Check out the 10th anniversary edition of ’99 Great Ways to Save,’ AARP’s annual guide to saving money.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Nancy's House

331 Views
Message 21 of 40

Hey, what can I say...  It's a picture of Nancy's house and I do believe it has a WALL around it.  

 

Why do you suppose that wall is there?

 

 It is likely the same reason it has locks on all of the exterior doors.

 

I would also venture to guess most of the people that post on this forum have locks on their doors as well.  

 

What part of that concept are you folks having difficulty with?

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
331
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
330
Views

Re: Nancy's House

330 Views
Message 22 of 40

Related image

 

 

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (11 pages of lies and growing)
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
330
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
342
Views

Re: Nancy's House

342 Views
Message 23 of 40

@jimc91 wrote:

@nctarheel wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:


Who fact checks the fact checkers?   

 


It doesn't matter in this case as YOU were CAUGHT posting something that is COMPLETELY FALSE because YOU did not do one iota of research on the subject YOU posted.

 

Rather than attack others, wouldn't it be more appropriate if you APOLOGIZED for the posting of a COMPLETELY FALSE post.


It's Nancy's house.  

 

Snopes can no longer be trusted, they did that to themselves.  

 

Get over it...

 

 


You also say no collusion, witch hunt, totally innocent lol. King of like your topic about the comming red wave right Jim?

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
342
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
341
Views

Re: Nancy's House

341 Views
Message 24 of 40

@jimc91 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

Snopes is not the end all...

 

IE;

 

Snopes Caught Misleading on Abortion Again. Defends Candidate Who Supports Abortion Up to Birth

 

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/11/12/snopes-caught-misleading-on-abortion-again-defends-candidate-who...

 

 

 


How does something on abortion excuse the fact that you simply posted an incorrect political meme about Pelosi's house?  Also, since Lifenews is little more than propaganda, I believe Snopes has the far better track record.  Also, since they actually showed Pelosi's real house and can verify that the house in the picture never belonged to her, how does that make your meme correct?


My point is Snopes is not the supreme source.  Who fact checks the fact checkers?  Just because Snopes reports something that does not make it 100%.. They have flaws too.  The above is just one example of where they were WRONG.

 

 

 

 


What Snopes called false was Lifenews's claim that "U.S. Representative Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona voted to "allow abortions up to birth."".  They backed up their statement by looking back at Lifenews's own article which did not show that "fact".  Snopes did not comment about her abortion beliefs, simply the "fact" reported by Lifenews that could not be verified.  Do you think Lifenews may have an agenda and not want to admit that they were wrong or lied?


Snopes FAIL: Website Proves It Can’t Be Trusted After Saying THIS About Obama’s Iran Ransom

 

The “mythbusting” site Snopes has again turned their myopic eyes to the political world and are rushing to the defense of the Obama Administration in what is being called a “cash for hostages” deal.

 

What’s amazing is the lengths they will go to in protecting Barack Obama, ignoring key facts and presenting the issue as “old news.”

Back in January, the Obama Administration managed to secure the release of four American hostages from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Within days, an airlift of $400 million in foreign currency was on its way to Tehran.

The White House insists that the $400 million – the first of a total payment of $1.7 billion we’ll send – had absolutely nothing to do with securing the release of the four American hostages. 

 

“The negotiations over the [arms deal] settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” Kirby said in a statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.”

But according to the Wall Street Journal, Iran insisted on the money in return for release of the hostages to show they had gained something tangible.

 

And this: “Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.”

 

Interestingly, in making the announcement that the agreement with Iran had been reached, Obama never disclosed the $400 million cash payment.

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/snopes-fail-website-proves-it-cant-be-trusted-after-saying-this-a...

 

 


Using the federalist to back your mistaken statements doesnt help you any lol. How about you discuss why you dont post accurate info?

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
341
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
342
Views

Re: Nancy's House

342 Views
Message 25 of 40

@jimc91 wrote:


It's Nancy's house.  

