ExRx.net

I liked the prequels; not everything....but I liked them. I think people see the original trilogy in a rather rose-colored way, so the prequels of course don't live up to that. The Phantom Menace is the only one that really has issues. It works out to be a mediocre film, but really it's some bad scenes and some good scenes. The other 5 are all good fun/popcorn movies, they have problems here and there, and are not what I would call excellent films, but they are quite good. The story is particularly good, which I think has a lot to do with their success.

I don't see Vader coming back unless they are doing episode 3.5. I think there may be a story in there somewhere.

On Wednesday the president issued 23 executive orders intended to address gun violence. At least two of those orders directly contradict acts of congress. How is that not a bigger news story? … Regardless of what you think of guns and gun control, it’s congress that’s supposed to make the laws in this country. The president can’t override congress by executive order, but that’s exactly what just happened! The system of checks and balances is breaking down, while a complacent media seems to be giving the president a free pass.

It's not a bigger story for a couple of reasons. Firstly that all presidents made executive orders, especially the previous president, he did it all the time. Second, and this is the most important reason, there is nothing in those orders that actually restricts gun rights at all. The things in there are supported by the majority of Americans. In fact you yourself, Matt, have not objected to anything that's in there. It's mostly background checks, gun safety, and better law enforcement. Plus a few health related items. Several of the things in there Republicans have specifically asked for, like mental health, and enforcement of existing laws.

The only things that override Congress, are related to Congress making laws to stop the enforcement of existing gun laws, and neutering the ATF. Congress should not be using legislation as an end-run around law enforcement, which is an executive branch power.

Congress has too much power really. They like to dictate terms of enforcement. They also like to make laws about sentencing which takes power from the judicial branch. It's about time they got dialed back a bit in those areas.

Congress is also dysfunctional and nearly useless.

Furthermore Congress passed the defense bill twice now with language allowing Americans to be jailed without trial for indefinite periods, just like they do in Guantanamo. Nearly all of them voted yes, Republican and Democrat alike. Obama signed it, but he at least made an executive order saying those previsions were not going to be enforced by his administration. We can only hope the next president does the same, or the courts strike it down.

Not that the other 2 branches don't need dialing back.... Citizens United. That's all I need to say about dialing back the courts. We need a constitutional amendment to stop that. Bush's use of the military is an example of executive overreach. Obama has been much better, but he still goes a tad further than he should. Clinton and Bush 1 were borderline.

So you don't have a problem with a president "repealing" a federal law with the stroke of a pen?

"The only things that override Congress, are related to Congress making laws to stop the enforcement of existing gun laws, and neutering the ATF. Congress should not be using legislation as an end-run around law enforcement, which is an executive branch power." - Ironman

Obamo also "repealed" the ban on federal funding for gun violence "research" ... I do have a problem with taking money out of the CDC budget to fund propaganda. I think the money would be better spent on things like cancer research and the next flu vaccine.

One could also point out the media in general was EXTREMELY critical of the Bush administration (often for good reason). This isn't the case with the Obama administation, with the exception of Fox News and a few others. If nothing else it's a great example of media bias.

PS) How many AFT director nominees did congress reject?

Not when the law is just part of a law, and it is something that has been used by legislators to have a say in enforcement, and especially not when it was in there because of interest groups, and even more especially not when they paid off one or more legislators. When it's used in a shell game.....you get the idea.
Shell game by the way is neuter ATF, then when gun laws are proposed, say enforce existing laws, when that is tried, object and say the ATF should do it, lack of enforcement = more shootings = gun law proposals = fear generating more sales at higher profit margins, with no danger because of aforementioned shell game. It's just another scam by another big business.

Ok, so there is one thing you object to. The thing is, you can't say something is propaganda without examining the studies, but there have not been any studies. It's actually the NRA that is in the propaganda game. They make sure there is no funding for studies, that way they can say there are no studies, so it is very difficult to challenge their propaganda.

Now I am not saying there isn't gun control propaganda, but it comes from interest groups. It also does not clear that interest group known as the NRA from responsibility of their propaganda campaign.

The media is much less critical of Obama, because he isn't nearly as bad. He still gets criticized though.

