So, the MSM isn't left wing, huh?

So, the MSM isn't left wing, huh?

Posted in the Columbus Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#1 Dec 17, 2012
CNN anchor Don Lemon went on an anti-gun rant on Monday morning and called for an assault weapons ban. Lemon is only the latest CNN anchor to abandon journalistic standards and push for gun control.

"We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children," an emotional Lemon appealed.[Video below the break. Audio here.]

"Yeah yes, we need to address mental health, but mental health in this particular issue, let's not get it twisted, is a secondary issue. If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this," he responded to CNN contributor Will Cain's argument that the mental health of the shooter was the paramount problem.

"Who needs an armor-piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?" Lemon argued against the legality of assault weapons.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on CNN Newsroom on December 17 at 9:48 a.m. EST, is as follows:

[9:48]

DON LEMON: Listen. For the past three days, I have been on the verge of tears every second and most of the people here have been crying 24 hours straight. Yeah yes, we need to address mental health, but mental health in this particular issue, let's not get it twisted, is a secondary issue. If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this.

Who needs an armor-piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting? You can't even use the prey that you kill with an assault rifle if you indeed do it. No one needs an assault rifle to go out and shoot a deer. No one needs an assault rifle that's capable of shooting 10, 20, 30 rounds off at the same time to shoot a duck, or to shoot quail. It does not make sense. Our first the first thing that we need to do and according to everyone that is here, even gun enthusiasts, is talk about what we're doing with assault rifles, why should guns that should only be available in war zones, why are they available to people who are mentally healthy and people who are not mentally healthy. That's the issue that we need to deal with.

So to say that gun violence is down does not make sense, and to me is insulting to everyone who lost a loved one here and is dealing with that. It doesn't matter if gun violence is down, 26 children 20 children are dead here, and six adults are dead, and the mother of a person who's not mentally up who's mentally challenged in some way is she's dead. So to say that gun violence is down and we need to talk about mental health yes, mental health is a secondary issue. We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/...

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#4 Dec 17, 2012
Fat Ed from MSNBC is screaming about it too, but that's to be expected.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#5 Dec 17, 2012

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#7 Dec 17, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
Huckabee is a commentator, not a news anchor. Lemon is the equivalent of Brian Williams.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#9 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
FNC is owned by a gun banner. F' that. Everyone on the right needs to just drop cable/sat, and donate the money to the NRA.
Now there's a rational response.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#11 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
How is "boycott those who you disagree with" not rational?
I'm assuming that you are being sarcastic.
Then you clearly support that chicken boycott earlier this year?

woof

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#13 Dec 17, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you clearly support that chicken boycott earlier this year?
woof
I wasn't aware that Dan Cathy was a news anchor for a cable news channel.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#14 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't illegal, free market and all. It was fairly pointless, because they didn't practice discrimination in hiring. I buycotted them, I eat there once a week.
It may come as a surprise to you, but support of one boycott, does not equate to support of all boycotts, and has nothing to do with the point of support of the principle of boycotting.
Well said. I hope they get the point. I'm going gun shopping tomorrow or Wednesday. I want a new hand gun I'm comfortable with and a new rifle. Better get them now. Merry Christmas to me!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#16 Dec 17, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't aware that Dan Cathy was a news anchor for a cable news channel.
I wasn't aware that I was talking to you.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#17 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
It may come as a surprise to you, but support of one boycott, does not equate to support of all boycotts, and has nothing to do with the point of support of the principle of boycotting.
Well Karl, that is the exact polar opposite of what you just wrote minutes ago:
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
How is "boycott those who you disagree with" not rational?
I take that to mean that you find "boycotting those [one] disagrees with" to be rational.

woof

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#18 Dec 17, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't aware that I was talking to you.
woof
You're talking to everyone on Topix when you post.
What a crybaby.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#20 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
I regarded the Chik-fil-a boycott as irrational because it had no goals, there was no hiring discrimination, it was mainly to punish the executives for their religious beliefs, which the left would froth at the mouth over the right doing to Muslims.
If people want to punish them for their religious beliefs, then they are acting rationally by boycotting them.
Since I disagree with the media's beliefs, I am advocating the dropping of cable and the diversion of cable funds to the NRA.
Now, you've changed the test. Simple disagreement is insufficient to justify a boycott as rational.

Only took about fifteen minutes.

woof

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#22 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't illegal, free market and all. It was fairly pointless, because they didn't practice discrimination in hiring. I buycotted them, I eat there once a week.
It may come as a surprise to you, but support of one boycott, does not equate to support of all boycotts, and has nothing to do with the point of support of the principle of boycotting.
Gotta lotta circular tracks running around in that head of yours, don't you?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#23 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be amazed if anything is left on the shelves by the end of the week.
Incredible as that may seem to you, that doesn't make me feel any safer.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#24 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
I regarded the Chik-fil-a boycott as irrational because it had no goals, there was no hiring discrimination, it was mainly to punish the executives for their religious beliefs, which the left would froth at the mouth over the right doing to Muslims.
If people want to punish them for their religious beliefs, then they are acting rationally by boycotting them.
Since I disagree with the media's beliefs, I am advocating the dropping of cable and the diversion of cable funds to the NRA.
Bit more than their religious beliefs, there, fella. Although there are people who exercise their right to give prefernce to vendors and service-people of their own religion. It had to do with using profits to support several virally anti-gay groups. Well within the rights of those who chose to boycott. And the point was that none of the non-buyers wanted to be in any way supportive of those particular groups.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#27 Dec 17, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta lotta circular tracks running around in that head of yours, don't you?
Wow!!!

And he has guns.

woof

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#28 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
How is "boycott those who you disagree with" not rational?
That is the original quote. In it I said that if one has ideological disagreements, that boycotting is a rational response.
By claiming "simple disagreement is insufficient", YOU have changed the test.
What you said initially is turn off the TV/cable news and instead support the NRA. I called that irrational because it calls for one, rather than evaluating news sources and comparing biases, etc, to become ignorant of current events--and meanwhile blindly support a single group that has become, to my mind, quite radical in its political beliefs.

I don't call that rational.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#29 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
How does commenting on the merits of a particular boycott, address my comments on whether boycotting in general is rational.
If you support one boycott as having merit you cannot, logically, reject boycotts as a legitimate strategy.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#31 Dec 17, 2012
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
And you call us paranoid...
Nope.

The more guns in circulation, the greater the chance of them getting into the hands of criminals and crazies.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#32 Dec 17, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Bit more than their religious beliefs, there, fella. Although there are people who exercise their right to give prefernce to vendors and service-people of their own religion. It had to do with using profits to support several virally anti-gay groups. Well within the rights of those who chose to boycott. And the point was that none of the non-buyers wanted to be in any way supportive of those particular groups.
And they failed spectacularly. In fact, they gave Chick-Fil-A priceless publicity and introduced countless new customers to the company.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump the Crook/Liar 1 min Jonjedis Legal Team 264
United Airlines bans yoga pants 1 min Formerly PDJT 44
Donald Trump Administration 2 min Jonjedis Legal Team 737
Woman Shot At Easton - What You'll Be Watching ... 5 min Jonjedis Legal Team 3
Protests against police brutality in Paris France 8 min ardith 19
News Reynoldsburg man dies after trying to get off I... 8 min Shadow_Hunter 8
Coal States- keep that deadly Fuel out of Ohio 23 min Reality Speaks 13

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages