Real news vs. Fake news... with all this talk, let's take a real look.

[emilynghiem]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

"Liberal moral beliefs" are synonymous with the bill of rights and the ideal that we are all equal under the law. There is no blind moral certitude or spirituality involved, just the rule of law.

Dear occupied yes that's the ideal.

So how can we treat and include beliefs equally such as for or against gay marriage through govt.

If we don't agree on prayer through govt we remove it and keep laws neutral and secular.

What about marriages and civil unions? Can we agree to either consensus on marriage laws or removing them and only keep civil unions through the state?

I also tried going the other direction with this -- if states recognize gay marriage against people's beliefs what about an agreement to also allow prayer, creation, spiritual healing and other faith based beliefs into public institutions instead of excluding those on principle.
I've pitched that idea to people and got some takers. Who would agree to put up with gay marriage against their beliefs if they can have God and prayer back by the same standards of tolerance and inclusion.

I can't predict much less dictate what each state might come up with but I definitely believe it is Constitutionally necessary to include and represent all beliefs in making laws that touch on issues like marriage, so whatever solutions are agreed on will be fair to all. Not forced by bullying by coercion or exclusion.

 

[occupied]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

"Liberal moral beliefs" are synonymous with the bill of rights and the ideal that we are all equal under the law. There is no blind moral certitude or spirituality involved, just the rule of law.

Dear occupied yes that's the ideal.

So how can we treat and include beliefs equally such as for or against gay marriage through govt.

If we don't agree on prayer through govt we remove it and keep laws neutral and secular.

What about marriages and civil unions? Can we agree to either consensus on marriage laws or removing them and only keep civil unions through the state?

That particular issue was never anything I felt strongly about either way, I knew where it would end up if all those anti-gay marriage laws made it to the supreme court. The problem was that the militant Christians never even tried to make a legal argument why gay people could not get married and enjoy the full legal rights and protections afforded everyone else. They lost the argument for the same reason that those opposed to inter-racial marriage lost. Taking it as an attack on faith is incorrect, the question was forced by those on either side of the debate and it turned out in the only way it could have turned out because it was never a question of religious faith but one of equal rights.

 

[hazlnut]

The following items link to sources.

Saddam's Nuclear Weapons, Assad Used Sarin Gas On His Own People, Humans Are Warming The Planet, Side Mounted Fuel Tanks, Radiation is Good For You, Food Lion, Israel's Attack on USS Liberty Was Just an Accident, Torpedoes in The Gulf of Tonkin, Spanish Mine in Havana Harbor, USS Iowa Explosion Was Caused by a Gay Sailor, Putin Shot Down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, TWA 800 Was Destroyed By a Fuel Tank Explosion And The Hundreds of Witnesses Who Saw a Missile Hit the 747 Were All Drunk, John F. Kennedy Was Assassinated By a Lone Gunman, Robert Kennedy Was Assassinated From Behind by a Palestinian Standing in Front of Him Who Fired 14 Shots From a Gun That Held only 8 bullets, The Lusitania Was Not Smuggling Weapons to Britain When Sunk by the Germans, Vaccines Are Safe, GMOs Are Safe, Food Sold at Organic Stores is Just as Bad as Supermarket Food, Jaunita Broaddrick Was Not Raped, Gennifer Flowers Was a Flake, Vincent Foster Committed Suicide, Brian Williams Was Shot Down (And Other Lies), If You Like Your Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor, The NSA Does Not Spy on US Citizens, Common Core is Quality Education, Glyphosate is Safe, The Gulf of Mexico is Perfectly Fine After the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, Mercury in Vaccines and Dental Fillings is Harmless, Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease but Statins Will Save You, The Stock Market Proves the Entire Economy is Working, 94 Million Americans Out of Work Translates to a 5% Unemployment Rate, Illegal Immigrants Do Not Bring Disease Into the US But Unvaccinated Children Are a Danger Even to Vaccinated Children, Dr. William Thompson And His Confession of Rigging the CDC Report on Vaccines and Autism is an Urban Legend, Aspartame is Safe, Monica Lewinsky story ignored, Bush Said Al Qaeda is no Longer a Problem, Arnold Schwarzenegger groped six women, US Troops Gang-Raped Iraqi Women, Hillary Will Win the 2016 Election in a Landslide, Pearl Harbor Was a Complete Surprise, Rather: John F. Kennedy's Head Rocketed FORWARD From the Head Shot, Rather again: George Bush Got Special Treatment in the National Guard, Sarah Palin to Blame for Gabby Gifford shooting, Mitt Romney is a Homophobe, Mitt Romney is Racist, Gang-rape as Fraternity Initiation, 8-Year Old Heroin Addict in DC...

