Long Standing Suspicion Confirmed: SNOPES IS BOGUS!

[bonnie]

Interesting that Soros finances 

 

 

 

Long Standing Suspicion Confirmed: SNOPES IS BOGUS!

BY VOICE OF REASON · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2013

Tweet

• Share

The Following Article Comes From: http://tomohalloran.com

Like the author of this article, I have come across many things I have looked to Snopes to confirm or deny, and on more than one occasion I've found the answer provided to be suspect at best. However, knowing how many people of my readers will go right to Snopes to verify something, if the answer did not support my argument, I accepted I was wrong, and I'd drop it.

One example of my own searches relates to the Obama's law licenses. I've never taken the time to look into why Barrack AND Michelle Obama are both disbarred OR not actively ABLE to practice law because they surrendered their licenses. Over the years I've read a great many stories they are disbarred for shady activity to put it mildly. Snopes has a very politically correct answer to why they no longer practice, and if the answer is true, it is a valid reason. Now I wonder… 

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti-Obama information in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.  For some time we’ve seen reports that Elaina Kagan was Obama’s attorney fighting those pesky “he isn’t a citizen” law suits.  Lawsuits that Snopes says don’t exist or at least that Kagan didn’t represent Mr. Obama in those suits.  Guess what … they lied! She did represent Obama.

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court’s Kagan.   Well now  I guess the time has come to check out Snopes!  Ya’ll 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. Read More

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 Elana 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? The American people mean nothing any longer.

It’s all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

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:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-88…

  
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-…

  
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-…

There truly is tyranny afoot.

Read the Source Here:

[JoeMo]

Even other "fact-checker" sites say the allegation that "snopes is bogus" is false...

https://www.truthorfiction.com/snopes/

http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

[bonnie]

That may be.George Soros financing it surprised me as I never checked who did. But on th lip side more than once I did find them wrong

[bonnie]

.The claim of George Soros financing it surprised me as I never checked who did.There would not be any absolute way of knowing if he did or not. I personally would not take George Soros word to the bank

[Bravus]

It's not an encyclopedia, it's a ready reference, created by non-experts. Some articles are better than others, but it's by no means definitive. What it does at its best is not give answers, but point to sources that allow people to check out the facts for themselves.

[JoeMo]

As others here have stated before, people need to check their facts before the post stuff.  Whenever something sounds too good, bad, or fantastic to be true, at least one or two other sources (other than known fringe lunatic sites) should be checked.  True, Snopes is NOT and encyclopedia; but neither is wnd or the daily beast.  While I don't think snopes is infallible, I consider them an informed, relatively unbiased source.

[joeb]

If Snopes, who claims to be a "fact checker", can miss something as easily found as a website search of the Supreme Court's own website, then they made no attempt at all to actually verify the facts.  They made a decision to deny the truth based upon politics.  This calls into question everything they have ever "fact checked".  

Soros is flat out evil.  He has proven he is willing to destroy the economies of entire nations to increase his own wealth through his manipulation of their currencies.  Someone capable of inflicting that kind misery upon people is never to be trusted.  Anything associated with him, financed by him, is not trustworthy. 

[bonnie]

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

As others here have stated before, people need to check their facts before the post stuff.  Whenever something sounds too good, bad, or fantastic to be true, at least one or two other sources (other than known fringe lunatic sites) should be checked.  True, Snopes is NOT and encyclopedia; but neither is wnd or the daily beast.  While I don't think snopes is infallible, I consider them an informed, relatively unbiased source.

I didn't state any fact. I was surprised at the reference to George Soros financing snopes. Yes I did check and found as many references that indicate it is more than possible to flat our denials that he has anything to do with it.

A denial by George Soros would not be anything I would take to the bank.

Along with many reasons I don't put any faith in this man's sincerity is his desire to see redistribution of everyone else's money. If that is something that he sincerely believes in,let it begin with him.

A little like the hypocritical beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Oh how he believes in a 15.00 minimum wage. Must be for everyone else as he pays his interns  a paltry 10.50.

I would not have the money of Soros if I believed in redistribution or a 15.00 minimum wage I would not wait for a law to force me to do that. 

[JoeMo]

11 minutes ago, bonnie said:

I didn't state any fact.

That is true; you stated fiction.  Isn't the title of this thread a statement by you?  It is fiction.

[bonnie]

No,the only thing I stated is in red. Perhaps I should have elaborated more as to being surprised at the claim Soros financed snopes. I apologize for that. 

