CDZ Is it time to create a new thread, "Honesty"?

[Wyatt earp]

It really is time for honesty, a forum which requires every post on every issue to provide probative evidence that what they posted is true, and the powers that be choose the standard they feel best supports honesty, to wit:

Legal Standards are those standards that are set forth in governmental laws. Ethical standards are based on the human principles of right and wrong. Something can be legal but not ethical.

There is no doubt that Ethical Standards hold the truth as good, and a lie bad. It is really that simple, that the Internet in general, and this message board in particular, has members who are honest and who are liars.

I do not and will not suggest censorship. I support allowing the White Nationalists to make their case overtly, and let Black Lives Matter do the same; let the anti Semites make their case, and the Jews make theirs; let the liberals and the conservatives, let the Democrats, let the Republicans, the Libertarians the Greens and the anarchists to speak their mind and explain how they would govern or be governed.

Who's going to be the 'Truth Sheriff'

This is the clean zone, the truth always rises, falsehoods will fade away.

Post your values and principles, and how they would govern and how you would like to be governed is all that is asked.

Postscript: A lies can be challenged by the Mods, or another post which provides probative evidence that what was stated was a lie.

Values and principles are opinions especially when it comes to politics and, after all, this is a political forum. So I ask again, who is going to be "Truth-Sheriff."

What about reputable sources or one of the fact checker sites?

They are all biased tell half truths like MSM

 

[Tilly]

Is it time to create a new thread, "Honesty"?

What’s stopping you?

 

[Auld Phart]

For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

all of the parties of interest?

There were several that made statements under penalty of felony.

I have seen some statements claiming there were up to 40 claiming information on what happened.

I've seen NO source claiming there were that many at the party.

What were they gong to attest to?

That Kavanaugh had sexually molested them as well?

Strange none of them brought charges, isn't it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

 

[Freiheit]

The quality of evidence is of paramount importance. Probative is defined as substantiating. Substantiating is defined: to establish by proof or competent evidence. Socialist World or Stormfront would be examples of incompetent evidence and unacceptable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

all of the parties of interest?

There were several that made statements under penalty of felony.

I have seen some statements claiming there were up to 40 claiming information on what happened.

I've seen NO source claiming there were that many at the party.

What were they gong to attest to?

That Kavanaugh had sexually molested them as well?

Strange none of them brought charges, isn't it?

I've had training from the FBI on interviewing and interrogating witnesses and defendants. In both situations the agent/detective/inspector is taught to take good notes, usually the lead asks the questions, and the second takes the notes.

You've broken rule one when first beginning an investigation, you made the alleged incident and its time and place the primary focus.

Sometimes germane factors in the investigation occurred before the alleged incident, and well after the alleged incident.

Think about this, I'm watching the playoff game and don't want to spend more time on this than necessary.

BTW, Boston leads 6-5.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sometimes germane factors in the investigation occurred before the alleged incident, and well after the alleged incident.

and sometimes memories are faulty.

Unless you have something to back up your supposition the non-interviewed witnesses were credible, it's inadmissible as anything but hearsay.

His buddy, and her bff, both stated they didn't recall
the actions she claimed.

and they were the only two known to be at the party.

 

[MarathonMike]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

This is the Clean Zone. You've offered an opinion, but there is no probative evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was metaphorically lynched or that Dr. Ford's testimony was not true.

Be like Marty, who I rarely (almost always) disagree with, who posted a comment substantive and thought provoking.

The lack of corroboration disproves the allegations of Ford. You really don't want "honesty" you want to preach abut what you "think" honesty is.

This is the clean zone, either lay off the personal attacks or go away. For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

Well 3 bald faced lies with changed story line from Ford And yes they did interview the people she listed as being there. NOT one of them said they were there or remembered any such event.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

LOL you deny that MSNBC and CNN are Biased? What world do you live in?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

This is the Clean Zone. You've offered an opinion, but there is no probative evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was metaphorically lynched or that Dr. Ford's testimony was not true.

Be like Marty, who I rarely (almost always) disagree with, who posted a comment substantive and thought provoking.

The lack of corroboration disproves the allegations of Ford. You really don't want "honesty" you want to preach abut what you "think" honesty is.

This is the clean zone, either lay off the personal attacks or go away. For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

Well 3 bald faced lies with changed story line from Ford And yes they did interview the people she listed as being there. NOT one of them said they were there or remembered any such event.

I'm not trying to convince you, it seems your mind is made up and nothing I could write will change your opinion. My opinion is based on what I've learned during voir dire and the judge's instructions to a jury.

Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified under penalty of perjury; as explained in the instruction to a juror common sense is to be applied when testimony is observed and evaluated as to its credibility. The means to evaluate the truth is up to each member of a jury, and for them to use use common sense.

Voi dire is used to weed out those with a bias, for the defense or the prosecution. This is problematic during this period of history and on forums of the USMB and other Internet sites.

Being honest is the goal, we all have biases and for some putting them aside can be difficult, and many times the bias dominates the opinion.

 

[Lewdog]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

Kavanaugh lost all credibility when he told the nation he was a virgin until he got married and that "the devil's triangle" was a drinking game involving quarters.

In a REAL court of law, when a person gets caught telling even the littlest lie, they lose credibility and anything they say beyond those lies is worthless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

Kavanaugh lost all credibility when he told the nation he was a virgin until he got married and that "the devil's triangle" was a drinking game involving quarters.

In a REAL court of law, when a person gets caught telling even the littlest lie, they lose credibility and anything they say beyond those lies is worthless.

Meanwhile Ford lied about her door, about how many boys were in the room, about a fear of flying, and about coaching people to pass the polygraph. As to devils Triangle we have contemporaneous of Kavanaugh all saying it was a drinking game as well.

