Subject: Why I don't use SNOPES anymore.
I thought I had debunked the "Soros financing David and Barbara Mikkelson" garbage a couple of years ago, but like most Urban Legends, this one won't die. Here is SNOPES (pictured below). The only thing missing is a mobile home full of cats.
I wrote a piece about Obama a couple of years ago that they decided to call "false." Ticked me off since I think my research work is a little bit better--and more honest--than theirs. So I decided to find out who the "brains" of SNOPES was. Here they are.
This is the whole "organization." Meet Barbara (the political far left brains) and David (the researcher--and a fairly good one at that). Keep in mind ferreting out the truth is different than slanting it. They are Obama groupies who live and work in a double wide mobile home in California. (Forgot the city they live in, but its somewhere in the San Fernando Valley.) I forgot because it wasn't pertinent enough to remember. I would never reveal where they, or anyone, lives
since there are a lot of lunatics out there (both left and rightwing) that love to harass people.
Barbara is a Canadian citizen but that doesn't mitigate her social progressivism. This photo came from a Readers' Digest story about them in April, 2009. (http://www.rd.com/home/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/) The photo was in the print version. Almost made me stop reading the magazine. Wait a minute...it pretty much did. I've probably bought 2 or 3 copies of that magazine since the article appeared.
127 comments:
Never trusted the site myself
Perfect timing. I was just reading something by them that one of my readers sent to Feng Shui Serenity, explaining a hoax from several years ago. I am still on the fence about the particular post. Suffice it to say, discernment does not apply to only the channels/channelers, but to the likes of so-called fact-checkers. I contend that the dis-info machine works overtime, so we need to see what we are looking at. My story was not so deep or anything, but these are different times.
Okay ... I read the entire story at the link provided. I still see no foul committed by Snopes based on the article. It merely informs as to what they do. Stories about left wing bias with regard to them, which btw have included things proven untrue, have circulated for years. Even their competition has defended them. Oh wait. That must mean they too are part of some sort of left wing plot against .... what exactly?
Rubbish say I, and I am about as far right wing as one can get without being a card carrying member of the NSDAP. (Nazis)
This article doesn't seem biased at all based off the original reason you started researching them.
What was the "piece about Obama a couple of years ago" ?
So, do you have proof of them posting false information? Like Josh said, what was the little piece about Obama?
So because they debunked something you wanted to promote as true -- they must be bad? Sorry, I'll stick with snopes.
People who don't use Snopes are people who don't use the truth.
still with snopes. social progressivism is what gave us civil rights and women's suffrage, which are pretty high up on my priorities
Where is this "piece about Obama" you're referring to?
"I wrote a piece about Obama a couple of years ago that they decided to call "false." "
Ah, so you had no axe to grind at all, I see.
You claim that Snopes misrepresented a piece that you wrote, but you don't provide a link to your article or to their comment on it.
I'm wondering why I should trust YOU as a reliable source. (Conclusion: I don't.)
FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican.
I think I better go to Snopes and ask if what you are saying is true...
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Whoever they are and regardless of what their agenda is, their “qualification” as “true” or “false” could be improved significantly. They qualify something as “false” based on “misattributed” finding. This does not always reflect the reality. As far as their “agenda” is concerned, they seem to be skewed toward the left. Whenever there is the smallest chance to lean toward the left, they do.
Women's suffrage was first granted by Finland in the early 1900's, when back of the bus and stringing em up was still common place in the USofA. Moral superiority of Americans makes me want to puke!
Since you've provide no examples here, your post is merely content-free opinion.
So you don't use Snopes or read the digest anymore because you're an elitist prig who doesn't like how these people look, or where they live? Good for you.
We all know you should NEVER trust anyone who lives in a "doublewide" !
Idiot.
I trust *no one*...including *this* "author".
Are you all so retarded that you have to ask a couple of white trash Obama lovers what you should believe? Really? get a life. Think for yourselves and make your own judgements. I personally believe snopes is full of shit half the time and wouldn't surprise me if they're paid off to spout off the nonsense they post.
Someone may not like Fox or the Huffington post, but does that mean they're totally inaccurate, with or without bias? No.
... and apparently because of how they look and where they live too.....? wow... this article seems totally legit * insert eye roll here* I ,too, will be sticking with Snopes.. they haven't steered me wrong yet
- "So I decided to find out who the "brains" of SNOPES was."
