Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Editor's note: This is another in a series of "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies."
... and i don't hate WND any more then i hate jon lovitz.
I recieved this, in an e-mail. Is it real? If it is, it's kinda scary.
We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'? We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros! Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros; a big time supporter of Obama!
In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep you got it; Snopes Lied! Every one of those dockets are there.
So here is what I wrote to Snopes Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false! I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.
That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this. Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama! Check out these examples:
Who lied about what, the official, the observer, the technician, Saddam? - you're going to have to point to them. I see nothing wrong with this article.
I still say you are working too hard when you have to go back 5-6 years to find something you think in error. Obviously he is stating what unnamed sources said.
You can give the same benefit of the doubt to the Globe or to the defunct Weekly World News if you like, but that doesn't stop most people from recognizing that those are 'rags'. Same goes for the WND soy milk/gay connection--unless you are claiming that they have no obligation to screen or fact-check anything they publish.
You can tell that snopes is biased by the amount of liberals and progressives in here trying to defend it. They just can't have the truth about one of their own propaganda sites getting out. NOBODY defends something that hard, especially some nobodies that supposedly have ALL the legit scoop on everything, which all by itself is impossible, unless there is a reason behind it.
You can tell that snopes is biased by the amount of liberals and progressives in here trying to defend it.
How very scientific of you. I think some evidence of bias would be a lot more persuasive though.
I could just as well say "you can tell how unbiased Snopes is by the number of right wing conspiracy theorists that accuse them of bias."
Quote:
They just can't have the truth about one of their own propaganda sites getting out.
So far, no one has produced anything resembling evidence that they are biased. There has been evidence that at least the husband was a conservative in the past. Beyond that, nada.
Quote:
NOBODY defends something that hard, especially some nobodies that supposedly have ALL the legit scoop on everything, which all by itself is impossible, unless there is a reason behind it.
Again, this kind of (non) logic can be used to justify anything, including Snopes being unbiased.
Got anything better than just having your knickers in a twist because they debunk your conspiracy theories?
I can't see the letter the poster got so I can't search for it on snopes.
However, here are a whole bunch of snopes links that debunk lies from the left.....seems like some posters here dislike snopes because it won't make them feel good about the various conspiracies they've bought into for political reasons. Therefore, snopes must be biased because of course THEY are unbiased and never wrong. LMAO!
Oh and here they defend G. Bush from a Kerry attack ad during the 2004 campaign. snopes.com: Medicare
If someone wants to link to the snopes article that the OP is trying to say is wrong please do but it will likely be buried under 10 more pages of partisan stupidity so I may not see it.
You can tell that snopes is biased by the amount of liberals and progressives in here trying to defend it. They just can't have the truth about one of their own propaganda sites getting out. NOBODY defends something that hard, especially some nobodies that supposedly have ALL the legit scoop on everything, which all by itself is impossible, unless there is a reason behind it.
Each snopes article details it's sources. For example, people claimed Palin banned a bunch of books as mayor. Snopes pointed out many many holes in the claim including the fact that some of the books on the list were published AFTER Palin was no longer Mayro.
Why don't you link to the SPECIFIC snopes article you feel is wrong and explain in detail.
Using your logic snopes is clearly biased to favor the right because I can find a whole bunch of stuff they debunk about Bush, Palin etc.
Using your logic snopes is clearly biased to favor the right because I can find a whole bunch of stuff they debunk about Bush, Palin etc.
maybe their debunks for the left just a little more debunkier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
