This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

FAKE NEWS the Fake News Hasn't Been Talking About

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Journalism with two confirmed sources in a position of knowledge is not Fake News, It's possible, it can be proven wrong at a later date and professional journalist will retract or correct the story. Fake New is what you see or hear often on CBN, Britbart, Rush or stories like the one blogger recently share on Watauga Conservative about Seth Rich where there are no actual sources confirming the narrative.

USS Rodger Young said...

Rachal Maddow's secret revelation on Trump that turned out to be a decade old tax form was completely orchestrated to impugn Trump but it was a step too far for even liberal socialist sheep (you)to believe. Then we have the entire coverage of the election with lie upon lie by not two "confirmed" sources of media, but dozens. Some of them even apologized. This is the reason YOU LOST!! LOL! Liberal socialist sheep just don't get it - their own delusions manifest to spin the entire bunch of village idiots into a frenzy. Funny to watch at times, and scary that they fall for bread and circuses to this extent. Can't help stupid.

Your ole pal

USS Rodger Young

USS Rodger Young said...

noneymouse coward,

Now that we're talking about the fake news you watch so much, care to tell us why your fake news sources won't mention Reality Winner? Like you, the fake news secretly supports the actions of this traitor. Stings don't it.

Your ole pal

USS Rodger Young

Wolf's Head said...

Shine the name Rodger Young!

Keep whompin' lefties!

Sarkazein said...

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee called Sunday for a congressional investigation into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she’s concerned by former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday that Lynch asked him to downplay his “investigation” into the Democratic presidential nominee as merely a “matter.”
Comey said the political request called into the question the credibility of Lynch’s Department of Justice and made him “queasy.”
- YC

One of the two corrupt AGs under Obama

USS Rodger Young said...

Thanks Wolf's Head. I sorely miss Robert Heinlen and that genre of science fiction. Those were true masters of their craft.

Sark, I see you've launched another heat round into the liberal left's posterior. It keeps getting harder for the dolts to come up with something to post. Love it!!!

USS Rodger Young

Anonymous said...

"Conservatives Hate Fact-Checkers

A new study was just completed by The Reporters’ Lab at Duke University. They analyzed hundreds of references to fact-checkers by critics from both liberal and conservative perspectives. What they found was that conservatives were overwhelming antagonistic toward fact-checking and took every opportunity to disparage it. Liberals, on the other hand, demonstrated that they were not afraid of being fact-checked. The study’s findings revealed that:

“Beyond the use of Pinocchios and Pants on Fire ratings to win the daily skirmishes, fact-checkers have seen anecdotal evidence that conservatives and liberals have different views. Some of the harshest criticism of fact-checking has come from conservative media outlets that say the sites have a liberal bias. By contrast, liberal publications have often seemed more positive about fact-checking – or at least less critical.” […]" "“The partisan divide was striking: 86 percent of the negative references appeared on conservative sites, while only 14 percent appeared on liberal sites. By contrast, almost 85 percent of the positive statements came from liberal sites, while 15 percent came from conservative sites.”
This perceptual difference is emblematic of the right’s aversion to truth-telling in the Era of Trump. Our president has imbued his base with a robotic tendency to spurn anything observed in the “mainstream” media as fakery. As a result, the characterization of fact-checking by conservatives is most often dismissed as the product of liberal bias. Never mind the documentary evidence supplied by the fact-checkers to support their analyses." http://reverbpress.com/politics/conservatives-really-hate-facts-study-shows-striking-partisan-divide-fact-checkers/

guy faulkes said...

"Fact Checking" is an interesting phenomena. First of all, it requires that the checker determine what constitutes a fact. As the article Goofus references indicates, most conservatives feel the fact checkers have a liberal bias. Now how could that happen at a liberal school full of liberal professors and liberal students?
The article goes on to say that "fact checkers" are going to have to find a way to appear legitimate to conservatives. Maybe being legitimate would help do that.

Anonymous said...

Guy

You do have a point most factual information does have a Liberal bias as does math, science and nature.

USS Rodger Young said...

Noneymouse coward,

add global warming and sea rise to the liberal bias - it's math, science and nature in one corrupted package! Great job liberals.