 

Cite your source, @jimc91.

 

Folks, he won't be able to do so as this image is a FALSE MEME with multiple images posted to YouTube.

 

@jimc91's doubling down by insisting that the image is REAL is easily DEBUNKED.

 

Again, @jimc91, cite the source of the image.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
342
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
341
Views

Re: Nancy's House

341 Views
Message 26 of 40

@jimc91 wrote:

@nctarheel wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:


Who fact checks the fact checkers?   

 


It doesn't matter in this case as YOU were CAUGHT posting something that is COMPLETELY FALSE because YOU did not do one iota of research on the subject YOU posted.

 

Rather than attack others, wouldn't it be more appropriate if you APOLOGIZED for the posting of a COMPLETELY FALSE post.


It's Nancy's house.  

 

Snopes can no longer be trusted, they did that to themselves.  

 

Get over it...

 

 


Your argument is little more than I know I got caught lying, but I am going to continue to insist that it is true.

 

You believe the Federalist and Lifenews (sources that are listed as extremely biased) instead of a source listed as least biased?

 

As far as your Federalist claim, what the Federalist was saying was that the Whitehouse secretly paid a bribe for the release of the hostages.  This is what Snopes said about that statement "However, the $400 million dollar transfer was actually an openly announced one, paid in settlement of a nearly 40-year dispute between Iran and the United States — a settlement that likely saved the United States several billion dollars."

 

Why don't we start dealing with facts, instead of emotions?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
341
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
333
Views

Re: Nancy's House

333 Views
Message 27 of 40

jimc91:  Snopes FAIL: Website Proves It Can’t Be Trusted After Saying THIS About Obama’s Iran Ransom

 

 

Jim....you're in a hole. Quit digging.

 

It does look fishy as all get out: $400 million in assorted denominations, stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in the dead of night by the government of the United States. Hours later, five imprisoned Americans are released and board planes to freedom. If that situation—which took place in January—doesn’t look like a hostage deal, what does?

Answer: The actual hostage deal that in fact accounts for the cash payment, which President Obama said on Thursday was not a ransom.

The currency shipped to Iran in the dead of night drew attention from presidential candidate Donald Trump this week, who on Friday appeared to walk back an earlier assertion that he had seen a payment being delivered. But that money was owed to the Islamic Republic since 1979, the year the U.S. froze all the Iranian funds in American banks as retribution for seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, as revolution swept that nation.

 

But still at issue as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late 1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally. After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money back—and with interest.

http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
333
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
339
Views

Re: Nancy's House

339 Views
Message 28 of 40

@nctarheel wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:


Who fact checks the fact checkers?   

 


It doesn't matter in this case as YOU were CAUGHT posting something that is COMPLETELY FALSE because YOU did not do one iota of research on the subject YOU posted.

 

Rather than attack others, wouldn't it be more appropriate if you APOLOGIZED for the posting of a COMPLETELY FALSE post.


It's Nancy's house.  

 

Snopes can no longer be trusted, they did that to themselves.  

 

Get over it...

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
339
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Nancy's House

331 Views
Message 29 of 40

sp362:  How does something on abortion excuse the fact that you simply posted an incorrect political meme about Pelosi's house?  Also, since Lifenews is little more than propaganda, I believe Snopes has the far better track record.  Also, since they actually showed Pelosi's real house and can verify that the house in the picture never belonged to her, how does that make your meme correct?

 

As usual, they aren't very picky about the facts they use, and as usual it comes back and bites them.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
331
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
316
Views

Re: Nancy's House

316 Views
Message 30 of 40

@jimc91 wrote:


Who fact checks the fact checkers?   

 


It doesn't matter in this case as YOU were CAUGHT posting something that is COMPLETELY FALSE because YOU did not do one iota of research on the subject YOU posted.

 

Rather than attack others, wouldn't it be more appropriate if you APOLOGIZED for the posting of a COMPLETELY FALSE post.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
316
Views