Gun control advocates in Ferguson MO

[bbsam]

What would you define as neutral? Something with a more liberal bias is not necessarily neutral.

I'd say the St Louis Today article you posted was more neutral. I don't see how you could say differently.

 

[upschuck]

I think that the most credible witness is the one with no dog in the fight, whichever one that is.

 

[moreluck]

And you decide that weasel zippersand wnd are credible...which kills your credibility.

If they submit a story that sounds right....I'm in. The stories are from AP, CBS, UK, NPR.....weasel is just a corraler of many news stories from many agencies,

 

[bbsam]

I think that the most credible witness is the one with no dog in the fight, whichever one that is.

Possibly none. That being the case, should probably hear from all of them.

 

[realbrown1]

By definition, the outlier would be the witness that saw things starkly different than the vast majority.

Why are you so wanting the cop to have shot Mike Brown while his hands were up?

You are not looking at the evidence. You have some kind of agenda against the police or white people because you refuse to look at any reasonable testemony.

 

[bbsam]

Why are you so wanting the cop to have shot Mike Brown while his hands were up?

You are not looking at the evidence. You have some kind of agenda against the police or white people because you refuse to look at any reasonable testemony.

The St Louis article was the more comprehensive of the articles. I'm more than willing to hear all sides. Doesn't seem like the Gateway Pundit, oldngray, or you are as open to that idea.

 

[oldngray]

The St Louis article was the more comprehensive of the articles. I'm more than willing to hear all sides. Doesn't seem like the Gateway Pundit, oldngray, or you are as open to that idea.

I have read and quoted other sources. My point was that it is not a cut and dried issue as many have already tried to claim. I have linked to that St. Louis source before also. I don't have to link to the same source every time. Even if it is one you personally don't like.

 

[bbsam]

I have read and quoted other sources. My point was that it is not a cut and dried issue as many have already tried to claim.

The St Louis Today article pointed the same thing out. The Gateway Pundit put out only one witnesses account as somehow more valid. Not that cut and dried.

 

[oldngray]

The St Louis Today article pointed the same thing out. The Gateway Pundit put out only one witnesses account as somehow more valid. Not that cut and dried.

Again you are complaining about the source and not disputing any of the facts.

 

[bbsam]

Again you are complaining about the source and not disputing any of the facts.

Again, half a truth is a lie. Sin of Omission. The antithesis of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." So yes. The source is problematic because he cherry picks his witness rather than (as you claim to) point out that it is not that cut and dried. Nothing wrong with having conflicting testimony and the St Louis Today article gets that. GP, not so much.

 

[oldngray]

Again, half a truth is a lie. Sin of Omission. The antithesis of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." So yes. The source is problematic because he cherry picks his witness rather than (as you claim to) point out that it is not that cut and dried. Nothing wrong with having conflicting testimony and the St Louis Today article gets that. GP, not so much.

What was omitted that caused that article to lie in your opinion? And how many articles have done the opposite about not mentioning details that might look Brown look bad? Again, you are blinded by your dislike for a source. St. Louis Today said mostly the same things just not as strongly worded.

 

[bbsam]

What was omitted that caused that article to lie in your opinion? And how many articles have done the opposite about not mentioning details that might look Brown look bad? Again, you are blinded by your dislike for a source. St. Louis Today said mostly the same things just not as strongly worded.

But you object to articles that didn't tell the whole story from the other side. I don't have a problem with both sides being heard. Do you?

 

[oldngray]

But you object to articles that didn't tell the whole story from the other side. I don't have a problem with both sides being heard. Do you?

I never objected to any article that states facts. I only object to when those facts are used to jump to unsupported conclusions. You have to admit that the article I linked and you didn't like stated no conclusions. It left that to the reader to decide.

 

[bbsam]

I never objected to any article that states facts. I only object to when those facts are used to jump to unsupported conclusions. You have to admit that the article I linked and you didn't like stated no conclusions. It left that to the reader to decide.

You have to admit that the link you posted second included a far more objective point of view and also did more to avoid drawing a conclusion than GP.

 

[oldngray]

You have to admit that the link you posted second included a far more objective point of view and also did more to avoid drawing a conclusion than GP.

You continue to attack a source you don't like. Not all links will state the same details which is why a variety of them is necessary to get as complete a picture as possible. That was the first one I saw which mentioned the details of a new grand jury witness which made it relevant. You are free to post other links that provide other details. I am not required to sort through multiple sources to find the one that you might like the most. Nor are you required to do the same for me.

 

[bbsam]

You continue to attack a source you don't like. Not all links will state the same details which is why a variety of them is necessary to get as complete a picture as possible. That was the first one I saw which mentioned the details of a new grand jury witness which made it relevant. You are free to post other links that provide other details. I am not required to sort through multiple sources to find the one that you might like the most. Nor are you required to do the same for me.

True. You may continue to get your news from far right, agenda driven hacks. But as you yourself have seen, other sources are far more comprehensive. This isn't the first time we've crossed this path.

 

[oldngray]

True. You may continue to get your news from far right, agenda driven hacks. But as you yourself have seen, other sources are far more comprehensive. This isn't the first time we've crossed this path.

Again your bias shows by your calling sources far right, agenda driven hacks. I might respond with those are moderate sources to counter your far left biased sources.

 

[bbsam]

Again your bias shows by your calling sources far right, agenda driven hacks. I might respond with those are moderate sources to counter your far left biased sources.

Really? Which far left sources are those? I rarely if ever post links to anything. I'm fine with the St Louis Today post. Is that "far left"?

 

[oldngray]

Really? Which far left sources are those? I rarely if ever post links to anything. I'm fine with the St Louis Today post. Is that "far left"?

St. Louis Today was pretty middle of the road. It sometimes leans a little to left but not far left. I was referring to other sources that you have agreed with even if you did not post them. And that St Louis link was embedded in the other link as a source so the information was there, just not all in one place.

 

[wayfair]

What was omitted that caused that article to lie in your opinion? And how many articles have done the opposite about not mentioning details that might look Brown look bad? Again, you are blinded by your dislike for a source. St. Louis Today said mostly the same things just not as strongly worded.

question was avoided, of course...