 

[Doc1]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

This is the Clean Zone. You've offered an opinion, but there is no probative evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was metaphorically lynched or that Dr. Ford's testimony was not true.

Be like Marty, who I rarely (almost always) disagree with, who posted a comment substantive and thought provoking.

The lack of corroboration disproves the allegations of Ford. You really don't want "honesty" you want to preach abut what you "think" honesty is.

This is the clean zone, either lay off the personal attacks or go away. For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

The lack of corroboration disproves the allegations of Ford. You really don't want "honesty" you want to preach abut what you "think" honesty is. Ford lied and you supported her lies.
Period.

 

[OldLady]

It really is time for honesty, a forum which requires every post on every issue to provide probative evidence that what they posted is true, and the powers that be choose the standard they feel best supports honesty, to wit:

Legal Standards are those standards that are set forth in governmental laws. Ethical standards are based on the human principles of right and wrong. Something can be legal but not ethical.

There is no doubt that Ethical Standards hold the truth as good, and a lie bad. It is really that simple, that the Internet in general, and this message board in particular, has members who are honest and who are liars.

I do not and will not suggest censorship. I support allowing the White Nationalists to make their case overtly, and let Black Lives Matter do the same; let the anti Semites make their case, and the Jews make theirs; let the liberals and the conservatives, let the Democrats, let the Republicans, the Libertarians the Greens and the anarchists to speak their mind and explain how they would govern or be governed.

Who's going to be the 'Truth Sheriff'

This is the clean zone, the truth always rises, falsehoods will fade away.

Post your values and principles, and how they would govern and how you would like to be governed is all that is asked.

Postscript: A lies can be challenged by the Mods, or another post which provides probative evidence that what was stated was a lie.

Values and principles are opinions especially when it comes to politics and, after all, this is a political forum. So I ask again, who is going to be "Truth-Sheriff."

What about reputable sources or one of the fact checker sites?

They are all biased tell half truths like MSM

So who tells the real truth, Bear? You?

 

[Correll]

It really is time for honesty, a forum which requires every post on every issue to provide probative evidence that what they posted is true, and the powers that be choose the standard they feel best supports honesty, to wit:

Legal Standards are those standards that are set forth in governmental laws. Ethical standards are based on the human principles of right and wrong. Something can be legal but not ethical.

There is no doubt that Ethical Standards hold the truth as good, and a lie bad. It is really that simple, that the Internet in general, and this message board in particular, has members who are honest and who are liars.

I do not and will not suggest censorship. I support allowing the White Nationalists to make their case overtly, and let Black Lives Matter do the same; let the anti Semites make their case, and the Jews make theirs; let the liberals and the conservatives, let the Democrats, let the Republicans, the Libertarians the Greens and the anarchists to speak their mind and explain how they would govern or be governed.

Every time I speak with you, you seem to pepper your posts with unsupported and often very offensive opinion, like, calling Trump a "man-child" or just calling people racist for no reason.

Can you do this, what you are calling for?

 

[OldLady]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

LOL you deny that MSNBC and CNN are Biased? What world do you live in?

WHEN are you people going to learn the difference between fact and bias? We all have to filter our information for bias. It is what intelligent people do. But if I want facts I go to the MSM which I know verifies its sources. I don't go there for opinions. I go there for the facts.

 

[PredFan]

It really is time for honesty, a forum which requires every post on every issue to provide probative evidence that what they posted is true, and the powers that be choose the standard they feel best supports honesty, to wit:

Legal Standards are those standards that are set forth in governmental laws. Ethical standards are based on the human principles of right and wrong. Something can be legal but not ethical.

There is no doubt that Ethical Standards hold the truth as good, and a lie bad. It is really that simple, that the Internet in general, and this message board in particular, has members who are honest and who are liars.

I do not and will not suggest censorship. I support allowing the White Nationalists to make their case overtly, and let Black Lives Matter do the same; let the anti Semites make their case, and the Jews make theirs; let the liberals and the conservatives, let the Democrats, let the Republicans, the Libertarians the Greens and the anarchists to speak their mind and explain how they would govern or be governed.

How are you going to decide what is true? There aren’t any impartial news sites any more.

Plus, what is the point? Has anyone’s mind ever changed?

 

[Auld Phart]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

This is the Clean Zone. You've offered an opinion, but there is no probative evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was metaphorically lynched or that Dr. Ford's testimony was not true.

Be like Marty, who I rarely (almost always) disagree with, who posted a comment substantive and thought provoking.

The lack of corroboration disproves the allegations of Ford. You really don't want "honesty" you want to preach abut what you "think" honesty is.

This is the clean zone, either lay off the personal attacks or go away. For the record, the FBI did not interview all of the parties of interest.

Well 3 bald faced lies with changed story line from Ford And yes they did interview the people she listed as being there. NOT one of them said they were there or remembered any such event.

I'm not trying to convince you, it seems your mind is made up and nothing I could write will change your opinion. My opinion is based on what I've learned during voir dire and the judge's instructions to a jury.

Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified under penalty of perjury; as explained in the instruction to a juror common sense is to be applied when testimony is observed and evaluated as to its credibility. The means to evaluate the truth is up to each member of a jury, and for them to use use common sense.

Voi dire is used to weed out those with a bias, for the defense or the prosecution. This is problematic during this period of history and on forums of the USMB and other Internet sites.

Being honest is the goal, we all have biases and for some putting them aside can be difficult, and many times the bias dominates the opinion.

The means to evaluate the truth is up to each member of a jury, and for them to use common sense.

Unfortunately, both halves of the 'jury' had their minds made up before ever walking into the 'courtroom'.

Voi dire is used to weed out those with a bias, for the defense or the prosecution.

see above

and many times the bias dominates the opinion.

Certainly did in that fiasco