[Granny Bear]

I know I should calm down before I post this, but I am not going to do that.

I just heard a report on CBS about " the fake news epidemic", and what needs to be done to stop it.

I am so pissed off!!!

HOW does it get to be an epidemic????

I grew up in a generation where your word was your bond. Chet Huntley/ David Brinkley New Hour, etc.

This may seem very naïve to some of you (Sombrero), but in my opinion, news anchors have a responsibility to report the facts of the news and NOT their slant on the news.

Got that off my chest!

[Motley]

It is very frustrating but the majority of the fake news sites were so influential and that Americans were stupid enough to buy into it. But the majority of these were extremely beneficial to Trump's campaign. I think you are misinterpreting what "fake news" means. Saw this interesting story yesterday.

Fake news got Trump elected

[Bob Seger]

You mean to tell me that Obama is disgusted with CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CBS? Especially after all they have done for him and Hillary Clinton...What an ingrate!!

[Granny Bear]

^
Yeah, I saw that BS, too. And you are correct in saying that we bought into it.

If fake news was in Trump's favor (which I doubt), then it was more than equalized with the failure of the news coverage on Hillary's escapades.

I just resent the fact that you can't trust the news media anymore, to give fair and accurate coverage. If that doesn't meet your definition of "fake news", then I stand corrected.

[Bob Seger]

It is very frustrating but the majority of the fake news sites were so influential and that Americans were stupid enough to buy into it. But the majority of these were extremely beneficial to Trump's campaign. I think you are misinterpreting what "fake news" means. Saw this interesting story yesterday.

Fake news got Trump elected

As reported by the integrity ladened, The Washington Post.

Nice find there Motley!!

nicker:nicker:

[mr.fundamental]

People are too lazy to check out news sources. In my area, if it is on Facebook, it is the gospel! Abe Lincoln told us so!

[Granny Bear]

^^LOL

Folks are too lazy to check out the news source; however, my opinion is that they should not have to check it out. It should be reported factual and without perspective.

[mr.fundamental]

Yes but news organizations are driven by profits, look at the commercials, those demographics appeal to certain segments, also though those certain segments have their distinct point of view, if they report on something that would anger that point of view, the viewership is down, commercials are down, money is down. Therefore, a slant, is inherit, because the money is inherit. Take for an example Fox News and MSNBC News, each report an event, each say you can not trust another news source, why? They need the viewership, play to our personal bias, and the money keeps rolling in... brilliant really. But sad for the average American who does not see this, or even truly care.

[Motley]

The fact that you're arguing what a fake news site even is, speaks loudly about the dumbing down of America. Yes, all media is biased, but these are blatantly made up stories to boost readership and get easy clicks. Granny, you've completely missed the point of what "fake news" even is.

[Granny Bear]

Betty White leaves us at age 95! Click here for the story.

click


New magic wrinkle cream takes years off your age.



That close?

[TheRealThing]

You mean to tell me that Obama is disgusted with CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CBS? Especially after all they have done for him and Hillary Clinton...What an ingrate!!

^
Yeah, I saw that BS, too. And you are correct in saying that we bought into it.

If fake news was in Trump's favor (which I doubt), then it was more than equalized with the failure of the news coverage on Hillary's escapades.

I just resent the fact that you can't trust the news media anymore, to give fair and accurate coverage. If that doesn't meet your definition of "fake news", then I stand corrected.

I have been exasperated with the media since the days of Reagan. I don't trust them and only believe on an immediate basis, those things I can see with my own eyes. Like a plane crash or the like.

All major news outlets are off my list and have been now for at least 20 years. Only FOX remains and increasingly even they are not worth listening to. On the parent station O'Reilly is mostly right IMO, but certainly not always. I can barely stomach Brett Baier. Tucker Carlson isn't bad and Hannity though a bit over the top isn't bad. The rest of the days' programing is tripe if you ask me.

