Help Support VMAX Forum:
True some things need to be checked, but snopes does have its own agenda as well. I'm certain that every one on this forum is familiar with the project veritas videos that came out earlier this week. So, the videos came out earlier this week, and snopes has posted a page on the videos dated the 18th. DAMN, that was quick, and they DONT disprove the videos but they talk about James OKeefe at length and trying to shade the videos that way. So yes the videos have been edited....but.....the thing to realize that if you have multiple interviews, you have to edit everything to put it in the same video, otherwise a single interview might last 2 hrs, with the relevant portion only taking up 2 minutes. So, were they edited in such a way to change the context of the conversation.....I dont think so, but by the tone of the article snopes is shading.
I was told this a few years ago and I would say 85% of the time its true. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives look at Liberals like they are ignorant..."Hey here are the facts, that you arent paying attention to". Liberals look at Conservatives like they are EVIL. "Hey your racist, homophobic, sexist, and you WANT to kill polar bears with your damn global warming..ER....climate change....er...what ever the f**k its called now days."
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos
I was told this a few years ago and I would say 85% of the time its true. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives look at Liberals like they are ignorant..."Hey here are the facts, that you arent paying attention to". Liberals look at Conservatives like they are EVIL. "Hey your racist, homophobic, sexist, and you WANT to kill polar bears with your damn global warming..ER....climate change....er...what ever the f**k its called now days."
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos
sdt354
Well-Known Member
I'm not getting what makes Snoop's the final authority on facts. They rebut almost everything. Better on the side of caution than being caught off guard. And we're looking to be caught off guard. The only saving grace might be the neglect of promises made to get elected. It scares me when the wealthy have more than they need and now seek power. Our system of election needs a revamp. Political contributions are the utmost in corruption. Equal war chest, with a limit. Contributions from abroad, not allowed. The two party system is not working anymore.
tothemax93
Well-Known Member
So, is the author in question or the facts? Everything in that article is happening for all to see.
I agree that snopes may have their own agenda so lets look at this case. What is their agenda here ? Looks like to document posted was not created by the person it is attributed too. That is a fact not a point of view. It's using made up statements and a scary author to paint liberals as people who are trying to destroy the country. I'm a liberal and I love our country just as much as conservatives do but we just have different ideas on how to make our country better. While I did not like President Bush (W) he was still my president and I respected the will of the people. I've read many comments here saying 'someone should put a bullet in him', 'he's not my president', plus others that are even worse concerning President Obama. I never have said or even thought about any of our presidents this way but for some here it's considered normal. I respect my VMAX brothers opinions and will try to point out falsehoods when I see them but your opinions are your own.
![Bovemanx Motorcycle Phone Mount Holder, [150mph Wind Anti-Shake][7.2inch Big Phone Friendly] Bike Phone Holder, Motorcycle Handlebar Cell Phone Clamp, Compatible with iPhone 16 Pro Max Smartphones](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51F+1sontPL._SL500_.jpg)
caseyjones955
Well-Known Member
sdt354;444868[I said:
+1
I see it like this.
What am I being asked to believe?
Is there any evidence to support it?
How else can that evidence be interpreted?
Any evidence to the contrary?
All things considered, what is most likely to be the truth?
No matter who wrote this paper, it does hold some water, and there is clear and powerful evidence that would support the view that it is being implemented, and not much to the contrary. Some things just make to much sense to be overlooked. When we view any news or info source we must remember that EVERYONE has a bias in this highly controversial election.
Snopes or not, anything that can be googled can be colored, when we break it down and consider what is most likely to be the truth I think most of us come to a similar conclusion on this.
tothemax93
Well-Known Member
As far as the comments about obama, They were 10x worse about bush. the press pounded him every day. everything, no matter what was bushes fault. It still goes on today. I wonder how this would fly, if they made a movie with the fictional assassination of Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-imagined-the-assassination-of-george-w-bush/
What your hitting on here is the difference between a liberal, and a liberal leftist. A leftist is the one that forces there liberal ideas. For example, the NY safe act, Forcing the baker to make a cake for a gay wedding. Your ideas are for the good of the people. The leftists ideas are for power and control, in the name of "the good of the people". How eye opening is it that it's considered racist to require ID to vote, but It's required to buy a beer. Whether it's true or not, it reeks of corruption. And it is true. voter fraud is alive and well. Hilary Clinton is a global leftist.
