Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[Jludo]

Levin is fantastic. He destroys liberals with logic and is fantastic on constitutional matters. He is a gun owner, friends with Hannity who could be defined as a gun nut. Levin is a good guy, cut him some slack on the minor stuff.

I probably could have guessed we'd disagree on Levin,
Here he is going off on a caller, hes not slipping on a minor detail, he seems to not grasp a basic gun concept.

Starts at 1:01:00
December 2, 2015 | MARK-CM

 

[oldpink]

Mark levins an idiot, he was just on the radio the other night complaining " why do we call them semi-auto guns?" Going off Like the term semi auto is some liberal conspiracy.

Such a surprise from someone who actually makes his avatar about a rather embarrassing cut broadcast from Bill O'Reilly, a guy that lefties somehow make out to be some kind of conservative boogie man, even while actual conservatives think he's quite a bit of a blowhard.
Get back to your Media Matters comment section, loaded with uniformly like-minded folks, where you're far more comfortable, chief.

 

[PaulF]

Such a surprise from someone who actually makes his avatar about a rather embarrassing cut broadcast from Bill O'Reilly, a guy that lefties somehow make out to be some kind of conservative boogie man, even while actual conservatives think he's quite a bit of a blowhard.
Get back to your Media Matters comment section, loaded with uniformly like-minded folks, where you're far more comfortable, chief.

Why? So INGO can be loaded with uniformly like-minded folks with whom you are more comfortable?

Who gave you the keys to the place?

 

[oldpink]

Why? So INGO can be loaded with uniformly like-minded folks with whom you are more comfortable?

Who gave you the keys to the place?

The point is that he totally discounts Levin blasting the Death Star that is the NYT for their perpetual anti-gun stance, just because he doesn't like Levin's other political views.
One could easily ask who gave him the keys.

 

[Jludo]

Such a surprise from someone who actually makes his avatar about a rather embarrassing cut broadcast from Bill O'Reilly, a guy that lefties somehow make out to be some kind of conservative boogie man, even while actual conservatives think he's quite a bit of a blowhard.
Get back to your Media Matters comment section, loaded with uniformly like-minded folks, where you're far more comfortable, chief.

Did you see levins comments on "semi auto" guns? Im by no means a liberal, I'll listen to Rush and Levin when they're on. I just recognize that Levin is no better than many on the left he demonizes. Like to get my political commentary from both sides and often find myself disagreeing with both equally.

 

[PaulF]

The point is that he totally discounts Levin blasting the Death Star that is the NYT for their perpetual anti-gun stance, just because he doesn't like Levin's other political views.
One could easily ask who gave him the keys.

No, Pink, the point is you seem to be attacking a fellow INGOer instead of his position, and that isn't cool.

He's allowed to have his position, just like you. Keep arguing with the position, and I have no problems.

Attack the user, and you run afoul of the forum rules.

 

[oldpink]

No, Pink, the point is you seem to be attacking a fellow INGOer instead of his position, and that isn't cool.

He's allowed to have his position, just like you. Keep arguing with the position, and I have no problems.

Attack the user, and you run afoul of the forum rules.

The source of the slam is from the attack on a pro-gunner non-INGOer who dares to criticize the NYT.
Levin is definitely a bit incendiary, and I wouldn't express myself the way that he does, but that doesn't make him wrong about the motives and tactics of the anti-gunners, of which the NYT is as I described them the Death Star of that corner.
The attack on Levin looks more like someone who likes the NYT and dislikes Levin for that reason or for Levin's other conservative beliefs.
I mean, seriously, because Levin doesn't have his gun operational terminology just right and up to the level of dedicated gun owers, and he's an idiot, even though he's on our side with at least this issue?
Okay, so why not just disagree with and/or dislike him for his other views, but at least admit that he's dead on about the anti-gunners?
Give me a damn break.