Now, FOX Business is much better. In the mornings Varney & Co is very good. Neil Cavuto is mostly good. Charles Payne is good, and Lou Dobbs is also very good. I stick mostly with those folks for my news gathering but I still make up my own mind about what I hear. If people understood how incredibly biased so-called media are they'd all feel like you do right now Granny. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of media and their families are joined with the DNC at the hip. The news is far more aptly described as production entertainment than the 4th estate. And they should all be ashamed.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Folks WANT to watch news that reinforces their worldview. Then, call it "true." "Folks" wear red and blue sweaters. When Uncle Walter said, "And that's the way it is," if the assumption was unvarnished truth had been delivered, that assumption was wrong.

Look at the news sources TRT lists as "reliable" in a previous post. Then, compare them to his worldview. Illustrates the point.

[TheRealThing]

Folks WANT to watch news that reinforces their worldview. Then, call it "true." "Folks" wear red and blue sweaters. When Uncle Walter said, "And that's the way it is," if the assumption was unvarnished truth had been delivered, that assumption was wrong.

Look at the news sources TRT lists as "reliable" in a previous post. Then, compare them to his worldview. Illustrates the point.

Right, who am I to think I have the proper world view when you're the one who really does, right?

The only point I see illustrated here is that you and all others of your ilk believe that truth is relative. The media are certainly on your side as they discern what they believe to be the truth along ideological lines. The sad part is the real truth, God's Word, has in many cases been rejected for the tenets of secular humanism. Men setting themselves up to decide what is true or what is right even if that means overruling God Himself. Case in point would be the ongoing argument between us on the sin of homosexuality. The SC ruled it is okay and now brand new case law abounds on the subject. Of course, God says that lifestyle is unacceptable and leads to eternal separation from Him, but men just know better.

I'm just going to have to tough it out knowing you disagree with me I suppose.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Right, who am I to think I have the proper world view when you're the one who really does, right?

The only point I see illustrated here is that you and all others of your ilk believe that truth is relative. The media are certainly on your side as they discern what they believe to be the truth along ideological lines. The sad part is the real truth, God's Word, has in many cases been rejected for the tenets of secular humanism. Men setting themselves up to decide what is true or what is right even if that means overruling God Himself. Case in point would be the ongoing argument between us on the sin of homosexuality. The SC ruled it is okay and now brand new case law abounds on the subject. Of course, God says that lifestyle is unacceptable and leads to eternal separation from Him, but men just know better.

I'm just going to have to tough it out knowing you disagree with me I suppose.

I didn't say anything about being the one with the "proper" worldview. I suggested the news outlets you mentioned parrot your worldview, and, therefore, you call it "truth."

[The Urban Sombrero]

🔼🔼

By the way, our disagreement is not on viewing homosexuality as missing the mark of God. Our disagreement is about what equal protection means under civil authority governed by a Constitution which encodes freedom of conscience.

[TheRealThing]

I didn't say anything about being the one with the "proper" worldview. I suggested the news outlets you mentioned parrot your worldview, and, therefore, you call it "truth."

Well you don't get to rashly categorize all of America into two divisions, the red/blue sweater deal, and somehow remain above it all yourself. But you are on to something where man's sted with the Almighty is concerned. They do adopt either a secular view based on their own ideas of what God should be, or one based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One is correct, one is not. the two sides can make an argument out of it but the truth is still the sole possession of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and God's Word. The two divisions are the saved and the lost.

Likewise, conservatives base their understanding, though many times somewhat flawed as in the case of DJT, on the Godly principles which have been passed down in our society. The left hates that and they will never stop their assault. So if you want to take your cues from CNN and NBC have at it. I still know the truth as it is much grander than something as narrow and ill conceived as liberalism.

[TheRealThing]

����

By the way, our disagreement is not on viewing homosexuality as missing the mark of God. Our disagreement is about what equal protection means under civil authority governed by a Constitution which encodes freedom of conscience.

Our disagreement is that men do not have the authority to legislate in a manner which circumvents His Word. And I know you'll never give up the quest, but the words freedom of conscience are not written anywhere in the founding documents.

