Trump endorses the Presidency for life!

[Terraceth]

There are an infinite number of facts in the world. Nobody can know all of them.

There are numerous international studies on the effects on gun control across nations. There are numerous studies within the US on the effects of gun control among different states. Those many and various studies indicate that gun control reduces gun deaths.

A stupid person would deny that obvious fact.

I've seen people say exactly what you say here--but in the opposite direction. Claims need to be more specific than simply vaguely alluding to "studies" because someone can make that exact same claim for the other side of the issue.

[Starlight]

I've seen people say exactly what you say here--but in the opposite direction.

Sure, in the US the NRA / gun manufacturers / Republican think tanks pay people to lie to you. You've got to be wary of that the same way you should be wary of oil companies etc pay people to lie about climate change and the tobacco companies paying people to lie about lung cancer. The easy way to avoid that is to avoid american studies and look at international studies only because the rest of the Western world doesn't have the level of corruption the US does.

[lilpixieofterror]

There are an infinite number of facts in the world. Nobody can know all of them.

There are numerous international studies on the effects on gun control across nations. There are numerous studies within the US on the effects of gun control among different states. Those many and various studies indicate that gun control reduces gun deaths.

Than Brazil should be safer, with less gun deaths than the US, but is it?

A stupid person would deny that obvious fact. A stupid person would claim it isn't the guns and it's the people / particular zones / particular police officers / the time of day / the phase of the moon. Stupid idiots do tend to love denying the science on all sorts of issues from whether the earth is flat, to whether climate change is real, to whether gun control reduces gun deaths, to whether evolution occurred. I generally roll my eyes at them.

A stupid person ignores the rest of the world and pretends the West is the only place that exist. If gun control laws were all that it took to reduce gun seats than Mexico, Brazil, and the rest of the non west countries with gun control laws should be safer than the US, but many are filled with gun violence with unarmed law abiding citizens at the mercy of gun wielding criminals. A non stupid person would realize that there’s more to it than simple laws. Obviously, you’re a very stupid person.

I usually have LPOT on ignore. Periodically I take her off to give her another chance. She generally blows and goes back on ignore pretty quickly.

Sure I’m on ‘ignore’. We both know your ego can’t take it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sure, in the US the NRA / gun manufacturers / Republican think tanks pay people to lie to you. You've got to be wary of that the same way you should be wary of oil companies etc pay people to lie about climate change and the tobacco companies paying people to lie about lung cancer. The easy way to avoid that is to avoid american studies and look at international studies only because the rest of the Western world doesn't have the level of corruption the US does.

Notice how Starlight bases his claims on bald assertions without any facts to refute his narrative. First, notice how he ignores the rest of the world and pretends the western world is all that exist. Plenty of non western countries have gun control laws and still manage to have greater gun crime than the US. Obviously, it’s more complex than merely laws in the books. Second, by focusing on gun deaths and ignoring the causes, he tries to control the narrative. See, 2/3rds of US gun deaths are suicides and plenty of countries, with strict gun control laws, manage to beat the US suicide rate by quite a huge margin. Most of the West, really has little difference in suicide rates vs the US. So again, it’s pretty dishonest to use total gun deaths while ignoring that detail. Third, minus suicide, criminal elements make up most homicides. Around 3/4ths of these murders are criminals murdering other criminals. So if you’re not a criminal, what’s your odds of being a victim of a murder by gun? Bottom line is by ignoring these details, Starlight tries and fails to control the narrative.

[Sea of red]

And yet CNN has been caught publishing fake stories.

Don't go there, FOX has published outright fictions about Seth Rich and the Clinton's.

We know that the MSN was sending articles to the Clinton campaign for approval.

Funny, the Trump WH was very interested in FOX pushing the disgusting Seth Rich story. I don't remember the rest of the media every doing anything like that.

We also know that they fed Clinton questions for the debates too. Yet it’s Fox News that has credibility problems? Hummm interesting.

And yet it's only FOX that get access to this president, while Trump refuses any interviews with the rest of the media -- which won't be softballs.

They are pretty much the infowars of the liberal side.