Again snopes agenda here. Snopes stated that Saul Alinsky did not write the article how to create a social state, but snopes DID say that found amongst his writings was a "List" of power tactics.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
So unfortunately most people are black and white, and will only read the first portion of the article and will believe the ENTIRE article is bogus. People forget that Obama grew up in a household where his grandparents were card carrying communists, and his mother went to a communist school, and Frank Davis was also communist. So question, do people think that Obama WASNT influenced by this upbringing?
Yes, you are correct, the office of the president of the United States is deserving inherent respect, and thats why you will not here me speak like, He needs a bullet, etc....BUT ANYONE that says that their goal is to fundamentally change America? I have to respect the office.....I dont have to respect the man.
Last edited:
I really don't care what Snopes has to say or who wrote the article that I posted.
I've seen an effort to move in the directions that it brings out. It may not be the view
of all Democrats to move in the direction as it is stated but It seems to be happening
to an extreme extent more and more. Believe me or not, as stated everyone has their
own right to believe as they will. I post a lot of radical ideas. it's up to you. Defend me
or attack me for it. you have that right too.
Dave
I've seen an effort to move in the directions that it brings out. It may not be the view
of all Democrats to move in the direction as it is stated but It seems to be happening
to an extreme extent more and more. Believe me or not, as stated everyone has their
own right to believe as they will. I post a lot of radical ideas. it's up to you. Defend me
or attack me for it. you have that right too.
Dave
Can't edit so here's a new post with a link:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is+snopes+a+liberal+organization&form=EDGEAR&qs=AS&cvid=1d1dd7026a12427eb2a31368c2414b6d&pq=is+snopes+a+liberal
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is+snopes+a+liberal+organization&form=EDGEAR&qs=AS&cvid=1d1dd7026a12427eb2a31368c2414b6d&pq=is+snopes+a+liberal
1> The increase in poverty isn't a liberal agenda. It's an oligarch agenda. And oligarchs come in both flavors -- red and blue -- Democrat and Republican. Republicans have just as bad a track record with budgets and debt and spending as Democrats do. As long as the oligarchs have the people in a proverbial Hatfield vs McCoys -- they're power stays in check.
2> Class warfare is a by product of step 1.
3> The erosion of Christianity is due to the progress of science, not liberals. It's there in the history books, the erosion of Christianity has been a long and slow one over the course of centuries as science progresses. And science accelerates exponentially -- therefore so does the erosion of Christianity. Also having the most powerful Christian church proving to have a long standing tradition and system of sheltering pedophiles doesn't help the image either. IMO Pope Francis is doing a very commendable job trying to repair image of the Catholic Church. But it's a herculean task. And lets not try to pretend the Christian right isn't just as guilty of trying to influence public school curriculums.
4> Gun control. I'm a gun owner - I own 6 firearms. I am concerned about my rights as a gun owner. But I also like to keep things rational. Just recently in my state of Missouri they passed Senate Bill 656 and it removed the requirement for training to have a conceal carry permit. I was opposed to it and i know a few firearms instructors that were as well. Why? Because the Missouri conceal carry permit had large reciprocity among other states. This will most certainly effect that reciprocity. When I did my conceal carry training there was an older woman who failed the course. She couldn't hit the target at all. All of her shots were hitting the floor a few feet in front of the target. During the lecture part of the course the instructor asked "You are licensed to carry, you are walking to your car and you see a dog coming at you -- what do you do?" The woman who couldn't hit a stationary target said she would land a head shot on the dog in that situation. She failed the course. Even though she couldn't carry, she could still own a firearm and defend her home or herself while in a car. I felt that was a fair compromise. But now she can conceal carry and I pray a dog doesnt scare her.
