Slashdot Mirror

You mean the guy with parrot at the top of the mast couldn't see the other ship, obviously need more carrots in their diets http://www.snopes.com/food/ing... ( carrots as disinformation for radars in ww2)

As for Sanger Story. Go ahead and keep defending the worst of the worst.

That's the story that was proven FALSE.
http://www.snopes.com/margaret...

In his 1992 book American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others, author John George writes that this quote was âoeevidently concocted in the late 1980s for the purpose of trying to make the early birth control advocate seem a racist and anti-Semiteâ and that âoethis fabrication has been kept in circulation by antiabortion and anti-birth control groups.â

yeah anti-abortion and anti-birth control groups...like Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and the newspaper it owns.....the Washington Times.

I'm not sure I understand. Is this an attempt to pretend she didn't fail miserably (intentionally) WRT Benghazi?

Right, because if there's one thing that defines a secretary of state's job, it's micromanaging security.

She rightfully took responsibility for the decisions made for people who worked for her regarding security for the compound. The buck always stops with the boss. But the scale of the witch hunt embarked on over that incident was just ridiculous.

That she didn't delete a bunch of e-mails and have the server (which shouldn't have existed in the first place) wiped with Bleachbit after receiving a subpoena?

Snopes.

That Soros isn't funding and directing leftist groups and politicians throughout the world, Hillary included?

Oh yes, that reminds me, my fellow cucks and I need to get after him, our checks are late this month!

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

The facts don't matter, especially not to the media.

There are many fact checking websites which provide unbiased data regarding the truthfulness of our political leaders. Let's examine a few. Keep in mind that they are comparing 8 years of Obama's presidency to 100+ days of Trump.

A search of Snopes.com articles concerning Barack Obama (329) vs Donald Trump (865).

Politifact.com summary of Barack Obama vs Donald Trump. The two graphs are very informative.

FactCheck.org summary of Obama's Whoppers vs Trump's Whoppers.

While none of these sites gave Barack Obama a free ride, FactCheck.org declared Donald Trump the King of Whoppers. I think that Burger King has a trademark infringement case here.

If you dismiss these sites as biased, or blame the mainstream media for twisting the facts, then the problem is probably you. You have let the semantic web tailor an experience that feeds you all of the misinformation (alternative facts) that aligns with your world view. As such, changing your paradigm would be uncomfortable, so you double-down on all of the stories that have been proven false (Pizzagate, Seth Rich's murder, etc...). If these stories rile you up, then the objective is met. The whole point is to stir up the crazies.

As such, you need to continually verify that you are not being brainwashed by either the right or the left. You need to wait-out sensational stories until they are fully vetted. You need to focus on facts, not bluster on with opinions.

Then we have thousands who should be tried for every murder of a police officer in the last year, right?

yeah, those aren't BLM protesters. keep the lies up though! the nazi movement needs your support! /s

Except he wasn't....

http://www.snopes.com/george-s...

Or not...

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...

He did not claim to invent the Internet. The people that did invent the Internet said they had no earlier or more tireless supporter in Congress. The government did invent the Internet in the form of ARPANET, irrespective of whatever your ideology says. I like the BBS comparison because it's a terrible argument for you, it's as relevant to the subject as the iPhone.

With most issues raised about lithium for EV batteries, no-one seems to care about it relating to their phone/laptop, they will quite happily take them everywhere.

"Almost all that lithium—greater than 95 percent of it— is produced through a process of pumping underground brine to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in big pans. It’s separated from the brine using electrolysis." quote from https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
The photos circulating the net pretending to be open lithium mines are actually copper or tar sands http://www.snopes.com/lithium-...

Recycling is already happening and they can be recycled into new storage systems like home solar batteries as they don't need to be powerful as an EV requires.They make their money at the moment from extracting the other elements like cobalt.

Carbon fibre recycling is being worked on and getting better: http://www.compositesworld.com...

There are risks with all forms of transport and power generation, you just have to mitigate it in some way. ICE did explode (google Ford Pinto) before better design happened.

