User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:01:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Pretty much the above...
Q: Was Nancy Pelosi caught eating babies? FALSE: She was never caught. (4 witnesses watched her do it and reported it, but the police never CAUGHT her). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:03:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you don't think that page is full of spin and Obama apologetics, I don't know what to tell ya.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? I didn't read it in detail, but the way they spun what the Wookie said about comparing illegal aliens and TJ, GW and other founders was pretty obviously biased. Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? If you don't think that page is full of spin and Obama apologetics, I don't know what to tell ya. Uhhh...I often disagree with Snips, but I gotta back him on this one. With the full context of the speech, it's simple to understand what she's saying, and trying to make her dumb using this quote reflects poorly on the accuser, not her. You need to take a deep breath and let go of some of the anger. If it's blinding you to simple rationale here, they've got you exactly where they want you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:06:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues this |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:06:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? And you think starting off their explanation by saying "Harvard educated mooshell" isn't putting a spin on things? 
The real problem comes with the lies maobama tells and his contradictory actions. He'll say he doesn't want the U.N. treaty to have an effect on the 2nd, but his actions on guns belie his words. If he could get around the 2/3 Senate vote do you have any doubts he'd do it in a heartbeat? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/ The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. "The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:12:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you think starting off their explanation by saying "Harvard educated mooshell" isn't putting a spin on things?
The real problem comes with the lies maobama tells and his contradictory actions. He'll say he doesn't want the U.N. treaty to have an effect on the 2nd, but his actions on guns belie his words. If he could get around the 2/3 Senate vote do you have any doubts he'd do it in a heartbeat? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/ The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. "The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? And you think starting off their explanation by saying "Harvard educated mooshell" isn't putting a spin on things?
The real problem comes with the lies maobama tells and his contradictory actions. He'll say he doesn't want the U.N. treaty to have an effect on the 2nd, but his actions on guns belie his words. If he could get around the 2/3 Senate vote do you have any doubts he'd do it in a heartbeat? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/ The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. "The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
What does any of that have to do with the FACT that the claim that a UN treaty can nullify the 2nd Amendment is False? Edit: And you are aware that the "Harvard educated Michelle" bit is part of the letter they are debunking, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:23:24 PM EDT
[#6]
funded by the joyce foundation if I remember correctly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:26:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Over the years I have lost faith in Snopes. I don't remember anything specific but what usually caught my eye was if they used obvious left leaning people for the truth to cover a more than likely lefty falsehood to begin with. Kinda like asking Hillary if Bill ever messed around to which she would respond "of course not" or some such nonsense. Not saying it was always incorrect in it's answers but sometimes it's almost like using the fox's excuse while he's guarding the hen house.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:40:57 PM EDT
[#8]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/guns.asp "More homicides are committed in the US with baseball bats then firearms" Actually, the claim I've heard is that more homicides are committed with blunt objects then with rifles, which is true, and puts efforts to ban semi-auto rifles into perspective. Looking at the gun list, it is clear that they have an antigun agenda. They debunk a lot of self defense cases. They don't put up actual self defense cases as a counterpoint. Selective use of facts is an effective way to lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:42:02 PM EDT
[#9]
I have seen the site tell truths and lies.
If you believe anything at first glance you are more than likely retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:54:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uhhh...I often disagree with Snips, but I gotta back him on this one. With the full context of the speech, it's simple to understand what she's saying, and trying to make her dumb using this quote reflects poorly on the accuser, not her. You need to take a deep breath and let go of some of the anger. If it's blinding you to simple rationale here, they've got you exactly where they want you. She's comparing people FOUNDING a country and therefore being a part of it to people IMMIGRATING to a country and implying it's the same thing. She's also touting the falsehood that diversity is what made us great. If you look at achievements and crime stats, that diverse part isn't all that desirable. (not applicable on an individual basis). If you agree with comparing Thomas Jefferson to a current immigrant, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:56:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/guns.asp "More homicides are committed in the US with baseball bats then firearms" Actually, the claim I've heard is that more homicides are committed with blunt objects then with rifles, which is true, and puts efforts to ban semi-auto rifles into perspective. Looking at the gun list, it is clear that they have an antigun agenda. They debunk a lot of self defense cases. They don't put up actual self defense cases as a counterpoint. Selective use of facts is an effective way to lie. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 4:56:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues This !! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:05:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. In fact, I'd say that I've seen a couple of political things where they did lie, if only by omission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:11:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Other media reported on this event. And it's obviously in UofI's interest to deny it. Other aspects of the story generally check out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:12:29 PM EDT
[#15]
They lie by omission and outright lie.
