Or because they aren’t inherently dangerous. Also, pit bulls are notoriously confused for other similarly shaped terriers, and laws that ban them are unusually over zealously enforced to ban dogs with flat faces, regardless of aggression.
My memory was that we knew this at the time?
I was just stirring the pot, and I love this response
Oop, and you need to have the last word too, checking that off the bingo card
Edited to add: they just couldn’t help themselves
“Loser” still fits nicely in that caricature.
I am not a Nazi, but you are a caricature of an internet argument
Ah yes, calling a stranger a Nazi on the Internet. A compelling point
Everything is black and white, gray is for apologists, then?
Well, Germany does have some history there
Who are you calling an amateur, buddy? I can argue you under the table!
I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget
If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation
I mean, it’s pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn’t work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I’ve read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.
It’s not really a bot’s opinion though? It’s reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That’s all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.
And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.
If you’re down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you’re upset that Salon doesn’t have a perfect rating
That’s what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of “No. No we don’t.” ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.
I’m gonna guess there’s a lot of down votes from people who just read the title…
The author points out the last 30 years of presidential candidates as their evidence, and paints a pretty nuanced picture of his politicians have dealt with changing voter trends. No one wants to vote for the candidate that doesn’t act like that can emphasize empathize (glide typing failed me) with them, even though that’s not really the president’s job.
Pit bulls are not considered a large breed