Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc

Posted By: me on 2009-03-30
In Reply to: That's false; Jefferson didn't say that. sm - ever heard of Snopes.com?

They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm






Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Snopes is not credible
Especially since it's highly likely that the couple that runs snopes are Obama supporters. There has been no credible evidence on snopes to prove anything.

That's like saying Louis Farrakan or Ayers, or Rev. Wright verified it so we should just believe them.

Let the supreme court judge handle it. We want the truth.

The supreme court judges are there to uphold the constitution. I will listen to their decision.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to defend as you are most likely wrong about this.
Not a credible source

Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about?  The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time.  I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.


Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids.  I could and I did.  I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive.  There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website.  Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here.  I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?


I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation."  .


According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.

Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.

You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".

Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.

The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.

The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.

I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Credible source

I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him.  I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that.  After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own.  I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so. 


You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me.  Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean.  We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled.  The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case.  You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1?  They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen.  It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint.  I should think you would know that.  They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing.  I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.


Another credible source...


Please give a more credible source than McCain's website. nm
x
I saw the snopes link first and have answered
x
You give a link that supposedly exposes snopes.com yet SM
that very link (which you apparently didn't take the time to read, or were not able to) disputes everything you say above. Good lord.
the link did not work. It gave me a "do you want to try snopes search engine" msg. nm
nm
Show me a CREDIBLE link
and I'll consider it.  I don't take youtube speakers without any credibility whatsoever as gospel.
Please support your claim with a credible link. nm
.
That's good to hear. The link made it seem credible. nm
  
Might want to inspect the link source
check out the first "err" post above in this thread. Or better still, read the article again and cite one instance where Medicaid was mentioned in the context of raising AGE requirements.
No, not interesting. I followed the link to the source.
and watched the Fox clip.  Oh, and I do watch Fox from time to time to watch the clowns Beck and O'Reilly constantly spouting their hate propaganda and to give me insight into some of the minds of the people who post on this forum, whereby, I can always tell where they get their info, because it is almost always word-for-word out of the Fox pieholes.  It's really quite amusing and always gives me a good laugh for the day!!  LOL
See link below - source is from Obama's own book.
x
Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
Hillary Exposed? Not quite....

I took the time to watch the trailer of Peter Paul's Hillary Exposed trailer again this morning, took a few notes, and did a little internet research.  It is my conclusion that this is mostly fabrication with a stab at Hillary because he is angry that his investment/ideas didn't go as he had planned.


The 2000 Hollywood Gala was a farewell for Bill to garner his favor in supporting him on a business venture, with the added benefit as a fundraiser for Hillary.  Paul also gave fundraisers for others.  For whatever reason, this didn't go as he had planned.  Paul specifically stated that he only gave the fundraiser for Hillary to get to Bill.  There is no evidence suggesting that Clinton told Levin to seduce Oto to oust Paul to destroy him and SLM. 


The phone call to SLM from Hillary says nothing other than that she is pleased with what they are doing for her and thanking them.  I do not believe that she helped plan the gala whatsoever nor knew the full details. 


Is being a fundraiser the same as campaign contributor?  If you are shelling out money for the affair, is that considered a campaign contribution?  I didn't have time to dig into that this morning.


As David Rosen was Hillary's finance director, if he falsified documents, whether on his own or told by someone else to do it, he is the one culpable.


Digging into Peter F. Paul's past doesn't lend much to his credibility.  I am loath to believe anything from such a person.  I think he is just trying to save his own butt and trying to get back at Bill through Hillary. His stint in Brazil and being put in jail was of his own doing.


In essence, there is just not much substance here when you start digging.  This is the first of many attacks that are just beginning for Hillary as well as the other presidential candidates and should not be taken at face value.  


Liberals exposed in all their glory. SM
Ain't it grand.
Ron Paul exposed, literally!
This is priceless! Ron Paul being backed by pimp Denis Hof and traveling with Tucker Carlson. OMG! Could this get any better? Per Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/20/nevada-brothel-owner-pimp_n_73633.html?load=1&page=5
False charge exposed
RE: Obama filed lawsuit that "bullied" banks into giving risky loans.

Buycks-Roberson vs CitiBank Federal Savings Bank 1994. This was a class action lawuit which sought to challenge the practice of redlining, based on the 14th Amendment requirement of "fair and equal treatment for all citizens." The lawsuit charged that CitiBank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. This was settled out of court. Some class members received cash payments and CitiBank revised its discriminatory lending practice policies.

The action was brought against a single bank…CitiBank, though redlining was a widespread practice at the time. Obama DID NOT FILE this lawsuit. He was a junior member of an 8-member team that worked on the case. The lead attorney for CitiBank does not recall ever seeing Obama in the court during the proceedings. Obama charged a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes for his work on the case for reviewing some documents before a deposition and appeared ONCE before the judge to request an extension of time for filing a response to a motion in the case.