When they first started they had acouple dozen military rumors. I emailed them with evidence either proving or disproving it, I did this for I think 4 different articles. All of them were articles that made the military look bad. Their response to the truth? They just deleted the webpage and pretended they never fucked up in the 1st place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:12:36 PM EDT
[#16]
On non-political items I'll take their word but anything around politics I'm very cautious - they're known liberals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:13:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Liars
Politically Correct Majority of ALL media is leftist |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:20:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Snopes is run by the Annenberg Challenge
FBHO first met mad bomber Bill Ayers when they both had positions at the Annenberg Challenge This is the grain of salt I take with everything snopes related |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:37:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She's comparing people FOUNDING a country and therefore being a part of it to people IMMIGRATING to a country and implying it's the same thing. She's also touting the falsehood that diversity is what made us great. If you look at achievements and crime stats, that diverse part isn't all that desirable. (not applicable on an individual basis). If you agree with comparing Thomas Jefferson to a current immigrant, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Uhhh...I often disagree with Snips, but I gotta back him on this one. With the full context of the speech, it's simple to understand what she's saying, and trying to make her dumb using this quote reflects poorly on the accuser, not her. You need to take a deep breath and let go of some of the anger. If it's blinding you to simple rationale here, they've got you exactly where they want you. She's comparing people FOUNDING a country and therefore being a part of it to people IMMIGRATING to a country and implying it's the same thing. She's also touting the falsehood that diversity is what made us great. If you look at achievements and crime stats, that diverse part isn't all that desirable. (not applicable on an individual basis). If you agree with comparing Thomas Jefferson to a current immigrant, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. The confusion is in the use of the word American. She said nothing wrong. She was speaking to immigrants who were about to become Americans (citizens of the United States) many of whom were already Americans (from North, Central, or South America). Had she said "citizens of the united states" for every instance of "Americans" it wouldn't even be a story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:38:11 PM EDT
[#20]
The spin is most evident in how they frame the questions. If you can't see it, consider the possibility that you need some remedial education.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:40:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Facts are always up for debate. Snopes is not the final arbiter of truth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:49:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Fairly accurate but biased.
Like others have said good enough for internet rumors but not to be believed on any politically charged subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:57:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facts are always up for debate. Snopes is not the final arbiter of truth. Completely true. The nice thing about Snopes, the thing that makes them not worth automatically dismissing, is that they explain their answer. You now have the rationale behind the answer and can construct a logical argument for why they are wrong, if you believe they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:00:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have, like everyone else, their own agenda. What is it, and can you show an example of this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:06:43 PM EDT
[#25]
They have been known to create rumors for more traffic. "Were there 9/11 websites before 9/11 happened?" was a big one.
Because of that, I find them unreliable as a source for anything. If you create rumors to generate more traffic for your rumor debunking website, you are a big part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:12:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The confusion is in the use of the word American. She said nothing wrong. She was speaking to immigrants who were about to become Americans (citizens of the United States) many of whom were already Americans (from North, Central, or South America). Had she said "citizens of the united states" for every instance of "Americans" it wouldn't even be a story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uhhh...I often disagree with Snips, but I gotta back him on this one. With the full context of the speech, it's simple to understand what she's saying, and trying to make her dumb using this quote reflects poorly on the accuser, not her. You need to take a deep breath and let go of some of the anger. If it's blinding you to simple rationale here, they've got you exactly where they want you. She's comparing people FOUNDING a country and therefore being a part of it to people IMMIGRATING to a country and implying it's the same thing. She's also touting the falsehood that diversity is what made us great. If you look at achievements and crime stats, that diverse part isn't all that desirable. (not applicable on an individual basis). If you agree with comparing Thomas Jefferson to a current immigrant, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. The confusion is in the use of the word American. She said nothing wrong. She was speaking to immigrants who were about to become Americans (citizens of the United States) many of whom were already Americans (from North, Central, or South America). Had she said "citizens of the united states" for every instance of "Americans" it wouldn't even be a story. I guess my gripe is there is one hell of a big difference in what TJ and the boys did to become citizens and what the people she was addressing did. She made it sound equal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:14:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They lie by omission and outright lie. When they first started they had acouple dozen military rumors. I emailed them with evidence either proving or disproving it, I did this for I think 4 different articles. All of them were articles that made the military look bad. Their response to the truth? They just deleted the webpage and pretended they never fucked up in the 1st place. So you hate them because when they get shit wrong they take it down when asked and it is proven? Doesn't that just give them credibility? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:16:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Snopes is a HARD LEFT site. For anything political, they toe the socialist/Communist line.
