Captain just ship and can't be saved?

[Dr. Jet]

From the FAQ at snopes:



So, if you want to attack a source that actually tries to verify the accuracy of what they post and who lists their sources, then I am not sure there is anywehre to go. Have you ever asked yourself why it seems that some many of these viral emails that turn out to be false come from the right rather than the left??

But I thought you said if I used Michael Savage as a source (he does verify and post sources), anything quoted has to be untrue by default, regardless of the validity of the origins of the particular factoid quoted.

[Flying Scotsman]

There are no true proponents of a capatalist or socialist order left in this world. Both doctrines failed in their ideals and have morphed into??

Douggie

Come on lads, some of you who do not depend on Twitter or Facebook, must have an answer

Douggie

[Bill-SOCAL]

I never said any such thing, that is just what you wanted to hear. What I have said about Savage, and many other of your sources, is that they are well known to have extreme right wing bias. Sort of like telling me that Chevy is the best car and citing your local Chevy dealer as the source.

[AndyKunz]

From the FAQ at snopes:

And you don't accept people who believe the Bible is true in part because it says it is? When it has been proven historically accurate repeatedly?

Have you ever asked yourself why it seems that some many of these viral emails that turn out to be false come from the right rather than the left??

Maybe it's because we love our country more, and are concerned about future generations more, and love liberty?

I get e-mails from both sides (I'm a subscriber to Scientific American, pretty left-leaning and extremely biased against all faiths except their own, but every now and then they have something interesting even if their worldview is whacky). I'll have to start posting some of them, I guess.

Andy

[Bill-SOCAL]

Maybe it's because we love our country more,

And this is the sadly mistaken state in which you live. Yes, only conservatives are patriots. Only you and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh love America, or at the very least love it more than the Libbruls do.

The astonishing arrogance of this mindset is repulsive. I served my country. Two of my brothers served their country, and one is in Iraq right now. My father and step father both served. My uncle was killed by a Kamakaze attack in WWII. So Andy, you need to be very careful when you start talking utter nonsense like you and your fellow conservatives love this country more than I, and people who think like me, do.

BTW, neither Rush, Hannity, Beck, or Savage served. It is very interesting how it is those people who are the ones always so ready to send our youth into harm's way.

And so I am clear, you are saying since conservatives love their country more that this makes it OK for them to use lies, distortions, and fabrications to justify their ideas?? Wow!

And one other thing, science is not a faith. Faith is something you accept without proof. Science is the farthest thing from that. And I have no issues with you loving your God and finding comfort in that. My objection is when you use your faith and beliefs to make or influence the laws of the land. And that goes for any faith.

It interests me to no end that so many Christian Conservatives are so comfortable with the idea of having their beliefs become the law of the land and at the same time can make derisive comments and label Muslims and others as "extremists" or "radicals" when they want to use their faith to make political and social decisions.

[AndyKunz]

I thought that would raise your ire, Bill. Thanks for being predictable. I used "maybe" on purpose. You had mentioned some of those people before, so I knew where you stood.

I suppose the lies, distortions, and fabrications from the left are OK? It's just when the opposite side uses them that you're upset? Personally, I find untruths revolting from both sides.

I agree that science is not faith. The problems is that "Scientific" American doesn't see that they are people of faith, also, preferring to call their biogenesis faith "science" when in fact it does not measure up to the basic principles of science - testability, observability, and repeatability. This is a distortion which they attempt to force as the law of the land, using bully tactics rather than intelligent conversation. The problem is really that they are completely intolerant of anyone who opposes them.

And I believe that intolerance is the same intolerance that is found in most of the left-leaning factions of our country.

Unfortunately, I feel that "E Pluribus Unum" is history, given up in exchange for the worship of diversity.

Andy

[Dr. Jet]

And I believe that intolerance is the same intolerance that is found in most of the left-leaning factions of our country.

The following is an observation from following many news items over the past few decades:

It is the Left that preaches tolerance and diversity; but from what I see, it is the Left that is intolerant of diversity in political ideas.

If you are pro-abortion, then you are tolerated. If you are pro-life, than you are a religious fanatic.

If you are pro-gay, you are tolerated. If you think homosexuality is an abomination, then you are a homophobic bigot.

If you are an open borders advocate, you are tolerated. If you think illegal aliens should be deported, you are a racist.

If you are pro-union, you are tolerated. If you support management, then you are a greedy capitalist.

The most intolerant people appear to be those on the Left. Yes Bill, there are intolerant people on the Right, but from what I see, there is FAR more intolerance coming from the Left than the Right. Now, don't jump to absurd conclusions, I'm not saying YOU are intolerant; rather, the percentage of intolerant people on your side of the fence appears far greater. Yet it is these same people that idealize the concept of tolerance and diversity (as long as you agree with them).

Disclamer to avoid absurd jumps in logic or intolerance towards the author:

The preceeding is the impressions of one observer only, based on available information from many sources of news and information, and personal observation. The preceeding is not intended to imply any policy or position of the RIGHT side of the fence. The preceeding does not single out any individual, group, committee, board, or association. The preceeding is one man's opinion.

[AndyKunz]

The preceeding is the impressions of one observer only, based on available information from many sources of news and information, and personal observation. The preceeding is not intended to imply any policy or position of the RIGHT side of the fence. The preceeding does not single out any individual, group, committee, board, or association. The preceeding is one man's opinion.

Looks like you're already trying to comply with the new "fairness" doctrine, Bill We had a weasel-worded thing we had to play when I worked at the radio station. Anytime any of us gave our opinion, we had to push the disclaimer button. Sometimes we would push it just to waste time until we could get a new song on the CD player - a 10-second life saver (dead air is bad).

Andy

[Steven Vaccaro]

Looks like you're already trying to comply with the new "fairness" doctrine, Bill We had a weasel-worded thing we had to play when I worked at the radio station. Anytime any of us gave our opinion, we had to push the disclaimer button. Sometimes we would push it just to waste time until we could get a new song on the CD player - a 10-second life saver (dead air is bad).

Andy

Speaking radio, one of the local sports radio station hosts mentioned that he couldn't say anything about BHO's wife! Censorship at its finest.

[Dr. Jet]

Andy, I'm just trying to avoid absurd jumps in logic.

Right guy: "I think the left is intolerant."
Left guy: "I will not tolerate your intolerance!"