I think you meant WERE, as in plural and past tense. If you're looking to gain some credibility, might I suggest proofreading and possibly Spell Check? Also, vague claims and grainy photos of your competition make you look more like an angry whiner screaming sour grapes after the fact. Several years, actually...
Obviously, that post was referencing what gave us (Americans) civil rights and suffrage. You're so eager to bash the US, you sound quite silly. We didn't finally begin the civil rights movement because of Finland, by your own admission, what happened in Finland had no effect here. Those movements were started by social progressives. Get over yourself!
Yes, because only rich, well-kempt people are trustworthy. We absolutely saw how well that worked out in the case of Ken Lay and Jack Abramoff, etc.
So basically just because of some personal attacks you make against them and their living situation, and the fact that they are liberals, they should not be trusted. Yet your research is better. Got it. *eye roll*
Your ad hominems are off the charts. Good luck next time trying to make a sound argument (something worth reading, with proof and stuff, you know). Greetings, human.
Thank you.
This totally reeks of sour grapes. You're basically pissed that they flagged something you wrote as false. So, instead of bringing up anything of substance, you make fun of how they look, the nationality of one, and where they live.
Yeah, that doesn't help your cause.
i read the article and found it very nicely unslanted toward anything.
I know all kinds of great people that live in double wides, and it also doesn't make them white trash. What do you live in? Get over yourself, and stop talking trash about people cause they proved something you wrote to be incorrect.
I agree with Anonymous here. I found several inquiries I made to be answered slanted to left. I checked with them expecting an objective answer. Note I said several times. I then stopped them. I didn't keep a record what my inquiries were - I didn't think I would need them.
The Snopes site is OK as long as the subject isn't political or historic with a political slant. Anything that is critical of "progressive" or "liberal" notions is likely to be colored or falsified, so you'll need to look elsewhere for the truth.
Wrong. God's laws are immutable and invariant. That's as conservative as one can get.
Of course Snopes is full of it about half the time. That would be the half that you disagree with, I'm assuming.
Every time someone has posted a complaint about SNOPES being biased (usually towards the left) I have tried to research the subject mentioned in order to form my own opinion. In many years of doing so, I find that there never seems to be any substantive basis for the complaint. It's always just sour grapes with not one iota of proof. Yet there seem to be hundreds or thousands of people who say they don't trust SNOPES. Having never found proof of any biased reporting on their part, I will still believe their research, which happens to be the most comprehensive of any of the debunking sites. Even the second most used site, Truth or Fiction, supports SNOPES. I'm still waiting for anyone to offer proof of SNOPES' biased reporting.
Wow You really zinged two people - You do know that's kinda like saying Fox is run my an ugly old guy, his Mommy and his two sons ya know?
You didn't raise your credibility one bit, or hurt theirs - your real intent.
In today's world, who can you trust without a doubt? If you believe one thing, you will ALWAYS have a opposite opinion no matter what. Opinions and beliefs are like a-holes. Most EVERYONE HAS ONE! Right? So really, "Snopes" get's their info from informants, websites or articles that I believe originated from a human who shared their own "Personal" opinion. We only know what we get told. The sky is blue and not green.....or remember how neat it was to believe in Santa? And then some know it all told you it was not and called you a baby because you still believed? Ouch, that was painful. Or your told one day you were adopted after only knowing your parents all your life? I am open minded and strongly believe that CNN is told what to say and when to say it. Ted Turner belongs to the Bilderbergs. That's all I need to say. Look up the Bilderberg Group, Alex Jones and the NWO that too has plenty opinionated opinions....but that's why we "still" live in a free America! Snopes is not right without a reasonable doubt.
"God's laws" = step away from the discussion, and fuck you for foisting your God on anyone.
and you are to be believed because why?
Well she is Canadian citizen and he is a registered independent former registered republican, not fans of obama
FactCheck is owned by the Annenberg Group where Obama used to work. It's hard to view FactCheck as unbiased.
Consider the opposite... that a lot of chain e-mails and such that attack progressive or liberal notions is poorly sourced, incorrect, or deliberate attempts to smear. That's a more likely position than some sort of conspiracy.
Of course...of course.
Watch your mouth-- your limited vocabulary is giving away your lack of education, and may be an indicator of anger issues. Deal with it.