This decision did not "force banks" to do anything except to process minority loan applications the same as they were processing loans to white applicants. If this outcome in any way contributed to the mortgage crisis some 14 years later, it would be based on the fact that the banks were already handing out those "bad loans" hand-over-fist to the white applicants…a practice they agreed to extend to ALL applicants as "fair and equal treatment" under the 14th Amendment.

Once the facts get a thorough look-see, it becomes evident that the charges the McCain camp are trying to lay on Obama are (surprise, surprise) patently false.

Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Ashley Todd exposed as HOAX.
x
What facts support that the "left" exposed this news as you say?
get the information that it came directly from the left? A left-leaning media doesn't count, either. When you say it came from the "left," it insinuates Barack's camp was responsible somehow. Is that the case?
Just so you know about Snopes

It's part of the Chicago political machine and has a definite conflict of interest.


Research it for yourself if you don't believe me.  This is not directed towards you.  I'm just pointing this out for the rest of the readers here.


No fan of Obama, but per Snopes -









Sep 28, 8:09 PM EDT


Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet












AP
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak



























Advertisement










































Buy AP Photo Reprints





















PHOTO GALLERY
AP

Latest Photos of Barack Obama







Audio Slideshow









On the Road with Obama






Latest News




Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

Obama calls McCain economic ideas 'out of touch'

Correction: Obama home-arrest story

Obama effigy found hanging from Ore. campus tree

Man arrested outside Obama home wanted job













Multimedia









Obama Picks Biden as Running Mate





A look back at the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention






Iraq? Global Warming? Gay Marriage? See Where the Candidates Stand











Your Questions Answered








Ask AP: Hurricane reporters, property in Cuba




MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.


Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.


Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.


"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.


Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.


"I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay," Obama said during the debate. "She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?' No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided."


Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.


She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.


"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops," Jopek said. "My request to both of them is that they honor the troops by lifting the conversation to the issues, and that they continue to live up to the standards our military deserves."


© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.







[GetClick here for copyright permissions!

Copyright 2008 Associated Press






If you (and Snopes) take issue

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy.


If you (and Snopes) take issue

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy enough.


Snopes.com leans to the left

Snopes.com leans to the left


July 29th, 2008 · No Comments · General Politics, Politics



Like many others I have used Snopes.com to check things out and make sure what I am reading is actually true.  I never really questioned them before, but then the other day I was reading an item on AL Gore and I began wondering to myself, why are they trying to justify why Gore said this.


I then started to look at other items and found the same thing.  Even when accusations were found to be true about liberals, Snopes would try to either explain it away or defend the position.  Unbeknown to me, this has already been well documented by others for items on the Clintons, John Kerry, Gore, and Barack Obama.


I did a little research and found that the site is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California.  From all accounts I have read, they are Obama supporters, but then of course probably support other Democratic candidates as well.


Now I am not saying that Snopes.com is a completely useless site because they usually do a good job on hoax emails…especially outside of politics. But you should always read what they say with a critical eye and be wary when they don’t just give the facts and start to defend a position.  If you see this I would suggest you check out other fact checking sites to collaborate what they say.


Snopes leans to the left

I can see a blind conservative thinking that perhaps Snopes is politically motivated toward the left. However, just for fun, I looked up the issue of Osama Bin Laden’s family being flown out of the U.S. immediately following the 9/11 attacks, when most air traffic had been grounded. Snopes says this, too, was false. Here, it quotes heavily from the 9/11 commission. Members of the Bin Laden family, the commission concludes, were not flown out before air space were re-opened.


But Snopes, via the 9/11 commission citations, does show that the Bin Ladens were flown out September 20th. The FBI questioned them, but then let them fly out. The commission also says one of the FBI agents who questioned the family was a pilot for the flight, though the vagueness of the report could lead one to conclude that the FBI agent was a pilot in general and not the pilot of the flight. Which begs the question, why mention it at all unless they meant that an FBI agent was the pilot flying the Bin Laden escape plane in question…


Anyway, the point of the whole Bin Ladens leaving the States is that they were allowed to leave so effortlessly and with our government’s help. It sounds great to say the government flew them out when all air traffic was grounded, but that’s just icing. That Snopes claims the rumor is false while the underlying point that the U.S. flew the Bin Ladens out of the States is true shows that Snopes is no more left-leaning than right-leaning. It’s admirable. They seem to take the tack that “if part of statement is false, the whole statement is false.” Very mathematical.


http://www.lekowicz.com/wren_forum/2006/03/14/705/


 


Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law

The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.


The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.


Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.


Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson


The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.


Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.


Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.


Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.


Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.


Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8


The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.


Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.


ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.


In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.


Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy


The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.


In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:


"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...


"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"


The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.


Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.


In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.


In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."


Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda


Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.


In 1998, Mother Jones reported:


"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...


"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."


Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.


In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."


"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."


To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


I read this on Snopes, it is true and I found it very

interesting. It is written by a black Christian man stating why he won't vote for Obama. If you just type in Huntley Brown Snopes, it will come up, it's the first link.


I am a fence rider, can't decide who to vote for, since neither one of them has actually given a plan as to what they are going to do for America, just a lot of trash talk from both sides and name calling and schoolyard tactics. Neither one has had to answer any direct questions regarding anything of value to me.


I am neither anti-Obama or anti-McCain; I am sure they are both decent men. I just found this interestingl it's not going to sway be either way, but just thought I would share it.


 


 


Wikipedia & Snopes: kissin' cousins
And part of the Chicago/Obama machine.  See for yourself, as you probably wouldn't believe me. 
So because Snopes says so it is truth. Why not have a judge look at it and make the ruling?
xx
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith

our conscience guide us politically?


I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make.  My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am.  I vote my conscience.  I want political leaders who reflect my morality.  I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me.  There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial.  There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial?  The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!


If you were at all credible...

...in your Iraq stance you would be over there as part of the fight.  End of story.  No buts, no excuses.  You would be over there and not relying on teenage kids and reservists to do your fighting for you.


Likewise, our powers that be (no names mentioned) would have multiple family members over there also.  No buts, no excuses, no whining.  But of course, they don't.


But of course, your butt sits in your comfy chair in your house as well as our Washington bosses' butts.  And you sit in your chair belittling someone who does not support this war, or any war, and does what she can to help peace world-wide.  She is an activist, you are not.  You are merely a cheerleader for a violent cause as long as it does not involve you directly.   


My boyfriend says the ultra-rights are angry cowards.  What I have seen illustrated on the conservative board makes me think he is 100 percent correct. 


credible?

Until they make the "documents" public, as they should, I cant believe everything this lady says .


"Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says" 


Sorry, but she has reason to point the finger away from her.  If this is all true, where are the documents to prove it?  Where is the court transcript, where is the paper trail for the public to view.  This is reporting, just like reporting about the Keating 5 and other issues that arise on both sides.  Facts are NOT facts just because someone writes a news piece.


CNN is much more credible than FOX and sm
the intelligent and educated people know this!!! That is what you don't seem to understand, that by admitting you listen to and believe Fox, is admitting you are a little lacking in the education or basic thinking skills. It's so obvious.


credible?
I have to be credible to you?  Please, like I care what you think of me or my opinion.  Besides that it is called sarcasm. 
Credible site


What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there.  I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month. 


I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans.  After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.


I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.


As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site? 


http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&id=2468&NoMenu=1


Battling the Effects of War



Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope



By Peg Tyre


Newsweek


December 6, 2004


 


It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there—shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.




Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain—and how best to help patients heal—there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.



Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq—with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism—could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.



PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.





Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.



Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."



Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."



The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help—counseling or drug treatment—to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.



VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].



Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.



Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.



Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.



About as credible as her claiming that she was
I'll tell you where I haven't been...that would be listening to Failin/Bailin/Palin excuse herself for her latest (but not her last) gaffe. PULEEZE.
There are also other far more credible sites...sm
which give valid information as to why it is not real.

The whole point to this, GP, is not JUST the birth certificate. This plays into a much larger picture in which Obama appears to be unqualified in terms of foreign policy and experienced in so many other areas. It has to do with past associations and shady current assoociations, who is backing him, how he rose through the ranks so quickly, some if not all of his campaign platform and plans for this country, some of the statements he has made that sound positively socialist if not marxist and the way the American people have been so capitivated by him. It's not even about McCain being POTUS because I can tell you that, even though I voted for him, I have some doubts about him just as you do about Obama. It is about the safety of our nation, laws being upheld on EVERY level (yeah, I know all about Bush, this isn't about him) and the future of our nation. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg.
Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...


What makes a credible source?


Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?


Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?


Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.


Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.


Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?


Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.


Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.


Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.


So, just curious about this. 


Credible sources

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...


What makes a credible source?


Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?


Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?


Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.


Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.


Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?


Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.


Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.


Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.


So, just curious about this. 


About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.

As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?

Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:

* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.

* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.

* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.

* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.

* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.

* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.

* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I find them to be a bit more credible
anonymous mtstars forum polls where the same guy can post over and over again. The report is not just on their own poll....it includes results from the others as well. It's the closest thing we have to a barometer on this plan and anybody who reads it can take it or leave it, but placing any credence in this thread is really grasping at straws.
wingnut - not credible
v
And what credible plots were stopped by
Please give one plausible, legitimate terrorist plot targeting our nation that was stopped by his policies.


What actual credible plot was NOT
many bombs struck your neighborhood? Girl, you need to get a life! Oh, that's right, you said you did already. Transcribing 3500 lines a day, then the rest of a day stirring the pot on an internet forum just isn't my idea of a life.
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?