All I've been hearing for the last eight years is Obama is gonna take my guns away. Look, if 20 1st graders getting shot point blank in the face with an AR-15 and their blood is splattered on their school room wall like a fucking finger paint project doesn't en-act gun control, I think you can feel pretty safe he's not going to take your guns away. BTW, when we're talking about "bad hombres" and "refugee terrorists" lets remember that sick fuck Adam Lanza was a white American born and raised here. Let's remember the person who killed 12 and injured 70 people in a movie theatre wasn't Muslim or Mexican -- he was a white American male. My point is dangerous people are not exclusive to a religion or race or country of origin.
That's not to say the Democrats don't have a desire to get rid of guns. Many do. But if we keep saying every Democrat is going to take our guns away, it eventually starts a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. We need to keep it rational and reasonable even in the face of irrational and unreasonable liberals trying to do it.
2> Class warfare is a by product of step 1.
3> The erosion of Christianity is due to the progress of science, not liberals. It's there in the history books, the erosion of Christianity has been a long and slow one over the course of centuries as science progresses. And science accelerates exponentially -- therefore so does the erosion of Christianity. Also having the most powerful Christian church proving to have a long standing tradition and system of sheltering pedophiles doesn't help the image either. IMO Pope Francis is doing a very commendable job trying to repair image of the Catholic Church. But it's a herculean task. And lets not try to pretend the Christian right isn't just as guilty of trying to influence public school curriculums.
4> Gun control. I'm a gun owner - I own 6 firearms. I am concerned about my rights as a gun owner. But I also like to keep things rational. Just recently in my state of Missouri they passed Senate Bill 656 and it removed the requirement for training to have a conceal carry permit. I was opposed to it and i know a few firearms instructors that were as well. Why? Because the Missouri conceal carry permit had large reciprocity among other states. This will most certainly effect that reciprocity. When I did my conceal carry training there was an older woman who failed the course. She couldn't hit the target at all. All of her shots were hitting the floor a few feet in front of the target. During the lecture part of the course the instructor asked "You are licensed to carry, you are walking to your car and you see a dog coming at you -- what do you do?" The woman who couldn't hit a stationary target said she would land a head shot on the dog in that situation. She failed the course. Even though she couldn't carry, she could still own a firearm and defend her home or herself while in a car. I felt that was a fair compromise. But now she can conceal carry and I pray a dog doesnt scare her.
All I've been hearing for the last eight years is Obama is gonna take my guns away. Look, if 20 1st graders getting shot point blank in the face with an AR-15 and their blood is splattered on their school room wall like a fucking finger paint project doesn't en-act gun control, I think you can feel pretty safe he's not going to take your guns away. BTW, when we're talking about "bad hombres" and "refugee terrorists" lets remember that sick fuck Adam Lanza was a white American born and raised here. Let's remember the person who killed 12 and injured 70 people in a movie theatre wasn't Muslim or Mexican -- he was a white American male. My point is dangerous people are not exclusive to a religion or race or country of origin.
That's not to say the Democrats don't have a desire to get rid of guns. Many do. But if we keep saying every Democrat is going to take our guns away, it eventually starts a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. We need to keep it rational and reasonable even in the face of irrational and unreasonable liberals trying to do it.
Speaking of 'taking away our guns'....it's looking like Clinton is more than likely going to be the next Democrat boogeyman (boogeybitch?) in line to be accused of going after our guns. Whatever she said regarding what she was gonna do after getting elected was just bullshit to GET elected. She is only concerned about being the first bitch potus.....nothing more. She will make 'closed door deals,' throw friends & colleagues to the wolves, lie, and lie some more.....cause that's her MO.
Taking our guns away is no small task.....and Clinton ain't up for it...plain & simple. When the going gets rough, Clinton's gonna lie, steal, pitch out a few sacrificial lambs and sneak out the back door....you watch!
Taking our guns away is no small task.....and Clinton ain't up for it...plain & simple. When the going gets rough, Clinton's gonna lie, steal, pitch out a few sacrificial lambs and sneak out the back door....you watch!
+1
What would you call somebody who never has told the Truth.
How do you know when a Lawyer is telling a lie. They have their
Mouth Open. HRC............... Once a Lawyer, Always a Lawyer.
Similar threads
