JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I guess we will find out if he was playing a character or not. I did like some of his content. Hopefully he ends up being genuine and puts out content independently.
 
Bbc has to be impartial so if they show one side they show the other. Most news has a subjective factor and it's a question of whether they try to eliminate bias or don't try. In the us now they don't try, unlike in the past when objective reporting was the goal.
Elon Musk dismantled a BBC interviewer over the obvious bias BBC has. For example, BBC never corrected the COVID misinformation it spewed. Never "showed the other side"

BBC has left bias.
 
Elon Musk dismantled a BBC interviewer over the obvious bias BBC has. For example, BBC never corrected the COVID misinformation it spewed. Never "showed the other side"

BBC has left bias.
They are ALL either "Left" or "Right" biased. A person has to watch BOTH, or NONE. Otherwise they are misinformed. It's pathetic what media has turned into.
For the record I watch none. I read the banter here to get a general idea how things are. I think I can safely say that things in America, at this time, are pretty messed up.
 
They are ALL either "Left" or "Right" biased. A person has to watch BOTH, or NONE. Otherwise they are misinformed. It's pathetic what media has turned into.
For the record I watch none. I read the banter here to get a general idea how things are. I think I can safely say that things in America, at this time, are pretty messed up.
Agree. I also think every person has bias. For example in science you can unintentionally bias an experiment based on how you think it's going to turn out. Similarly a camera man on the street makes the choice to shoot one thing and not another. So there is a built in bias based on past life and conditioning from society or whatever but also from what one expects to see. The key imo is are they looking for bias and actively trying to eliminate it. Damn rare to find that in US news these days, almost non existent.
 
Yeah I said the same thing when they canned ORiely and put Tucker in his place, however I doubt they have anyone of Tuckers size to replace him with. Gave up TV last year, dont really miss it.
 
The "Dragnet" method…. "just the facts ma'm!"

:s0155: How to watch the news…..
- "a tornado hit XYZ Nebraska"** = watch to find out how bad. ….THEN ….
- Stop watching when; climate change, it's gender, it's race, it's carbon footprint, it's political/religious affiliation, how the "gun show loophole" made it worse, how Trump raped it, it wasn't vaccinated, or it was a result of the war in Ukraine.




** not a real town
 
Last Edited:
As far as I'm concerned, America, as I believe it should be according to the founders, and has been, is coming to an end.
America according to the founders accepted slavery and the slave trade, only male property owners could vote, and in most states women could not own property, sign contracts, and had no legal identity other than as wives or daughters of males, the real human beings. No thanks.

The founders got many things right, I believe. Perhaps the most important was they realized they could not envision future needs, and set up a constitution that could be amended, changed. They considered the Constitution and Bill of rights just the best they could do at the moment. They themselves were not Constitutional Originalists.
 
Some good points have been made regarding the media in general in this thread and I too think it is very hard to eliminate all bias. Simply determining what word to use to describe a group of people shows bias, are they protesters or are they a mob / rioters?
Something I think what gets too little attention is that many, perhaps most people actively seek out news sources that cater to their existing bias. They are in the choir and they just want to hear the preacher preach, they want their existing opinions reinforced.

Happens on both sides of the aisle...

Anti-gun people aren't going to care about any factual evidence that refutes their existing view, neither does the covid doesn't exist crowd.
 
America according to the founders accepted slavery and the slave trade, only male property owners could vote, and in most states women could not own property, sign contracts, and had no legal identity other than as wives or daughters of males, the real human beings. No thanks.


Thanks for the history lesson.
 
Last Edited:
America according to the founders accepted slavery and the slave trade, only male property owners could vote, and in most states women could not own property, sign contracts, and had no legal identity other than as wives or daughters of males, the real human beings. No thanks.

The founders got many things right, I believe. Perhaps the most important was they realized they could not envision future needs, and set up a constitution that could be amended, changed. They considered the Constitution and Bill of rights just the best they could do at the moment. They themselves were not Constitutional Originalists.
Many of them were opposed to slavery and wrote about it as a blight on humanity and it needed to come to an end, but building a nation that could make it happen was step one. Let's not forget slavery has existed throughout the history of mankind and the founding fathers were born into that world, they did not create it.

Don't forget pay taxes. The whole women thing was not that they were anti women, it is just that most women back then were mostly uneducated and the nation they envisioned was to be to ran be educated people. We see the result of the ignorant masses voting today. We would probably be better off to require a civic test be passed before one is allowed to vote. Man or woman.

The Bill of Rights took years to be agreed upon just to make it work, again a stepping stone.
 