[mr.fundamental]

Godly principles such as forgiving all debts after every seven years (old testament rule), or selling all of possessions so if any one has need (new testament rule), not casting any stone unless you are sinless, giving unto Caesar which is Caesar's, man I thought conservatives were against Communism... but now you are telling me they are for it. I would like further explanation please on your perception and how that relates to the first amendment, I think I will enjoy this. I will start a new thread.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Our disagreement is that men do not have the authority to legislate in a manner which circumvents His Word. And I know you'll never give up the quest, but the words freedom of conscience are not written anywhere in the founding documents.

The words "thou shalt not drop kick a puppy" are not in the Scriptures; however, based on the words of the rest of it, and the impression they create, probably unwise to boot a pooch and then say "them exact words ain't in the text."

[zaga_fan]

I've worked in news in some form or another for about a decade now - and the power of social media is a game changer in the way information is distributed.

People share anything they agree with and believe it as gospel. It doesn't matter if the website is called "fakenews.com" or "donotsharethisfakenewsstory.com" - someone will share it.

I don't think fake news stories won Trump the election, because I think the vast majority of people knew who they were voting for to begin with.

What fake stories do have the ability to do, is change the way people think about more specific topics. If you have a candidate that is telling you the election is rigged and fake news sites say he won the popular vote - but every major outlet says he didn't - who are folks going to believe?

Fake news makes it harder for the folks in the media that try to get it right, and contrary to what a lot of people think, there are folks that try very hard to get it right.

[Bob Seger]

I've worked in news in some form or another for about a decade now - and the power of social media is a game changer in the way information is distributed.

People share anything they agree with and believe it as gospel. It doesn't matter if the website is called "fakenews.com" or "donotsharethisfakenewsstory.com" - someone will share it.

I don't think fake news stories won Trump the election, because I think the vast majority of people knew who they were voting for to begin with.

What fake stories do have the ability to do, is change the way people think about more specific topics. If you have a candidate that is telling you the election is rigged and fake news sites say he won the popular vote - but every major outlet says he didn't - who are folks going to believe?

Fake news makes it harder for the folks in the media that try to get it right, and contrary to what a lot of people think, there are folks that try very hard to get it right.

lol....Name one without an agenda?

[TheRealThing]

The words "thou shalt not drop kick a puppy" are not in the Scriptures; however, based on the words of the rest of it, and the impression they create, probably unwise to boot a pooch and then say "them exact words ain't in the text."

LOL, now that is what I call a dog of a post. To your point, not only are the exact words not there, words to that effect are not there, nor are words which are even vaguely similar. But you still think the constitution should be interpreted using them.

But then, it's a moot point anyway. Now that DJT is certain to appoint committed conservatives to serve as Justices to the SC we can all relax. For decades. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, now that is what I call a dog of a post. To your point, not only are the exact words not there, words to that effect are not there, nor are words which are even vaguely similar. But you still think the constitution should be interpreted using them.

But then, it's a moot point anyway. Now that DJT is certain to appoint committed conservatives to serve as Justices to the SC we can all relax. For decades. :biggrin:

Unless you are a bit more dense than I believe you to be, you know exactly what my post meant. I notice, of course, you won't enter the arena on the Deists and Founding Fathers thread. No worries. Let's not trouble that hoary old head of yours with FACTS that interrupt your belief system.

As for PE Trump, 2020 may be the watershed for the SCOTUS appointments. It actually amazes me that you believe freedom of conscience a concept alien to the Constitution.

[TheRealThing]

Unless you are a bit more dense than I believe you to be, you know exactly what my post meant. I notice, of course, you won't enter the arena on the Deists and Founding Fathers thread. No worries. Let's not trouble that hoary old head of yours with FACTS that interrupt your belief system.

As for PE Trump, 2020 may be the watershed for the SCOTUS appointments. It actually amazes me that you believe freedom of conscience a concept alien to the Constitution.

We've already covered that topic in times past and I have no further interest in a rehash. The deist argument was thin when first presented, and to this very day is a laughably insufficient basis on which to reject the fact that the US was founded on Christian principles.