Now, you all remember to believe the "Real" Media and ignore the "Fake" media when they point out these itty bitty trivial goofs, because Ignorance Is Strength!

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
-- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising".
former NBC news President Rubin Frank

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference."
-- Edward R. Murrow

Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1880, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Sun, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "


Read more: A BY NO MEANS COMPLETE LIST OF FAKE NEWS STORIES FROM THE SELF-DESCRIBED "REAL" MEDIA! | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Every single one of those stories was backed up by sources and checked according to journalistic standards--often they were reporting what someone else said on the record or in a press statement.

That's real news.

Get over it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

"Liberal moral beliefs" are synonymous with the bill of rights and the ideal that we are all equal under the law. There is no blind moral certitude or spirituality involved, just the rule of law.

Dear occupied yes that's the ideal.

So how can we treat and include beliefs equally such as for or against gay marriage through govt.

If we don't agree on prayer through govt we remove it and keep laws neutral and secular.

What about marriages and civil unions? Can we agree to either consensus on marriage laws or removing them and only keep civil unions through the state?

That particular issue was never anything I felt strongly about either way, I knew where it would end up if all those anti-gay marriage laws made it to the supreme court. The problem was that the militant Christians never even tried to make a legal argument why gay people could not get married and enjoy the full legal rights and protections afforded everyone else. They lost the argument for the same reason that those opposed to inter-racial marriage lost. Taking it as an attack on faith is incorrect, the question was forced by those on either side of the debate and it turned out in the only way it could have turned out because it was never a question of religious faith but one of equal rights.

An atheist does not need to argue except on principle alone to remove a cross from a public building. A Muslim does not need to justify beliefs in abstaining from pork. The people I know including gay and non-Christian who just don't believe gay marriage is natural and don't believe this should be endorsed by the state don't need to justify their beliefs when they have no problem with all people just keeping civil unions through the state and keep marriage a free and equal choice for everyone outside govt.

The main issue with marriage has been managing social benefits through govt.

There is no reason this can't be separated since it involves beliefs about charity, free market and tax paid govt welfare. If people don't agree on terms, there's no reason this can't be divided by party. Lots of liberals I know would rather pay taxes for health care and not war/military, while lots of conservatives would rather pay for defense and benefits for vets but not deadbeat welfare cases the liberals have sympathy for. So why not let taxpayers have that choice, organize the budgets by party lines, and manage and regulate the taxes of their members proportionally to go into the social programs and political beliefs of their choice. Those who endorse gay marriage can include that in the terms for paying benefits while others don't have to if they don't believe in endorsing that publicly.

Where we all agree can go into the general fund or budget for specific areas we agree to vote on as normal.
But where we do NOT agree due to uncompromising political beliefs, that's where we hold special sessions by party to work out agreed terms.
I think this would renew faith in govt and utilize parties to represent interests but without bullying to dominate over others; members would already retain rights to fund their beliefs. If there are threats of abuse or imposition then the parties address each other for purpose of resolving these issues. So it would reward responsible representation and self governing resources, even creating jobs and tracks for training future govt leaders in managing diverse areas of policy.

BTW occupied
to treat all couples as equal without imposing beliefs on marriage through govt, that's where I agree with secular approaches of having civil unions through govt for all partners independent of beliefs about social relationships.
It would be for domestic partnerships, estate, custody, guardianship etc and keep marriage and divorce out of govt. Only deal with the secular financial and legal terms of the contract

The social conditions should be kept personal choice and out of govt hands.

Trying to use govt for social recognition is like trying to endorse Christian or Buddhist beliefs the way LGBT beliefs are pushed to seek validation.

I.dont think that's the right way to do that, but becomes a violation of rights to impose faith based beliefs through govt that aren't agreed to equally by the public.

People should not be discriminated against by their identity and beliefs, but all people still should have free choice whether to accept or reject same sex relations as natural or not. That is personal and should neither be denied nor endorsed by law.

So pushing this belief in gay marriage through govt is not neutral and not Religious Freedom..

Why can't we separate the two issues.
Couples can all have equal rights to marriage by keeping civil unions through the govt. And that doesn't require govt to endorse ANY beliefs about marriage. So that's neutral and not establishing any faith based beliefs about couples or marriage that are kept out of govt.

 

[occupied]

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

"Liberal moral beliefs" are synonymous with the bill of rights and the ideal that we are all equal under the law. There is no blind moral certitude or spirituality involved, just the rule of law.

Dear occupied yes that's the ideal.

