Rick Perry Consults the Man in the Sky (evidence)

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I'm curious to see the link to the site you pasted that from....Oh, never mind, I checked it out at snopes.... snopes.com: The Fall of the Athenian Republic Mostly false...It would behoove you to do a bit of fact checking before posting such rubbish.

One thing I've found that is very easy to "fact check", is that snopes.com is nothing but a ultra-left leaning, super biased husband/wife team that have no formal training in investigative research.
Try checking out THAT fact.

I'm surprised you'd "put stock" in something so pitifully weak.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

One thing I've found that is very easy to "fact check", is that snopes.com is nothing but a ultra-left leaning, super biased husband/wife team that have no formal training in investigative research.
Try checking out THAT fact.

I'm surprised you'd "put stock" in something so pitifully weak.

And the fact that the original was about Bush and Gore doesn't give you some idea that the email is phony? The names change, but the *facts* stay the same? The person quoted changes too? When you have been around long enough, you end up getting copies of these emails with different names yourself.

Here's a post from 2008 debunking it from a different website:
The fall of the Athenian Republic Debunked from Planck's Constant

As for the snopes site itself
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

One thing I've found that is very easy to "fact check", is that snopes.com is nothing but a ultra-left leaning, super biased husband/wife team that have no formal training in investigative research.
Try checking out THAT fact.

I'm surprised you'd "put stock" in something so pitifully weak.

I'm not surprised that you believe the false letters circulated about snopes. You seem to be the one too lazy to check your "facts". Snopes Exposed - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends
You should wipe off the crow feathers stuck to your lower lip. They are beginning to accumulate.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I'm not surprised that you believe the false letters circulated about snopes. You seem to be the one too lazy to check your "facts". Snopes Exposed - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends
You should wipe off the crow feathers stuck to your lower lip. They are beginning to accumulate.

I'm not lazy...I work more hours at my businesses and my volunteer efforts than anybody you ever met. I'm at work right now.

Look sans...the fact of the matter is, you don't have any more proof of the veracity of snopes, than the veracity of what they say is or isn't accurate.

Com'on...just a dude and his chick with no formal training to do what they are doing? That smells right there!
If ANY Theist based source like them, was making claims like they do...you'd point to their pitiful "credentials" and laugh at them.
Plus, there is the added bonus of me saying "snopes sux", gets you all bolloxed up!

From the little I checked...their bias is epic...and THEY'VE been "debunked" themselves many times.
So, why have "faith" in those people, and what they have to say?

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

What does that have to do with this topic?

religionists reproduce like rats, their vote counts just keep growing and growing. And being religionist, they refuse to be educated against the teachings of their closer masters, the clergy.

[AREQUIPA]

While Gldnrule makes a good point at least about asking whether any partcular website should be accepted at face value (Snopes in this response says that anyone can make errors and it is always worthwhile checking) it seems that their credentials are pretty good.

" CLAIM: TruthorFiction.com is a more reliable source than Snopes. First off, TruthorFiction.com has condemned this anonymous attack against Snopes.com and, in fact, lauds the site as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource."

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/int...es_exposed.htm

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

One thing I've found that is very easy to "fact check", is that snopes.com is nothing but a ultra-left leaning, super biased husband/wife team that have no formal training in investigative research.
Try checking out THAT fact.

I'm surprised you'd "put stock" in something so pitifully weak.

So, can you point me to the consevative fact checkers? and the government stats on how Obama won the presidency.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

You are correct, I don't.
They don't vote for "the best person for the job overall"...they vote for whoever will "enhance" their personal agenda, whatever that agenda may be.

Check this out sans...what would you say is "the average IQ" of "citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare?:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

So then are you still claiming that this is accurate, or are you going to admit that you really did not check it for accuracy?

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

So then are you still claiming that this is accurate, or are you going to admit that you really did not check it for accuracy?

You are probably way ahead of me but...

"This chain e-mail is a hoax. The "statistics" are grossly incorrect, and Prof. Olson says he didn't write it.
First, Joseph Olson is a professor at Hamline (not Hemline) University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn. None of what appears in this e-mail was written by him. He has been denying authorship of this old hoax since earlier versions first cropped up after the 2000 election. Most recently he posted a disclaimer about the 2008 version on his university profile page."
FactCheck.org: What's the deal with Prof. Joseph Olson's "unreported stats" from the 2008 election? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_deal_with_prof_joseph_olsons.html - broken link)

I suppose Goldenrule, being essentially a reasonable and honest person has admitted his error.

[jblake78728]

Palin, Perry & Bachmann are so extreme that they make the Mormon (Romney) look like the most mainstream candidate.

Perry will obviously do well in Texas & the states that still believe in the "South is gonna rise again" mantra (not only due to his extreme religious views but also because of his secessionist talk). One good thing about having 3 far right nut jobs running for the same nomination is that they will basically split the the tin foil hat crowd & fundie vote. The longer the 3 stay in the race the better chance that none of them get the nomination ............ but if 2 of them ever get smart enough to consolidate the ticket look out.