Fox is also not news. They are nothing but a propaganda outlet. It is well documented the way they lie and distort the truth. They use countless propaganda techniques. One of the most effective is claiming that everyone else is lying so you don't do independent verification. Another good one is confirmation bias. They tell you things you already believe, in order to slip in other bits of information. Creating their own stories/controversy is another effective one, as is the spreading of easily repeated catch phrases.

"Ok, so there is one thing you object to. The thing is, you can't say something is propaganda without examining the studies, but there have not been any studies. It's actually the NRA that is in the propaganda game. They make sure there is no funding for studies, that way they can say there are no studies, so it is very difficult to challenge their propaganda.

Now I am not saying there isn't gun control propaganda, but it comes from interest groups. It also does not clear that interest group known as the NRA from responsibility of their propaganda campaign." - Ironman

The NRA doesn't get it's funding from taxpayers. However, many gun ban groups do get some of their funding from taxpayers.

You wouldn't give the NRA money to study gun violence and expect an unbiased result, so why would you fund "studies" by groups like the Brady Campain and Violence Policy Center?

"Fox is also not news. They are nothing but a propaganda outlet. It is well documented the way they lie and distort the truth. They use countless propaganda techniques. One of the most effective is claiming that everyone else is lying so you don't do independent verification. Another good one is confirmation bias. They tell you things you already believe, in order to slip in other bits of information. Creating their own stories/controversy is another effective one, as is the spreading of easily repeated catch phrases." - Ironman

I don't dispute that Fox News is very biased. However, I think you're kidding yourself if you think other news sources aren't biased.

Well, there's bias and then there's bias.

An idealistic journalist trying to be objective may not realize how his own assumptions determine what questions he asks, what he leaves in, what he takes out. Those are the forces of bias, which we all have.

Then there is flat pre-meditated agenda. Fox is not biased in the classical sense of an involuntary or subconscious slant because they are deliberately pushing a specific agenda.

If they just requested the studies, but had no say in them, then yes to all, but that's going to have baggage. If any of them have any say int he studies then no. Anything these interest groups have influence over is going to be nothing but pseudo-science.



Fox is beyond biased. There is also a big difference between them and other news sources. MSNBC I would say is a better example of just being biased. Their actual news isn't too bad, but obviously their opinion shows have a liberal bias to open degree or another. CNN is mostly neutral maybe a tad to the right, but clueless and their quality has gone down. You also get the "moderate" fallacy nonstop, which only benefits radicals and crazies of all stripes.

ALL of those have a strong corporate bias though. Every single one of them. Fox is the worst because they run the company with an iron fist, but all the rest are still pretty bad.

Local news isn't too bad. Slight corporate or right lean sometimes though. Honestly there hasn't been a liberal bias since the late 1970's or earlier.

To get fair news you either need a raw story feed type thing like Reuters or PRN, or the BBC world news is also very good. NPR and PBS is the only thing hear free of bias and corporate influence. It doesn't seem that way to most people though because to them, corporate bias is normal. There is also the fact that anti-corporate liberals are the majority of the audience. So on the call in shows, there is a left slant, but it's from the callers, and not NPR itself.


The thing is, I don't always agree with the left or the right all the time. Both tend to start with that position, and then try to find ways to justify it. However the facts tend to be on the left more often than not. As the country has moved pretty far to the right over the course of the past 30 to 40 years (other than social issues), the perception of what is left is actually the majority of the political spectrum, so now even more facts end up going that way than ever before. So this can add to the perceived bias. Like global warming, evolution, and the big bang for example, or the things Republicans tend to say about the female reproductive system. Sometimes it ends up being verifiable facts VS demonstrably false nonsense.

I like the way you put that. That's a pretty good explanation.

"If they just requested the studies, but had no say in them, then yes to all, but that's going to have baggage. If any of them have any say int he studies then no. Anything these interest groups have influence over is going to be nothing but pseudo-science." - Ironman

And that's why we have/had a ban on federal funding of gun violence research, because the Clinton administration was giving CDC money to gun ban groups to study gun violence.

"Shell game by the way is neuter ATF, then when gun laws are proposed, say enforce existing laws, when that is tried, object and say the ATF should do it, lack of enforcement = more shootings = gun law proposals = fear generating more sales at higher profit margins, with no danger because of aforementioned shell game. It's just another scam by another big business." - Ironman

This sounds a little far-fetched to me.