So how can we treat and include beliefs equally such as for or against gay marriage through govt.

If we don't agree on prayer through govt we remove it and keep laws neutral and secular.

What about marriages and civil unions? Can we agree to either consensus on marriage laws or removing them and only keep civil unions through the state?

That particular issue was never anything I felt strongly about either way, I knew where it would end up if all those anti-gay marriage laws made it to the supreme court. The problem was that the militant Christians never even tried to make a legal argument why gay people could not get married and enjoy the full legal rights and protections afforded everyone else. They lost the argument for the same reason that those opposed to inter-racial marriage lost. Taking it as an attack on faith is incorrect, the question was forced by those on either side of the debate and it turned out in the only way it could have turned out because it was never a question of religious faith but one of equal rights.

An atheist does not need to argue except on principle alone to remove a cross from a public building. A Muslim does not need to justify beliefs in abstaining from pork.

as for marriage the problem has been managing social benefits through govt.

There is no reason this can't be separated since it involves beliefs about charity, free market and tax paid govt welfare. If people don't agree on terms, there's no reason this can't be divided by party. Lots of liberals I know would rather pay taxes for health care and not war/military, while lots of conservatives would rather pay for defense and benefits for vets but not deadbeat welfare cases the liberals have sympathy for. So why not let taxpayers have that choice, organize the budgets by party lines, and manage and regulate the taxes of their members proportionally to go into the social programs and political beliefs of their choice.
Where we all agree can go into the general fund or budget for specific areas we agree to vote on as normal.
But where we do NOT agree due to uncompromising political beliefs, that's where we hold special sessions by party to work out agreed terms.
I think this would renew faith in govt and utilize parties to represent interests but without bullying to dominate over others; members would already retain rights to fund their beliefs. If there are threats of abuse or imposition then the parties address each other for purpose of resolving these issues. So it would reward responsible representation and self governing resources, even creating jobs and tracks for training future govt leaders in managing diverse areas of policy.

Equal protection under the law makes splitting things up impossible. Laws must apply to all people on an equal basis or they are unconstitutional. It's a cool thought experiment to come up with different systems and tweaks to the way we do things but the reality is that we must work within the system we have had for a very long time. In the long run it tends towards an impartial kind of fairness that escapes those who cannot see the other side of the argument. We live in a country where social justice eventually prevails, there are always people who wanted things to stay the same but after a while these startling and divisive social changes simply become part of our shared social values. Standing against social change is futile and getting personally insulted by the way society is is the most useless waste of energy there is. Might as well be complaining about the weather.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies. And typical conservative, you have no explanation for what or how you believe.

If you people bothered to read, learn, fact check or look at sources, you'd learn how completely ignorant conservative values really are.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies. And typical conservative, you have no explanation for what or how you believe.

If you people bothered to read, learn, fact check or look at sources, you'd learn how completely ignorant conservative values really are.

Then why read it and respond to me you daffy old hag?

Go away

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies. And typical conservative, you have no explanation for what or how you believe.

If you people bothered to read, learn, fact check or look at sources, you'd learn how completely ignorant conservative values really are.

Dear Dragonlady What do you not understand about conservative values?
1. To reward citizens for investing and managing their own resources as much as possible for self govt and minimalize the cost of federal govt so it works more efficiently by focusing on areas that only national govt can do (and not abuse govt for social programs that people and states can do better locally).
2. To enforce the Constitution to limit check and balance govt. Which if done consistently would prevent abuses of govt for conflicts of corporate and political interest instead of sticking with public duty and representation .
3. To teach responsibility for laws belongs with People and not depending on govt. With ownership comes empowerment and independence, and authority comes from embracing and enforcing laws equally as govt. People depending on others to govern them will never be equal but remain politically dependent and exploited for their votes.

Are these conflicting or problematic to you Dragonlady
Which parts and how should these be improved to uplift people to be independent and self governing for true social equality instead of rejecting people for remaining dependent on govt because of lack of skills and support to move toward self reliance?

 

[MaryL]

Global warming is "fake " news? Given the fact most scientists accept man made global climate change, then WHY is the climate changing so radically in the last 20 years? the other lies are solar fluctuations and volcanoes are causing this climate mess we are in now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

Sorry occupied
Even if liberal beliefs are not an official organized church religion, similar to atheism and secular humanism,
Iceweasel is right in spirit in that
1. Liberals who rely on Govt for public rights and collective authority ARE in essence using Govt as the central God authority to take responsibility
2. The Democratic Party IS used as a Political Religion, to establish through federal govt the Belief in right to marriage and the Belief in right to health care as well as Faith Based Beliefs that LGBT identity/orientation are natural and not a choice that can change. If you look as TX Democratic Party Platform it states "we BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"
3. What is problematic is discrimination by creed. If Liberal Political beliefs are pushed through govt, those are considered rights by law. But if opposing beliefs are pushed through govt, those must be removed by separation of church and state. Statism applies when liberal beliefs about rights are pushed through govt, even at the expense of equal beliefs in States rights or civil liberties that can't be deprived without due process to prove which people committed crimes.

