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

[Wry Catcher]

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.

And yet you and others insisted Blasey Ford was telling the truth despite the lack of corroborating facts or witnesses and despite her own lies.
You also insisted in a thread you made that Kavanaugh was drunk and drugged at his testimony, and that his wife was on tranquillisers, and that he used her tranquillisers for his testimony.
None of this - ABSOLUTELY NONE - had any basis in anything other than your imagination.

I don't know if Dr. Ford was truthful, nor do I know if Judge Kavanaugh was truthful. However, in a trial the judge tells the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the testimony, as more or less credible.

I watched every minute of the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded Dr. Ford was more credible than Judge Kavanaugh. I didn't watch or listen to the commentary by the talking heads on any source.

I formed my opinion based on the words they spoke, their body language and the emotions which permeated through their testimony. And, when Judge Kavanaough attacked the Democratic Party, the Clinton's and a conspiracy theory he lost me.

.

That you found someone telling demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias and partisanship, and certainly not truth or honesty.

In all honesty and sincerity, please go away; you contribute nothing but discord, and add to the divisive nature of today's politics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

And yet you and others insisted Blasey Ford was telling the truth despite the lack of corroborating facts or witnesses and despite her own lies.
You also insisted in a thread you made that Kavanaugh was drunk and drugged at his testimony, and that his wife was on tranquillisers, and that he used her tranquillisers for his testimony.
None of this - ABSOLUTELY NONE - had any basis in anything other than your imagination.

I don't know if Dr. Ford was truthful, nor do I know if Judge Kavanaugh was truthful. However, in a trial the judge tells the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the testimony, as more or less credible.

I watched every minute of the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded Dr. Ford was more credible than Judge Kavanaugh. I didn't watch or listen to the commentary by the talking heads on any source.

I formed my opinion based on the words they spoke, their body language and the emotions which permeated through their testimony. And, when Judge Kavanaough attacked the Democratic Party, the Clinton's and a conspiracy theory he lost me.

.

That you found someone telling demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias and partisanship, and certainly not truth or honesty.

Please enlighten me, who told some "demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias" is in fact an indictment of your bias.

My conclusion was subjective, but not a result of a bias, it was a considered judgment based on my education, and experience as an officer of the court.

Of course you don't have to believe me, but please explain how you reached your conclusion.

Wasn't in a court now was it. Maryland would be the proper place to file that complaint.........Did she do so........Nope.

No statute of limitations if it was a so called violent rape attempt as she claimed..........The complaint requires basic information.......When and Where......and witnesses..........

Epic fail.......period.........if she has proof.......she could file a complaint today.......Wasn't about that now was it........A Job interview.....LOL

You need to google the SOL law in Maryland. What you've posted is wrong, both in terms of the nature of the allegation by Dr. Ford, and the law in Maryland.

FYI: Maryland Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw

 

[Rocko]

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

This is an opinion.

NEXT!!!!

To say obvious lies is an opinion. However those who believed here aren’t basing their opinion on any facts, so that is an unfounded opinion

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh really? She routinely flies across the pacific on vacation and routinely flies across the US to visit her family but ya we are to believe she was terrified to fly to DC.

Yes... does that means she doesn't have a fear of flying? She didn't ASK to be brought into this issue and have to testify to congress and the FBI. They should have gone to her to do it, not her having to fly to them.

I know LOTS of people that have a fear of flying that do so when they have to... and a lot of them will take medicine that makes them sleep the entire flight.

Actually since the senate committee OFFERED to fly to her her lie is even more glaring.

They ended up asking her to come do a full public interview in front of the entire Senate Judiciary Committee.

That's because she never responded to their offer.

Obviously she did, she was there at the hearing.

You are playing dumb now my response was in regards to her being offered to let the committee come to her, which you either knew and ignored or are just plain stupid, your choice on which.

 

[Lewdog]

Yes... does that means she doesn't have a fear of flying? She didn't ASK to be brought into this issue and have to testify to congress and the FBI. They should have gone to her to do it, not her having to fly to them.

I know LOTS of people that have a fear of flying that do so when they have to... and a lot of them will take medicine that makes them sleep the entire flight.

Actually since the senate committee OFFERED to fly to her her lie is even more glaring.

They ended up asking her to come do a full public interview in front of the entire Senate Judiciary Committee.

That's because she never responded to their offer.

Obviously she did, she was there at the hearing.

You are playing dumb now my response was in regards to her being offered to let the committee come to her, which you either knew and ignored or are just plain stupid, your choice on which.

Obviously them coming to her was no longer plausible, as they decided she need ed to testify in front of the entire Senate Judiciary Committee, and not do just an interview with Grassley and Feinstein.

 

[PredFan]

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?

What you're doing here is proving that you do not care about facts, just that your opinion is the prevalent one that's accepted.

Nice work.

How did you arrive at that? Do you have any real idea? Are you in the right thread? Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? Do you even know?

 

[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?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

See? I absolutely disagree. Especially on NPR. They take the GOP out of context constantly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

See? I absolutely disagree. Especially on NPR. They take the GOP out of context constantly.

Since I listen often, you'll need to post the podcasts where they have taken the GOP out of context.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

That wouldn’t be any fun, there wouldn’t be any liberals posting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

See? I absolutely disagree. Especially on NPR. They take the GOP out of context constantly.

Since I listen often, you'll need to post the podcasts where they have taken the GOP out of context.