 

[Jludo]

The source of the slam is from the attack on a pro-gunner non-INGOer who dares to criticize the NYT.
Levin is definitely a bit incendiary, and I wouldn't express myself the way that he does, but that doesn't make him wrong about the motives and tactics of the anti-gunners, of which the NYT is as I described them the Death Star of that corner.
The attack on Levin looks more like someone who likes the NYT and dislikes Levin for that reason or for Levin's other conservative beliefs.
I mean, seriously, because Levin doesn't have his gun operational terminology just right and up to the level of dedicated gun owers, and he's an idiot, even though he's on our side with at least this issue?
Okay, so why not just disagree with and/or dislike him for his other views, but at least admit that he's dead on about the anti-gunners?
Give me a damn break.

Being pro-gun doesn't make you infallible.
I don't care about the NYT, I just know Levin was way off on his gun terminology. He wants to be angry about something and he plays to his audience. Balanced, thoughtful debate isn't in his wheelhouse. If anyone listened to that clip it makes you pretty mad, he was was arguing with a listener about the terminology in which he was clearly wrong.
I'm not a fan of the Limbaugh/Levin/Hannity types who just yell loudly on their radio programs and don't ever really give a balanced view on any issues.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, Pink, the point is you seem to be attacking a fellow INGOer instead of his position, and that isn't cool.

He's allowed to have his position, just like you. Keep arguing with the position, and I have no problems.

Attack the user, and you run afoul of the forum rules.

That's his MO, lite on facts, heavy on disdain (for posters he disagrees with)

 

[oldpink]

Being pro-gun doesn't make you infallible.
I don't care about the NYT, I just know Levin was way off on his gun terminology. He wants to be angry about something and he plays to his audience. Balanced, thoughtful debate isn't in his wheelhouse. If anyone listened to that clip it makes you pretty mad, he was was arguing with a listener about the terminology in which he was clearly wrong.
I'm not a fan of the Limbaugh/Levin/Hannity types who just yell loudly on their radio programs and don't ever really give a balanced view on any issues.

Who said infallible?
What part of the following escaped you?
"Okay, so why not just disagree with and/or dislike him for his other views, but at least admit that he's dead on about the anti-gunners"
btw....notably absent from your list: any of the denizens of MSNBC (MSDNC, actually)

 

[oldpink]

Was anyone accusing you of having the wrong attitude?
If atheist and religious alike held the same beliefs it'd be a wonderful world.

Mark levins an idiot, he was just on the radio the other night complaining " why do we call them semi-auto guns?" Going off Like the term semi auto is some liberal conspiracy.

That's his MO, lite on facts, heavy on disdain (for posters he disagrees with)

Neither of the above comments sounds disdainful and demanding conformity to you?

 

[jamil]

The source of the slam is from the attack on a pro-gunner non-INGOer who dares to criticize the NYT.
Levin is definitely a bit incendiary, and I wouldn't express myself the way that he does, but that doesn't make him wrong about the motives and tactics of the anti-gunners, of which the NYT is as I described them the Death Star of that corner.
The attack on Levin looks more like someone who likes the NYT and dislikes Levin for that reason or for Levin's other conservative beliefs.
I mean, seriously, because Levin doesn't have his gun operational terminology just right and up to the level of dedicated gun owers, and he's an idiot, even though he's on our side with at least this issue?
Okay, so why not just disagree with and/or dislike him for his other views, but at least admit that he's dead on about the anti-gunners?
Give me a damn break.

If we're going to ridicule anti-gun people for not knowing the correct terminology, and we fail to ridicule pro-gun people for not knowing the correct terminology, we need to consider that perhaps not knowing the correct terminology isn't the thing we're ridiculing. We're just ridiculing the people we don't like and using gun ignorance as an excuse.

For example, I think people who really don't know anything about guns have no business participating in the debate, other than commenting on the soundness of the arguments either side makes. They should be not much more than spectators. Of course this would tend to deplete the ranks of debate-worthy anti-gun participants. Point is, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to disqualify an anti-gun person from the debate for displaying the same flawed understanding of firearms as a pro-gun.

