100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Katie Couric Edited Pro-Gun Activists | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners. blah, blah, blah... where's your proof? I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof. so post it... Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there. Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework. IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK. no its not... Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio. i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how? If you wont look and wont listen, that's your problem. If you attribute good reading and listening skills to liberalism, that's great. It would be a first step to recognizing that it has nothing to do with this thread. and that has what do with you not posting a reference? more liberal spins... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners. blah, blah, blah... where's your proof? I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof. so post it... Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there. Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework. IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK. no its not... Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio. i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how? If you wont look and wont listen, that's your problem. If you attribute good reading and listening skills to liberalism, that's great. It would be a first step to recognizing that it has nothing to do with this thread. and that has what do with you not posting a reference? more liberal spins...
You REALLY are announcing that you are incapable of paging back and using the original link? Okay! Here it is AGAIN, direct from the opening post: http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners. blah, blah, blah... where's your proof? I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof. so post it... Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there. Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework. IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK. no its not... Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio. i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how? If you wont look and wont listen, that's your problem. If you attribute good reading and listening skills to liberalism, that's great. It would be a first step to recognizing that it has nothing to do with this thread. and that has what do with you not posting a reference? more liberal spins...
You REALLY are announcing that you are incapable of paging back and using the original link? Okay! Here it is AGAIN, direct from the opening post: http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/ thank you... wasn't very hard was it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners. blah, blah, blah... where's your proof? I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof. so post it... Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there. Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework. IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK. no its not... Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio. i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how? If you wont look and wont listen, that's your problem. If you attribute good reading and listening skills to liberalism, that's great. It would be a first step to recognizing that it has nothing to do with this thread. and that has what do with you not posting a reference? more liberal spins...
You REALLY are announcing that you are incapable of paging back and using the original link? Okay! Here it is AGAIN, direct from the opening post: http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/ thank you... wasn't very hard was it? you said in an earlier that the answers they gave were stupid... jhow come you didn't say anything about the stupid questions she asks? background checks have been mandatory since before bush was in office, but yet shes talking like they are not IMO, she asks misleading and ignorant questions to get the stupid answers... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry that it was so hard for you to find the original link on your own. If you had explained that you have no ability to see anything but the latest posts, and are incapable of seeing the rest of the thread at all, I would have copy-pasted the original link for you earlier.
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. You want to complain about Couric's questions? Go ahead. Which specific ones are you wrought up about? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Sat 05/28/16 01:59 PM
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. Okay, lets talk about the question then. According to the published reports, that question was “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Okay, what's wrong with that question? I listened to all the respondents replies, and none of them answered it. They all objected to it, with non-answer answers. One said that felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns as soon as they leave jail. That doesn't answer the question. Another said that it was already illegal for felons and terrorists to buy guns. That ALSO doesn't answer the question. No one who reacted to the question answered it. So what was wrong with the question? How, if you claim the people were "forced to say stupid things" as someone above implied, did it do that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. Okay, lets talk about the question then. According to the published reports, that question was “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Okay, what's wrong with that question? I listened to all the respondents replies, and none of them answered it. They all objected to it, with non-answer answers. One said that felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns as soon as they leave jail. That doesn't answer the question. Another said that it was already illegal for felons and terrorists to buy guns. That ALSO doesn't answer the question. No one who reacted to the question answered it. So what was wrong with the question? How, if you claim the people were "forced to say stupid things" as someone above implied, did it do that? And Moe is correct..if that's the gist of the question, its not relevant....there ARE already background checks. Its a moot point.....other than to try and have some "gotcha" moment...only to get got for editing answers. Personally, I wouldve never agreed to be interviewed by the likes of Couric to begin with..... Hell, maybe the purpose of doing the editing was knowing that it would be found out...and then capitalizing on the attention. No matter, I wouldn't watch it either way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sun 05/29/16 08:15 AM
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. Okay, lets talk about the question then. According to the published reports, that question was “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Okay, what's wrong with that question? I listened to all the respondents replies, and none of them answered it. They all objected to it, with non-answer answers. One said that felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns as soon as they leave jail. That doesn't answer the question. Another said that it was already illegal for felons and terrorists to buy guns. That ALSO doesn't answer the question. No one who reacted to the question answered it. So what was wrong with the question? How, if you claim the people were "forced to say stupid things" as someone above implied, did it do that? And Moe is correct..if that's the gist of the question, its not relevant....there ARE already background checks. Its a moot point.....other than to try and have some "gotcha" moment...only to get got for editing answers. Personally, I wouldve never agreed to be interviewed by the likes of Couric to begin with..... Hell, maybe the purpose of doing the editing was knowing that it would be found out...and then capitalizing on the attention. No matter, I wouldn't watch it either way. Waaaaiit a minute. You don't realize what you just wrote there, do you. "There are already background checks"?? The subject was that these people wanted to STOP background checks. What the responders said, at least one of them, was that there are already laws against the bad guys HAVING guns, implying that (unlike most opponents of gun ownership laws) the bad guys WILL simply obey the law, and switch to shooting spitwads. Couric and her editor DID screw up royally, and deserve all the criticism they are getting for faking the no-response scenario. But that doesn't mean that the responses that were hidden from the original viewers actually made any sense at all. Moe will only be right, when he BOTH condemns Couric, AND listens to the nonsense the people actually said, and hears how silly it was, and how it failed to respond at all to what you have here admitted WAS a reasonable question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waaaaiit a minute. You don't realize what you just wrote there, do you.
Waaaaiiit a minute, did you even read all that I wrote? Not only in the post you quoted but all my posts here? I don't care about the question because Couric's dishonesty makes the question AND the answers moot.