Postscript to my request, above: What programming do you believe is anti GOP, or tries to mislead the listeners to what the GOP stands for.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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'

I pick me!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

That wouldn’t be any fun, there wouldn’t be any liberals posting.

You need to remember this is a thread on the clean zone, partisan hackery is not appropriate. Either abide by the rules or go away.

 

[sartre play]

Not one single person here knows what really happened back in high school with those two ,maybe nothing, maybe something. its a done deal, he got the job.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not one single person here knows what really happened back in high school with those two ,maybe nothing, maybe something. its a done deal, he got the job.

It's true, McConnell got what he wanted, his wife a job in Trump's Administration, and I suspect some under the table benefits we will never know.

 

[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?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

See? I absolutely disagree. Especially on NPR. They take the GOP out of context constantly.

Since I listen often, you'll need to post the podcasts where they have taken the GOP out of context.

Again proving my point that who gets to be the arbiter if what’s true? Right off the bat the left says two left wing sites are neutral and when challenged, a fight starts that will never be won by either side.

 

[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?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

See? I absolutely disagree. Especially on NPR. They take the GOP out of context constantly.

Since I listen often, you'll need to post the podcasts where they have taken the GOP out of context.

Postscript to my request, above: What programming do you believe is anti GOP, or tries to mislead the listeners to what the GOP stands for.

My wife listens a lot so I’m exposed to it, though I am not a regular listener. They repeat the same left wing nonsense that the MSM does for the most part. Even if they aren’t talking about the right, they are painting the left in the best light.

I’m sure you’ll disagree but that just proves my point again. You can’t have a section called “Honesty” because no one will agree what’s honest.

 

[Tilly]

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.

And yet you and others insisted Blasey Ford was telling the truth despite the lack of corroborating facts or witnesses and despite her own lies.
You also insisted in a thread you made that Kavanaugh was drunk and drugged at his testimony, and that his wife was on tranquillisers, and that he used her tranquillisers for his testimony.
None of this - ABSOLUTELY NONE - had any basis in anything other than your imagination.

I don't know if Dr. Ford was truthful, nor do I know if Judge Kavanaugh was truthful. However, in a trial the judge tells the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the testimony, as more or less credible.

I watched every minute of the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded Dr. Ford was more credible than Judge Kavanaugh. I didn't watch or listen to the commentary by the talking heads on any source.

I formed my opinion based on the words they spoke, their body language and the emotions which permeated through their testimony. And, when Judge Kavanaough attacked the Democratic Party, the Clinton's and a conspiracy theory he lost me.

.

That you found someone telling demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias and partisanship, and certainly not truth or honesty.

In all honesty and sincerity, please go away; you contribute nothing but discord, and add to the divisive nature of today's politics.

Nope. You said you wanted honesty, but you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried. Oh the irony!

 

[Picaro]

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.

Ah, the argument from silence gimmick is an example of 'honesty' for you ... You're not qualified to discuss 'honesty', just to start troll threads in the CDZ and then make false claims against other posters.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Although, we all insert links from various sites; how can we be certain "they" are factual. The sources like Fox News, CNN, etc.

Although, we like to believe they are accurate and factual; you can't pass anything. Especially, some of these are not always "honest" as they say they say.

Sure, it's easy for Fox News to say they "report" accurate news/stories. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "honest".

News sources such as The New York Times and Washington Posts like to "report" their stories/news as "factual". But in reality, they at times distort it to the point, they make it so believable. People seem to find them somehow still "credible" sources. So much so, how can they call themselves an "honest" news source, when they omit and edit their "news" at any given time? How honest is that?

Agreed, most single sources need to be verified by the reader. When credible sources conflict with the linik, more needs to be investigated and reported out.

I really wish I had the time to dedicate to your thread, I find it absolutely intriguing and I hope you have better success at getting some honesty out of some of the members than others have.

Why do we have to rely on the media to determine the veracity of a particular statement? When I was a kid, if I wanted information my parents would refer me to our library - dictionaries, World Book Encyclopedias, their year book of events, etc. Some things are objective (can be measured) while others are subjective (based on one's personal opinions and experiences)

Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.
​

What you're attempting should not be difficult with the exception being if the individuals participating are unable to be honest with themselves, they're not going to be able to be honest with anyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

And yet you and others insisted Blasey Ford was telling the truth despite the lack of corroborating facts or witnesses and despite her own lies.
You also insisted in a thread you made that Kavanaugh was drunk and drugged at his testimony, and that his wife was on tranquillisers, and that he used her tranquillisers for his testimony.
None of this - ABSOLUTELY NONE - had any basis in anything other than your imagination.

I don't know if Dr. Ford was truthful, nor do I know if Judge Kavanaugh was truthful. However, in a trial the judge tells the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the testimony, as more or less credible.

I watched every minute of the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded Dr. Ford was more credible than Judge Kavanaugh. I didn't watch or listen to the commentary by the talking heads on any source.

I formed my opinion based on the words they spoke, their body language and the emotions which permeated through their testimony. And, when Judge Kavanaough attacked the Democratic Party, the Clinton's and a conspiracy theory he lost me.

.

That you found someone telling demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias and partisanship, and certainly not truth or honesty.

In all honesty and sincerity, please go away; you contribute nothing but discord, and add to the divisive nature of today's politics.

Nope. You said you wanted honesty, but you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried. Oh the irony!

Would anyone expect anything different on a political internet message board?
.