Fundraiser urges Khizr Khan to run for VA delegate

[Edge-]

Snope is as uncredible as anything on the internet

If you believe that, fine. But do you, or anyone else, have any evidence that contradicts Snopes findings on this? Because did some brief digging and couldn't find a single credible website that reported on the story. So as far as I can tell, Snopes is right on this one.

[Darsithis]

They never had any credibility to lose

Do you have anything to support what the OP is saying? Everything I've found, including Snopes, says it's all wrong.

[dholland662]

Do you have anything to support what the OP is saying? Everything I've found, including Snopes, says it's all wrong.

True, we should stick to the fact that only 14 Muslim-American soldiers have been killed fighting.

While 13 soldiers were killed and 30 wounded by a fellow Muslim-American soldier at Fort Hood

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2598232

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

We live in clown world, and the Religion of Peace proves it

[satimy]

If you believe that, fine. But do you, or anyone else, have any evidence that contradicts Snopes findings on this? Because did some brief digging and couldn't find a single credible website that reported on the story. So as far as I can tell, Snopes is right on this one.

No, Im not even supporting the OP's side, I just hate seeing people linking Snopes as if it has any meaning

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have anything to support what the OP is saying? Everything I've found, including Snopes, says it's all wrong.

I dont support the OP at the present time.

[Endus]

No, Im not even supporting the OP's side, I just hate seeing people linking Snopes as if it has any meaning

Like Wikipedia, it's the first step in a "you clearly didn't even bother looking for anything that wasn't blatantly biased propaganda" statement. It's not an argument that Snopes is comprehensive and detailed research. It's that even Snopes can show how completely ridiculous that claim is.

It's like citing a Wikipedia definition. No, it's not the height of research; it's a tertiary source. But if you can't even get past "what basic English words actually mean", then that's the level of source you need to bring out; anything more in-depth is beyond the person you're discussing this with.


In this case, the claims that Khizr Khan has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or supports implementing Sharia law in the USA, those are just blatantly false information being spread as propaganda. Contradicting it doesn't deserve a well-researched source, because researchers don't bother disproving blatant propaganda in the first place, because it's so obviously manufactured and untrue.

[satimy]

Like Wikipedia, it's the first step in a "you clearly didn't even bother looking for anything that wasn't blatantly biased propaganda" statement. It's not an argument that Snopes is comprehensive and detailed research. It's that even Snopes can show how completely ridiculous that claim is.

It's like citing a Wikipedia definition. No, it's not the height of research; it's a tertiary source. But if you can't even get past "what basic English words actually mean", then that's the level of source you need to bring out; anything more in-depth is beyond the person you're discussing this with.


In this case, the claims that Khizr Khan has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or supports implementing Sharia law in the USA, those are just blatantly false information being spread as propaganda. Contradicting it doesn't deserve a well-researched source, because researchers don't bother disproving blatant propaganda in the first place, because it's so obviously manufactured and untrue.

I personally give 0 credibility to Snopes, I give some credibility to Wikipedia even it is left leaning. I also wouldnt say the claims are false, they are unproven and thus irresponsible to to smear someone with.

[kail]

Snope is as uncredible as anything on the internet

Damn, why even bother. Anything can be true with this logic.

[Garnier Fructis]

But why ?

Anything that doesn't find perfect balance in the volume of wrong statements attributed to both sides of the political spectrum is considered biased. At least, that's what I've gathered on this board.

Mostly it's a bunch of people who just can't accept that perhaps their side lies more.

[satimy]

Anything that doesn't find perfect balance in the volume of wrong statements attributed to both sides of the political spectrum is considered biased. At least, that's what I've gathered on this board.

Mostly it's a bunch of people who just can't accept that perhaps their side lies more.

Truth usually isn't an absolute thing, although yes i feel snopes is very biased just like politifact

[Orbitus]

Truth usually isn't an absolute thing, although yes i feel snopes is very biased just like politifact

That is because you can't handle facts and reality. Both of which have a liberal bias.

[Orbitus]

So why not tell us why you don't consider Snopes to be credible or is this just another "FEELS INSTEAD OF REALS" episode?

That is, after all, what the entire RNC was about. Newt Gingrich even admitted to it.

[Edge-]

Truth usually isn't an absolute thing, although yes i feel snopes is very biased just like politifact

...how? They source all their fat checking and look at both liberals and conservatives. Where's the bias when they document all their investigations and conclusions?

That is, after all, what the entire RNC was about. Newt Gingrich even admitted to it.

The irony being that "feels not reals" has been the rights critique of the left for a while now before the GOP decided to take the reins on it.

[Endus]

I personally give 0 credibility to Snopes, I give some credibility to Wikipedia even it is left leaning.

Uhh, Wikipedia doesn't "lean" in any particular direction. You're basically expressing a victim complex. Snopes doesn't, either, for that matter.

I also wouldnt say the claims are false, they are unproven and thus irresponsible to to smear someone with.

When the man himself says they're completely untrue, and there's no credible evidence to back them, then they're as "unproven" as the claim that Trump has a secret shrine to Marx that he prostrates himself before daily.

Which I just made up, let's be clear.

Truth usually isn't an absolute thing, although yes i feel snopes is very biased just like politifact

The word in bold is the problem.

You don't determine bias based on feels.

[Mihalik]

WOW. The sheer vicious ignoramus bullshit attacks on the guy... What the fuck?

By the way...I spent a substantial amount of time studying Islamic jurisprudence and traditions. Had I been a legal scholar I might have even liked to write a study on specific subjects related to it. That doesn't make me either a proponent of Islamic law or a fan of it.

Just as someone who spends a lot of time researching Catholic Cannon Law, isn't necessarily a fan or a proponent of it. Just as someone who spends time studying the psychology of serial killers, isn't a serial killer in training/serial killer proponent.

[satimy]

WOW. The sheer vicious ignoramus bullshit attacks on the guy... What the fuck?

By the way...I spent a substantial amount of time studying Islamic jurisprudence and traditions. Had I been a legal scholar I might have even liked to write a study on specific subjects related to it. That doesn't make me either a proponent of Islamic law or a fan of it.

Just as someone who spends a lot of time researching Catholic Cannon Law, isn't necessarily a fan or a proponent of it. Just as someone who spends time studying the psychology of serial killers, isn't a serial killer in training/serial killer proponent.

I mean Donald Trump claimed Ted Cruz's dad help kill JFK, its just not surprising.