TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:CLINTON RECEIVED DEBATE QUESTIONS WEEK BEFORE DEBATE, ACCORDING TO SOURCES

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-rec ... ek-debate/

Hardly surprising. If you don't care enough to cheat, you don't care enough to win!

Has then been substantiated or verified by anyone? I'm just not familiar with that publication and am not sure how credible this story is. However, I would not be surprised if it happened.

Things are bizarre enough without promoting false claims.

For one thing, no reporter was named. A story this hot, and thoroughly reported, would require a by line.

Maybe.....

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelal ... s-n2211522

I just love how nothing can be trusted any more. Where is real journalism these days?

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:CLINTON RECEIVED DEBATE QUESTIONS WEEK BEFORE DEBATE, ACCORDING TO SOURCES

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-rec ... ek-debate/

Hardly surprising. If you don't care enough to cheat, you don't care enough to win!

Has then been substantiated or verified by anyone? I'm just not familiar with that publication and am not sure how credible this story is. However, I would not be surprised if it happened.

Things are bizarre enough without promoting false claims.

For one thing, no reporter was named. A story this hot, and thoroughly reported, would require a by line.

Maybe.....

You know how deleterious for ones health it is to say anything that is against the Witch.

Papa_Tiger wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelal ... s-n2211522

I just love how nothing can be trusted any more. Where is real journalism these days?

For a while, the Internet was a good information source. But now, there is as much disinformation, satire (which I hate), plus out and out lies, as there is truthful information. Too many people think that if they read it, it is true.

Witnessing the Hillary smirk-fest was something I could only watch briefly.

I struggled halfway through it and finally gave up...

Lynyrd wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelal ... s-n2211522

I just love how nothing can be trusted any more. Where is real journalism these days?

For a while, the Internet was a good information source. But now, there is as much disinformation, satire (which I hate), plus out and out lies, as there is truthful information. Too many people think that if they read it, it is true.

Yep.

Most of what one reads on the Internet is bull anyway, which makes it tricky.

I take some solace from Mark Twain. “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”

If he really said that!

I love satire. This wasn't it.

OTOH, in this day of technological wonders, it might not be so implausible to get real scoops from fake newspapers.

Abraham wrote:Witnessing the Hillary smirk-fest was something I could only watch briefly.

I struggled halfway through it and finally gave up...

I did the same thing. Its sickening to watch her.

Lynyrd wrote:
You might want to check into Snopes before you swallow everything they have to say.

I've always been impressed with their thoroughness and objectivity. They provide evidence for their conclusions, not just opinion.

I like Wikipedia, too:
"Critics have accused Snopes of having a liberal bias.Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 as to obviate launching one of his own. David Mikkelson, the creator of the site, has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them. In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy."

dale blanker wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:
You might want to check into Snopes before you swallow everything they have to say.

I've always been impressed with their thoroughness and objectivity. They provide evidence for their conclusions, not just opinion.

I like Wikipedia, too:
"Critics have accused Snopes of having a liberal bias.Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 as to obviate launching one of his own. David Mikkelson, the creator of the site, has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them. In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy."

Yeah, you might not want to just take wikipedia's word on stuff either. It has it's uses, but it is by no means inerrant or unbiased. Most of what you quoted was from the founder of snopes himself. Even he says that he used to be registered as republican, and his wife is Canadian. Being from a country which is (correct me if I'm wrong here) much more liberal than this one does not make a person unbiased politically.

I have found snopes to be useful when they actually give you references for their opinion on a given urban legend. When they don't, their bias starts to show.

...his wife is Canadian.

Smokey613 wrote:I need to hear more detail on his plans to "make America Great Again",

You misheard; he's just planning to ban shredded cheese and make America grate again.

LucasMcCain wrote: Yeah, you might not want to just take wikipedia's word on stuff either. It has it's uses, but it is by no means inerrant or unbiased. Most of what you quoted was from the founder of snopes himself. Even he says that he used to be registered as republican, and his wife is Canadian. Being from a country which is (correct me if I'm wrong here) much more liberal than this one does not make a person unbiased politically.

I have found snopes to be useful when they actually give you references for their opinion on a given urban legend. When they don't, their bias starts to show.

Sure, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia with editing and confirmation ongoing. I've been lucky so far and not found any political bias but I'm sure it's possible.

I've always found Snopes to be based on solid facts with clear references. The owners may be liberal, or not, but I've found them to be objective.

What information sources have you found on Internet that are even more objective and reliable than Snopes and Wikipedia?

dale blanker wrote:

Lynyrd wrote: The expressions on her face while Trump was talking was what convinced me. Sometimes it sure didn't look like she wasn't listening to Trump, it looked like she was listening to something else. And sometimes she would have this blank expression that all of a sudden changed to a big smile when she realized what she was going to say next. Those changes in her facial appearance from listening to smiling did not correspond with what Trump was saying at the time. The timing was off.

Wow, I can't imagine what it must take to be able to listen to two speakers at once and still provide timely replies. Hard to believe... she must be smarter than I thought!

I still wouldn't vote for her though.

Anyway, see http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

What makes you think she was actually listening to Trump?

C-dub wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

Lynyrd wrote: The expressions on her face while Trump was talking was what convinced me. Sometimes it sure didn't look like she wasn't listening to Trump, it looked like she was listening to something else. And sometimes she would have this blank expression that all of a sudden changed to a big smile when she realized what she was going to say next. Those changes in her facial appearance from listening to smiling did not correspond with what Trump was saying at the time. The timing was off.

Wow, I can't imagine what it must take to be able to listen to two speakers at once and still provide timely replies. Hard to believe... she must be smarter than I thought!

I still wouldn't vote for her though.

Anyway, see http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

What makes you think she was actually listening to Trump?

Lynyrd wrote:

Try http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles ... ething-say.