I can give at least one parallel by way of analogy. The fact is the vast majority of people in this world reject God, it follows then that they also reject the fact that we are created. So in an attempt to put together a plausible alternative to Creationism they turned to science. Some of the scientific community eventually came up with the theory of Evolution. It's bull, but those determined to deny the almighty His just due, rather choose to believe that the universe and all life came from a huge exploding rock floating out in inky blackness, surrounded by nothing.

Freedom of conscience, like Evolutionism or a magic exploding rock, is a baseless fabrication. Dreamed up by those who reject the Light of the world in an attempt to salve their own consciences.

[The Urban Sombrero]

We've already covered that topic in times past and I have no further interest in a rehash. The deist argument was thin when first presented, and to this very day is a laughably insufficient basis on which to reject the fact that the US was founded on Christian principles.

I can give at least one parallel by way of analogy. The fact is the vast majority of people in this world reject God, it follows then that they also reject the fact that we are created. So in an attempt to put together a plausible alternative to Creationism they turned to science. Some of the scientific community eventually came up with the theory of Evolution. It's bull, but those determined to deny the almighty His just due, rather choose to believe that the universe and all life came from a huge exploding rock floating out in inky blackness, surrounded by nothing.

Freedom of conscience, like Evolutionism or a magic exploding rock, is a baseless fabrication. Dreamed up by those who reject the Light of the world in an attempt to salve their own consciences.

The four questions or steps to take in evaluating the Founders as presented in the Brittannica article are not biased. If pursued, they lead toward an inexorable conclusion. I simply invite other posters to make their own inquiry.

Freedom of conscience does not sanctify the choice. It does not seek to change moral law. What it does is recognize the dangers inherent in too much power vested in church or state. The individual chooser will stand before the Almighty in my view to give account. I do not believe God wants anything but worship and love freely chosen, freely given. The dangers of man's trampling of conscience fill history's pages. Our founding documents evidence this awareness.

[TheRealThing]

The four questions or steps to take in evaluating the Founders as presented in the Brittannica article are not biased. If pursued, they lead toward an inexorable conclusion. I simply invite other posters to make their own inquiry.

Freedom of conscience does not sanctify the choice. It does not seek to change moral law. What it does is recognize the dangers inherent in too much power vested in church or state. The individual chooser will stand before the Almighty in my view to give account. I do not believe God wants anything but worship and love freely chosen, freely given. The dangers of man's trampling of conscience fill history's pages. Our founding documents evidence this awareness.

I used the Theory of Evolution for a reason. As I said, man finding himself in a position such that he wanted to reject or rebel against the rightful authority of God, came up with his own idea of how he came into existence. What we got as the replacement for God's own account of creation was the big bang and Evolutionism. In an attempt to develop those theories and make them plausibly applicable, scientists used proven science to retro-engineer what have since become the present day elaborate fabrications being taught to every American. Which theories BTW, being exposed to constant scrutiny, every so often run up against the hard reality of actual proof and creative allowances must be made to prop things back up. The two theories, though incredibly intricate, rest none the less on one false premise. There is no God.

The four questions are just another example of retro-engineered reasoning by the writers of your Britannica article, who would never have even ventured down that path if they did not have an ax to grind with our factually traditional Christian heritage. Those who are so rightly uncomfortable with the prospect of one day facing The Omnipotent Creator and Judge, like the scientific community who represent them, strive continually to defend things like global warming, Evolutionism and other secular and religious heresies. None of whom like the idea that the US was founded on Christian principles. Hence the hair on fire push to separate the Church's influence on issues of State, and the exclusion of nativity scenes from town squares. So it's off to shoot the messengers again, this time the very persons of the founders. The onslaught is being perpetrated by revisionists and heretics. The fruits of their labor may be seen on the campuses of US institutions of higher learning as students are demanding they be made 'safe zones', free evidently from the burden of US law. So the future leaders of this land known for being a nation of laws, are calling for zones free from laws. Anybody else see trouble brewing here?