Yes, the dangers of not disposing of batteries correctly is known as are the dangers of lighting a match next to petrol/gas are also known - you take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

it happened, but nobody crashed into the wall
http://www.snopes.com/road-run...

The paper calls out this Infowars spirit cooking article as an example of fake news and how it spreads. The diffusion chart for that one article takes up the entirety of page 4 of the paper.

I reviewed that article, and couldn't find anything that was in any way "fake".

John Podesta's brother forwarded an E-mail where Marina Abramovic invited them to a spirit cooking dinner. All of this is fact, made public when wikileaks published the actual E-mail.

There's some background on spirit cooking (which I didn't check - looks legit), and some references to innuendo (which I *did* check - they're legit).

Overall, there's nothing in the Infowars article that appears fake, or even blown out of proportion. Snopes.com pretty-much agrees with the facts laid out in the article.

John Podesta didn't go to that dinner or participate in spirit cooking, and InforWars didn't say that he did!

Not to take partisan shots here, but what part of that article is fake news?

Here you are, pick holes in this.

You are a liar and just peddling fake news.The only thing you lost at Benghazi was your self-respect.

http://www.snopes.com/wikileak...

I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

I was reading about the DOJ slush fund [breitbart.com](**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

Why not Teapot Dome, Credit Mobiler, Iran-Contra, Enron, and Bernie Madoff?

This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny

And liberal ones. Who both needed to file proper reports to meet their non-profit status.

Even Congress had to admit it was all proper in the end.

11 California counties have more registered voters than adults

You can't blame California for Steve Mnuchin, Tiffany Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steven Bannon, who nonetheless, remind us, it's not a crime. Despite false claims otherwise.

And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless,

I pleased with the EC delegates to quit myself, it might be the only thing that gets us past that broken system.

then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results,

No, the Supreme Court acted in 2000, unlawfully overriding state courts for their own partisan gain.

then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?),

Like those massive crowds of people that Trump (falsely) claimed were there, huh?

leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander,

Oh wait, you mean when they leaked Trump's fake pictures of Time Magazine covers, right?

and rioted for weeks

No, that was Chicago celebrating winning the World Series.

For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots,

Also she didn't condemn the sugar plum fairy.

and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

Trump called for it himself.

blocking reasonable voter registration,

No, that was the GOP.

and suppressing the military vote.

sure man

There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out.

Sure man, and what else are they discussing? Why they can't find the dead bodies in the Pizza Parlor?

The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

Is that why they keep getting more voters?

I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence [dailysignal.com] on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

Actually, the Republicans in Congress are still busy chasing their tails over Hillary.

I gues

Done. http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

In other news, Trump decides what is neus (sp is correct) using the China Model
Tyrants of a feather and all that

Seriously, this whole "article" has to be some sort of joke.

I can't find anything about it on http://www.snopes.com/ should be mentioned even if false.

Can you explain the joke for those of us who didn't grow up with antennas?

The joke is about CDs (compact discs) and coloring the edge of the CD to improve sound quality.

http://www.snopes.com/music/me...

I still use an antenna. Internet provider keeps trying to sign me up for cable, and their unnecessary boxes, I ignore. Have a Netflix subscription for any movies I may want. Next to go the landline - use as a backup as cell service spotty at my location. No one ever calls except spammers.

Can you explain the joke for those of us who didn't grow up with antennas?

The joke is about CDs (compact discs) and coloring the edge of the CD to improve sound quality.

http://www.snopes.com/music/me...

(artificial sweetener was originally rat poison)

No it wasn't!

No, nothing so obviously as pizzagate. Snopes is very subtle when they politicize things.

Perhaps, but you aren't. Not even in the slightest way.

Sometimes they debunk the spirit of the claim, rather than the facts (which may be true).

Good for them. Sometimes the worst lies are built around a facade of truth. That sort of behavior has been known since the times of the ancient Greeks.

Sometimes they invalid a claim by pointing out that some details are wrong, even though the origin of the claim is generally true.