This is what is meant by liberalism.

Believing global warming science is established proven fact, but gender is fluid and not based on birth.

Believing in prochoice when it comes to abortion, but federal govt regulating choices of health care, even depending on federal insurance for access to birth control.

Not requiring people to pay back taxpayers if their crimes rack up costs in ER and hospitals or prisons, but charging law abiding taxpayers for the cost of health care mandates instead of holding wrongdoers responsible for running up costs.

This may not be a church religion, but it's using govt in place of churches to provide social services. Unlike religions that are free choice to donate to or participate in, when political religions are forced on people by law, such as ACA, there is NO free choice but people are FINED for not complying, even where this violates Constitutional beliefs in limits on federal govt and in separation from state rights.

So occupied it becomes More oppressive than a church Religion. Because a state religion is mandatory to fund and follow under penalty of law.

 

[occupied]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

Sorry occupied
Even if liberal beliefs are not an official organized church religion, similar to atheism and secular humanism,
Iceweasel is right in spirit in that
1. Liberals who rely on Govt for public rights and collective authority ARE in essence using Govt as the central God authority to take responsibility
2. The Democratic Party IS used as a Political Religion, to establish through federal govt the Belief in right to marriage and the Belief in right to health care as well as Faith Based Beliefs that LGBT identity/orientation are natural and not a choice that can change. If you look as TX Democratic Party Platform it states "we BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"
3. What is problematic is discrimination by creed. If Liberal Political beliefs are pushed through govt, those are considered rights by law. But if opposing beliefs are pushed through govt, those must be removed by separation of church and state. Statism applies when liberal beliefs about rights are pushed through govt, even at the expense of equal beliefs in States rights or civil liberties that can't be deprived without due process to prove which people committed crimes.

This is what is meant by liberalism.

Believing global warming science is established proven fact, but gender is fluid and not based on birth.

Believing in prochoice when it comes to abortion, but federal govt regulating choices of health care, even depending on federal insurance for access to birth control.

Not requiring people to pay back taxpayers if their crimes rack up costs in ER and hospitals or prisons, but charging law abiding taxpayers for the cost of health care mandates instead of holding wrongdoers responsible for running up costs.

This may not be a church religion, but it's using govt in place of churches to provide social services. Unlike religions that are free choice to donate to or participate in, when political religions are forced on people by law, such as ACA, there is NO free choice but people are FINED for not complying, even where this violates Constitutional beliefs in limits on federal govt and in separation from state rights.

So occupied it becomes More oppressive than a church Religion. Because a state religion is mandatory to fund and follow under penalty of law.

I see I have been unable to explain why political agendas and religious faiths are not the same thing in the eyes of the law. I understand your opinions but the laws established by the constitution and the supreme court are the final legal word on what is religious and what is secular. It's not that your arguments have no merit they just do not have a recognized legal basis. I wish many things were different as well but the system is what it is. I do not know what else to tell you.

 

[Iceweasel]

IRONY ALERT!

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies.

 

[Iceweasel]

I see I have been unable to explain why political agendas and religious faiths are not the same thing in the eyes of the law.

Strawman argument. Liberal ideology is very much based on faith and treating government as God. Liberalism is a political religion, just disagree with a liberal and you are evil.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies. And typical conservative, you have no explanation for what or how you believe.

If you people bothered to read, learn, fact check or look at sources, you'd learn how completely ignorant conservative values really are.

Then why read it and respond to me you daffy old hag?

Go away

All that is required for evil to flourish is for people of good conscience to do nothing.

Truth is the destroyer of lies. Keep posting lies, and I'll call you out on them. Don't fact check, I'll nail your stupid lazy ass to the wall.

Stupid can't be helped but ignorance is caused by your own intellectual laziness.

 

[Iceweasel]

All that is required for evil to flourish is for people of good conscience to do nothing.

Exactly! Americans did something November 8th to stop the evil. You serve as evidence that it was a good thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

Everything you post is a waste of time, misinformation or outright lies. And typical conservative, you have no explanation for what or how you believe.

