PDA

View Full Version : obama



Yarin
10-22-2008, 03:09 PM
I've seen a few Obama goers on here, I thought I'd share this bit of info with you all.

In Obama's "Audacity Of Hope" he said "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.".
Now, you might be saying "not all muslims are our enemy". Maybe not, maybe so (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp).

Daved
10-22-2008, 03:14 PM
If you like snopes, see the last part of this page:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp

Perspective
10-22-2008, 03:16 PM
everybody that read this thread just got a little stupider.

Thantos
10-22-2008, 03:33 PM
everybody that read this thread just got a little stupider.

truth

psychopath
10-22-2008, 03:49 PM
Any chance of stopping this one before it starts?

zacs7
10-22-2008, 03:50 PM
On the same note, http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/

Which one should I buy?

... lollies

master5001
10-22-2008, 03:55 PM
I get all my information from snopes. Its probably the most fundamentally true and valid source of information ever compiled and spat onto the internet.

Dave_Sinkula
10-22-2008, 04:06 PM
On the same note, http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/

Which one should I buy?

... lollies

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_7600.asp ?

Thantos
10-22-2008, 04:20 PM
I get all my information from snopes. Its probably the most fundamentally true and valid source of information ever compiled and spat onto the internet.

Gotta be careful though, there are a few purposfully untrue ones on snopes.

robwhit
10-22-2008, 05:29 PM
I think it's really funny how all the posters are written in the same handwriting. One person doing the speaking and a bunch of other people doing the parrotting.

Some things just seem to never change... *sigh*

actually, to me, the first one screams photoshop.

Perspective
10-22-2008, 06:00 PM
Gotta be careful though, there are a few purposfully untrue ones on snopes.

nah, there's a snopes article discrediting that ;)

@nthony
10-22-2008, 06:46 PM
On the same note, http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/
Which one should I buy?When it comes to anti-protesting, Barrett recommends you go anti-matter (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_95.aspx).

Thantos
10-22-2008, 08:45 PM
nah, there's a snopes article discrediting that ;)

Truth, but if you don't see the link then you might not now ;)

sean
10-22-2008, 09:53 PM
I'm telling you all, we just need to run away into the wilderness and start a new colony

rags_to_riches
10-23-2008, 06:15 AM
I'm with sean, but unfortunately -- even with the best of intentions -- it would degenerate into much of the same over time. Such is the sad state of human nature.

master5001
10-23-2008, 02:46 PM
Gotta be careful though, there are a few purposfully untrue ones on snopes.

Yeah definitely, was actually pointing out the ironic fact that everyone was siting snopes as their reliable source of information. Which seems outlandish to me.

Daved
10-23-2008, 03:51 PM
>> everyone was siting snopes as their reliable source of information. Which seems outlandish to me. <<

Note that in this instance, it shouldn't be outlandish that Yarin did considering the rest of his post. Also note that I only did in this case because Yarin implied with his post that snopes is reputable, so using snopes to rebut a separate point would seem to be difficult for him to refute (assuming he was approaching the topic from a rational perspective - a very suspect assumption).

Despite that, though, I don't see the problem with using snopes. I find it to be a very good source of information because it explains in objective detail how it comes to its conclusions and provides references to back up the claims made on its various pages allowing the reader to continue the research himself should he so desire. That's what I'd want in a fact-checking website.

Yarin
10-23-2008, 05:50 PM
And a very good comeback it was.
You got me. ;)

About snopes, I only linked to it because that's the link I was given to by a friend. I don't determine the validity of everything based on snope, I just find it to be 'moderatly reliable'.

Mario F.
10-23-2008, 06:58 PM
'moderatly reliable'.

There can't be any better words to describe "fully unreliable".

EDIT: By the way, what makes you think it's moderately reliable? Something they say? You happen to read Obama books? Or, have you ever been sexually harassed by the whole Muslim population? Or... is it you just think it is moderately reliable because it looks moderately reliable?

BobMcGee123
10-23-2008, 07:08 PM
Have you been harassed by the whole muslim population? Must've taken a long time, I mean, it's the second largest religion in the world and all. That's even worse than waiting in the...waiting room, at your doc's office. Although I actually felt sexually harassed last time I was at my doctor's office (made me do the coughing thing), but probably not as harassed as you felt by the whole muslim population.

Daved
10-23-2008, 07:21 PM
BTW, the snopes article linked to by Yarin was accurate (or certainly appears so). It was Yarin's interpretation and comprehension that was lacking.

brewbuck
10-23-2008, 07:58 PM
I've seen a few Obama goers on here, I thought I'd share this bit of info with you all.

In Obama's "Audacity Of Hope" he said "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.".
Now, you might be saying "not all muslims are our enemy". Maybe not, maybe so (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp).

Yeah. Because clearly what he meant was that he sides with the enemy. That's a genius angle to get elected.

