Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Fact checkers like Snopes need additional corroboration before I accept anything they publish. But whether Allen was the source or not, I notice that you have accepted all the other statements as facts?
|
Snopes, factcheck.org, Reuters, politifact.com, misbar.com, and more.
Seems that Reuters gave a lot of specific references to unnamed sources from times before Tim Allen's name was ever attributed to the list. And no one has a site to the list actually coming from Tim Allen, just claims that he did post it. (And he says he didn't.)
Sort of like the popular attribution of the statement "Always preach the gospel; if necessary, use words" to St. Francis of Assissi. It never happened. But because someone (Chuck Swindoll) said it back in the early 1990s, everyone is now saying it is true.
As for the content of the list, it has nice sound bites. But none of them are as
meaningful as the contextless snippets seem to suggest.
For example, "President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website." Referring to the cost of the repairs to the 200 existing miles of wall/fence, or the roughly 50 miles of new fence? The information on how much has actually been spent on the wall that was never officially financed is sketchy at best. If you are suggesting that the government is good at wasting money, that is a cross-party problem. Deficits increase under all presidents.
Or how about "Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege." And the point is? I don't see a point. Just a bare fact. And it relates to Trump how? It says what about anything? Just a cold fact (assuming it is true) that makes no political statement. If the comment about Chelsea is supposed to say something about getting paid for being a Clinton, then how about Bushes all getting into the best schools, and mostly avoiding war, and then getting high-level jobs. No chance GHWB's credentials had anything to do with any of it?
A couple of the comments were noteworthy, though Tim Allen didn't post any of them. The one from Margaret Thatcher about socialism running out of other people's money is true. Yet the answer is not to simply be Scrooge and snarl at the poor and disadvantaged. You actually need to find something that helps without breaking the piggy bank. So ultimately, since Republicans tend to be "let them eat cake" kind of thinkers, you need some liberals around to raise the issues and come up with the start of solutions that pragmatic heads can bring down to earth so we actually do something that is both helpful and sustainable.
And while referencing Thatcher's statement, was that a well-researched statement that represented a comprehensive thumbs-down to liberal ideas en masse? Or was it a political statement made to rile up a conservative base during times of upheaval or election or in response to a particular liberal attempt to just do everything they think of? Just like in America, sound bites catch people's minds, but they are often not of real substance. Sort of like eating twinkies. They may taste good, but they have little nutritive value.
Just being snarky at the "other side" is not a solution. And it goes for the Bernies and AOCs on the left as well. That list — wherever it came from — does provide a few things to think about or look into. But it is not as meaningful as the typical Republican thinks it is. Instead, it points to the simple minds that think a few snarky words are sufficient to establish truth.
I'm getting flooded with ads, emails, and texts from both sides. And there are some similarities in the use of these kinds of simplistic statements at times. But this year the greater percentage of garbage statements has been coming from the Trump campaign. I've been tempted to answer their questionnaires, but I don't think they want my answers.