Perhaps, but that is a valuable bit of fact-finding in itself. There can be a kernel of truth in every argument, but it can still tell you quite a bit when you examine the mistruths used to lead people astray. See also the Greeks.

Here's an example of the first: "Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...

The stated claim is 100% true, yet snopes calls it "mostly false". She got the defendant a better deal and later laughed about it on film. Also notice the claim does not match the URL ("freed" versus "successfully defended"; they do not mean the same thing.)

Actually, this is the point where you're not being subtle, since the claim actually DID refer to "freeing" the accused, as numerous instances of that kind of use for this "attack" can be found. Including the image they show on that very page. Furthermore, getting a plea deal? Hardly unusual or exceptional.

Then of course, you get on the whole bit of laughter. Which you would be better off admitting is a rather tenuous
attack, people can laugh at many different things when discussing something, and you, not being a mind-reader, might have trouble proving what she was actually thinking, but in this case, the tapes indicate plenty of other circumstances that elicit humor.

Still, what you seem to be doing, is taking your interpretation and representation of the claim, as the only "true" one, and ignoring the versions actually in circulation, in order to attack Snopes.

Now, Snopes has all the details on why this particular event does not make her an evil person, but lists the claim as "mostly false".

Because it is. It is nothing more than a hysterical attack on Hillary Clinton with no particular merit to it. That's why they added so many falsehoods in order to make her look bad.

In fact, it says a lot more about the character of those who attempt to use it than Hillary Clinton.

By labeling a claim "mostly false" that is 100% factually true (even if the spirit of claim is false), they are inserting their own biases into the discussion and not merely presenting facts. They are also throwing red herrings unrelated to the original claim into the mix to make the "mostly false" claim more defensible. They are editorializing.

By insisting that a blatantly scurrilous attack is 100% factually true(when it is not, except by reducing your own particular factual claim to such a very limited remark that it doesn't reflect the claims actually being used by the attack), you are inserting your own bias into the discussion, and throwing a red herring to try to distract from your obvious selective editorializing on Snopes.

(Disclaimer: This is neither an anti- nor pro- Hillary Clinton post. This is merely a convenient example that I could remember off the top my head.)

Yet the very inclusion of your disclaimer makes it obvi

No, nothing so obviously as pizzagate. Snopes is very subtle when they politicize things.

Sometimes they debunk the spirit of the claim, rather than the facts (which may be true). Sometimes they invalid a claim by pointing out that some details are wrong, even though the origin of the claim is generally true.

Here's an example of the first: "Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...

The stated claim is 100% true, yet snopes calls it "mostly false". She got the defendant a better deal and later laughed about it on film. Also notice the claim does not match the URL ("freed" versus "successfully defended"; they do not mean the same thing.) Now, Snopes has all the details on why this particular event does not make her an evil person, but lists the claim as "mostly false".

By labeling a claim "mostly false" that is 100% factually true (even if the spirit of claim is false), they are inserting their own biases into the discussion and not merely presenting facts. They are also throwing red herrings unrelated to the original claim into the mix to make the "mostly false" claim more defensible. They are editorializing.

(Disclaimer: This is neither an anti- nor pro- Hillary Clinton post. This is merely a convenient example that I could remember off the top my head.)

Snopes says that Pissgate is unproven. Do you disagree and instead believe the allegations of Russia blackmailing Trump have been verified? Interesting. You should call Fox & Friends!

All I can find on Snopes regarding Trump and Russia are articles debunking fake news or reporting public tweets, something I'd think Trumpkins would find useful. Instead, you lump all news into fake news, even when it supports your position. You are your own worst enemy.

"It looks like the evidence doesn't support your arrest, and you're free to go."
"Lies! It's all damn lies and fake news!"
"Uh, sir? Are you confessing?"

Snopes says that Pissgate is unproven. Do you disagree and instead believe the allegations of Russia blackmailing Trump have been verified? Interesting. You should call Fox & Friends!

All I can find on Snopes regarding Trump and Russia are articles debunking fake news or reporting public tweets, something I'd think Trumpkins would find useful. Instead, you lump all news into fake news, even when it supports your position. You are your own worst enemy.