Mario F.
10-23-2008, 08:03 PM
BTW, the snopes article linked to by Yarin was accurate (or certainly appears so). It was Yarin's interpretation and comprehension that was lacking.

Yes, precisely what the author of said article meant.
That's accuracy for you.

Perspective
10-23-2008, 08:43 PM
oh look, it's Yarin's mom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwjlUMoLVvA

Thantos
10-23-2008, 09:17 PM
Yes, precisely what the author of said article meant.
That's accuracy for you.

What was inaccurate in the article? The question posed in the article was if the images were real, according to their research they are. And text does a fairly good job of balancing both sides.

It isn't snope's "job" to condemn or support a given position. They are simply trying to weed out the false rumors from the true ones.

Daved
10-23-2008, 09:40 PM
>> Yes, precisely what the author of said article meant.
That's accuracy for you. <<

I don't understand this post. It seems like sarcasm, but I don't get it. Could you clarify what you're trying to say?

Mario F.
10-23-2008, 09:56 PM
It isn't snope's "job" to condemn or support a given position. They are simply trying to weed out the false rumors from the true ones.

Are they?
- Where's the sources of the pictures?
- Where's the links to the articles?
- Why they have a script not enabling you to copy/paste text?
- What's weeding out false rumors with quotes such as "Why would anyone think we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Moslems!?"

Weeding out false rumors is not what snopes.com ever did. I'm even surprised why anyone gives that BS of a website any consideration.

As for this one in particular it's just yet another lame article about a bunch of radical Moslem protesters who represent a tiny fraction of the entire population. As if we didn't see enough of that. Want to see placards inciting violence, murder and death in a rally? You don't need Moslems for that. That's plenty of that a little all around the world. Give me a fruking break.

Thantos
10-23-2008, 09:59 PM
Are they?
- Where's the sources of the pictures?
- Where's the links to the articles?
- Why they have a script not enabling you to copy/paste text?
- What's weeding out false rumors with quotes such as "Why would anyone think we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Moslems!?"

Weeding out false rumors is not what snopes.com ever did. I'm even surprised why anyone gives that BS of a website any consideration.

As for this one in particular it's just yet another lame article about a bunch of radical Moslem protesters who represent a tiny fraction of the entire population. As if we didn't see enough of that. Want to see placards inciting violence, murder and death in a rally? You don't need Moslems for that. That's plenty of that a little all around the world. Give me a fruking break.
Did you even read the articles? Sources are listed at the bottom of the page. The fact that those in question represented a minority was also addressed in the article.

Stop trying to be an offended jerk like always.

Daved
10-23-2008, 10:02 PM
>> What's weeding out false rumors with quotes such as "Why would anyone think we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Moslems!?" <<

I think you're just confused. Do you realize that everything in green is the quoted text of whatever they are debunking or verifying? In this case, the quote was from an email collected in 2006, not from snopes. The rest of the article (on white background) is snopes' assessment of the truth of that email and others like it.

Mario F.
10-23-2008, 10:12 PM
Stop trying to be an offended jerk like always.

Look what was the bloody rumor?

That people protested on the outset of the cartoons? That those people protesting had placards inciting violence? Are you people kidding me? This is not a rumor. It aired all over the world.

Why is it being treated like a rumor when I saw those bloody images for at least two full weeks on public television? And saw those images on all newspapers I care to read (including two renowned American newspapers?)

What rumor? At least give rumor a good name!

And stop offending me like a jerk. If you don't get what I'm saying, ask.


the quote was from an email collected in 2006

What's the source of the email? Was it spam mail? How many people do they think received these kind of emails? Why was it considered a rumor?

What I argue is the fact most of what that website does is fake rumors. Rumors that never existed but are made as such. It's the worst kind of "rumors".

Daved
10-23-2008, 10:41 PM
>> What's the source of the email?
It's an email forward, who knows what the source is. That's irrelevant to the point of the page.

>> Was it spam mail?
Most likely yes. If not it would have been specified. The site is best known for debunking urban myths and email forwards.

>> How many people do they think received these kind of emails?
Ask them. Is it relevant? I'd imagine they only debunk/verify emails that are widespread enough to get attention outside of being forwarded or that are specifically requested or of interest. An item existing in snopes is not a comment on the relevance of the subject.

>> Why was it considered a rumor?
Who said it was a rumor? They are attempting to verify or debunk a claim.

>> What I argue is the fact most of what that website does is fake rumors.
Why do you think that? Just because you haven't been exposed to the urban myths, email forwards, or other claims it researches doesn't mean they're fake. Please provide an example of an item you think is fake?

>> It's the worst kind of "rumors".
The site is intended to be a fact-checking resource for people to look up claims they've heard or read and get information that verifies or refutes those claims. It is not like they make stuff up just to debunk it. People generally go to snopes with a subject in mind to look up.

