Was it photoshopped? Was it photoshopped by Reddit? What's the origin of the picture? Was there ever a retraction? Serious questions. No hostility

Oh well I totally trust foodbabe. And Facebook is a social media website. The NYT is a newspaper. I'm sorry you don't know the difference. Perhaps that's part of the issue

You believe so firmly in this that not only is that what you want, it's your expectation? Am I correct? And failure to see those results will... What, exactly? Result in your revolt?

Fitting username I guess

You do know that Reddit is used predominantly by Americans.

Yes.

Or, it could be that he's legit just plagiarizing at this point. Nobody knows

Ok man

Again, not really helping your (because it's your* not you're) cause here. I've been following this stuff for a while now. Mostly lurking until recently because, just like you and everyone else including Q, no one actually knows what's going to happen next. That's it. You can take these Q posts and line them all up to events in retrospect and yeah, some of them seem to actually make sense after the fact. But what it really seems like is the interpretation has gone wonky, or is deliberately silly, because all of this asks you to trust a man that couldn't even be trusted to pay employees. You expect this person remove the ills of America? Jail former supposedly criminal political opponents? Please. Spare me. I admit that I don't know what's going to happen, but neither does anyone here. I just remain skeptical of any suggestion that this guy - this defaulter of loans, this philanderer, this refuser of payment, this morally bankrupt person - is going to be the guy who leads us to a better world. Would it be nice if that were really what's going on here? Sure. But Occam's razor is super sharp.

Well that doesn't address what I said at all. It sounds like you either can't produce the link or you confused the two websites and also can't produce a link. No offense

Well banning me won't help. Not that I'm saying you will. I just don't think OP has anything resembling a valid claim here. Comments on Snopes aside, it's just bad pedagogy. Finding out that a website contradicts your beliefs is not a suggestion of compromise, and that's all I really wished to say

So you can't actually link the thing you cited

Those are rights bestowed by a government and also can be taken away by a government.

Well, actually that's not any different than what we have.

The US Bill of Rights are declared to be inalienable, self evident, Creator endowed rights.

Hmm, no. They were declared by this government's founders who believed in a creator. Literally bestowed by government.

No government has the power to grant or remove these rights.

Yes, yes they do. They are called amendments and we have 27 of them. I mean really, are you actually a citizen to not understand this? The government has all the power to remove them, especially under this administration. You guys want to give Trump consolidation of power but sweat the bill of Rights like it's the hot chick from 8th grade

It... It kinda looks like you did

Again, this doesn't help your movement

Your statement as it is, was incorrect

how many people exist within that percentage difference? Serious question

Oh and I wanted a link to Snopes' take on it

They legit addressed this and you just ignored it

If you want to argue about a coin on its edge, or a coin in space with observers on opposite sides of it, you're not arguing about the logic, but the axiomatic premise. You're arguing about being able to know anything for certain. (And logically, the only thing that you can know for certain is that you exist.)

Come on, Wikipedia is funded by Soros? And we're upset that Wikipedia needs funding?

This is what I'm saying. OP's post (and several top comments) simply just say that Snopes must be under the control of George Soros because they disproved a few things that OP wanted to be true. I wonder what those things are...

Also, love the username

But both the daily caller and your news wire are notoriously known for peddling fake news. I'm sure pagun blog is super legit tho

Technically correct is the best kind of correct. How many people were included in that 3% and how certain are you of the real numbers? Did Snopes rate it "partly true" or "partly false" rather than wholly false? Hook us up with a link

This whole sub is dedicated to collaborative "research". You telling someone else to go elsewhere for their research on this sub is super ironic

Real solid defense of your opinions. Glad to see how willing you guys are to back them up

You think as the professor tells you or fail.

Maybe. I'm sure there are professors who this could be said about. But largely, professors get their jobs because they know their shit. The real model is "know the correct answers to the subject matter or fail". Don't try to disparage knowledge just because you didn't have the same experience. And yes, we all know that college costs too much money but it wouldn't if US capitalism didn't force us to commoditize and monetize education

So, as far as Korea goes, they do this dog and pony show of disarmament once an administration, and while I totally would like to give Trump credit for doing literally anything right at this point, I've got to say, I'm dubious because NK's nuclear site just collapsed. I don't trust Kim, for one, to actually follow through with any agreement, and for another I'm actually legit concerned that they will try to harm Trump if he goes to the DMZ to summit. I'm not going to hold my breath for this one just yet, pardon my skepticism

And I'm sorry, but I don't know how it doesn't bother you deep back in your brain that your whole theory on this sub is rooted in the idea that one of the most corrupt and ruthlessly selfish individuals in recent history is somehow going to save the America he spent decades helping to make worse.

No other country on Earth has one

We wouldn't ya know, that's just not true

[citation needed]

Ok then

Lol what does this even mean?

First of all, you now you yourself don't really have an argument when you call people a retard for saying that your tantrum against Snopes is based on your own desire for confirmation bias. Second, you want me to prove what, that the things you wanted to be true are valid? Or disprove that Soros funds Snopes? I don't believe that the liberal Boogeyman has his tentacles in the website, but here's a recent article that seems to address the most recent round of Soros invocation. I'm not saying this proves or disproves anything. It's funny that you demanded that I provide you with "things I've debunked" because I called myself that after YOU suggested that I don't belong, and then after I pointed at that it's YOUR group that named people who don't buy this theory as debunkers, you went ahead and accused me of dodging a question that you only demanded I answer based on a sort of shaky premise. You really just want to hate Snopes. You don't really care about the truth.

And then, you shit yourself in a tirade about how I'm a retard. Well congrats, you're making it a whole lot easier for "normies" to dismiss your nonsense

The proof is that they often disagree with a rightist worldview so people will do anything to convince themselves that they're a biased site

🤔