Why do you think the 0bama Ball Lickers love that site so much. No explanation needed. I could name the ball lickers here, but no need. Every one knows them. If you are just looking for non political junk, they aren't too bad. FUNNY, when doing spell check. SNOPES, comes up SNIPS Ha,Ha, Truth in spellcheck! 
Ok, Ok, so I omitted the E. But the commentary still stands! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:19:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues Yeah, like many true/false sites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:23:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess my gripe is there is one hell of a big difference in what TJ and the boys did to become citizens and what the people she was addressing did. She made it sound equal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uhhh...I often disagree with Snips, but I gotta back him on this one. With the full context of the speech, it's simple to understand what she's saying, and trying to make her dumb using this quote reflects poorly on the accuser, not her. You need to take a deep breath and let go of some of the anger. If it's blinding you to simple rationale here, they've got you exactly where they want you. She's comparing people FOUNDING a country and therefore being a part of it to people IMMIGRATING to a country and implying it's the same thing. She's also touting the falsehood that diversity is what made us great. If you look at achievements and crime stats, that diverse part isn't all that desirable. (not applicable on an individual basis). If you agree with comparing Thomas Jefferson to a current immigrant, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. The confusion is in the use of the word American. She said nothing wrong. She was speaking to immigrants who were about to become Americans (citizens of the United States) many of whom were already Americans (from North, Central, or South America). Had she said "citizens of the united states" for every instance of "Americans" it wouldn't even be a story. I guess my gripe is there is one hell of a big difference in what TJ and the boys did to become citizens and what the people she was addressing did. She made it sound equal. Completely legitimate gripe. Which is not what Snopes was addressing. You seem to expect them to debate the speech as if they were political pundits, instead of explaining what was actually said and meant. Whether what was meant is a valid argument is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:29:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
funded by the joyce foundation if I remember correctly Quote HistoryQuoted:
funded by the joyce foundation if I remember correctly Quoted:
Snopes is run by the Annenberg Challenge Cite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:57:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues This. I've seen the claim of "context" made repeatedly for (D) personalities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 6:59:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I've seen the claim of "context" made repeatedly for (D) personalities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues This. I've seen the claim of "context" made repeatedly for (D) personalities. So.. context doesn't matter? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:02:49 PM EDT
[#34]
used to be I beleived them. Then I found 2 specific instances where they were just flat wrong. I mean like lying out their asses wrong. They appear to be agenda driven and truth is a distant second.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:08:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Ok heres a good example for the nay sayers
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed during a news interview that he "invented" the Internet. Snopes answer:FALSE Real answer: he actually claimed to have done even more than that! here's the actual quote which to their credit is correct - I have a transcript which I kept because I knew revisionists would be along shortly. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system" so how in the fuck can they claim the answer is "false". yeah.. fucking bullshit is how.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:11:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you hate them because when they get shit wrong they take it down when asked and it is proven? Doesn't that just give them credibility? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They lie by omission and outright lie. When they first started they had acouple dozen military rumors. I emailed them with evidence either proving or disproving it, I did this for I think 4 different articles. All of them were articles that made the military look bad. Their response to the truth? They just deleted the webpage and pretended they never fucked up in the 1st place. So you hate them because when they get shit wrong they take it down when asked and it is proven? Doesn't that just give them credibility? Credibility would have been using the new facts to disprove the rumor. As in update/rescind their original falsehood. Not deleting their biased article trying to prove it in the 1st place. The truth is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It isnt just "here's acouple things we can prove and here are some strawmen that we can pretend to prove." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:13:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok heres a good example for the nay sayers Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed during a news interview that he "invented" the Internet. Snopes answer:FALSE Real answer: he actually claimed to have done even more than that! here's the actual quote which to their credit is correct - I have a transcript which I kept because I knew revisionists would be along shortly. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system" so how in the fuck can they claim the answer is "false". yeah.. fucking bullshit is how.. "Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet." That's how. My boss didn't invent the technology I used to accomplish a customer's business need, but he damn sure took the initiative in creating it through his business and economic decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:16:14 PM EDT
[#38]
moral relativism. Lie by omission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:23:51 PM EDT
[#39]
It's OK for Urban legends, but not politics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:40:49 PM EDT
[#40]
I would find this to be infinitely more news worthy than a thug shot for attacking and attempting to murder some one in Sanford or Ferguson. What made them newsworthy were the promotion of false narratives for rather obvious self-defense shootings. These were shocking, brutal deaths. Now thugs that were righteously killed in self-defense (known for one and presumed, given the facts so far, for the other) are elevated to martyr-saint status. Yeah...no bias...