If you people bothered to read, learn, fact check or look at sources, you'd learn how completely ignorant conservative values really are.

Then why read it and respond to me you daffy old hag?

Go away

All that is required for evil to flourish is for people of good conscience to do nothing.

Truth is the destroyer of lies. Keep posting lies, and I'll call you out on them. Don't fact check, I'll nail your stupid lazy ass to the wall.

Stupid can't be helped but ignorance is caused by your own intellectual laziness.

You're the biggest liar in this forum.

 

[louie888]

 

[louie888]

 

[louie888]

'Fake News' is a contrivance of the fakestream media that has completely lost control of every narrative... and now they're panicking

 

[g5000]

For years now, the credulous people on this forum have been parroting an average of one hoax per week.

In the past month, their credulousness has skyrocketed to about a hoax a day, sometimes two or three!

There is an expression we all know. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What does it say about you if you have been fooled HUNDREDS of times by the same propaganda mills?

To keep going back to be lied to again and again and again and again is actual mental retardation.

I have to wonder what it will take for these people to come to their senses since...

...Fox News said there was a "stand down order", and there was no stand down order…

Since The Blaze said a Mexican was stuffing an Arizona ballot box, and that Mexican was NOT stuffing an Arizona ballot box…

Since Breitbart said Chuck Hagel met with Friends of Hamas, and there is no such thing as the Friends of Hamas.

Since Bill O'Reilly said he was in combat, when he was a thousand miles from combat...

Since Fox News said the Marines guarding our embassy in Egypt were denied live ammo, and our Marines were NOT denied live ammo…

Since the right wing media hacks said 93 million people will lose their employer health insurance by the end of 2014, and 93 million people have NOT lost their health insurance…

Since Laura Ingraham said Obama was going to be impeached within three weeks, and Obama was NOT impeached…

Since Fox News said you can print ballots at home in Colorado, and you CANNOT print ballots at home in Colorado…

Since the credulous were told Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren had deleted Hillary from their Twitter accounts, and they did NOT delete Hillary from their Twitter accounts…

Since the credulous were told Obama was born in Kenya, and Obama was NOT born in Kenya…

Since the rubes were told Obama demanded to be sworn in on the Koran, and Obama did NOT demand to be sworn in on the Koran…

Since the credulous were told Obama banned Christmas cards on Military Bases, and Obama did NOT ban Christmas cards on military bases…

Since Fox News reported Obama banned Nativity scenes by Executive Order, and Obama did NOT ban Nativity scenes…

Since the credulous were told Obama cut God out of his Thanksgiving addresses every year, and believed it without even…you know…LOOKING to see if that was true, and Obama did NOT leave God out of any of his Thanksgiving or Christmas messages…

Since Fox News reported Obama used his own money to keep a Muslim museum open during a government shutdown, and Obama did NOT use his own money to keep a Muslim museum open during the shutdown…

Since World News Daily reported Obama wears a Muslim ring which says “There Is No God But Allah”, and Obama does NOT wear a Muslim ring which says “There Is No God But Allah”…

Since Fox News reported “far more children died last year drowning in their bath tubs than were accidentally killed by guns”, and far more children died from accidental gun deaths…

Since Fox News reported the Texas School Board of Education is considering banning references to Christmas and the Constitution, and the Texas School Board of Education is NOT considering banning references to Christmas and the Constitution…

Since the credulous bleeved Obama banned the Confederate flag by Executive Order…

Since the credulous bleeved Operation Jade Helm was a joint UN/US government takeover of the American southwest…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that said Obama has banned the Pledge of Allegiance…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax about a Bill Clinton rape video…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that Yoko Ono had an affair with Hillary Clinton…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax about a postal worker destroying Trump ballots…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that Clinton’s campaign chairman wrote a racist screed that was actually written by a Netherlands nazi…

Since Donald Trump and millions of his Chumps fell for a hoax that John Podesta wrote something about Benghazi that a Newsweek reporter actually wrote…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax the Oregon mass shooter was on a Russian terror watch list which Obama refused to take…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that the Pope said there is no true religion and there is no hell…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax about a Hillary body double on 9/11…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax video about Democratic primary voting fraud which was actually a video of Russian voting fraud which had been deliberately manipulated…

Since the credulous parroted a lie that Obama was trying to get us all killed by Ebola, and that Ebola was going to kill millions of American last year…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax about Obama being snubbed for handshakes…

Since the credulous fell for the “death panels” hoax…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that 70 Congressional Democrats are members of the Communist party…

Since the credulous fell for a hoax that DHS had bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo…

At what point do you fools WAKE UP!?!?!