Wellllll, isn't this interesting!!!!!!

Check Snopes -out.

Well well, lookie, lookie...I knew some things they were saying seemed out of whack with the facts...Beginning to understand why now...Sooooooo be careful when you go there...

I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

Truth or Fiction.com is the better source for verification, in my opinion.

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 actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com....ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about snopes.com a few months ago, and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. This website is backing Obama and is covering up for him. They will say anything that makes him look bad is a hoax, and they also tell lies on the other side about McCain and Palin.

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral, and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

Here's what I have found:

Snopes was created in 1995 by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a California couple who met on the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. The Mikkelsons also founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society, and were credited as the owners of the site until 2005. Barbara now works on the site full time, while David, a programmer, works on the site part time.

While I can't prove it, I too am somewhat suspect of their leftward bent given their take (or lack thereof) on several Obama stories. An example is their take on the Obama/Ayers connection as opposed to truthorfiction.com's take on the same subject. Snopes tends to minimize the connection categorizing the rumor as a "Partial Truth" while truthorfiction does not downplay the connection at all, calling it a "Truth", and in fact references a CNN (surprise, surprise) expose of the two, as well as a Wall Street Journal article about their connection. Snopes not only does not reference either source cited above, but instead lists a quote from an Obama spokesman as it's main source (what a spin), leaving one to believe they are mere acquaintances.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-ayers.htm

Here's another comparison of Snopes vrs. Truthorfiction's treatment of the email that has gone out regarding "Obama's 50 lies". Notice that Snopes often adds editorial comments favoring Obama on unproven statements, or even on proven ones where they say he is "taken out of context".

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-lies.htm

There are many more examples, but too many to post.

Thank you Ace for the heads-up! Will use other sources now for future verification. Not really into some outfit being in the tank for some ones ideology, and forgetting about being truthful, or accurate in what they report. Again, good work. Df.

There are no unbiased sources. Just the unbiased truth. When that it sighted, it has already changed. Like Shcroedinger's cat. Soon as it is viewed, the "behaviour" changes. Take it from there.

Thanks Ron.

you could read the orginal post here

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971...amp;mid=5972976

I did indeed get that in an e-mail from a friend, and yes I did check it out before I posted it. I just get sick and tired of posting stuff that I have verified and someone posts a snopes post debunking it when it is in fact true. The media is our great enemy right now, but the tools of today that catch the shenanigans of the MSM and the culprits of misdeeds captured on the MSM is now catalogged on youtube.com. Now we can use their own weapon against them.

i will agree with that , but give credit where credit is due.

Thanks Ron

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that Truth or Fiction is any less untrue than Snopes? We have only this one person's opinion to say it is.

Not that I think Snopes is the end-all, be-all, but they are convenient for disproving 99% of the BS emails that come to your inbox. I have several other places I check things as well.

And really, Ron, most of what you post can be easily disproved using other sources, I just don't usually have the time to look them up (see my statement about the convenience of Snopes above).

Edit to add:
Truth or Fiction is actually a site I bookmarked long before I found Snopes, but I find their format much harder to find what I'm looking for so I don't use them nearly as often. However, in this one instance, the irony is too much for me not to share.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

I think ace is starting to sound like all them reactionists that think everything is a plot and everybody is out to get us!!

LOLPP , you may have a point there mate.

No, just when you whitness a youtube video, watch a newscast, or read the original transcipts from what people said or did, and they snope you to say it isn't true, yet the evidence is there, it pisses me off.

Excellent find here Felix.

You can always get the truth from newscasts and newspapers!.....

I happen to agree with Ace. He does have a point and it ISN'T the top of his head.

I also happen to think that what Felix said has merit.

However, we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that every source is either a good or bad source, right out of the gate. There is also the possibility of a good source having bad info and vice versa. It is like dividing a person's action/statements from who they are. A good person can do bad deeds because of abberant conditions and conversely a bad person can do good things.

If I remember correctly from my philosophy courses and critical thinking (I claim no expertizeon either philosophy or critical thinking here, of course) that the information presented, such as statement X, has to be compared to the other info we know about the subject of statement X, what other info we have about statement X that is current and what our experience tells us about this current info about statement X vis a vis all other info about statement X and so filtered by our expereince and wisdom.

Since most of us here are well informed and decently intelligent, i.e., no complete dunderheads, we can make the great leap of faith and assume that part of the time our sources and us are going to be right and at other times; not so much.

I personally don't have the time or the inclination to run down every statement that is presented to me for truth or falsehood. I must judge it for the most part on what I already know about it, how it "fits" with what I already know about it, how it "smells", "looks", "feels" and what it the context of delivery of this "new to me" information. If "sh*t talker" is giving me the information and they are known as always talking you know what, then there is a relatively good chance that what S.T. just told me may be accompanied by an unpleasant bovine aroma.

However, if it is a source I know relatively well, their track record is impeccable vis a vis the "truth or facts", then a few sniffs may determine that the statement/inf may have a good deal of veracity to it and may be bereft of a certain barnyard tang.

Thanks!

Isn't it interesting how Ace once again has no further comment once he's proven wrong?

Just pokin' you, Ron. I know you mean well. It's just that sometimes you make it so easy!