We had several disputes in the commentary section of several posts this week. In the interest of keeping things easily followed, I figured I would address two of them here.
The first dealt with an assertion that public polling shows that a majority of Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. The resulting data from this poll was never really in doubt, it was the conclusion(s) drawn from this data that led to an assertion that this means people are turning toward “conservatives” and/or the Republican Party. Well, here’s the catch. Recent polling also shows that the majority of people dissatisfied with the direction of the nation do not connect the direction to Obama or Obama’s policies. This also accounts for the vacillations in Obama’s approval ratings. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this disconnect within the American population is that any conclusion that people are turning from the Left to the Right cannot be supported by the cited polling data: it must be “assumed.”
The second issue dealt with the anonymous Democrat’s letter to the editor titled “Proud to be an American.” One RNL reader said that SNOPES “debunked” it. The commenter also declared the letter parody. In reality, SNOPES confirmed that this letter was real, then – true to LIBERAL form – SNOPES editorialized, saying THEY think it was satire. The problem here is, for a site dedicated to “debunking” internet myths; SNOPES was deliberately creating an internet myth. There is no evidence that the letter in question was intended to be satire, so SNOPES shouldn’t have commented on it. That they did is actually an indication of the political agenda behind the SNOPES staff. Real reporting or “debunking” would have simply stated the letter was actually published in the paper mentioned on the date mentioned and left it at that.
Finally, it was firmly established that I cannot spell to save my life and that fellow contributors, Augger and Texas, have volunteered to do their best to follow-up behind me, policing my prolific misspelling wherever and whenever they find them.
The Rio Norte Line 
Why would anyone believe Snopes? Any time I have checked there on things I actually know about, they have been wrong.
drk,
For whatever reason, the Left seems to take SNOPES as “gospel.” That’s unfortunate because, as you rightly point out, they get an awful lot wrong, and the majority of it seems to be connected to the political views of the people running it.
Hey Joe !! ( not to paraphrase Jimi Hendrix or anything ).
You were ahead of the Curve with your 70’s shoe thread….Maybe Mark Levin reads UR blog.
He was responding to a GOP comment that the GOP needed to present themselves as “Cool”……Mark said “Oh OK so maybe the Male GOP shouls bring back Liesure suits and the Female GOP could wear Hotpants and mini-skirts..” LOL.
( well …. the Hotpants / miniskirts …. might not be a bad idea actually ).
Don,
I’m in tune with the cosmic vibes, babe. 🙂
Don’t forget the knee high boots to accessorize the mini skirts…
(kells, that would be a good gravatar)
Snopes was long ago purchased by a George Soros Holding Company…..
Any question now why SNOPES is pushed as Liberal Gospel ???
That is interesting. I hadn’t known that.
You didn’t know it, dreteddc, because it isn’t so. But people will keep regurgitating the fable, even though they can find no evidence whatsoever. http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp
Using a source to clear that source of an accusation is fallacious argument…doc. You need to post a public document that lists the actual owner of the entity, not what the entity posts about itself. That is, unless you want to take Manson’s word for whether or not he is guilty…
I have no real interest in who owns Snopes. But I’ve yet to see any nutball conservative offer any evidence that Soros is remotely involved. If you have some, feel free to show it.
I don’t care who owns them, they are full of baloney.
I only vaguely remember those stories. Maybe you could add links?
Hey! Haven’t you left the country yet? Why do you think I allowed you to be Secretary of State? It was for the same reason Obama gave it to Hillary: to get her out of the country already! 😉
Homeland Security isn’t doing its job and neither are the boys! So, yes, I shall be a thorn in your side for now (and you can bet your sweet tail I won’t lie for you!)
Well, if you won’t lie for me, then that probably means you have ties to “Al-Qaeda associated forces.” 😉
No, Kells, there are no supporting links that can be traced to anything other than speculation on conservative blogs.
Kells,
Do you see why no one gives this fool any credibility? Here he is: authoritatively telling you that the aforementioned links do not exist, thus revealing to those who understand the context that he is an ignorant ass of a man.
James, if you bothered to read, and if you cared about anything other than being a troll, you wouldn’t have made such a STUPID comment. The links to which Kells is referring are links to POST ON THE RNL! And they most definitely exist, you idiot.
See, folks, James has a PhD, which proves our university system has F-A-I-L-E-D!
My assumption was that the “links” to which Kells referred were links connecting Soros to Snopes. If I read her meaning incorrectly, my apologies. If I read it correctly, my statement is correct.
But I see it took you all of two comments to revert to your usual namecalling–a demonstration of the high level of intellect that reminds me why I stopped dropping by here for so long. Fine work, Joe. I expect the resident proctologist will chip in anytime now.
SBJ; I understand your confusion. My comment was written before the Soros discussion got going. Because you are allowed to reply to a comment before yours, the thread can seem disjointed at times.
By the by, have you written a new post? I don’t think you’ll be able to top the vlog!
My mistake then, Kells–sorry. And though it doesn’t top the student video of me, I did do a post to try to help out the GOP after the State of the Union Address: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/gulp-rubio-cant-help-gop-so-ill-try/
I also had a letter to the editor of my local paper, though it won’t mean as much if you’re not familiar with Idaho politics: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/16/leaders-the-scary-ones/
You need not apologise. Trust me; you will know when you’ve caused me to grind my teeth. Now I’m off to read your post.
“Augger and Texas, have volunteered to do their best to follow-up behind me, policing my prolific misspelling wherever and whenever they find them.”
Ah no, no, no. (laughs). Augger really said:
Don’t make me out to be any less choleric to these crazy (censored) liberals than I already am. 🙂
I like it Augger !
I won’t be doin any LYING either….. 🙂
I gave him an H, but did I get so much as a tank you?
Texas, didn’t you write a post on EO’s?
Kells,
What is an “H?” And how am I supposed to respond to a letter? 🙂
Um, excuse me, but you spelled through, trough. I gave you an H since you’re so concerned about your spelling. I, on the other hand, let my misspellings fester and grow into an all-consuming, deadly and horrific disease. I feel that is the best way to conquer things of that nature.
Feel free to return my H. You did notice it missing, right?
Kells,
Thanks, and no, I didn’t notice. Sometimes, I don’t misspell words – at least, I have help. Have you ever had a wireless keyboard? They have a habit of dropping letters from time to time, and if it happens that you drop a letter but still spell a real word, the spell checker is of no help.
I have had a wireless keyboard. I know there was a certain letter (can’t remember which one) that didn’t want to take. I don’t know how to do spellcheck on the wordpress, so I count on my own skills, and the ability to edit. That said, sometimes I am too lazy and could really give a fat rat’s tiddely-boomp. If someone should like to challege me in a spelling contest, I have two words for them: Bring it.
what’s an EO?
Executive Order
Thank you,
Kells,
I think I wrote in my “constitution” posts about EO’s …
Thanks, Texas. I found a link from one of your posts, but it wasn’t so detailed as far as the constitutional legalities of the powers that the Executive Branch has when executing an EO.