As for what Levin says about anti-gun people, eh, I dunno. Some things he says are correct, but I think both sides tend to build monsters of straw out of the other and Levin certainly participates in that. Trading ad-hominems isn't a debate, it's a squabble.

Being pro-gun doesn't make you infallible.
I don't care about the NYT, I just know Levin was way off on his gun terminology. He wants to be angry about something and he plays to his audience. Balanced, thoughtful debate isn't in his wheelhouse. If anyone listened to that clip it makes you pretty mad, he was was arguing with a listener about the terminology in which he was clearly wrong.
I'm not a fan of the Limbaugh/Levin/Hannity types who just yell loudly on their radio programs and don't ever really give a balanced view on any issues.

I don't care for Limbaugh, Levin, or Hannity, or Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, or Chris Matthews for that reason. That said, I did listen to the audio stream starting ~1:00:00, heard the banter back and forth about semi-auto vs auto fire. I didn't hear anything that was all that outrageous. It was pretty mild, comparatively.

I didn't think Levin's point was that the term "semi-automatic" was a left wing conspiracy. I thought his point was that the terminology is a little silly since we don't tend to call revolvers semi-auto, and it tends to confuse people about "military style" vs just being a rifle. It's an argument of semantics not of conspiracy.

And that brings up my earlier point about making straw monsters out of each other. You guys are just talking past each other, accusing each of saying things they're not saying or ascribing motives they don't have. You imagine the worst of Levin, that he's trying to make simple terminology into a left wing conspiracy. Why would you conclude that unless you had some preconception of Levin? Levin is a blowhard like all the others I listed, but I think you're saying he's saying things he isn't saying.

 

[BugI02]

Being pro-gun doesn't make you infallible.
I don't care about the NYT, I just know Levin was way off on his gun terminology. He wants to be angry about something and he plays to his audience. Balanced, thoughtful debate isn't in his wheelhouse. If anyone listened to that clip it makes you pretty mad, he was was arguing with a listener about the terminology in which he was clearly wrong.
I'm not a fan of the Limbaugh/Levin/Hannity types who just yell loudly on their radio programs and don't ever really give a balanced view on any issues.

Yep. Guessed that from your avatar.

 

[oldpink]

If we're going to ridicule anti-gun people for not knowing the correct terminology, and we fail to ridicule pro-gun people for not knowing the correct terminology, we need to consider that perhaps not knowing the correct terminology isn't the thing we're ridiculing. We're just ridiculing the people we don't like and using gun ignorance as an excuse.

Exactly
I can understand someone disliking Levin for his approach and on-air persona, but it's just plain stupid to label him stupid and wrong just because of that when he is standing on your side with a given issue.
How often will the few pro-gun liberals who are also MSNBC fans hear one of their commentators support the 2A?

For example, I think people who really don't know anything about guns have no business participating in the debate, other than commenting on the soundness of the arguments either side makes. They should be not much more than spectators. Of course this would tend to deplete the ranks of debate-worthy anti-gun participants. Point is, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to disqualify an anti-gun person from the debate for displaying the same flawed understanding of firearms as a pro-gun.

As for what Levin says about anti-gun people, eh, I dunno. Some things he says are correct, but I think both sides tend to build monsters of straw out of the other and Levin certainly participates in that. Trading ad-hominems isn't a debate, it's a squabble.



I don't care for Limbaugh, Levin, or Hannity, or Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, or Chris Matthews for that reason. That said, I did listen to the audio stream starting ~1:00:00, heard the banter back and forth about semi-auto vs auto fire. I didn't hear anything that was all that outrageous. It was pretty mild, comparatively.

I didn't think Levin's point was that the term "semi-automatic" was a left wing conspiracy. I thought his point was that the terminology is a little silly since we don't tend to call revolvers semi-auto, and it tends to confuse people about "military style" vs just being a rifle. It's an argument of semantics not of conspiracy.