"There are already background checks"?? The subject was that these people wanted to STOP background checks. I know you wanna find something to take the attention AWAY from the gun grabbers deplorable actions....its okay, everyone who reads your posts here knows that...but pick a better fight to do it with. Your " the answers are as bad as the editing" argument is just plain stupid. Either you can't understand common sense, or you are just looking for $hit to argue about.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. Okay, lets talk about the question then. According to the published reports, that question was “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Okay, what's wrong with that question? I listened to all the respondents replies, and none of them answered it. They all objected to it, with non-answer answers. One said that felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns as soon as they leave jail. That doesn't answer the question. Another said that it was already illegal for felons and terrorists to buy guns. That ALSO doesn't answer the question. No one who reacted to the question answered it. So what was wrong with the question? How, if you claim the people were "forced to say stupid things" as someone above implied, did it do that? And Moe is correct..if that's the gist of the question, its not relevant....there ARE already background checks. Its a moot point.....other than to try and have some "gotcha" moment...only to get got for editing answers. Personally, I wouldve never agreed to be interviewed by the likes of Couric to begin with..... Hell, maybe the purpose of doing the editing was knowing that it would be found out...and then capitalizing on the attention. No matter, I wouldn't watch it either way. Waaaaiit a minute. You don't realize what you just wrote there, do you. "There are already background checks"?? The subject was that these people wanted to STOP background checks. What the responders said, at least one of them, was that there are already laws against the bad guys HAVING guns, implying that (unlike most opponents of gun ownership laws) the bad guys WILL simply obey the law, and switch to shooting spitwads. Couric and her editor DID screw up royally, and deserve all the criticism they are getting for faking the no-response scenario. But that doesn't mean that the responses that were hidden from the original viewers actually made any sense at all. Moe will only be right, when he BOTH condemns Couric, AND listens to the nonsense the people actually said, and hears how silly it was, and how it failed to respond at all to what you have here admitted WAS a reasonable question. well, i agree, the answers were stupid as well... but why ask fantasy questions and then get all worked up about fantasy answers? i support gun control, i don't support liberal gun control... if anyone thinks they should be allowed to walk down the street with a RPG, then they are dumber than the liberals... same thing with background checks, i support them 100%, because they work... but they don't work when : the gun gets stolen the owner sells the gun to someone that shouldn't have it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for why I criticized the answers and not the question, that wasn't what the thread was about. It was and is about the editing of the interview. If one can admit the thread is about the editing...and the answers...seems perfectly logical for another to then criticize the question.
I kinda thought about it....thinking maybe the question had something to do with the often repeated lib talking point of background checks and gun shows and almost decided to watch a video of the exchange and see if that was the case. But then I correctly thought..."Nah...the editing the liberal azz Couric and her director pal did WAS the focal point of this thread. THEY are the problem...not their 'victims'.... And "critically acclaimed" my azz...by who? More anti gun zealots? Frick them...AND Couric. Okay, lets talk about the question then. According to the published reports, that question was “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Okay, what's wrong with that question? I listened to all the respondents replies, and none of them answered it. They all objected to it, with non-answer answers. One said that felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns as soon as they leave jail. That doesn't answer the question. Another said that it was already illegal for felons and terrorists to buy guns. That ALSO doesn't answer the question. No one who reacted to the question answered it. So what was wrong with the question? How, if you claim the people were "forced to say stupid things" as someone above implied, did it do that? And Moe is correct..if that's the gist of the question, its not relevant....there ARE already background checks. Its a moot point.....other than to try and have some "gotcha" moment...only to get got for editing answers. Personally, I wouldve never agreed to be interviewed by the likes of Couric to begin with..... Hell, maybe the purpose of doing the editing was knowing that it would be found out...and then capitalizing on the attention. No matter, I wouldn't watch it either way. Waaaaiit a minute. You don't realize what you just wrote there, do you. "There are already background checks"?? The subject was that these people wanted to STOP background checks. What the responders said, at least one of them, was that there are already laws against the bad guys HAVING guns, implying that (unlike most opponents of gun ownership laws) the bad guys WILL simply obey the law, and switch to shooting spitwads. Couric and her editor DID screw up royally, and deserve all the criticism they are getting for faking the no-response scenario. But that doesn't mean that the responses that were hidden from the original viewers actually made any sense at all. Moe will only be right, when he BOTH condemns Couric, AND listens to the nonsense the people actually said, and hears how silly it was, and how it failed to respond at all to what you have here admitted WAS a reasonable question. well, i agree, the answers were stupid as well... but why ask fantasy questions and then get all worked up about fantasy answers? i support gun control, i don't support liberal gun control... if anyone thinks they should be allowed to walk down the street with a RPG, then they are dumber than the liberals... same thing with background checks, i support them 100%, because they work... but they don't work when : the gun gets stolen the owner sells the gun to someone that shouldn't have it That's how Fast and Furious worked! Government used Straw-buyers! HoodahThunkit? Government breaking the Law! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i support gun control, i don't support liberal gun control... The problem with that mentality is that the end point for anti gun fanatics isn't "moderate" gun control.
Either way, with this argument here Moe, you were called right by both sides ...go buy a lottery ticket
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i support gun control, i don't support liberal gun control... The problem with that mentality is that the end point for anti gun fanatics isn't "moderate" gun control.
Either way, with this argument here Moe, you were called right by both sides ...go buy a lottery ticket
the liberals want us to think it's moderate, but in actuality they are just going after the legal, trustworthy gun owners ... the criminals don't follow the laws, the responsible citizens do... so making more laws is just going to make more of the responsible citizens criminals by default... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asking a question about background checks might have been an innocent mistake by Couric.
Has anyone considered that she didn't know that background checks already occur?
|
|
|
|
|