"It looks like the evidence doesn't support your arrest, and you're free to go."
"Lies! It's all damn lies and fake news!"
"Uh, sir? Are you confessing?"

Snopes says that Pissgate is unproven. Do you disagree and instead believe the allegations of Russia blackmailing Trump have been verified? Interesting. You should call Fox & Friends!

All I can find on Snopes regarding Trump and Russia are articles debunking fake news or reporting public tweets, something I'd think Trumpkins would find useful. Instead, you lump all news into fake news, even when it supports your position. You are your own worst enemy.

"It looks like the evidence doesn't support your arrest, and you're free to go."
"Lies! It's all damn lies and fake news!"
"Uh, sir? Are you confessing?"

Snopes says that Pissgate is unproven. Do you disagree and instead believe the allegations of Russia blackmailing Trump have been verified? Interesting. You should call Fox & Friends!

All I can find on Snopes regarding Trump and Russia are articles debunking fake news or reporting public tweets, something I'd think Trumpkins would find useful. Instead, you lump all news into fake news, even when it supports your position. You are your own worst enemy.

"It looks like the evidence doesn't support your arrest, and you're free to go."
"Lies! It's all damn lies and fake news!"
"Uh, sir? Are you confessing?"

Snopes says that Pissgate is unproven. Do you disagree and instead believe the allegations of Russia blackmailing Trump have been verified? Interesting. You should call Fox & Friends!

All I can find on Snopes regarding Trump and Russia are articles debunking fake news or reporting public tweets, something I'd think Trumpkins would find useful. Instead, you lump all news into fake news, even when it supports your position. You are your own worst enemy.

"It looks like the evidence doesn't support your arrest, and you're free to go."
"Lies! It's all damn lies and fake news!"
"Uh, sir? Are you confessing?"

Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/

Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???

Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...

In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.

And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???

If you pro-actively tell me someone is a Democrat I'm assuming that they actively identify as a member of the Democratic party.

If your only evidence is a 10 year old voter registration I'd assume you're full of it.

False "Anti-Republican" stories:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://www.snopes.com/islamber...

True "Anti-Democrat" story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...

False "Anti-Republican" stories:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://www.snopes.com/islamber...

True "Anti-Democrat" story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...

False "Anti-Republican" stories:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://www.snopes.com/islamber...

True "Anti-Democrat" story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat. In fact, pretty sure that it is the only thing that makes a person a Democrat.

Can I recommend this excellent site you've obviously never seen before which could help to correct your misunderstanding.

any back doors with doing SQL injection on http://message.snopes.com/?

The first three links you give don't assert that the couple (that run Snopes) "admitted to fake news". You did read the title on this thread, right? The articles assert the "some of the people" involved "are biased"-- but, oddly, they don't cite any examples of biases in any actual Snopes articles. So we can ignore these all as irrelevant to the subject.

The last two don't include a citation to "the couple admitting to fake news", but at least are slightly relevant.... but all they are is (in your words) "people calling them liars." The actual details in the Snopes articles critiqued... don't show any lies.

The first one is about Democrats purportedly failing to stand during a Navy Seal tribute. The Snopes article is here. The article you linked was primarily criticizing Politifact, and only briefly mentions Snopes... but nevertheless, it ends with the following statement: "The Daily Wire, PolitiFact and Snopes ALL described the events in the exact same way; exactly as they happened." The phrase "describing the events exactly as they happened", to me, reads as a statement that the site is accurate.

The second link you give has a bad flaw. The Snopes article being critiqued is here. Notice that the photo-meme that they're debunking is at the very top of the article. But the article criticizing them leaves this out, and pretends Snopes is debunking a somewhat truncated version. Nope. They criticize Snopes for "moving the goalposts"... while themselves moving the goalposts.

In either case, though, none of the citations answers the request for a citation of the purported fact that "the couple admitted to fake news."