Your ole pal

USS Rodger Young

Anonymous said...

Roger

Did you know there're satellite photography which can and do document the receding polar ice caps, mountain glaciers and rising sea levels? Empathy, knowledge, kindness and humanity unfortunately now seems to have a liberal bias. Religious extremism, cruelty and Authoritarianism seems to have a Conservative bias.

USS Rodger Young said...

noneymouse coward,

Did you know there's satellite imagery (photography is the wrong term my scientifically challenged friend - you're decades too late in using that term)documenting the expansion of polar ice caps, mountain glaciers, and normal sea levels? Where has sea level rise occurred? Name one place. Islands aren't under water, and those living in Boston aren't resorting to floating houses. One of you dolts once said a certain group of Pacific Islands was affected by rising sea waters. That's even more stupid than the flat earth theory you probably believe in. If a Pacific Island were inundated by sea rise, then so would mainlands such as California or Japan.

Your empathy, kindness and humanity are all on full display with the violent protests you seem to support, the traitorous activity fellow liberals promulgate (reality winner), and the selection of illegal aliens over American citizens for fiduciary funding for college. Yep, lots of "empathy, kindness and humanity" going on there. LOL!!!!

Speaking of liberal knowledge, have you sought to gain knowledge by watching the video entitled "No Guns for Negros" yet? If not, why? Some knowledge is inconvenient isn't it? LOL!!!

Your ole pal

USS Rodger Young

PS Macts Niches Bitches. We won, You LOST. And lost big. Enjoy Mr. Trump for at least 3 more years!! He is YOUR President now!!!!!!!!!!! Your own "kindness" towards the working middle class (former Democrats) was your undoing!!!!! Stings don't it!!!!!!!!!!!

USS Rodger Young said...

The liberal socialist sheep aren't used to this type of bashing, and one can notice their frantic attempts to stem the tide. LOL!!! From noneymouse coward #1 puppy wetting himself, to noneyouse coward #2 yapping about "knowledge and kindness", it fun to watch the left crumble into a wobbling mass of contradictions!!!!!!!

A Watauga Conservative has done it......AGAIN!!!!


Your ole pal


USS Rodger Young

Sarkazein said...

As strange as it might sound to those who are members of the The Church of Climate Change beaches suffer erosion.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the DOD doesn't share your opinion.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

guy faulkes said...

Goofus, your reply illustrates the point that it depends on the person defining the fact as to whether it is true or not. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Guy

You honestly don't believe the literally mountains of coal and literally seas of oil burned ver the last 200 years has anything to do with global Climate Change? You don't believe the paving of the world's surface in roads, parking lots and rooftops has any effect on Climate Change? You don't believe deforestation of 90% of the earth's forest has any effect on Global Climate Change? What is your worst case argument against a cleaner world where waterways and air quality are protected? Why would sidewalks, greenways, mass transit and walkable cities and towns be a negative?

Wolf's Head said...

"You don't believe the paving of the world's surface in roads, parking lots and rooftops has any effect on Climate Change? You don't believe deforestation of 90% of the earth's forest has any effect on Global Climate Change?" anon

That's right. Global Warming is caused by urbanites destroying nature for their own benefit.Increasing urbanization is destroying the Earth, it must be stopped.

We should start a global program based on Detroit and Flint Michigan were they are destroying buildings, removing infrastructure and returning it to farmland or wasteland to let nature reclaim it.

Urbanites, who are overwhelmingly liberal are the greatest cause of global warming.

"Why would sidewalks, greenways, mass transit and walkable cities and towns be a negative?" anon

Because that would vastly contribute to global warming! It must be stopped! Liberals are paving over forests and filling wetlands to expand their cities! Liberals are the greatest threat to the Earth there is!

Earther First said...

Stop urban expansion! Stop Global Warming!

Spay/neuter liberals before it's too late!

Anonymous said...

Wolf

We could get on the same page with a little work and critical thinking. Urban sprawl is a greater problem than actual cites which go vertical with large green space such as Central Park in New York City. Mass transit, greenways and sidewalk reduce the need for multi lane highways and parking lots. Surely you've been to Amsterdam and seen the small roads in a world class city.