I still think you're confused about the site, otherwise I simply don't understand your objection.

Mario F.
10-24-2008, 02:54 AM
>> Please provide an example of an item you think is fake?

This one. Wasn't I obvious enough? For the fact it was news all around the world. If you want to debunk a rumor or myth, first find one.
I'm not going to search the website for other crap I've seen before. But there's more.

As for the treatment it usually gives to these things... I've said my piece; From weird non-copy scripts. to no links to references (instead just a footnote with the names of the references) there's a little bit of everything. And this is not even the worst. It hardly matters the truth of the text, if you purposely assume a position in which you are trying to validate something but then fail to observe the most elementary rules.

Looking at a website like snopes and considering this a reasonable source of information is nonsense, and I don't care if someone's mother is the webmaster. Is this being an offending jerk? Then yes, I'm bloody offending jerk. Welcome.

Daved
10-24-2008, 05:35 AM
>> This one. Wasn't I obvious enough?
Are you claiming that the email never existed? Or are you claiming that nobody ever wondered whether those images were real or not?

>> If you want to debunk a rumor or myth, first find one.
This view seems rather narrow. Just because something seems obvious to you doesn't mean there aren't others who aren't sure of whether to believe it. This is especially true of email forwards, which should almost always be presumed to be false unless you find otherwise.

>> From weird non-copy scripts.
ESPN.com has similar scripts. Should I be looking elsewhere to confirm that the Rays won last night?

>> to no links to references
So not finding online links to sources that might not have been retrieved from the internet implies that the information is completely unreliable?




Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.


I have yet to see an example of snopes being incorrect about something. Do you have any examples? Or are you just basing your opinion on a gut feeling? And I don't understand the hostility.

zacs7
10-24-2008, 06:13 AM
This is exactly what the terries want to happen...

Mario F.
10-24-2008, 06:52 AM
Daved, there's no hostility. Only what you seem to perceive.

Your argumentation is based on casualty. Instead I argument on the basis of correlation. So yes, because of all those things, I find the website useless and its information unreliable. Just because I would have to answer no to your questions, doesn't mean I suddenly have to find the website reliable.

The simple fact is that in my view of of the world is not. And is not because it doesn't provide factual data most of the time (it's not the case of this particular article) and lacks proper references to sources on most of the data it provides.

The actual nocopy script is just a nag easily defeated if one knows how. Not even my main argument, but it further diminishes the chances of someone checking the information provided.

...

As for examples of snopes not providing factual, correct information, or missing sources, I'm purposely not giving you any. And it's been my intention since a little after this debate started. From your own argumentation, I don't need to and you are forced to agree with me that there are such articles.

robwhit
10-24-2008, 09:11 AM
everybody that read this thread just got a little stupider.says it all :D

CChakra
10-30-2008, 07:20 AM
I will say only thing , Obama is king of the world :)

master5001
10-30-2008, 03:59 PM
He is in a scary position. I mean he may get shot. Rednecks are still out there paving your roads, roofing your houses, and mixing up your cement. Just because there aren't hugely publicized KKK events or anything doesn't mean that I am not a little worried about Obama getting attacked.

maxorator
10-31-2008, 05:49 AM
Snopes is yellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism). The sources might be correct, but they are intentionally misinterpreting things to get more attention (and bend the facts).

BobMcGee123
10-31-2008, 07:01 AM
I'm making the claim that all of you are retarded.

Daved
10-31-2008, 10:37 AM
>> they are intentionally misinterpreting things to get more attention (and bend the facts)
Do you have evidence to back up this claim? It would seem that they do just the opposite. Perhaps you're also confused about the difference between the claims they check and the article itself?

>> Snopes is yellow.
Snopes doesn't seem to fit the description in the link you supplied unless you think the claims they are debunking are actually part of the article.

>> I'm making the claim that all of you are retarded.
Snopes has debunked this, too: http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/cprog_retarded/cprog_retarded.asp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg)

master5001
10-31-2008, 11:31 AM
Anyone who puts a smile on my face before 11:00 AM, is a-ok by me. You sir, are such a man.

Yarin
10-31-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm making the claim that all of you are retarded.

Everybody out! I have to poop! NOW
. . . .

psychopath
11-01-2008, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
I'm making the claim that all of you are retarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
Everybody out! I have to poop! NOW
. . . .

Dispite the fact that i'm heavily intoxicated, I take this to mean that you agree, that you are in fact, retarded.

Yarin
11-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Try replying again when you aren't "heavily intoxicated".

Dae
11-04-2008, 05:45 PM
Try replying again when you aren't "heavily intoxicated".

Yarin, get off my loan. Somehow a heavily intoxicated psychopath can tell you're retarded. That's saying something. By the way, Dev-C++ is no longer in development. Miss the memo?

master5001
11-04-2008, 06:40 PM
Burn!