The first three links you give don't assert that the couple (that run Snopes) "admitted to fake news". You did read the title on this thread, right? The articles assert the "some of the people" involved "are biased"-- but, oddly, they don't cite any examples of biases in any actual Snopes articles. So we can ignore these all as irrelevant to the subject.

The last two don't include a citation to "the couple admitting to fake news", but at least are slightly relevant.... but all they are is (in your words) "people calling them liars." The actual details in the Snopes articles critiqued... don't show any lies.

The first one is about Democrats purportedly failing to stand during a Navy Seal tribute. The Snopes article is here. The article you linked was primarily criticizing Politifact, and only briefly mentions Snopes... but nevertheless, it ends with the following statement: "The Daily Wire, PolitiFact and Snopes ALL described the events in the exact same way; exactly as they happened." The phrase "describing the events exactly as they happened", to me, reads as a statement that the site is accurate.

The second link you give has a bad flaw. The Snopes article being critiqued is here. Notice that the photo-meme that they're debunking is at the very top of the article. But the article criticizing them leaves this out, and pretends Snopes is debunking a somewhat truncated version. Nope. They criticize Snopes for "moving the goalposts"... while themselves moving the goalposts.

In either case, though, none of the citations answers the request for a citation of the purported fact that "the couple admitted to fake news."

Yes, mod parent UP!!!!! Shady as shit all around and the woman Mikkelson left Barbara for is apparently the snopes admin assistant (per the complaint) and this (very bottom).

Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/

Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???

Snopes doesn't have a political agenda, nosirree!

Well, regardless of what you might say about them, when it comes to political agenda you certainly do possess one.

Let's see your example, is a clear case of trying to push an agenda, that somehow, in some way, Omar Mateen's politics were reflected in his choice of party affiliation? You know, the process that required him to check a box on a form?

Yet for some reason, you are aghast at the idea. Because you want to advance the laughable idea of Omar Mateen, a random security guard, being somehow a meaningful symbol of the Democratic Party?

Is that it?

Why don't you just go join Anne Coulter as she claims Charles Guiteau and John Wilkes Booth were Democrats, huh?

Look, here's the only legitimate position on Omar Mateen's politics: They have nothing to do with any political party today, and if they reflect anything, it's a biased and broken cultural ethos that sadly, isn't even limited to the Islamic one, but can be found in numerous others, including more than a few Christian ones.

But you don't care, do you? You just WANT a reason to HATE DEMOCRATS, don't you?

They have an article debunking the myth that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. As part of the evidence against this, they wrote:

One doesn’t simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed — the missing digit affects one’s balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and “relearn” how to walk.

The problem is that isn't true. My wife is a podiatrist who amputates toes routinely as part of her job. I discussed this with her and she said that the whole "relearning to walk" thing is in itself a myth, and that even people who have their big toes removed generally do just fine in no time. Try it yourself: walk across the floor with your big toe pulled upward so it doesn't hit the ground. Easy, right? And that's the big toe; a vestigial extra-pinky toe hanging off the side would contribute almost nothing to balance or your gait.

I wrote them with this information. They replied, quite defensively, that I was wrong and that she did not have six toes. Uh, yeah, I totally agree! I still think they should have removed the invalid evidence that contradicts expert testimony. If you're proving that "1 + 1 = 2 because cats have wings", and I tell you cats don't actually have wings, it doesn't invalidate your premise but it does suggest that you'd want to update your proof.

Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/

Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???

Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...

In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.

And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???

I know for a fact that Johnny Carson had a woman (not that clown Gabor, but another with a white dress) on that asked him, "Do you want to pet my p@ssy?". The segment was broadcast on a tribute to the man like 20+ years ago, but it happened. Snopes stated that it wasn't true. Good riddance. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/...

Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/

Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???

Snopes doesn't have a political agenda, nosirree!

Then how did they setup this page if they had their access cutoff: http://www.snopes.com/save-snopes/ ???

I have a feeling this "fact checking" website isn't telling us all the facts.

Yes, "debunked" here:

http://www.snopes.com/save-sno... :-/

Who's "they"?

