Posted: 1/11/2010 1:59:37 PM EDT
|
Just so everyone here knows these are all left wingers. Not just your typical left wingers. But LEFT WINGERS. So when you go to verify something that is or isn't true, these may not be a good source if what your checking is in any way shining a positive light on anything conservative. Just thought folks should know that, in case you didnt already. Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Or - Barry is a socialist statement- It cant be true because Fact Check says no. This quoting of these liberal bastions of propaganda do not do you any service when many folks know that these are liberal fronts. |
|
Quoted:
Just so everyone here knows these are all left wingers. Not just your typical left wingers. But LEFT WINGERS. So when you go to verify something that is or isn't true, these may not be a good source if what your checking is in any way shining a positive light on anything conservative. Just thought folks should know that, in case you didnt already. Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Or - Barry is a socialist statement- It cant be true because Fact Check says no. This quoting of these liberal bastions of propaganda do not do you any service when many folks know that these are liberal fronts. Edited They're not perfect, but they are much better than most news sources I'm aware of. |
|
Quoted:
Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Link? I couldn't find your "example" on their site. Snopes posts their sources, which is more than can be said for all those chain-email forwards that they're supposedly lying about. Sounds like somebody is getting some sour grapes about being called on forwarding baseless email rumors. |
|
Quoted: Did you have any luck with the Barry is a socialist statement on Fact Check either?Quoted: Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Link? I couldn't find your "example" on their site. Snopes posts their sources, which is more than can be said for all those chain-email forwards that they're supposedly lying about. Sounds like somebody is getting some sour grapes about being called on forwarding baseless email rumors. I wasn't involved in the thread you speak of. This is just my reaction to reading what people on a mostly conservative board using Snopes and or Fact Check as a tool to either falsely prove or disprove something. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Link? I couldn't find your "example" on their site. Snopes posts their sources, which is more than can be said for all those chain-email forwards that they're supposedly lying about. Sounds like somebody is getting some sour grapes about being called on forwarding baseless email rumors. Snopes is great on non-political issues, but as the OP says they are very left leaning on political topics, many times not citing sources, misstating or cherry picking info from sources, and just plain saying what they *think* is the truth rather than post proof of it. |
|
Examples for those who cant follow well. Is Obama a good or a bad president? Hey I know lets ask Robert Gibbs. Do Americans favor the new health care bill? I don't know, lets ask Chris Dodd what he thinks. Hes a Senator after all. Trustworthy guy. Should we believe what a Senators errand boy says about Sarah Palin? I dont know lets ask 60 minutes. Is Obama a Socialist? I don't know lets ask Joe Biden. Hes the VP and we trusted him to run our country after all. He should be forthecoming. These are fun I could go on all day with retarded analogies. Lets hear some of yours. Or better yet lets hear the folks come to the aide of Snopes and Fact Check.  |
|
Snopes takes the time to post references, and describe - in detail - why they've arrived at the conclusion that they have. You and I are free to find where they are in error of course, but it's silly to outright dismiss them simply because you don't agree with their political views. If I get an email that says "1 + 1 really equals 5!!", Snopes isn't wrong when they explain how this isn't so, simply because the site owners lean left. They do a very good job of making their case, in my view. That doesn't mean I always agree with them. It means that they consistently give me enough information to work with, so that I can critically examine it. Is there something specific they've said, that you disagree with? Maybe we can look at that.
|
|
Quoted: Fact Check is biased as fuck for sure, they're funded through the Annenberg Foundation, guess who was co-chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999, Barry Soetoro, oops, I mean Barack Obama... We should check that with Snopes to confirm its veracity. |
|
Wait, so you mean every sunday night FOX news is going to show a special explaining how BHO is a socialist and not an american citizen? (I forgot to tune in, how did that trun out?) Don't tell me the ammo registration stuff is true too. I'm fucked.
