Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 10:32:33 GMT
His Name is Conan, but I doubt it. The term "get the ball" probably has special meaning to him!
|
|
|
Post by thelmadonna on Nov 1, 2019 12:07:38 GMT
His Name is Conan, but I doubt it. The term "get the ball" probably has special meaning to him! Do you think a drone could've done equally as well? Purr I admire your empathy with the dog. Don't you think the time has come to go more with technology?
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 1, 2019 14:53:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 23:46:57 GMT
I'll get him if its the last thing I do.
|
|
|
Post by ZETAR on Nov 2, 2019 0:48:30 GMT
I'll get him if its the last thing I do. đđď¸đď¸ SHALOM...Z
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 4, 2019 15:53:15 GMT
Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised August 20, 2016 | Baxter Dmitry
Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.
Earlier this year Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, admitted they are spending millions of dollars to employ an army of trolls to âcorrectâ and âpush backâ against internet users who criticize Clinton.
Correct The Recordâs âBarrier Breakersâ project admitted in a press release that it pays people to pretend to be Clinton supporters, and claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already been âaddressedâ by the PACâs mercenary social media warriors â with the promise that many more will be âcorrectedâ in the near future.
Given that Snopes entered the political fact checking game around the same time, and began publishing more political articles than ever before â most of which display a clear Clinton bias â it is legitimate to ask if Snopes is also on the Correct The Record payroll.
Ethics Alarms reports:
Ethics Alarms has been tracking the increasing political bias exhibited by Snopes, once the definitive âUrban Legendsâ web source to identify false stories on the internet, e-mail hoaxes and other pollution of public information.
The website has made the disastrous decision to wade into political topics and to hire some new social justice warriors and wanna-be Democratic Party operatives to cover them, resulting in the site becoming a bad imitation of PolitiFact.
The disturbing trend really established itself this month, but it was in evidence earlier. For example, Snopes rushed to defend Hillary Clinton when the story of her defense of a child rapist was used to smear her. (Ethics Alarms explained, correctly, unlike Snopes, what was unethical about the attacks on Clintonâall defendants deserve a zealous defense, no matter what the charge, and a lawyer isnât endorsing or supporting a clientâs crimes by doing her professional duty.)
The Snopes defense, in contrast, was dishonest and misleading. Quoth Snopes, via its primary left-biased reporter, Kim LaCapria:
Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections donât match the claim. Thatâs because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.
Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isnât the only successful defense outcome.
Clinton also laughed about the case. What would you call this? (from FactCheck.org)
In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton recalls some unusual details of the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs.
Clinton: Of course he claimed he didnât. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]
At another point, Clinton said the prosecutor balked at turning over evidence, forcing her to go to the judge to obtain it.
Clinton: So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didnât want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [laughs] before it was presented.
Clinton then said that the evidence she obtained was a pair of the accusedâs underwear with a hole in it. Clinton told Reed that investigators had cut out a piece of the underwear and sent the sample to a crime lab to be tested, and the only evidence that remained was the underwear with a hole in it.
Clinton took the remaining evidence to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, New York, and the expert told her that the material on the underwear wasnât enough to test. âHe said, you know, âYou canât prove anything,ââ Clinton recalled the expert telling her.
Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, âWell this guyâs ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.â [laughs]
That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didnât laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasnât laughing about the caseâs outcome, justâŚthe case.
Ridiculous.
Similarly ridiculous is Snopesâ claim that Hillary âdid not assert that the complainant âmade up the rape story.ââ She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didnât rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Again from FactCheck.org:
Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. âI have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing ⌠[and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,â according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.
Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that âchildren in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainantâs, are even more prone to such behavior,â Clinton wrote in her affidavit.
If Snopes is arguing that Hillary didnât use the precise words âmade up the rape story,â thatâs deceit. Obviously her defense was that the child said there was rape when there wasnât one. In the meme Snopes was using in its post, âmade upâ is reasonable short hand for âfalsely claimed that she was raped.â
Contrary to Snopesâ denials, Hillary also made it clear, in her quotes in the interview, that she thought her client was guilty. What else could âI had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphsâ mean?
No, she didnât volunteer for the case, and saying that she âfreedâ him is self-evidently sloppy in describing any criminal defense representation. Judges, juries and prosecutors free defendants; no defense lawyer has that power. Did Clintonâs efforts on behalf of the rapist make him a free man long, long before he would have been without Clintonâs efforts? Unquestionably. He was sentenced to just one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to the final judgment signed by the judge.
Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable.
As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clintonâs work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillaryâs laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopesâ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.
In June, Snopes decided that the outrageous news story about a school calling the police to grill a fourth grader about something he said at a class party warranted undermining. After all, we canât have people thinking that our schools abuse students based on hysterical political correctness and race-baiting. Snopes then titled its post, dishonestly: âPolice Called Over âRacistâ Brownies?â
No news reports claimed that the police were called because of the brownies. None. Police were called because a student made some statement about brownies that another student deemed racist, and the school staff called the police. Itâs really easy to debunk a claim that was never made. Does the Snopes story prove that the story is false in any way? No. Why was it written then?