Oh, I don't know. I agree with the first Anonymous -- if you hide behind God to prove your point, you deserve an F-bomb for being so presumptuous.
I doubt you will get proof. Snopes debunks idiot sites like this and provides other reputable links and sources to look up. Sigh, I despair how much of humanity has little concept on how to do research
So... we are to doubt the Snopes team's articles because of how they look and live? Wow, how awesomely compelling :/
I thought I had debunked the "Soros financing David and Barbara Mikkelson" garbage a couple of years ago, but like most Urban Legends, this one won't die. Here is SNOPES (pictured below). The only thing missing is a mobile home full of cats.
-No citation, no reference, no anything. Just a personal attack -- the last sentence.
I wrote a piece about Obama a couple of years ago that they decided to call "false." Ticked me off since I think my research work is a little bit better--and more honest--than theirs. So I decided to find out who the "brains" of SNOPES was. Here they are.
-"HURR DURR I THOUGHT I DONE GOOD BUT THE INTERNETS DISAGREED. HERE'S A PICATURE OF THEM WRONG PEOPLE". Yup, really proving how wrong they are.
This is the whole "organization." Meet Barbara (the political far left brains) and David (the researcher--and a fairly good one at that). Keep in mind ferreting out the truth is different than slanting it. They are Obama groupies who live and work in a double wide mobile home in California. (Forgot the city they live in, but its somewhere in the San Fernando Valley.) I forgot because it wasn't pertinent enough to remember. I would never reveal where they, or anyone, lives
since there are a lot of lunatics out there (both left and rightwing) that love to harass people.
-"They like that Obama feller and live in a trailer! I know where they live and I'm not telling b/c I'm a great person. DON'T YOU SEE HOW GREAT I AM?". Cool story, bro.
Barbara is a Canadian citizen but that doesn't mitigate her social progressivism. This photo came from a Readers' Digest story about them in April, 2009. (http://www.rd.com/home/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/) The photo was in the print version. Almost made me stop reading the magazine. Wait a minute...it pretty much did. I've probably bought 2 or 3 copies of that magazine since the article appeared.
-Then we get to this gem. What is the point of saying "THEY WERE IN A MAGAZINE. I BOUGHT LIKE 2 OR 3 OF THEM THAR MAGAZINES. SEE HOW WRONG THEY ARE?"
Essentially you have made no claims, have no justification for your opinion, and are just another butthurt stupid person with a keyboard. Welcome to the internet, you fit right in.
So because Obama once worked at the company that owns FactCheck, that somehow makes FactCheck, a subsidiary of the Annenberg Group, a biased outfit?
"Barbara is a Canadian citizen but that doesn't mitigate her social progressivism."
What? Canadians are more socially progressive, on average, than Americans. So why would you expect her Canadian citizenship to somehow mitigate her social progressivism?
Removing words from the vocabulary is limiting. So by not using such words to explicitly express one's emotions creates a blockage within the brain which then... Shit, it sounded so great in my head and I lost track because of all the laughing going on in there, damn it!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp This is probably it
well, Snopes still looks a lot more professional and researched than this horrible mess of a webpage.
here's a listing of executive orders issued by each president http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php. i've been using snopes for... i wanna say 10 years give or take. it's my bible. it's clear you're just offended that they proved your "research" invalid. i especially like that you distrust the source because of how they look and how/where they live. Clear case of prejudice.
the fact that you consider Nazis to be right wing is an indicator that you don't know what you are talking about. Nazis believed in abortion, didn't believe but gave lipservice to a God I wouldn't recognize, believed in mass extermination of anyone not like them... sounds pretty left wing to me.
Oh gimme a break, so you are insinuating that they are some gurus whom no regular person can match for research. I can research too, I guarantee the great majority of their research is done by google. If I doubt the sincerity of an article I tend to go to MULTIPLE sources to ferret out the truth, (and yes, snopes is often one of them, UNLESS it is a political issue, because I have OFTEN found them slanted towards the left on those issues, as compared to other sites and personal observation.) Use your own brain instead of relying on someone you don't even know to think for you.
in general.. liberals cant be trusted. Individuals must be judged on an individual basis, since I do know some liberals that I trust, but as a whole... nope, wouldn't trust em as far as I could throw them...too much self interest.
