Since we've drifted I've decided to
SNIP

>>>>>>>Also - did you read the bill?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No
>>>>>
>>>>>Well then perhaps you're not really in a very good position to complain about all the things you see wrong with it since you don't have any idea what's in it.
>>>>
>>>>Are you being facetious? The reporting made it quite clear that expanded background checks were a part of the bill. I do not need to know anything more than that to oppose it. If you're somehow suggesting that one must read the actual text of a given bill to have an opinion then I would support you for Congress since they cannot be bothered. ;)
>>>
>>>I'm suggesting that if one wants to have an EDUCATED opinion about a bill, then they should actually read the damn bill. Take for example the latest Immigration bill..which some clown decided to sneek in a national biometric database for citizens into. This same tactic (putting something in a bill that is completely unrelated to the bill itself) is exactly how the NRA stripped the CDC from studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance...if I recall correctly that was slipped into a totally unrelated budget bill of some sort.
>>
>>I have read about both of those, without reading the bills themselves mind you. I do not need to read xxxx thousands of congressional blah blah to understand that I'm against a national database. It's in the bill, thus I'm against the bill. It's that simple and I move on because I have much more important uses for my time. One can glean enough about a given bill by reading various analyses. In fact, one can get a lot better handle by reading what professionals determine are in the many bills. There are a great number of items which would escape the untrained eye simply due to verbage.
>
>Yes but then you're limiting yourself to someone else's analysis - who you going to count on for that?

If I was only using one source you would be correct. I have a number of sites running the gammut of perspective which I look at when I wish to look into a subject in more detail. I tend to look to the perspective I'm least likely to agree with in greater detail. Afterall, I know my perspective, I'd like to know what those who disagree with me come up with to see if they offer anything which requires me to look deeper into a subject.

The verbage used in Congressional legislation is purposely cryptic, frequently changes during crafting and is difficult for someone not involved to interpret. I do tend to read court rulings as I am much more familliar with analyzing established law.

>Fox News and MSNBC? While they've both taken different sides on the subject they've also skewed things so much that the facts get lost.

I'll try to be as clear as I can. I do not watch TV news; neither local, national, 24hr, fake nor international. My exposure to it is one of two things : circumstantial, when friends have it on at their house, or limited during election night or when a major event is taking place. The closest I come is that I have CNBC on in the background while I get ready in the morning, 30 minutes give-or-take as the markets open. I choose CNBC over Fox Business and Bloomberg because they provide an entertainment factor I appreciate and because their HD channel includes a number of graphics pertaining to the market in general and the specific story their tackling which I can take in at a glance.

>>Suggesting that anyone who does not read the actual text of the bill is not qualified to have an opinion eliminates 99.99% of the population, including Congress. Now if you're suggesting that no one be allowed to vote without reading and understanding the entirety of the bill first then I'm on board. ;)
>>
>>Meanwhile people like you hear one thing about a bill on TV and suddenly have made a determination on the merits of the whole thing.
>>
>>This is priceless. I don't watch TV news. Not even the fake news show you clearly enjoy. ;)
>
>Ok so you depend upon others to form your opinion

I would suggest that no one forms my opinion but myself and I'd offer my posts here are clear evidence. I dare anyone to find anyone who fully agrees with me. ;)

>and don't watch the news....something seems fundamentally wrong there.

You are not suggesting that reading to get one's news is fundamentally wrong? ;)

>As for the 'fake news' show you speak of - you do of course realize that this 'fake news' show has been rated highest for reporting accurate news. That is pretty sad when the comedy show can be taken more seriously than the real news.

I have a couple thoughts on this.

1) It's an apples and hand grenades comparisson. 1 is on for 30 minutes, 5 days a week with scripted pieces and set interviews. The others are on a 7 day 24 hour cycle of breaking (which in Fox's case is every story ;)) news, live commentary and round table left right firing squads of opinion.

2) "Accuracy" itself is highly subjective when dealing in commentary.

3) Even if I accept the premise that it's a fair comparisson it would still be akin to being the smartest kid in a remedial class. ;)