My point is everyone has a given set of beliefs that clouds what they think is "true." Everyone needs to use there brains and not blindly follow shit they read online, get in an email forward, or read in GD. |
|
Quoted:
Snopes takes the time to post references, and describe - in detail - why they've arrived at the conclusion that they have. You and I are free to find where they are in error of course, but it's silly to outright dismiss them simply because you don't agree with their political views. If I get an email that says "1 + 1 really equals 5!!", Snopes isn't wrong when they explain how this isn't so, simply because the site owners lean left. They do a very good job of making their case, in my view. That doesn't mean I always agree with them. It means that they consistently give me enough information to work with, so that I can critically examine it. Is there something specific they've said, that you disagree with? Maybe we can look at that. +1 I'd be very interested in seeing some of the lies on Snopes. I've never caught one. Just because someone disagrees, and has sources to back it up, doesn't make them wrong... Not familiar with Factcheck, but I have a fair amount of respect for the way Snopes goes about things. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just so everyone here knows these are all left wingers. Not just your typical left wingers. But LEFT WINGERS. So when you go to verify something that is or isn't true, these may not be a good source if what your checking is in any way shining a positive light on anything conservative. Just thought folks should know that, in case you didnt already. Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Or - Barry is a socialist statement- It cant be true because Fact Check says no. This quoting of these liberal bastions of propaganda do not do you any service when many folks know that these are liberal fronts. Edited They're not perfect, but they are much better than most news sources I'm aware of. I am with you . They are spot on I have never seen anyone here prove them wrong . I don't care how they vote |
|
Hmmm......nothing on Snopes about Palin being a lesbian...................there is a post on Snopes about a scanned image purporting to be her high school grades and SAT scores.....................and the scanned images would paint her as a moron...........and Snopes says they are bullshit and that she was actually a member of an honor society.
Yeah, that's some serious bashing of the right right there. |
|
Check. Your. References.
If you are looking for truth on the internet (outside of Arfcom GD of course), check to see where the facts are coming from. Do the sources cited by Snopes check out? Yes? Well, you can thank a liberal for doing your research for you and saving you some time. If you can't sniff out the liberal slant on the political topics, then you shouldn't be getting your info on the web to begin with. The university that I attended was rife with left wing professors but that doesn't mean there was nothing to learn while there. The same goes for TV, print media, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just so everyone here knows these are all left wingers. Not just your typical left wingers. But LEFT WINGERS. So when you go to verify something that is or isn't true, these may not be a good source if what your checking is in any way shining a positive light on anything conservative. Just thought folks should know that, in case you didnt already. Examples: Sarah Palin is a Lesbian statement - It must be true it says it right here on Snopes. Or - Barry is a socialist statement- It cant be true because Fact Check says no. This quoting of these liberal bastions of propaganda do not do you any service when many folks know that these are liberal fronts. Edited They're not perfect, but they are much better than most news sources I'm aware of. I am with you . They are spot on I have never seen anyone here prove them wrong . I don't care how they vote http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp the truth from the horses mouth Snopes says Nancy did not try to get the bigger jet, Nancy says yes she did snopes is just left of Obama and so is google |
|
Quoted:
Snopes takes the time to post references, and describe - in detail - why they've arrived at the conclusion that they have. You and I are free to find where they are in error of course, but it's silly to outright dismiss them simply because you don't agree with their political views. If I get an email that says "1 + 1 really equals 5!!", Snopes isn't wrong when they explain how this isn't so, simply because the site owners lean left. They do a very good job of making their case, in my view. That doesn't mean I always agree with them. It means that they consistently give me enough information to work with, so that I can critically examine it. Is there something specific they've said, that you disagree with? Maybe we can look at that. Yup, well spoken. |
|
Go to Snopes and look up the clinton body count, they have made it so you cannot copy and paste from their site and I am not typing it in by hand. Basically they start by saying it is claptrap that nobody should believe and that its not a new phenomena, etc...
Then they go on to checking the names on the list and basically every person on it is actually dead, did in fact have the connections to Clinton that were enumerated in the list and many of the deaths were suspicous (they don't say this part but they say how a person died and there are a lot that make you go hmmmm...) In short, even though they prove the list is accurate and that everyone on it died, many in unusual or suspicous ways, the clinton body count is innacurate and "claptrap". |
|
Quoted: In short, even though they prove the list is accurate and that everyone on it died, many in unusual or suspicous ways, the clinton body count is innacurate and "claptrap". I can make a list of my father's acquaintances and get the same effect. Snopes is right on this one. Its funny, arfcom despise liberals for making bullshit up about GWB, but 90% of us are gullible fucking idiots when it comes to propaganda against liberals. |
| Propaganda against libtards? Is there such a thing? Can you say anything that would offend a normal person that isn't true about a liberal? Has any liberal ever told the truth? Is this Bush's economy? His bail-out money? Did the republicans cause the melt down? I've never heard anything bad about a liberal that wasn't true. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Edited They're not perfect, but they are much better than most news sources I'm aware of. Yeah, no they aren't. Not one bit. 