I've noticed that Snopes goes above & beyond to defend Democrats then throw out a dig toward Republicans in the same article...never let an opportunity slip by to make a jab. I found them to be false in two instances in one week but like you, never thought I would need to document it - I was looking for truth about a subject, not there to find something wrong with Snopes.
I noticed the slant to the left when it comes to politics too. Also noticed that if they don't have facts to protect a liberal, they insert a lot of innuendo with persuasive reasoning as a means of defense. On the other hand, they sniff for blood in the water when it comes to conservatives. They have built a solid reputation when it involves non-political subjects.
Marie, please take a history class. Or any class. Or just get some class.
Marie, calling them "slanted toward the left" says more about your own bias than theirs (as it's all relative). What you really should say is that their conclusions seem biased to the left of my own biased view And yes, one should do their own research. But Snopes almost always provides references for the source of their findings, so it's an excellent place to start.
According to Walter Annenberg's obituary "Mr. Annenberg was a fervid patriot and Republican whose close friends included Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to whom he gave considerable financial support".
He gave around $2 Billion to his namesake foundation which went to charities that probably most Republicans and Democrats currently in office have been involved with at one time or another. To claim that FactCheck is biased because Obama worked for a "subsidiary of the Annenberg Group (he WAS NOT employed, but merely served on the board ... big difference) is about the ludicrous.
"I found them to be false in two instances"
What was the source of your information that proved Snopes was false? And what criteria did you use to determine the other source of information was completely unbiased and factual? If you can't answer those questions then you have nothing to express beyond unfounded opinion. Or did you think an anonymous opinion written as an assertion would merely be accepted as valid? lol
Nazi is the abbreviation for National SOCIALIST German WORKER's party. Yes - socialist. Left, not right. Basically difference between Nazi's and Communists is that Communism was socialism controlled by Moscow and naziism was socialism modified for each "race" (think national identity). Nazi's are only "right-wing" in the minds of the communists and democrats.
Marie and Mr. Bill are correct, Mr. Anonymous; get outside the classroom, go to your public library (not bookstore) and read a few books on the matter instead of taking word of advice from a Common Core state.
Marie and Bill are both wrong.
Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups.
I have my doubts about Finland, there. Particularly considering that FInland wasn't an independent nation in the early 1900s. THAT only came about after the fall of the Tsar and the Russian Revolutions of 1917-18.
Snopes is reliable for matters that have no political content. However, when it comes to political content, they are not be trusted. They definitely have a liberal bias and it definitely comes out in some articles.
Seriously if that is the article that this blogger is complaining about then they need to do a LOT more research than they did. Snopes was right. Obama did NOT issue that many executive orders and they way under exaggerated the amount that other presidents have. Even I know this and I frankly hate politics.
I don't know how their other political articles are but this one that is in the comments is VERY factual
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
I know this because I do my own research when I see stupid crap on facebook.
How can you remember that you found them wrong twice in a week but not remember what exactly they were wrong about?
I just want to say that you.... are awesome!!! Thank you for posting that link. I did research on that information not too long ago and Snopes is correct. Thank you again for giving the proof <3
"I don't trust Snopes and here's why - a list of veiled insults about their nationalities, political views, and the size of their house"
Yup, you really came off as the rational thinker here. The borderline survivalist maniac rantings about revolutions all over the header and sidebar of your site really help to add to your credibility.
Hmm...two "unattractive" people live in a mobile home. Obviously, they have no credibility as a result.
This argument is pathetic, and you're pathetic for placing it.
Prove it. Offer one article where they "insert a lot of innuendo with persuasive reasoning as a means of defense," and one article where they "sniff for blood in the water when it comes to conservatives." I think you're full of crap, so prove you're not.
I can say the exact same thing about right-winger "conservatives." So much self interest, not to be trusted.
No one is trying to slander the right by calling the Nazis right-wing, that's simply what they're classified as. They were fascists and fascists are right wing. Fascism is characterized as fanatical conservatism. The narrative that Nazis used was that they wanted to preserve and conserve German heritage, German religion and German racial purity. And btw, they banned evolution and instituted school prayer. People who opposed their ideology were thus, anti-German.
Marie, liberals have a habit of fighting for the equal rights of everyone. They have a habit of taking groups that are being shit on and standing up for them. They do tend to take it to a breaking point of absurdity, but that is their record. The right has a habit of my God, my country, my people, my money, my land, my guns, my my my. I'm not sure you now what self interest means.