America according to the founders accepted slavery and the slave trade, only male property owners could vote, and in most states women could not own property, sign contracts, and had no legal identity other than as wives or daughters of males, the real human beings. No thanks.
These rotten aspects of our Constitution were not invented by the US, incidentally. They were inherited from Britain, and those and worse were standard throughout Europe and even worse elsewhere. Slavery was accepted universally, for example. Africans captured fellow Africans from weaker tribes, kept many for themselves, sent many to the Atlantic coast for the Atlantic slave trade, and sent even more to the Arab world. The Arabs wanted eunichs, not intact males who could reproduce, so the males sent to the Middle East were usually castrated on the way. The survival rate from adult castration may have been 50% or worse. The capturing of slaves was all done by Africans, and the slave trade was controlled by them. Europeans could not do it because the average survival time of Europeans in Africa was less than a year before the era of quinine and antibiotics. The African slave trade had been going on long before the European settling of the Americas.

Most American Indians tribes had slaves. There was much variability in how they were treated, though, and whether the slavery was permanent or temporary. The US Mason Dixon line, which approximately demarcated the slave vs free states, actually was derived from the slavery patterns of the original Native American inhabitants. The Indians north of the line were less committed to slavery. When black slaves escaped, these Indians usually helped them escape. So any slave not actually chained could escape by just heading for the nearest Indian village. This made it so hard to keep the black slaves in bondage that it tended to make slavery unworkable. Below the MD line, the Indian tribes themselves were much more serious slavers. When a black slave escaped the Indians would capture him and sell him back to the colonials.

White women settlers captured by Indians were usually enslaved. But after a few years of living as the concubine and slave of one of the Indians, they were accepted as ordinary wives, and their children had full status as members of the tribe. It was apparently fairly common for captured colonial women to find their lives among the Indians as more fulfilling and enjoyable than anything they experienced or could look forward to as colonial women, and many would make no attempts to escape or cooperate with their recapture by colonials.

An interesting aspect of the subjugation of women in Europe is that it was actually fairly recent. Roman women had considerably more rights, including the right to own or inherit property, sign contracts, run businesses. British women lost these rights in a law made within a couple hundred years or so of American colonization. French women had the right to own property up until Napoleon, who passed the law depriving them of these and other rights.
 
What Tucker offered was real news and then his opinion on what the news was. At least that what his viewers thought.

I watched a number of Tucker videos away from Fox and my opinion is he has a lot of journalism in him. More than all the other TV journalists combined.

You guys should watch his videos away from Fox, he is very interesting. On one video he talked about going to Iraq in 03, he had to train with an AK47 and was in a building being shot up.
 
Many of them were opposed to slavery and wrote about it as a blight on humanity and it needed to come to an end, but building a nation that could make it happen was step one. Let's not forget slavery has existed throughout the history of mankind and the founding fathers were born into that world, they did not create it.

Don't forget pay taxes. The whole women thing was not that they were anti women, it is just that most women back then were mostly uneducated and the nation they envisioned was to be to ran be educated people. We see the result of the ignorant masses voting today. We would probably be better off to require a civic test be passed before one is allowed to vote. Man or woman.

The Bill of Rights took years to be agreed upon just to make it work, again a stepping stone.
I agree with paragraph 1. Not with Paragraph 2. No. It was not that women were uneducated. It very much was that the majority of men running things were against any kind of rights for women. Not any more so than Britain or Europe of that era. But not any less either. Paine explicitly brought up voting rights for women in his various writings and was fiercely opposed. And had education been the issue it could have been dealt with by a literacy test. These were common in Southern states after the Civil War, usually being enacted to prevent blacks from voting.

In the South, upperclass men and women had tutors. Men usually went to college in Europe. Women went to European finishing schools. Middle class whites, people who ran trades and businesses, apparently were at least literate. However its likely that most lower class whites were illiterate.

New England, Pilgrims placed a big emphasis on education and formal schooling for both boys and girls. Females did not normally go to college, however. But they were certainly usually literate. Being able to read the bible regularly was considered important for everyone. One of my grandfathers was 3rd in a line of New England ministers who went as a missionary to serve an Indian tribe in the West. With him went his wife, my grandmother, who had been to college, and who became the schoolmarm of the local white settlement. After the Civil War it was thousands of New England missionaries, many women, who flocked to the South and founded, ran, and taught in schools they established for black children, often with support from congregations and communities in New England. The famous Hampton Institute, the educational heaven of Booker T. Washington (Up from Slavery) was one such school started by New Englanders with the explicit mission of passing on education and New England values such as hard work, honoring of labor of all kinds, and public service. I don't know whether upper class New Englanders went to European colleges. A great many of them went to Harvard, which was founded 1636. Instruction was in Latin, and students were expected to arrive being fluent in Latin, fortunately no longer true. (I myself supposedly have a phud in biology/genetics from Harvard. But when I got the diploma it was in Latin and I don't read Latin. So who knows?)

I think as US expanded the settlers tended to have less formal education and straight illiteracy was more common. And freed slaves were almost always illiterate, there being laws against teaching slaves to read.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top