Anonymous said...

"Surely you've been to Amsterdam and seen the small roads in a world class city."

What kind of wealthy, elitist, white liberal makes this kind of statement? Is anyone who has NOT been to Amsterdam beneath you? How did you travel to Amsterdam -- by plane? How much pollution is associated with the glamorous excursions of wealthy liberals? Ban international air travel! Save the earth!

Here are some ideas to save the earth:

No more private planes.

Outlaw any houses over 1500 square feet (saves energy). Homes larger than that are an unnecessary waste.

Outlaw air conditioning (people survived for thousands of years without it -- just a convenience for spoiled people).

Outlaw more than one vacation per household per year.

Outlaw online shopping and home deliveries (how much more fuel is being consumed for deliveries of single packages to private homes than just having people buy goods shipped to stores in mass?).

Outlaw all plastics and styrofoam.

Outlaw disposable diapers -- go back to cloth and wash by hand!

Outlaw electricity. Since most global warming actions would condemn people in less developed nations from ever advancing, it would be unfair for developed nations to have any sort of "advantage" or higher standard or living."

We could go on, but I think you get the point...

Wolf's Head said...

I've been there, the roads ain't that narrow because there is 1 lane for autos, another lane on each side for bicycles and another lane on each side for pedestrians with a canal in the middle.

Many of the side roads are narrow, But they are not as dependent on autos as we are here, and the buildings are not that high.

You are trying to equate modern cities with those that sere built hundreds of years ago. Even large cities back then were far more in touch with the surrounding countryside. Amsterdam is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there, even with legalized prostitution and an age of consent of 16.

Seems they are far more enlightened about letting women do what they want with their bodies then they are here.

Put 15 to 20 story buildings on either side of a 2 lane road and you have no air flow and no sunlight.

Here in flyover country WE are the green space. We are the producers. We are the ones who care about nature because WE LIVE IN IT.

IF you are REALLY concerned about the planet then do something about the massive destruction of forests and wildlife in Africa, South America, India and China. There is were the real gains can be made, not in over regulating every freakin' facet of our lives here in the US.

It really frosts me how some effete skyscraper troglodyte thinks he knows how we should live, how we should use the world that was given us, when he demands more food, more oil, more electricity, more manufacturing, more water and then dumps his cities pollution on the rest of the world.

Urbanites can stack up their cities all they want, but they produce nothing in the way of food or energy. They are gigantic black holes of consumption and the urbanites are completely divorced from nature and reality

Cities are a blight. First time I flew out of Newark it was at sunset and the city looked like a scene out of Constantine, the scene of Hell.

Maybe stacking cities up is a good idea. It would be easier for the rest of the world to fence them in, cut them off and let them die.

Anonymous said...

Wolf

The point is, it sounds like we want a clean environment, clean rivers with edible fish and friendly communities.

Wolf's Head said...

Of course. Better for hunting and fishing. Open countryside is great for long distance shooting practice.

But you won't get that with urban areas.

If you want to stop pollution go to China, India and the 3rd world s**tholes and clean them up.

I constantly read about species going extinct in Africa, many are threatened, elephants, rhinos (the ungulate kind), even giraffes, and nothing from all the high society morons who want to ban hunting here when we are covered up with deer, bears, coyotes, turkeys, and now even bison meat is available in your local grocery store.

The left uses all of their eco-fascist claptrap to control other people and their property, while living in Nature Free Zones.

(I just made that term up, feel free to use it to describe cities and other urban areas)

Anonymous said...

Wolf

True, China and India have deadly pollution as they produce much of what America consumes. I'm not sure about India but I know China recognizes Global Climate Change as a problem and have a vision to convert to alternative energy as quickly as possible.
Johnny (Roger) likes to mention Solendra the bankrupt Solar startup which failed because China was impossible to compete against.
I'm personally not a hunter but grew up in a hunting culture. Hunters, fisherman and environmentalists should be strong allies. Hunters need the wildlife habitat of National Forest. I've traveled over that fly over America in the Mississippi Delta of 5,000 acre corporate farms where few are going to allow hunting or trespassing.
Your enemy is not Liberal but greedy corporate management and Wall Street Bankers rigging the system.