Would not surprise me. Clinton is not an honest
>>> person by a long shot - and I do not mean just the normal level of lying
>>> that pretty much all people do, or even the higher level that politicians
>>> do, but even more than that. Maybe not to the same level as the current top
>>> Republicans, but still impossible to defend.
>> 
>> What "top Republican" lies are you talking about?
> 
> Here is a sampling of Trumps:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/>
> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
> 15 (25%)    True or mostly so
> 46 (75%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Carson's:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/>
> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
>  3 (18%)    True or mostly so
> 14 (82%)    False or mostly so
> 
> Now Clinton's ratings:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/>
> 94 (71%)    True or mostly so
> 39 (29%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Sanders:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/>
> 25 (74%)    True or mostly so
>  9 (26%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Obama's are much the same.
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/>
> 
> Comes down to Republicans tend to be a LOT less truthful / accurate.
> 
> 

So you have no trustworthy source.
http://www.politifactbias.com/

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:17 -0800
  Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:28 +0000
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:42 -0500
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:35 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 17:38 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 09:39 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0700
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:47 -0800
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:47 +0000
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:57 +0000
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:59 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:06 +0000
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:10 -0800
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 05:31 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:41 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 18:51 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:18 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 19:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:44 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 12:32 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0600
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:38 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:48 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:52 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:51 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 22:28 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:45 -0700
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:36 -0800
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800

csiph-web