The words freedom of conscience are not included within any founding document. As I mentioned to you, the only known mention was in state law in the process of being hammered out, (one state), but was intentionally omitted from the final draft. There are no dangers in a proper understanding and adherence to Scriptural truths applicable to any life situation known to man. However, the notions of men who follow their own conscience freely are rife with guarantee of error. Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I know better than to get drawn into a protracted and convoluted debate made so complex and convoluted by the debates of days past, by better men than I. The founders knew the arguments you're trying to make front and back, and the language of the documents was thoroughly debated. I defer to them.

[mr.fundamental]

I used the Theory of Evolution for a reason. As I said, man finding himself in a position such that he wanted to reject or rebel against the rightful authority of God, came up with his own idea of how he came into existence. What we got as the replacement for God's own account of creation was the big bang and Evolutionism. In an attempt to develop those theories and make them plausibly applicable, scientists used proven science to retro-engineer what have since become the present day elaborate fabrications being taught to every American. Which theories BTW, being exposed to constant scrutiny, every so often run up against the hard reality of actual proof and creative allowances must be made to prop things back up. The two theories, though incredibly intricate, rest none the less on one false premise. There is no God.

The four questions are just another example of retro-engineered reasoning by the writers of your Britannica article, who would never have even ventured down that path if they did not have an ax to grind with our factually traditional Christian heritage. Those who are so rightly uncomfortable with the prospect of one day facing The Omnipotent Creator and Judge, like the scientific community who represent them, strive continually to defend things like global warming, Evolutionism and other secular and religious heresies. None of whom like the idea that the US was founded on Christian principles. Hence the hair on fire push to separate the Church's influence on issues of State, and the exclusion of nativity scenes from town squares. So it's off to shoot the messengers again, this time the very persons of the founders. The onslaught is being perpetrated by revisionists and heretics. The fruits of their labor may be seen on the campuses of US institutions of higher learning as students are demanding they be made 'safe zones', free evidently from the burden of US law. So the future leaders of this land known for being a nation of laws, are calling for zones free from laws. Anybody else see trouble brewing here?

The words freedom of conscience are not included within any founding document. As I mentioned to you, the only known mention was in state law in the process of being hammered out, (one state), but was intentionally omitted from the final draft. There are no dangers in a proper understanding and adherence to Scriptural truths applicable to any life situation known to man. However, the notions of men who follow their own conscience freely are rife with guarantee of error. Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I know better than to get drawn into a protracted and convoluted debate made so complex and convoluted by the debates of days past, by better men than I. The founders knew the arguments you're trying to make front and back, and the language of the documents was thoroughly debated. I defer to them.

Wow, interesting read... one question... how long is a day to God? I am also glad you live in a country where you can have an opinion that is yours based upon your own religious belief, and I can live in an country that where I can have an opinion based upon mine. Also, did you know that the Jefferson Bible is given to new Congressmen/Congresswomen... one interesting thing in that is... well I will let you look that up because you will not believe it anyway...

[mr.fundamental]

Also, with Christian Heritage concept and thought... in your view does that mean that the Earth is at the Center of the Universe?

[TheRealThing]

Wow, interesting read... one question... how long is a day to God? I am also glad you live in a country where you can have an opinion that is yours based upon your own religious belief, and I can live in an country that where I can have an opinion based upon mine. Also, did you know that the Jefferson Bible is given to new Congressmen/Congresswomen... one interesting thing in that is... well I will let you look that up because you will not believe it anyway...

LOL, here we go again. Same liberal arguments based on whatifisms. Answer, one day equals 24 hours, and that would be from God's perspective as well as man's. Truth is always truth regardless of the application, whether that be in spiritual terms or secular. Now, if you're asking if one day (the 24 hour variety) or one year for that matter, has any particular impact on The Almighty, the answer is no. God's existence is timeless. In fact among the other laws of nature, time is a mere commodity He afforded man to both frame and limit his earthly existence. He was here before the universe and man were created, and so will He ever be. Hence the verse to which you were no doubt alluding:
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I am well aware of the blessings this land has afforded me. A fact of which the meaning was honed to a much sharper image by my having actually served in the Armed Services. Did you proffer that fundamental service to your country there mister, or are you a natural born expert on the matter?

