TxHoops

Wow! I don't know about the party AAW but the contest is certainly over.... (Starts a slow clap for WOS grad.)

I knew this post was coming Everyone knows you're smart Nash And obviously there are exceedingly bright people on both sides of the aisle, as well as plenty in the middle. I was merely offering an explanation of why a certain group of people may tend to be more to the left than a certain other group of people may like. And I offered a recent study that would support that position as well as some other data that might. And I am sure when I become old(er) and more "enlightened", I will realize you held the answers all along

Oh, and believe it or not, we agree here. I prefer them as well.

Also, interesting to me on this subject, I combined a recent study on college admission test scores (SATs/ACTs) by state with the most recent presidential election. 26 states voted blue, 24 voted red. Of the states in the top half of testing scores, 16 voted blue, 9 voted red. Obviously that leaves 10 voting blue in the bottom half, 15 voted red. In the states ranking in the top 10 in testing scores, 9 voted blue and one red (Indiana was the lone red state). In the bottom 10, 7 voted red and 3 voted blue (New Mexico, California and Nevada).

Fair enough. Just offering an explanation about a majority bias to the left in the media.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend. Look north of your last comment. Talk about clueless lol

And I will admit that more media members lean to the left than the right. And it shouldn't be a surprise. As I've stated before, as a general rule, the more educated an individual is, the more likely they are left of one who is less educated. And another study recently released supports that proposition. [Hidden Content]

That was a joke. But there you go with the "clueless" insults. Small mindedness tends to lead there. And also leaves plenty of room for jokes to fly over... And if you brush up in those adult literacy classes in Lumberville, you would see in my reponse to Nash that I clearly believe biases exist in the media...

Has George Will been unfair to Trump since Will is too conservative? Has the National Review been overly biased against Trump with their "charlatan" articles? Has the conservative press seems to have been exposing their prejudices of late in picking on the Donald?

No, I thought Fox News was very unfair to the Kahn family...

C'mon. Not the liberal perception. The national perception. She became a joke plenty of people on both sides of the aisle and many in the middle. Let's just say the term "dufus" is very appropriate in this discussion To answer your question, it depends. I definitely don't want an someone who is not very intelligent in one of the high offices. As far as who I support, it depends on a number of things, not the least of which is the candidate who most closely aligns with my personal views and priorities. I don't discount your point about trustworthiness either. That is a certainly a factor.

Not at all. Journalists, like all of us, have their own beliefs and biases. Some try to put them aside, some don't, regardless of which side they are on. I think it is overplayed at times; they all like a good story. Hillary's husband gave them plenty of fuel which they were happy to jump on, throughout his terms. There wasn't an outcry about the conservative media being unfair to him; they were all happy to write about it because it sold papers and drew viewers. As for Trump, I have read negative press about him in the last couple of weeks, in the National Review, by George Will...but I suppose that is the conservative media picking on him...oh wait... Or, as you can appreciate, maybe at some point it's not the press and some need to take personal responsibility for their actions or words...

You asked me what did it. And yes, she became a laughing stock after that interview where she looked like a dunce. You asked the question, I answered it. Whether it was justified is a different question and discussion. And maybe "destroyed" wasn't the best term but it was illustrative of her chances the more she opened her mouth. Of course you are free to "refudiate" that premise. Oops, there's another one...

I know this little interview was hard-hitting journalism and unfair questions but... "I read all the periodicals." "Which ones in particular?" "I don't know, all of the ones put in front of me." "Can you name one?" "Umm, no." (And don't call me Shirley.)

I think Buddy is talking about being a state contender. Soulja may have been saying they will be much improved this year. I think they will be, but it will take them a while to get to Ozen or Lincoln status. How good they can be this year will be depend a great deal on Parquet's status.

Like with Palin, no "manufacturing" is necessary with Trump. As long as one can hear, Palin and Trump are quite adept at "destroying" themselves. I continue to be disappointed in the persistent blaming of the media,. I guess taking personal responsibility and owning one's mistakes is a thing of the past. And that is more of a nightmare to me than a dream.

Indulge me with one more article for those of you who rationalize the Trump vote because of the high court appointments. This one happens to be written by the greatest conservative columnist of our time (in my opinion anyway): [Hidden Content]

I also appreciate your point about voting rights. I have no issue with them being intertwined. It also think the proposition of having one's rights restored is a noble one (for either or both). Sometimes people do stupid things, especially at a young age, and end up becoming more productive citizens than those who have a squeaky clean record.

Because it's not an issue I feel deeply about either way, I'm probably not the best to answer. I fully appreciate your point though. In terms of background checks, I have no issue with felons or those who have been convicted of violent crimes being barred from owning or possessing a gun. You think they should be able to?

I never said there should be a ban. I did say there would never be a ban in our lifetimes.

Obviously I believe the answer lies, at least in part, in the post you quoted. Your premise would only support my hypothesis.

By the way, I spent some time in England a little over 20 years ago (shortly before the complete gun ban was enacted). Much of that time I lived in London, and I marveled at how safe it felt compared to say a NYC or LA or Chicago. And this was BEFORE the Firearms Acts that happened after Dunblans there. Our gun rate now is about 45 times the rate in England and over 10 times that in Australia. I can't speak to Australia but my belief in the UK was then, and is now, that the overwhelming difference maker was public education. They do a much better job of it from top to bottom there than we do here. We probably surpass them at the top, but we fall greatly behind from the middle down. Despite the aim of "no child left behind," fact is we leave many. Not saying I have the fix, but I think that is much more the root of our problem than guns. And the converse is a much bigger part of the success than the lack thereof with the Brits. Just my sometimes humble opinion of course...

I think there will be some reforms that don't effect you or I and are probably needed (background checks, waiting periods, etc.). But even these will take a huge battle to accomplish. I am by no means a gun guy and don't have a lot of passion for the topic on either side. I do appreciate the fervor of those that do and have a ton of friends and family to whom this is a huge issue. But I would bet a huge amount of money there will never be a gun "ban" in this country in our lifetime. Just not going to happen. And it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment...there is simply too much $$ in Washington from the gun folks. The only way it could happen is if there was a large majority of citizens who wanted this to happen (and it IS their job to listen to their constituents). And that is also not going to happen. This is America and we love our guns. Oh and thanks for the article - I found it interesting as well.

If you believe this, you don't know the media. He is an absolute dream for the media. The more erratic the better. Creates stories, makes their job easier. Like saying comedians couldn't stand the Palin selection as VP in '08.

This.