Snopes exposed

[FN1910]

Wikipedia isn't exactly a bastion of truth. It is also suspect, and prints opinions supposedly "verified" by the authors. This all sounds like a bit of paranoia to me. Liberals could say the same thing about conservatives that the conservatives are accusing the liberals of. Even if the Mikkelsons are a "mom & pop" operation with no experience in investigative research, that doesn't necessarily discredit their work on snopes.com. Heck, Obama got elected President of the USA with less than 2 years of experience as a senator. For now, I'll still check snopes for reliability....but I'm not drinking Dr. Pepper because they subliminally print atheist quotes on their cans. I know this is true because my second counsin's sister's neighbor's hair dresser had a client who told her.

Wait a minute, Dr. Pepper too. I knew that Proctor and Gamble did it but had not heard about DP. I know that the owner's or P&G are satan worshipers because my sister's Sunday School teacher told her that 30+ years ago and that was before Snopes or the Internet so it has to be true.

 

[dobleceroseite]

I'm sorry but I take 99% of the stuff I read on the internet with a grain of salt. Anybody can write/make up facts and post them as truth. You should always look into the facts of anything you are interested in. Blindly believing what someone says has always been the downfall of a society.

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

I'm sorry but I take 99% of the stuff I read on the internet with a grain of salt. Anybody can write/make up facts and post them as truth.

That's the beauty of the Internet for propaganda. Wide audience, low cost entry and zero accountability. People like our very own Gypsy have been exploiting this communications channel for exactly this purpose for years.

 

[bigrebnc1861]

According to Snopes, the validity of this article is false.

:sarcastic::biggrin:

 

[banders]

According to Snopes, the validity of this article is false.

:sarcastic::biggrin:

From the very first post on this thread:

Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.
TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things.

From Truth Or Fiction:

One of the versions of the eRumor [calling Snopes a propaganda wing of the Obama Administration] mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we've had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.

updated 10/21/08
A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama or others actually saying these things.

So if you believe the guy who wrote the very first post on this thread, then Snopes.com is false and TruthOrFiction.com is a better source...except that TruthOrFiction.com insists that the guy who wrote the first post on this thread is writing falsehoods about Snopes.com, therefore, according to TruthOrFiction.com (the "better" source) Snopes.com is completely correct that the original rumor is false.

Or do you distrust the guy who wrote the first message? After all, he says that TruthOrFiction.com can be trusted! :sarcastic::biggrin:

 

[Leftyliberaltruthforall]

Snoops is more accurate than this website!

The main thing I read in your words on Snopes is that they are liberal. That is truly not a sin and what if it is a husband and wife team running it? I noticed NRA loving righties are running this site, and to me that just screams radical right conservative, (translates to me, me, me)! One more thing I noticed, the author of your thread on Snopes verified his/her information through Wikipedia? Yeah, that is truly a safe, reliable source to quote anything from! Better go back to the drawing board and find a better source to have back up your ideas!:triniti:leasantry:leasantry:

 

[amyjuly1973]

Snopes has a liberal slant?

For those who think that Snopes has a liberal slant and should not be used for fact-finding, how do they feel about Snopes' defense of former President Bush? There are several stories that claim Bush said or did things that are unseemly. Snopes defends Bush and calls those stories false. Check it out for yourself. Go to Snopes and look it up.

Next I'll hear that Snopes is accurate only when it comes to defending Bush - everything else is inaccurate. Typical Republican behavior. They like it when their version of the truth is confirmed, regardless of facts. They keep repeating lies to themselves until they believe them.

 

[Dane Williams]

For those who think that Snopes has a liberal slant and should not be used for fact-finding, how do they feel about Snopes' defense of former President Bush? """

Dose not matter what "they" say now!
What did they say during the election?
When people were looking for the truth during the election, the got lies.

 

[amyjuly1973]

Have you gone to the site, Dane?

Dane,
What, exactly, did Snopes say about Bush's election? Can you cut and paste the link to me? I couldn't find any stories on Snopes confirming negative stories regarding Bush's election.

However, Snopes called the following negative stories about Bush FALSE:

-Recent studies prove Bush has the lowest IQ of all Presidents of the past 50 years.

-As Governor, Bush refused to sell his home to blacks.

-Bush proclaimed that "the problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" (for those of you on here who lack education, and that is most of you from what I can gather, the word entrepreneur IS French).

-Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums.

Yes, Snopes DEFENDED Bush and gave all of these stories a FALSE designation. So, Snopes can't be relied on for fact-finding? Hmmmm. Are they incorrect in their defense of Bush?

This is typical of the Right. Any time the facts get in their way, they claim there is a liberal slant.

Snopes also CONFIRMED the following stories about Bush as TRUE:

-Bush has an eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion.

-Bush has been nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

-During a hospital visit, Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon.

You can double check all of this at: snopes.com: Politics (George W. Bush)