If you want to spend a lot of effort in slamming the validity of The Lord's own involvement in the historical and present sense of American history, please knock yourself out. That is if you can tear yourself away from your tv time out. :biggrin:

[mr.fundamental]

I used the Theory of Evolution for a reason. As I said, man finding himself in a position such that he wanted to reject or rebel against the rightful authority of God, came up with his own idea of how he came into existence. What we got as the replacement for God's own account of creation was the big bang and Evolutionism. In an attempt to develop those theories and make them plausibly applicable, scientists used proven science to retro-engineer what have since become the present day elaborate fabrications being taught to every American. Which theories BTW, being exposed to constant scrutiny, every so often run up against the hard reality of actual proof and creative allowances must be made to prop things back up. The two theories, though incredibly intricate, rest none the less on one false premise. There is no God.

The four questions are just another example of retro-engineered reasoning by the writers of your Britannica article, who would never have even ventured down that path if they did not have an ax to grind with our factually traditional Christian heritage. Those who are so rightly uncomfortable with the prospect of one day facing The Omnipotent Creator and Judge, like the scientific community who represent them, strive continually to defend things like global warming, Evolutionism and other secular and religious heresies. None of whom like the idea that the US was founded on Christian principles. Hence the hair on fire push to separate the Church's influence on issues of State, and the exclusion of nativity scenes from town squares. So it's off to shoot the messengers again, this time the very persons of the founders. The onslaught is being perpetrated by revisionists and heretics. The fruits of their labor may be seen on the campuses of US institutions of higher learning as students are demanding they be made 'safe zones', free evidently from the burden of US law. So the future leaders of this land known for being a nation of laws, are calling for zones free from laws. Anybody else see trouble brewing here?

The words freedom of conscience are not included within any founding document. As I mentioned to you, the only known mention was in state law in the process of being hammered out, (one state), but was intentionally omitted from the final draft. There are no dangers in a proper understanding and adherence to Scriptural truths applicable to any life situation known to man. However, the notions of men who follow their own conscience freely are rife with guarantee of error. Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I know better than to get drawn into a protracted and convoluted debate made so complex and convoluted by the debates of days past, by better men than I. The founders knew the arguments you're trying to make front and back, and the language of the documents was thoroughly debated. I defer to them.

LOL, here we go again. Same liberal arguments based on whatifisms. Answer, one day equals 24 hours, and that would be from God's perspective as well as man's. Truth is always truth regardless of the application, whether that be in spiritual terms or secular. Now, if you're asking if one day (the 24 hour variety) or one year for that matter, has any particular impact on The Almighty, the answer is no. God's existence is timeless. In fact among the other laws of nature, time is a mere commodity He afforded man to both frame and limit his earthly existence. He was here before the universe and man were created, and so will He ever be. Hence the verse to which you were no doubt alluding:
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I am well aware of the blessings this land has afforded me. A fact of which the meaning was honed to a much sharper image by my having actually served in the Armed Services. Did you proffer that fundamental service to your country there mister, or are you a natural born expert on the matter?

If you want to spend a lot of effort in slamming the validity of The Lord's own involvement in the historical and present sense of American history, please knock yourself out. That is if you can tear yourself away from your tv time out. :biggrin:

His ways are not my ways, His thoughts are not my thoughts... I remember reading that somewhere, but now I am told that I can be on par with God. Wow! That my friend is a scary thought. We have no concept of God's time, my opinion, how could a mortal understand immortality, we do know that God placed mortality on our hearts... read that somewhere too.

No, I never did serve, tried, but being legally blind was a damper on joining the Air Force. My cousins, uncle, and grandfathers all served each in the Navy, two in the Army. Served in wars of Korea, Vietnam, Iraqi Freedom, and peacetime.

Who has slammed anything, I give thanks to my Lord to live in a land of the free and as for me and my family we will worship Him. He asked "Do you love me?" Peter said yes you know that I do, then how did Jesus reply?

Again, people condemn people by using the law, which in truth, we are all condemned. We are to love God with all of our heart, mind, and spirit. We are to love our neighbor as we are to love ourselves.