I bet he gets a dime every time a link doesn’t say what he says it says. Fucker’s gotta be rich by now.
FFS, this is a Pit thread, not The Economist. If you want scrupulous accuracy, you’re in the wrong place. Even so, I’d say his paraphrases are mostly accurate, and his links are always interesting. Much more of a contribution than nonstop snark.
The point of the thread is to criticize, mock and publicize the stupid, evil and incompetent things Republicans do.
Not make up news and spread possible frameups or publicity stunts. That only strengthens the other side.
Really? Since you are an advocate of scrupulous accuracy, and someone who hates false claims, I’m sure you can cite several instances of this thread being quoted by right-wing news sources as an example of liberal perfidy.
Don’t know that we need right-wing news sources, as we have our own right wing brigade here.
If I point to one of our resident right wing trolls and his “news source” and analysis, and point out that it is bunk, then it does me no good to have to turn around and defend against charges of “your side does it too”.
The links would be still be out there whether Rick Kitchen posted them here or not, and right wingnuts would still point to them, so I don’t know what you think you’d gain if he stopped posting them. Do you imagine that any right wingnut would give a rat’s ass if you could prove to him that this particular thread was more reliable than Fox News?
Well, I’ve said my piece. I like Rick’s posts, because he gets them from more sources than I have time to read, and they’re almost always interesting, and if I feel the need to “spread” them, I’m capable of verifying them before doing so. If you don’t like them, it’s easy enough to skip over them. Much easier than trying to convince anyone that this thread is supposed to be pristine.
If he posted 90% crap, it would be different, but I think it’s more like 90% good stuff. Even the post that sparked this hissy fit was completely accurate – it said whatzizname was accused of X, not that he did it, and when it’s a fairly big-time organization that is doing the accusing, that is legitimate news, whether the charge turns out to be true or not.
When did it become a rule that we have to wait for the accused person to deny the charges before we can report on them? I ***did ***say he was accused. I linked to snopes, which is a neutral site and did an investigation, and then I linked to the original allegation.
I guess we’re not supposed to report on stupid right wing ideas unless the right wing mentions them.
No, no, no, read his post again. He didn’t say wait until the accused denies it, he said wait until the charge is confirmed. Which may never happen.
For example, you won’t catch a True Doper commenting on Trump’s Russian connections.
This certainly qualifies as a stupid idea from a Republican idiot.
Well, that’s what everyone has been talking about since post 32791.
In any event, whether or not Snopes has confirmed the story, other generally reputable news outlets are reporting as factual that the questionnaire was distributed from Bennett’s office. For example:
Apologies if this is a repeat, but it’s so hard to keep up:
Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS), an actual physician, tells us
Of course you aren’t, Doctor. :rolleyes:
Yeah, umm, my Bible is a bit rusty but isn’t saying that line what made Judas say 'WTF?! I’m following an egomaniac! Time to go have a chat with some people."
As a Christian, I’d like to point out that whenever we say “I’m not judging…” Yeah, we’re judging.
And whenever we say we love freedom, it’s not freedom for People Unlike Us.
And “Love thy neighbor”? Pffft… Maybe thy next door neighbor, but not further afield. If you’re gay/trans/homeless/sick/mentally ill/swarthy, sorry.
Hmmm, I wonder when we’ll notice that we’re really not at all like Jesus?
My Sunday School, they said you weren’t really expected to, but to make an honest effort. Do that, and he’ll cut you some slack.
Yay! Book bannings!
Who’s we here? Lots of nice Christians in the world. You know what happens on this board when someone makes a generalization about Islam? Yeah, like that.
As a generic human person, I’d like to point out that if you feel the need to mention whether you’re judging someone, yes you’re judging someone, and you’re either trying to look past it or you’re denying it.
And if you love your own freedom, but not that of others, what you actually love is dominance.
And if you love only selected neighbors… you’re just calling yourself a Christian in the same way a person who can cut with a knife calls themself a surgeon.
Please don’t be my spokesperson. You don’t represent me, as a generic human person or as a Christian.
Cite?
Remember that time you and a friend hiked six miles to a remote spot in the mountains, and you just got the tent set up, and when you opened the flap to put your stuff in it, a gust of wind filled the tent and carried it into the river, so you chased after it and climbed out onto a piece of deadfall to catch it before it went over the falls, and you got your pinky into a loop, but a knot in the log had started to push your only box of matches out of your vest pocket, and you could not pull the tent up without losing the matches, and then a raven landed on the opposite bank and started pecking at the end of the log, and you came back to the campsite, half-drowned with no tent and no matches, whereupon your friend, who had spent the last three hours lugging that tent up the rocky trail said, “nice job” ?
Apply that usage of “nice” and the expression will make sense.
“Bible tells me to love my neighbor like myself. So, what now, I gotta go next door and jerk him off too?”
Rodney Dangerfield, noted theologian