Christopher Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with a foreign object; he was bound, gagged and blindfolded; he was dragged outside and shot in the back of his head, neck and back; and his body was set on fire. Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic garbage bags, dumped in a disposal bin, and left to suffocate.
It is true that the bulk of the initial news reportage about the Newsom/Christian murders was local (predominantly in Tennessee, where the crimes took place, and in neighboring Kentucky) while the case received little or no national coverage by major news outlets, a phenomenon some attributed to racial bias on the part of the national news media. However, the fact is that only a tiny handful of the approximately 15,000 homicides that occur in the United States every year makes national news, and the cases that do tend to attract prolonged, nationwide coverage are ones exhibiting a combination of factors absent from the Newsom/Christian case (e.g., scandal, mystery, sexual elements, celebrity involvement, shockingly large numbers of deaths, murders of children and other victims who elicit especial sympathy) that makes them particularly fascinating and compelling to the public at large http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp#orx3Q5KpwfwL4Ycs.99 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:42:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have seen both claims what is your opinion...or proof... Liars not liers  Liberals. And, IIRC, they don't always reveal their source information of funding. Sometimes they do, but not always. ahhh... yes good point. Quoted:
I agree with the previously mentioned sentiment that Snopes is good for anecdotal bullshit, but the second it is something political or serious you can feel the strain in their voice. That said I have always thought of Snopes as drunken wikipedia. Not an unassailable authority, but good enough to stop a bar argument over who came first Chewbacca or Ookla the Mok. Chewy always comes first...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:43:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/guns.asp "More homicides are committed in the US with baseball bats then firearms" Actually, the claim I've heard is that more homicides are committed with blunt objects then with rifles, which is true, and puts efforts to ban semi-auto rifles into perspective. Looking at the gun list, it is clear that they have an antigun agenda. They debunk a lot of self defense cases. They don't put up actual self defense cases as a counterpoint. Selective use of facts is an effective way to lie. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:44:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues This! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 7:46:02 PM EDT
[#44]
They are certainly not the final say on things like some would like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 8:06:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Snopes used VPC as a source on whether VPC was right or wrong in the dispute over whether they ever posted those fake anti self defense messages on their Facebook page.
Snopes literally went to VPC, said, "were you fooled by pro-gunners?" And when VPC said no, Snopes said it was then a confirmed fact that they weren't.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 8:14:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 8:24:15 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 9:07:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet." That's how. My boss didn't invent the technology I used to accomplish a customer's business need, but he damn sure took the initiative in creating it through his business and economic decisions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok heres a good example for the nay sayers Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed during a news interview that he "invented" the Internet. Snopes answer:FALSE Real answer: he actually claimed to have done even more than that! here's the actual quote which to their credit is correct - I have a transcript which I kept because I knew revisionists would be along shortly. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system" so how in the fuck can they claim the answer is "false". yeah.. fucking bullshit is how.. "Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet." That's how. My boss didn't invent the technology I used to accomplish a customer's business need, but he damn sure took the initiative in creating it through his business and economic decisions. I'll bet you backed Clinton in his parsing of what the word "is" is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 9:09:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll bet you backed Clinton in his parsing of what the word "is" is.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok heres a good example for the nay sayers Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed during a news interview that he "invented" the Internet. Snopes answer:FALSE Real answer: he actually claimed to have done even more than that! here's the actual quote which to their credit is correct - I have a transcript which I kept because I knew revisionists would be along shortly. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system" so how in the fuck can they claim the answer is "false". yeah.. fucking bullshit is how.. "Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet." That's how. My boss didn't invent the technology I used to accomplish a customer's business need, but he damn sure took the initiative in creating it through his business and economic decisions. I'll bet you backed Clinton in his parsing of what the word "is" is.
Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 11:08:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you hate them because when they get shit wrong they take it down when asked and it is proven? Doesn't that just give them credibility? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They lie by omission and outright lie. When they first started they had acouple dozen military rumors. I emailed them with evidence either proving or disproving it, I did this for I think 4 different articles. All of them were articles that made the military look bad. Their response to the truth? They just deleted the webpage and pretended they never fucked up in the 1st place. So you hate them because when they get shit wrong they take it down when asked and it is proven? Doesn't that just give them credibility? No. Credibility comes from being honest and forthright, not from deleting webpages and hiding edits in articles. It appears that Snopes has done quite a bit of housecleaning over the years. Just visited the political section for the first time in a LONG time. It appears they combine, revise, delete, restate items, etc in order to convey what they want. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