While I don't think snopes is infallible, I consider them an informed, relatively unbiased source.

 

This is your opinion,you are entitled to that. Others have a right to theirs as well. The claim that Soros is financially involved is not without reason for those that believe he is. I am sure those like yourself that believe it to be an unbiased source can cite reasons for believing so

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bravus]

"A little like the hypocritical beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Oh how he believes in a 15.00 minimum wage. Must be for everyone else as he pays his interns  a paltry 10.50."

Unlike all the others, who pay them a generous $0.00.

[Bravus]

Pretty sure that the Supreme Court is not going to be ruling on Obama's US citizenship any time soon. How old is this article? 8 years?

[bonnie]

21 minutes ago, David 'Bravus' Geelan said:

"A little like the hypocritical beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Oh how he believes in a 15.00 minimum wage. Must be for everyone else as he pays his interns  a paltry 10.50."

Unlike all the others, who pay them a generous $0.00.

If I believe 15.00 is what should be paid it really doesn't matter whether someone else is paying 0.00 or 10.00  I don't care who it is,unless they are pushing for everyone else to pay 15.00 an hour while they are paying 0.00 to 10.00 an hour. If you are going to tell others what you believe should be done,do it.Nothing stopping them from following what they claim to believe

My husband really didn't care what someone else in his field paid someone,he paid them based on their experience and willingness to do the best job possible. A  less than best attitude would result in a less than best salary

[bonnie]

16 minutes ago, David 'Bravus' Geelan said:

Pretty sure that the Supreme Court is not going to be ruling on Obama's US citizenship any time soon. How old is this article? 8 years?

Oh please. I mistakenly thought by placing something in red,all the bright minds of C/A would probably figure out it was Soros,not Obama and his citizenship

[joeb]

13 minutes ago, bonnie said:

Oh please. I mistakenly thought by placing something in red,all the bright minds of C/A would probably figure out it was Soros,not Obama and his citizenship

bonnie, bonnie, bonnie....  Did you really expect a conservative point of view to be given a fair shake on this site?  It will never happen.  The level of political and theological bigotry here toward conservative positions in that subject matter is amazingly high.  I've been told by the managment of this site that if they see a headline about some kind of despicable behavior towards children they don't need to read or hear anything about it to know that crime was committed by a conservative.  That's the level of bigotry your point of view faces here.

[bonnie]

Most conservatives are gone now or simply read. That is okay. 

It is stuff like this that still kind of mystifies me.

"A little like the hypocritical beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Oh how he believes in a 15.00 minimum wage. Must be for everyone else as he pays his interns  a paltry 10.50."

Unlike all the others, who pay them a generous $0.00.

It should be fairly simple to know the answer to the above,but maybe some don't.

Conservative or liberal that is demanding that others pay  minimum wage of 15.00 and are paying 0.00 -10.00 are hypocrites,plain and simple.

Keep your mouth shut if you are not following what you demand of others

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joeb]

5 minutes ago, bonnie said:

Most conservatives are gone now or simply read. That is okay. 

It is stuff like this that still kind of mystifies me.

"A little like the hypocritical beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Oh how he believes in a 15.00 minimum wage. Must be for everyone else as he pays his interns  a paltry 10.50."

Unlike all the others, who pay them a generous $0.00.

It should be fairly simple to know the answer to the above,but maybe some don't.

Conservative or liberal that is demanding that others pay  minimum wage of 15.00 and are paying 0.00 -10.00 are hypocrites,plain and simple.

Keep your mouth shut if you are not following what you demand of others

 

 

 

 

 

 

bonnie,

There is nothing mystifying about it.  They intentionally miscontrue your words.  They will do anything they can to protect socialism and try to cast doubt upon any conservative point of view.  They follow the rules found in the book "rules for radicals". 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote

Did you really expect a conservative point of view to be given a fair shake on this site?  It will never happen. 

I disagree.  It's all in the way a POV is presented.  

On the Bernie Sanders' intern wage:   my opinion is that this is a political ploy.  Interns for political candidates have historically been unpaid.  They considered the experience and resumé "stuffing" to be the "payment."  Now, Bernie Sanders needs voters.  And he's getting many from the lower to middle class (which is now less affluent than years past).  In order for students from the lower and middle classes to become interns, they need money, as their families are probably unable to help them.  So.... Bernie is paying.  For interns.  And (dare I say it?)... for votes.  I think it's a very clever maneuver.