Have you ever actually watched InfoWars?

[lilpixieofterror]

Don't go there, FOX has published outright fictions about Seth Rich and the Clinton's.

Do you see me defending the partisan hacks at Fox? No, but you sure seem interested in defending the hacks over at CNN.

Funny, the Trump WH was very interested in FOX pushing the disgusting Seth Rich story. I don't remember the rest of the media every doing anything like that.

Than you weren’t paying attention during the Obama years. How long did they spend time covering the IRS scandle? How about Fast and Furious? They bury stories too, rather you want to believe it or not.

And yet it's only FOX that get access to this president, while Trump refuses any interviews with the rest of the media -- which won't be softballs.

Would you grant interviews to those that lie about you all the time?

Have you ever actually watched InfoWars?

Have you read any articles by Mother Jones or Slate? There’s some dooeys with them.

[Sea of red]

Do you see me defending the partisan hacks at Fox? No, but you sure seem interested in defending the hacks over at CNN.

You always have had the ability to assume that if people aren't defending your position, they must be 'in' with the your opposition. Nobody is ever able to simply disagree with your narrative without you shoving words in peoples mouths.

Would you grant interviews to those that lie about you all the time?

If I'm president I don't get to ignore 99% of the media because they report the chaos and dysfunction that is my WH -- which is reality.

Have you read any articles by Mother Jones or Slate? There’s some dooeys with them.

I don't know, and don't care because I've never read them even once.

[lilpixieofterror]

You always have had the ability to assume that if people aren't defending your position, they must be 'in' with the your opposition. Nobody is ever able to simply disagree with your narrative without you shoving words in peoples mouths.

Is the pot complaining about how black the kettle is?

If I'm president I don't get to ignore 99% of the media because they report the chaos and dysfunction that is my WH -- which is reality.

First off, why not? If someone publishes fake stories about you, why do you have to indulge them? Second chaos, according to whom? I can make almost anything sound good or bad all depending on what I choose to report and what I choose to ignore. If you showed up at my house, before bed, it is often total chaos, but it isn’t at other times. It all depends on what a person chooses and what they choose to ignore. I seriously doubt the WH is total chaos or complete order, it’s likely full of both.

I don't know, and don't care because I've never read them even once.

So why do I care about infowars?

[Roy]

Do you see me defending the partisan hacks at Fox? No, but you sure seem interested in defending the hacks over at CNN.

If Sea of red is defending CNN when he refers to Fox News's misdemeanours, then yes, LPOT is defending the partisan hacks at Fox when she says CNN has published fake stories.

[lilpixieofterror]

If Sea of red is defending CNN when he refers to Fox News's misdemeanours, then yes, LPOT is defending the partisan hacks at Fox when she says CNN has published fake stories.

And here comes Roy again, riding to the rescue to attempt to defend any atheist from me, just like always. He’s a big boy that doesn’t need daddy Roy to defend him. Now don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

[Roy]

And here comes Roy again, riding to the rescue to attempt to defend any atheist from me, just like always. He’s a big boy that doesn’t need daddy Roy to defend him. Now don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Just your usual inability to recognise your own inability.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just your usual inability to recognise your own inability.

Yes because calling Fox News anchors political hacks and meat puppets means I am defending them in Roy land. Are you done now daddy Roy or is the part where you act all smug without contributing a thing of merit? Can we just skip to the part where you pretend your right, declare victory, and run away without ever proving a thing you said as being anywhere close to reality?

[Roy]

Yes because calling Fox News anchors political hacks and meat puppets means I am defending them in Roy land.

Just your usual inability to understand or address what people actually write.

I suggest you get some-one else to explain it to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just your usual inability to understand or address what people actually write.

I suggest you get some-one else to explain it to you.

Little slow on the uptake, eh Roy? Let me try to dim this down to your level daddy Roy:

If I make no excuses for bad reporting by consertives and have not once said Fox is better at reporting than CNN why does he continue to try to convince me that CNN is better, if he isn’t defending CNN?

[Roy]

Little slow on the uptake, eh Roy?

No, that'd be you. Cf my current signature.