A hell of a lot better than random internet posters, esp dumb ones that start off their post with "Got this in an email...." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Edited They're not perfect, but they are much better than most news sources I'm aware of. Yeah, no they aren't. Not one bit. A hell of a lot better than random internet posters, esp dumb ones that start off their post with "Got this in an email...." Sure but he's claiming news sources. I see Snopes/FactCheck as more biased than CNN. Just based on funding sources alone, I think it's a reasonable belief to hold. |
|
Quoted: http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp the truth from the horses mouth Snopes says Nancy did not try to get the bigger jet, Nancy says yes she did snopes is just left of Obama and so is google What about this example? ^ During the campaign snopes and FC were used to rebut countless claims about oblama. From who he palled around with to things he was quoted as saying. The naysayers used it as evidence that he wasn't an inexperienced Soros-funded socialist puppet... Yet, here we are, aren't we? All that pre-election "bunk" is now in full bloom. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp the truth from the horses mouth Snopes says Nancy did not try to get the bigger jet, Nancy says yes she did snopes is just left of Obama and so is google What about this example? ^ During the campaign snopes and FC were used to rebut countless claims about oblama. From who he palled around with to things he was quoted as saying. The naysayers used it as evidence that he wasn't an inexperienced Soros-funded socialist puppet... Yet, here we are, aren't we?
All that pre-election "bunk" is now in full bloom. Yes, that example. I was curious, so I read both articles. Snopes clearly cites that CBS article, in addition to a number of other sources, including references on the number of flights Pelosi has taken, the number of flights taken by her predecessor, and the flight times involved. Please tell me where in here Snopes has lied or otherwise distorted the facts? The email claims that Pelosi wanted a "fat 200-seat jet". Snopes (AND the CBS article) both seem to claim clearly that there's no evidence she ever asked for anything other than a jet that can fly her back to her state nonstop. Before making claims and accusations, it helps if you actually practice reading comprehension and check to make sure that your links actually say what you think they say. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp the truth from the horses mouth Snopes says Nancy did not try to get the bigger jet, Nancy says yes she did snopes is just left of Obama and so is google What about this example? ^ During the campaign snopes and FC were used to rebut countless claims about oblama. From who he palled around with to things he was quoted as saying. The naysayers used it as evidence that he wasn't an inexperienced Soros-funded socialist puppet... Yet, here we are, aren't we? All that pre-election "bunk" is now in full bloom. Yes, that example. I was curious, so I read both articles. Snopes clearly cites that CBS article, in addition to a number of other sources, including references on the number of flights Pelosi has taken, the number of flights taken by her predecessor, and the flight times involved. Please tell me where in here Snopes has lied or otherwise distorted the facts? The email claims that Pelosi wanted a "fat 200-seat jet". Snopes (AND the CBS article) both seem to claim clearly that there's no evidence she ever asked for anything other than a jet that can fly her back to her state nonstop. Before making claims and accusations, it helps if you actually practice reading comprehension and check to make sure that your links actually say what you think they say. I dunno, maybe where it says "mostly false" instead of what is actually "mostly true" Going back to when that controversy broke, I remember that a specific aircraft was cited in the request. It was pimped the fuck out, goddamn Gulfstream Mark IV or whatever the fuck it was, I sure don't remember that specific. It would be easy to cite size and passenger capacity due to that little detail, don't ya think? Now let's look at a few of my favorites... http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp False? We didn't move a tanker of this fucking shit out of Iraq? Well I'll be god damned.  Oh wait, we did... it just wasn't 550 metric TONS of Yellowcake of any significance. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp Fifty lies oblama told. Hmm... mixed true and false. In some cases they're lies because my dear readers, we're too literal.  This one about an unnamed Marine is rich. It was true before it wasn't but it's still true even though it's not.   http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp There is at least one true connection here. One more motherfuckin' thing... Bear in mind that most people stop at the True / False line and call it good, or only briefly skim past there. Yeah, it's easy to hide details in walls of text. They're good at that. |