MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-11-01 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] ...'Who,
|
Quoting ruth02-at-web.de (ruth02-at-web.de):
> Rick, it me Ruth again ! Will send you my pic soon and tell you who I
> am...
Hi Ruth! I believe I remember with fondness.
> PS: "Snopes" has already been discredited as a reliable reference
> source- any doubts, let me know, I will send you the link.
Go for it.
I've been relying on Snopes and finding the Mikkelsons' writings
extremely well researched for many decades. Back when I was Chair of
Bay Area Skeptics in the 1990s, Snopes was already a godsend for
debunking false claims. They have decades worth of good work to speak
for them.
That you call that work 'discredited' is suggestive that I'm going to
receive yet another cherry-picking editorial ignoring the substance of
all that, something like "Hey, Snopes used to be good, but then David
and Barbara Mikkelson stepped on my favourite holy political belief, and
anyway they're biased because Barbara's from communist Canada and the
entire site is a scummy liberal bias site. And the voices in our heads
tells us that George Soros and Saul Alinsky are behind it."
https://www.truthorfiction.com/snopes/
Rating includes: 'Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an
authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded
emails....'
Page also reproduces examples of viral rumour e-mails that started
circulating in 2008 trying to claim they're just a liberal hit site,
and completely fail to sustantiate any of that to the satisfaction
of anyone with half a brain. And, sure enough, the rumours darkly
talk about funding by Soros! I believe I get 'bingo!' with that.
Page also mordantly comments that no sooner than they dissected
this tattered rumour e-mail than they started being barraged with
accusations of themselves being 'communist' and such.
So, sure, sent me what you have -- but I frankly expect the usual
recycled bullshit thrown together without even trying very hard to be
credible outside the magic cicle of epistemic closure.
> By now, we all know that FBI Director James Comey has announced his
> agency has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails,
> just 11 days before the election.
No, that's simply not what Director Comey announced in his hapless
letter.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the ritual recitation,
except:
> 7) She's a race-baiter: Hillary embraces the hate-filled rhetoric
> of Black Lives Matter
Wow, that's special. There's been little in the domestic sphere that's
had greater moral stature than the Black Lives Matter movement,
particularly because they are morally consistent: They go to bat for
non-black people wrongfully killed by the police, understanding that
it's part of the same problem.
Look up the way BlackLivesMatter went to bat for 19-year-old white
teenager Dylan Nobel after he was shot to death by Fresno, California
police, after he was pulled over at a gas station for a traffic
violation and was lying on the ground, unarmed and threatening nobody.
(There is online video, and it's deeply distrubing.)
I can only attribute this 'hate-filled rhetoric' accusation to
a stunning example of projection.
> She was the first to suggest that Obama may not have been born in the
> U.S.
Oh yes: Trump didn't invent and incessantly promote birtherism, Clinton
did. I've heard that one, too. Really, is anyone _actually_ dumb
enough to buy this stuff?
, and she said Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know" (wink,
> wink!).
Actually, she called it a smear. The 60 Minutes transcript from 2008:
You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?
Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I
take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any
reason to doubt that.
You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim.
You don't believe that he's....
No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.
It's just scurrilous?
Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have
a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with
the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
So, she characterised it _explicitly_ as scurillous rumour. This on
behalf of her opponent at the time, during the hotly fought 2008
Democratic Party primary when they were enemies.
So, sorry, that spin is pretty transparent.
I could go on, but I see that this is the same damned list of tattered
misrepresentations, innuendos, personal attacks, etc.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