In July, we learned that the trend was no aberration. Snopes apparently felt that the inspiring Facebook post by officer Jay Stalien needed to be discredited, so it had LaCapria write this, which suggested by the inherent innuendo of presenting such a post on a hoax-exposure site that readers should be skeptical. The Stalien post expressed anti-Black Lives Matter sentiments. And Kim couldnât prove that Stalien exists.
Come to think of it, I canât prove that Kim exists.
When did Snopes start fact-checking Facebook opinion posts? It started when the site decided to choose sides, thatâs when.
Last week, several sources, all so-called âconservativeâ news media, noted that the American flag was conspicuous by its absence on the set of the Democratic National Convention on its first day. Liberal media went into full-spin mode, scoffing at the criticism. Ethics Alarms concluded that the omission was intentional, at least to some extent.
Then Snopes, in full spin mode, issued a rebuttal of the no-flag observation, complete with a couple of photographs showing when the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I expressed my skepticism about Snopesâ âproof.â It turned out that the rebuttal was worse than I suspected. The site was just busted by The Daily Caller, which checked the photos.
The DCâs findings: the photos offered by Snopes consisted of a screenshot from PBSâ coverage of day one, taken during the pledge of allegiance at the very beginning of the convention, before the physical flags were removed, and a screenshot of C-SPANâs day two coverage. Snopes falsely claimed that photo was from day one of the convention. Mallory Weggemann, the paralympic swimmer who gave Tuesdayâs pledge of allegiance, is seen to the left of the C-Span logo, sitting in her wheelchair as the flag-bearers walk past herâŚ
The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by âright wing sitesâ that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.
Thatâs the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.
Can it recover? Maybe, but not withoutâŚ
âŚGetting out of the political fact-checking business.
âŚFiring Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.
âŚConfessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.
With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.
Iâll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the siteâs days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I wonât be using it again.
newspunch.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/?fbclid=IwAR0koB4s0C873Fhb8rDflYuQGfmMAOfRhxFSuCAufCcRT4VN04C0_6gBzec
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 5, 2019 22:46:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Nov 7, 2019 23:07:54 GMT
..The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by âright wing sitesâ that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.
Thatâs the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it...
That's it ? One misstep and Snopes is finished ?
Yet the CEO of the country has a lie count way past five thousand and you guys still support him.
HAL.
|
|
|
Post by nyx on Nov 7, 2019 23:32:23 GMT
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is going to run for president.
Michell can spend billions on a campaign as âpocket changeâ.
|
|
raf
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by raf on Nov 8, 2019 16:35:59 GMT
Steyr tried it. Look where it got him. You can't buy the presidency.
You may have a ton of money, but if you don't have the charisma to make people want to vote for you? Then you're just another billionaire.
Bloomberg is a bit short on that charisma thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 20:15:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 15, 2019 17:16:14 GMT
Syriaâs Assad claims Jeffery Epstein didnât commit suicide: 'He was killed because he knew a lot of vital secrets' By Greg Norman | Fox News | Nov. 15. 2019
The âJeffrey Epstein didnât kill himselfâ meme appears to have now gone international.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, in an interview with Russian state TV Thursday, waded into the bizarre viral craze by offering his own take on what happened to the convicted pedophile inside his Manhattan federal prison cell in August.
"American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was killed several weeks ago, they said he had committed suicide in jail,â Newsweek quoted Assad as telling the TASS Russian News Agency. âHowever, he was killed because he knew a lot of vital secrets connected with very important people in the British and American regimes, and possibly in other countries as well."
Assadâs unsolicited take on Epstein came when he was asked for his reaction to the death of James Le Mesurier, the founder of the White Helmets humanitarian volunteer group, which performed emergency response functions in Syria. Le Mesurier was discovered dead early Monday in Turkey.
"And now the main founder of the White Helmets has been killed, he was an officer and he had worked his whole life with NATO in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and Lebanon," Assad reportedly said. âI believe that these people⌠had been killed chiefly because they knew major secrets.â
The meme entered the mainstream earlier this week after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., posted a series of tweets during the first day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump that spelled out, "Epstein didn't kill himself."
New York Cityâs medical examiner determined that Epstein took his own life in August, but vocal skeptics have suggested otherwise during random blurt-outs on television and other forums .
The mantra was uttered by a student during an interview on a recent MSNBC broadcast and also has been spotted on ESPNâs âCollege Game Dayâ on shirts.
www.foxnews.com/world/syria-assad-jeffrey-esptain-killed-speculation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 12:15:45 GMT
Anybody watching this charade? Stewart: "I would now feel compelled to ask you, Madam Ambassador, as you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?" Yovanovitch: "No." Stewart: "Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?" Yovanovitch: "No." Stewart thanked Yovanovitch before predicting that public support for impeachment would decrease after the hearings. "The American people know this is nonsense," Stewart said. "The American people know this is unfair." www.foxnews.com/media/marie-yovanovitch-president-trump-impeachment-hearing
|
|
|
Post by Ak9 on Nov 17, 2019 9:24:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by purr on Nov 18, 2019 5:08:58 GMT
His Name is Conan, but I doubt it. The term "get the ball" probably has special meaning to him! Do you think a drone could've done equally as well? Purr I admire your empathy with the dog. Don't you think the time has come to go more with technology? Thelmadonna, some operations need paws and a nose on the ground! I empathise with the working dog but respect the living weapon... purr
|
|