And that brings up my earlier point about making straw monsters out of each other. You guys are just talking past each other, accusing each of saying things they're not saying or ascribing motives they don't have. You imagine the worst of Levin, that he's trying to make simple terminology into a left wing conspiracy. Why would you conclude that unless you had some preconception of Levin? Levin is a blowhard like all the others I listed, but I think you're saying he's saying things he isn't saying.

I would venture that too many on the far left just can't stand to admit that someone they dislike could be right about anything, even a position for which they would otherwise have no problem praising any other speaker for expressing, lest they be ridiculed by other lefties for agreeing on said issue.

 

[jamil]

Exactly
I can understand someone disliking Levin for his approach and on-air persona, but it's just plain stupid to label him stupid and wrong just because of that when he is standing on your side with a given issue.
How often will the few pro-gun liberals who are also MSNBC fans hear one of their commentators support the 2A?



I would venture that too many on the far left just can't stand to admit that someone they dislike could be right about anything, even a position for which they would otherwise have no problem praising any other speaker for expressing, lest they be ridiculed by other lefties for agreeing on said issue.

It's not just an issue of "far left", it's pretty much far any direction. It's a two-fold issue. One of bias, incapacitating people's ability to see truths that tend to go against preconceived notions. And the other of contempt, where the person isn't viewed as being worth listening to, even when the message may be truthful.

 

[printcraft]

Mark levins an idiot, he was just on the radio the other night complaining " why do we call them semi-auto guns?" Going off Like the term semi auto is some liberal conspiracy.

Ah, but it is my friend.

They are TRYING to tie it to AUTOMATIC DEATH WAR GUN for the sheep.
"These semi-automatic guns can unleash 1000s of rounds a minute NOBODY needs that."
It's not a mistake. Why mention semi auto at ALL if they were not trying to be intentionally misleading and scary?
Why not just say guns?
A revolver can fire at the same rate.

 

[Jludo]

Ah, but it is my friend.

They are TRYING to tie it to AUTOMATIC DEATH WAR GUN for the sheep.
"These semi-automatic guns can unleash 1000s of rounds a minute NOBODY needs that."
It's not a mistake. Why mention semi auto at ALL if they were not trying to be intentionally misleading and scary?
Why not just say guns?
A revolver can fire at the same rate.

Did you listen to the clip and you agree with Levin?
He believes the guns are not mechanically semi automatic. He's denying the definition of the word.
It's a stretch to say the media cant use the term "semi automatic rifles" that's what they are, whether the general public has a good grasp on what that means or not.

 

[printcraft]

........
It's a stretch to say the media cant use the term "semi automatic rifles" that's what they are, whether the general public has a good grasp on what that means or not.

Why not just use rifle? It's the most descriptive term over handgun.

They are shoe horning the "auto" word in there to make them more scary.

Why do they always use "semi auto handgun" in a story when handgun is completely descriptive?

Framing.

 

[Jludo]

Why not just use rifle? It's the most descriptive term over handgun.

They are shoe horning the "auto" word in there to make them more scary.

Why do they always use "semi auto handgun" in a story when handgun is completely descriptive?

Framing.

I agree the left likes to use the term to scare people but I don't think we scrap technical terms because of it. That all being said, my original point was the Levin blasted a caller for trying to explain to him what exactly semi auto meant and levin refused to accept that a self reloading rifle is semi automatic.
I understand where Levin was coming from but his dishonest means in achieving a goal I believe in is still deserving of ridicule.

 

[jamil]

I agree the left likes to use the term to scare people but I don't think we scrap technical terms because of it. That all being said, my original point was the Levin blasted a caller for trying to explain to him what exactly semi auto meant and levin refused to accept that a self reloading rifle is semi automatic.
I understand where Levin was coming from but his dishonest means in achieving a goal I believe in is still deserving of ridicule.

Please explain the dishonesty. To say auto-loading is more accurate than saying semiautomatic. And even that's meaninless to the masses.