Yeah, the truth has a well known liberal bias. No wonder you try to denigrate the founders of Snopes, they tell the truth and YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
Nazism was/is a form of National Socialism. Hitler was member #7 in the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Since both National Socialism (usually referred to as Fascism) and International Socialism (usually referred to as Communism) were developed AFTER our Constitutional system was established, it would be considered left wing if by that is meant "new and different," as opposed to "old and abandoned" (like Absolute Monarchy or, increasingly in the US since 1887, Constitutional Republicanism). One can also use a scale of "less free/more free" for right and left, which would also place any Socialism on the left, since their hallmark is limiting peoples' freedom by forcing the economy to run a certain way through government regulations or control, favoritism of one or more groups over others (often a functional irony of Socialisms rather than intentional), and welfare.
I agree that this article is inaccurate. The mis-information this article is espousing about originally propagated from a conservative-based website and some shared e-mails. This link has some sources you can double check if you want to verify: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/27/snopes-liberal-bias-and-trusting-the-internet/
Marie, any time you label a whole group, race or sex, regardless that you follow it up with some lame, "except these 2 or 3" you show what a bigot you are. And totally illogical as well. IF having NOT met every Liberal out there, and still being able to identify a couple you CAN trust, then to say All Liberals Are DooDoo Heads is just sad. Flat out brain dead party politics is what has killed this nation, well, and racist bigots that cannot see past their own agendas. Pointing fingers and spouting bad names from the playground fixes nothing. Maybe one day you will grow up and realize that
I still use and like Snopes, but have been a bit put off lately that so many of their issues are now about items that have appeared in satirical web sites publishing deliberately false news. It seems to be about 75% of their posts. I sometimes wonder if the pressure of a higher profile has made them seek out stories that are not very widely circulated or very widely believed. On a really cynical day, I wonder if they themselves might be writing some of these foolish "satire" articles. No one should know better than them what makes a good viral urban legend. My favorite Snopes articles are the ones that I guess are urban legends that turn out to be true. It's a guilty pleasure :-)
Oh, yeah, but those people who live in SINGLE-WIDES..... :-)
Apparently some people do not know what a conservative (regarding American conservatism) is. It is someone who would like the government both elected and non elected to abide by the Constitution. A conservative is for freedom - and extreme conservative would be a Libertarian (who believe in less government regarding drug laws, etc.). Socialism is government control of private property. Communism is not only control of private property but the abolition of most of it. White Supremacists and Ku Klux Klan are very controlling - especially of course of those that are non-white. Conservatism and Libertarianism do not discriminate regarding race. They believe an individual should be able to keep what they earn honestly. Pretty simple, but public education has distorted the whole thing.
The Nazis were facists. Germany was a facist totalitarian state under Hitler. Facism is right wing. Facism is an extreme form of nationalism in which you equate a set of ideals with state ideals and claim that those who do not adhere to those ideals are not true patriots. No one is attempting to smear conservatives by labelling Nazis right wing, that's simply where they are - on the extreme right of the political spectrum as defined by the definitions of left and right. Left and right have nothing to do with government control of production.
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".
Support of traditional institutions is the defining characteristic of "right wing", whereas opposition to established systems is "left wing". Many in this thread are conflating specific policy positions of left and right parties with the definition of left and right itself. The Nazis established the third Reich - third empire. State ownership wasn't an economic policy, but rather, an inevitable side-effect of having an emperor in Hitler who had complete dictatorial authority over the empiric state.
Adding to the confusion, China calls itself a communist state, but it's not. The Nazis called themselves socialists, but they weren't. Neither allowed actual workers to organize. Both sides of the economic spectrum (socialism and capitalism) eventually lead to feudalism. In socialism, too much government control leads to privileged politicians who become the lords - unfettered capitalism eventually concentrates wealth with a small group of land and factory owners who become the lords. Both systems, unchecked and unbalanced, negate free market competition by concentrating too much control with too few people. This concentration of wealth and power happened in the United States and culminated in the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 - after which the US government enacted anti-trust legislation, followed in later years by mechanisms of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution.
USA Today, 12/14/14: "Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders." http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-i-dont-use-snopes-anymore.html#comment-form_1195156832653623228 I don't know how many memoranda other presidents have issued.
"Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders. " from USA Today 12/14/14. I have no idea how many executive memoranda other presidents have issued, but this doubles the amount that is being bandied about. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/
Check out UrbanLegends, FactCheck, and Hoax-Slayer
Marie, you're so stupid and ignorant that you think the Nazis were left wing. Even if you were capable of doing research, you don't do it.
Baloney. You fell for the urban legend. Snopes is occasionally wrong but they're not political. They have no political opinions and aren't American. You're no better than those who believe everything they're told.
I believe jedpieper was simply using the Nazi reference as hyperbole, not commentary on world history. What I heard was "I'm about as conservative/bigoted as they come or perceived to be."
Wow, I thought I picked things apart... everything else in this comment completely disappeared in the minds of those responding - which was the argument and point, not the "I'm telling you you're wrong, and I'm on the side that would assumedly agree with you."
I guess another reason it's best to try and leave any Nazi reference out of your argument, unless it directly relates to the topic.
I literally searched this blog with several combinations, including just "Mikkelson." I didn't see this post/article he refers to, either, and I went beyond relying on him to give me a link. Haven't googled it, but yes, he really should provide the link, as he doesn't state where it was published.
It might be a case where he debunked it via personal email to them... which in that case, unless he provides a screenshot (blurring sensitive info), then it's just their word against his... and as he is the accuser, the proof in on him, not them.
you don't argue their accuracy, only that they're not a corporation.
Feel free to play the ball rather than attack the player.
a TYPICAL republican reaction, no matter where you live ! Fact Check... I don't need no stinking fact check, I'm a Pee Potty Party Member....
Regardless of the amount of research you do, if you use false sources, the result will be false. Classic GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-out). I've seen it happen in businesses (where they thought their data was good, made decisions by it, then later discovered the data were wrong... which cost them). We've seen it happen in politics, like, for instance, the fiasco in Iraq.
I like Snopes because it debunks Bernie Sanders as readily as it will a Tea Party email. Which helps. I want the truth, not the spin.
Thanks guys. This piece, and this whole comment thread, restored my faith in Snopes and reminded me of why that site is so necessary.
Lol, if Snopes doesn't have credibility, this site DEFINITELY doesn't have it, lol.
You mean they researched it, and couldn't verify anything you were saying, and their integrity caused them to declare it false?
Yikes. Quite an interesting collection of comments. I'm still laughing at the "Nazis were leftists" portion. That was really fun, and it's always good to know how very ignorant so many people choose to remain. Snopes is quite a good site to verify information---maybe Marie and Bill should try it.
Well, just because they aren't American doesn't mean their opinions aren't slanted. Just had a knock-down about our presidential candidates on Facebook with a guy who lives in Quatar. His opinion means NOTHING here, but he certainly had lots of opinions!
Finally, somebody covered the differences between left and right/fascism and communism correctly.
Reactionaries hate Snopes, because the truth is their enemy. In right-wing-circle-jerk-speak, telling the truth, ala Snopes, is being "political."
I disagree. Snopes is a bought and paid for disinfo agent. I have caught this couple denying as 'False' allot of TRUTH - TRUTH I am personally aware of due to my own personal connections. Anything that the cabal does NOT want publicly known or accepted most generally always comes up as 'False' or partially false and partially true. Because someone doesn't accept Snopes and a couple other so called truth verifiers makes them 'reactionaries'? Then what does this say about you because YOU don't accept what I am sharing with you? It matters not to me whether you accept Snopes or not! Allow others to use their own discernment and discretion and make their own assumptions about Snopes without placing your label on them. That's why we have freedom of choice. Each to his/her own. Use Snopes if you wish but allot of us will NOT.
No, Finland wasn't the first to grant women's suffrage; NZ granted women the right to vote in 1893, Australia granted the right to vote *and* to run for office in 1902). They were, however, the first to grant full suffrage (equality for all citizens without respect to gender, race or other consideration).
Finland had full autonomy of government as a Grand Duchy - although still considered to be part of Russia - in 1809. Therefore they had the independence to grant suffrage even though Russia didn't follow their lead until 1917. (The US didn't have it federally enshrined till 1920.)
So you are coming to this conclusion based upon where they live and how they look?
Attacking their characters? Is a valid reason not to trust them?