(just my opinion....which means nothing in the grand scheme of American politics!)

[bonnie]

6 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I disagree.  It's all in the way a POV is presented.  

On the Bernie Sanders' intern wage:   my opinion is that this is a political ploy.  Interns for political candidates have historically been unpaid.  They considered the experience and resumé "stuffing" to be the "payment."  Now, Bernie Sanders needs voters.  And he's getting many from the lower to middle class (which is now less affluent than years past).  In order for students from the lower and middle classes to become interns, they need money, as their families are probably unable to help them.  So.... Bernie is paying.  For interns.  And (dare I say it?)... for votes.  I think it's a very clever maneuver.

(just my opinion....which means nothing in the grand scheme of American politics!)

While in may be that in part,minimum wage is being raised in several places that are going to severely impact small business. Even if it is a political ploy

your actions should match your words.

Politicians say and promise all sorts of things out of their control at the time. Some probably is sincere,some probably for votes. What Sanders pays his employees is in ability to control currently. If Soros wants redistribution of income why not set aside a paltry billion or so for his own use and redisribute as he wants others to do. That is within is ability to do. Put his money where is mouth is or shut it

[Bravus]

You were disagreed with.

That's what happens in discussions.

You were not silenced or censored.

Free speech means you get to say what you want, and I get to say I disagree, and you get to say you disagree with my disagreement.

All OK.

[Bravus]

Incidentally, I can only find undocumented speculation that Soros finances Snopes: if anyone has a solid source I'd be interested.

[bonnie]

Can you find a solid source that proves he doesn't?  Some and I am sure you would place them with the lunatic fringe believe him to be and worse.

They in turn would likely believe you to be part of the fringe lunatic left

 

16 hours ago, JoeMo said:

As others here have stated before, people need to check their facts before the post stuff.  Whenever something sounds too good, bad, or fantastic to be true, at least one or two other sources (other than known fringe lunatic sites) should be checked.  True, Snopes is NOT and encyclopedia; but neither is wnd or the daily beast.  While I don't think snopes is infallible, I consider them an informed, relatively unbiased source.

 I was surprised at the reference to George Soros financing snopes. Yes I did check and found as many references that indicate it is more than possible to flat our denials that he has anything to do with it.

This is your opinion,you are entitled to that. Others have a right to theirs as well. The claim that Soros is financially involved is not without reason for those that believe he is. I am sure those like yourself that believe it to be an unbiased source can cite reasons for believing so

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

Can you find a solid source that proves he doesn't?  

This isn't a valid question.  Logic states that it is virtually impossible to prove a negative.  Like when Hillary stated that she had never lied.  Even if she truly believed she had never lied (she might actually have talked herself into believing that), she could never prove it.  The best "proof" I have is that sites in competition with snopes claim it is a fact that Soros does not fund snopes.  I listed a couple of them above.

You're right, Bonnie; people are free to believe whatever they want.  Call me naive and gullible, but I prefer to believe in people's integrity and honesty until they prove otherwise.  If factcheck, truthorfiction, and urbanlegends say that snopes is not funded by Soros, I'm going with them rather than sites proven to have an agenda.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

This isn't a valid question.  Logic states that it is virtually impossible to prove a negative.  Like when Hillary stated that she had never lied.  Even if she truly believed she had never lied (she might actually have talked herself into believing that), she could never prove it.  The best "proof" I have is that sites in competition with snopes claim it is a fact that Soros does not fund snopes.  I listed a couple of them above.

You're right, Bonnie; people are free to believe whatever they want.  Call me naive and gullible, but I prefer to believe in people's integrity and honesty until they prove otherwise.  If factcheck, truthorfiction, and urbanlegends say that snopes is not funded by Soros, I'm going with them rather than sites proven to have an agenda.

That's fine. Unless Soros would choose to divulge he contributes/supports snopes you have no way nor does anyone else to prove he doesn't.  Do I think it possible,yes I do. Do I know that he does,Nope. I know that is a man I would not trust 

On the issue of Hilary lying,she would be far more credible if she hadn't proven she lies numerous times oer the years

[JoeMo]

To be honest, I don't trust Soros either.  He definitely has an agenda bent on profiting himself at the expense of others.  But that has nothing to do with snopes - at least in my opinion based on the preponderance of tangible evidence.

And IMHO Hillary is at least a deceiver if not an outright liar.