Do You Have a Gun, Know How To Answer.

You can believe this or not, but here's some information on the owners of snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp

And there seriously are plenty of debunked rumors on both sides of the political spectrum, not just liberal candidates or issues.

ETA: And they post all their sources, so if you don't believe them you can always go do some light reading for yourself.

Snopes is mostly correct IF they agree with you. Snopes and their sources are suspect by many, not just me. The owners are huge supporters of Obama. I don't have a lot of time to dig but here are a couple of examples of liberal slant.

Please compare:
*
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-ayers.htm

Here's another comparison of Snopes vs. Truth or fiction's treatment of the email that has gone out regarding 'Obama's 50 lies'. Notice that Snopes often adds editorial comments favoring Obama on unproven statements, or even on proven ones where they say he is 'taken out of context'.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm


So, the next time I read a post that isn't a proven fact, I should call that person out? Oh, and does it have to be proven by Snopes? What if it's something scientific about dogs or anything? Would it do to have a scientific study? Or is that not enough proof? You know how studies go sometimes. Should we check with Snopes? What about some food thread...when we talk about what's healthy or not. Should no one post a thing about it because it's not proven? By Snopes? There are hundreds of things I read on this forum which are not proven. Or proven by Snopes.

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I see anyone posting something that may or may not be true. I'll expect to see documentation and proof of the most proven reliability....you know... Snopes. Ha!

While we're at it, can you prove beyond a doubt that Snopes is reliable and unbiased? Can you prove that their sources are 100% reliable and factual? Where's the documentation for that? What is their political affiliation? Do you know what presidential candidate they supported?

Is that a fact? I love your dogs too. But I disagree that discussing something where a point is being made must be necessarily factual.

And although I have never seen this in you, there's that same sense of entitlement expectation thing again that is washing over this country, that because someone accepts a loan they can't afford, when the contract is right in front of their face, that's someone else's fault....surely not their own. Methinks you're being brainwashed. There are already, IN PLACE laws about contracts...not holding up in court IF the print is too small or incidental. If I fail to read any part of a contract, I hold no one responsible but myself. It's that same old liberal mind set that the government or someone should take care of and protect "me."

But fear not any longer. I will stay out of your (collective you) hair since it's all so very disturbing to you.

Oh, look.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp

Oh, noes! So biased!

I can't prove it, I can only use my mind to check out the sources they cite and decide if their research was valid - which, so far I haven't seen a compelling reason to question. Can you prove that truth or fiction is reliable and unbiased? They don't support any candidate, LOL. One of them is Canadian for crying out loud.


You are missing the point. It's not the point or opinion that needs to be factual; it is anything presented as evidence that must be factual. If I say "Gosh I'm really worried about xyz happening" that is an opinion. If I say "OMG I TOLD you I was worried about xyz -- look at this email where xyz actually happened to someone!!!" to back myself up, then yea... You have a right to expect the story in that email to be factual. "Well it might as well be true the way things are headed!" isn't good enough.


Expecting someone's anecdotes to be true is entitlement?

It actually IS disturbing to me that you think repeating any old story no matter how true or untrue to support an opinion is A-ok, and that anyone who disagrees is an entitlement baby.

No, expecting a bail out when someone is scammed when they had a legal right to read and sign a contract before they got a loan, for example.

I did NOT present it as evidence or non-evidence. I simply posted something I read. And then got ganged up on and chewed out for it.

Done. So sorry I posted.

Interestingly enough, Dober...Truthorfiction thinks pretty highly of Snopes:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

What does that... have to do with the rest of the thread?


What I'm struggling to understand, then, is why post it at all? If you don't believe it's true and you don't intend for it to support your opinions about the state of gun control in this country... why pass along something like this at all? Just as a nice bedtime story?

The founding fathers recognized that there may be a need to alter certain parts of the constitution, a put in place a method for doing just that. It's difficult, but it can be done. The constitution has been changed to "move with the times," such as with the abolishment of slavery.

HUGS phooey on them . I read it and was intrigued enough to go look into it more.
which is what I do with chain letters. I look up the happenings and decide from there.
Thanks for sharing I had not gotten that one yet.

please tell me I am misunderstanding you and you are not suggesting that the constitution should not have been changed to abolish slavery.

Words cannot even describe how I feel right now. Please tell me when you said the constitution was not meant to be messed with you were just referring to guns.

Abolishing slavery makes you sad?

I for one am VERY happy that the constitution is a living document and allows for change and growth.

If not most of us here wouldnt even be able to vote!!

See, this is the problem. You didn't ask, "what do you think of this," nor did you originally state any doubt about how true it is. You can ask about gun rights and mental health.

What you did though, was copy that, and identified it as fact. Its just like me coming to the forum and saying, the only way to train a dog is to beat it with a rock. Both are demonstrably false, no matter where the information came from.

Truthfully, there is so much crap coming from the pro gun groups that I won't believe anything they say. This would be bad if the government did want to restrict guns. The boy who cried wolf?

There are some threats to gun ownership. NYC is one. Potential bans on high capacity magazines, why are black plastic guns are regulated more strictly than wooden ones.

I think the thread is making her sad.

The amount of vitriol directed at her makes me sad.

Vitriol? Really?

What is it about gun ownership that makes some people so paranoid!? NOBODY CARES about your stupid guns! No one wants to take them away! Wanting responsible gunownership does not equate to being anti-gun! The original post is spam because it is unverified information meant to start a political argument.

I can't speak for anyone else, but there was no venom in my response. I'm kind of amazed though that anyone would expect a positive response after posting a politically inflammatory, totally unsubstantiated chain email on a forum.

That is incorrect.