The bogeyman, of course! Depending on who you are pandering to, it's conservatives, alt-right, the NRA, GamerGate, MRAs, Fascists, KKK, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, etc.

These days, it's all about whipping up a mob, and if you define the "enemy" too closely you can't get a big enough mob. It's why you have things like the "women's march" with no clear goals or message, with pro-sharia leaders, speakers who were convicted for torture and murder, and literal terrorists as organizers.

Most of these people calling for "free speech" in the case of Gawker would be the first to decry it when it comes to sites like Breitbart, infowars, and Drudge Report. They're the same crowd that loves to point to this XKCD (which completely misunderstands the principle of free speech) when they push for corporate censorship of opposing political views whilst mocking defenders of free speech with the phrase "freeze peach".

http://www.snopes.com/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

So, are you deliberately trying to sow FUD, or are you just ignorant about the context of that quote?

Umm did you forget all the Clinton dead bodies (all rationalized though the sum total is nigh unto impossible to have been as the were explained away).

Ah, you mean the ever-growing list of assorted people whose "mysterious" deaths have no particular connection to the Clintons that the right-wing keeps pretending has some legitimacy?

Or did you miss how discredited and uninformed that list was? Just tell the truth, did you ever look into its veracity or not? It's what you chose to start off with, but that alone, destroys your credibility.

I think there are already plans afoot to get rid of private prisons in this country. Private prisons are being phased out... at least for now, unless Trump or a later President decides to reverse that decision.

Are you nuts? While it's not really true Jeff sessions owns private prisons it most certainly is true private prisons lobbied trump lavishly, and he accepted the money including over 250k usd for just the inauguration. Further Trumps cleansing of America of immigrants requires a detainment period at, you guessed it, prison of which many are private. It's no wonder Sessions is bringing back 1960s hystaria around marijuana and minor offenses either, the shitshow of how private prisons are run in the USA needs to end but is instead expanding.

The Dalai Lama once said that if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

Spontaneous generation was a theory to explain some observations. It made predictions that were found to be wrong, and was dropped. There was never any evidence that life couldn't form on its own, just that it didn't do it as often as predicted. You are also confusing evolution and the appearance of life. Evolution is what happened when life existed.

There are no cases of irreducible complexity, only dumb and unimaginative critics. Complicated relationships can develop spontaneously over millions of years. Bear in mind that a biological structure doesn't necessarily serve the same function it does now. Wings apparently started as radiators, and started to be useful for some form of flight.

Evolution (in the sense of the formation of new species) has been observed in the lab. The formation of life from non-living materials has not, AFAIK, but that's not the same thing. Evolution has happened in small pieces all over the world for a long time, while all we know of the formation of life is that it happened somewhere on the planet at some point in a very long period, so there's no reason to think it would be easy to reproduce in a lab.

The development of life, as it happened, was due to certain energy sources, which generated entropy. Most of this is from the Sun, which is creating entropy at a ferocious rate. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, and allow for local variations.

There is no general agreement on the number of books in the Bible (consider the Apocrypha). Much of the Bible is accounts of people's observations and interpretations, but the formation of life is not one of them. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in a world already going strong, and therefore had no observations of anything that happened before them.

Lots of legends of floods suggest a lot of local floods, not one big one. A global flood like Noah's would require that lots and lots of water mysteriously appear and then mysteriously disappear, and we would have noticed the effects.

You appear to be unaware of plate tectonics. Where land is now is not where it always was, and there are mechanisms that take ocean bottom and push it into mountains. And how the heck would a forty-day rainfall flash-freeze anything?

We find ancient cities now and then. The existence of an old city does not show that it was destroyed by God for being selfish and uncharitable and basically modern Republican.

I'll give the pointer here, to Snopes.com, to show that you've been swallowing some really dubious kool-aid.

If you want me to believe anything weird about Jericho, you're going to have to provide some sort of cite. I don't see any reason why walls would always fall in, and I haven't seen evidence that Jericho's walls fell outwards. I do know that, in some sieges, people pulled on ropes attached to grapnels at the top of the wall, although I don't know if that was ever done with stone walls.