Seems a bit biased and judgemental on your part in a very shallow way.
Citizen investigations were done on this couple a few years back, proving what they were all about. Also, my own personal experience exposed their lies as I knew about and was involved in a situation or two back then where I KNEW THE TRUTH and this couple, even with one situation, called the report FALSE! Other times 'partially true' and 'partially false.' If you want to choose to rely on their reports, go for it. We each have a choice - use yours - WISELY.
Anon 9:03 AM Question: how did you wind up looking through the 2012 archived reports. Today is Dec 10 2015!!!! Not that you can't go through former reports - just interesting because not very many people do this and then make comments on reports that are NOT on the current webpages. Hardly anyone to no one will ever see your comments.
How obvious can you get Republicons? Attacking Snopes now as a left wing source? Bwahahahahahaha. The ownership is a man that is a former Repug turned Independent and the other his wife who is Canadian. Not working. I took Psych 101. That's what education get ya.
Funny... You start off by attacking these people by implying they're trailer trash. Then you assume your "research" is better then theirs, and you state they're the biased ones. All because the proved one of your claims about Obama is false. Yes we should definitely take your side seriously.
yes because YOU post it's not real makes it not real.
What qualifies one as an idiot - one who continues to beat his/her head against a concrete wall in worthless attempts to make his/her point? Believe what the he*l you want - who gives a rip? You are free to accept or reject whatever you wish - along with the repurcussions for your decision. Hasta lavista.
Hey melro - What qualifies one as an idiot - one who continues to beat his/her head against a concrete wall in worthless attempts to make his/her point? Believe what the he*l you want - who gives a rip? You are free to accept or reject whatever you wish - along with the repurcussions for your decision. Hasta lavista.
Sure got a heck of allot of idiots supporting the commie enemy within. From now on, I hope all your ridiculous comments are simply deleted. Who has time for stupids?
Hey stupid! Funny .... yeah! Out of 23 plus traitorous prosecutable offenses that qualify bozo for hanging, you claim one is wrong???!!!! My goodness - what a travesty that wrong one is!!! You call a report of bozo's 22 prosecutable offenses being biased? No - I wouldn't say 'trailer trash' - I would simply state S T U P I D is more appropriate. Will you accept that one - stupid???
trollolol
But they aren't the only two who work there. Just check the articles. The author of each article is listed either at the top or bottom of the page. David and Barbara Mikkelson are the founders, but they don't do all the researching or writing. With a website with that much traffic it would be impossible.
-Jay
TruthorFiction.com, which is probably the second most popular debunking website, has praised SNOPES for their accuracy and depth of research. I personally was concerned about the attacks on SNOPES, so did my own research of several subjects that they were claimed to have been showing bias. In each case, SNOPES was correct and the attackers seemed to be upset because the answers weren't what they wanted to hear. I am a conservative senior citizen veteran, and until someone actually proves bias on the part of SNOPES, I will continue to support their findings and appreciate the effort they put forth to arrive at their conclusions!
Whenever it's a subject Obama or liberal related, snopes often has no comment. Better to have no comment than have one that's truthful that would be embarrassing to the left.
People are still reading Readers Digest?
Snopes lists their sources just like Wikipedia does. A blanket rejection of their information is absurd.
It is absolutely comical that you call her stupid AND ignorant. Let me explain the difference between the two terms, Einstein. If you're stupid, you lack the ability to learn. If you're ignorant, you can learn. So really, your uninformed rhetoric is ignorant because you have no idea what the definition of the words you used are.
Olive Oyl, I got here through Google search. Most people find pages by search engine, not starting at the home page of a site. "Hardly anyone to no one will ever see your comments." I'd argue that this statement is far from accurate.
Anon 6 AM - You can get here any way you find useful to you, including Google search which we, too, use from time to time. However, I do not do the ip work for this site. That is done by Freewill. You can make your access issue with him at freewill2015nesara@gmail.com. You are entitled to your opinions about Snopes, and the rest of us are entitled to ours. I have been an investigative reporter for more years than you have been alive, and have run into the Snopes propaganda machine numerous times. I am way long past discussing with anyone about Snopes. Seems people have to find out for themselves. So be it!
Factchecking Snopes.... This is what comes up!.
Pretty unconvincing. Very dated.
I'll go with Snopes, but tread carefully.
Post a Comment