I have no idea. It's so totally unimportant in the gist of the story, I could care less. They have many researchers working with them. What exactly were they protecting by making that observation?? Why is that an opinion?? Because you think it's an opinion? They were saying Palin never said what she was falsely purported to say.
Wow. You are a lost cause I guess (maybe that is where Guesser comes from). You just don't get it and you never will. One more time. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. All they had to say was that those were not her words, those were Tina Fey's. Game set match. That is a fact, everything else was an opinion.
It is too obvious I "guess'. All a fact finder has to do is say if something is true or false.....period. The final comment, which you choose to dismiss, is just that a comment and it was not necessary to answer the question. That comment was made to make light of Palin. Ask yourself simply, did that final comment add anything that was factual and that related to the question. Comments like that show a fact finders true colors. You see the final comment was intended to be demeaning, it was without any doubt stuck on at the end because they had to admit that Palin did not say what Fey did. In other words, without the final comment the explanation up till then was sufficient on a factual level. I know you still don't get it but that is a liberal thing that I can't fix.
[h=4]Chime Changa[/h]Liberal news media wants people to believe Palin said that because they've been very successful on turning people away from Palin based on the SNL sketch.
And further damning to liberalism as a whole, this point that they believe proves Palin's stupidity really is moot because you CAN see Russia from parts of Alaska, which, just from a purely logical standpoint, means that there are almost definitely houses, even backyards that are in those areas and can indeed see Russia. Imagine Palin owned such a house and then actually did say it instead of Tina Fey. She'd be telling the truth, and liberal America would be calling her stupid because of it.
It's just too sad for liberals everywhere that not only did Palin not say that she can see Russia from her backyard or house, but that this statement has become a mainstay solid reason for liberals to think Palin is stupid.
I mean it not only demonstrates how much liberals lack any depth of objective thought, but it demonstrates the reality that Liberals by and large will literally believe anything
And further damning to liberalism as a whole, this point that they believe proves Palin's stupidity really is moot because you CAN see Russia from parts of Alaska, which, just from a purely logical standpoint, means that there are almost definitely houses, even backyards that are in those areas and can indeed see Russia. Imagine Palin owned such a house and then actually did say it instead of Tina Fey. She'd be telling the truth, and liberal America would be calling her stupid because of it.
It's just too sad for liberals everywhere that not only did Palin not say that she can see Russia from her backyard or house, but that this statement has become a mainstay solid reason for liberals to think Palin is stupid.
I mean it not only demonstrates how much liberals lack any depth of objective thought, but it demonstrates the reality that Liberals by and large will literally believe anything
It wasn't demeaning at all. It was factual, as was the debunking of Palin's supposed statement. You take it as demeaning, because you desperately need to show snopes in a bad light. It is a neocon thing that I just can't fix. You have to believe that legit sites like snopes are all against you, so you can go on believing the incredulous sites you believe in.
Palin IS stupid. She proved that in her Couric interview, in her own words, and continues proving it to this day. Great marketer of her brand, however, and has made millions playing the suckers.
Luckily there is a legit site like Snopes which set records straight, on falsely believed urban myths, like Palin saying something she didn't say, so that liberals and conservatives have a site that cuts through the BS, and just lays out the facts. Too bad that some neocons don't want to believe in facts, but only what they are spoon fed from wingnut sites that have a POV.
Legit site. lol Drink some kool aid and move on. In this case it was a conservative (me) cutting thru Snopes BS because they were not content to "just lay out the facts." No body spoon feeds me. I found that on my own. When you go thru graduate school and major in English literature as I did you learn to sort it all out when doing research. I did it without a computer also. What is funny is that I never checked out Snopes myself until this Palin thing came on the forum. You are more concerned with it than me. I just see it for what it is. Look at who runs it. I read the complete article, liberals scan. I would wager that you never even read that article all the way to the end. Obviously. If you are looking for facts and take it as truth you need to read every word of every article especially on Snopes.
You'd lose. I Read every word. And the fallacy that snopes is a "liberal run" website has been debunked time and time again. By legit sites. Just because a Hack site with a POV, like Breitbart, like that self-acknowledged anti Obama site that you cling to, refuses to believe facts, so they can push their agenda to like minded suckers, doesn't mean facts are not facts.
You did hit on something there concerning facts. I am not questioning whether or not the "facts" presented by a fact checking site are wrong. I am questioning the unnecessary comments and their slant in addition to the facts as I pointed out in the closing sentence of the Palin article. People from both sides should be held accountable and I think the concept of fact checking sites play a role in separating fact from fiction.
Here is the deal. Each side "brands" the other. Breitbart does some fact checking of their own and of course it is slanted. Every once in a while Breitbart needs to be corrected or amended, who doesn't. My biggest bitch is with the lame stream media (no news there) because they aid and abet the liberal slants by omitting facts, avoiding topics that do not fit their agenda, or quite literally changing the facts to suit their agenda.
I think if you try to pursue protecting Snopes as not having a liberal slant then you lose on the facts. Like I say they can have the facts correct, even set the record straight, and yet still leave that little spoonful of sugar (comments) that cater to their loyal followers most of whom are liberals.
I see nothing wrong with a liberal consulting liberal sites that support their political beliefs or visa versa for conservatives. Notice I did not say democrats and republicans. I am not a registered republican, I am a conservative. As a conservative I am much slower to buy in to a Snopes as the judge and jury on anything. If you notice (Vitard does) that I post a lot of articles from Breitbart. Why? Just because. Because whoever reads that article can come to their own conclusions and go from there.
To set the record straight, I do not buy into everything that comes out of Breitbart for instance but I do recognize that it not lame stream media. I know I will read things there that are not available in the lame stream media be it in print or on TV. I watch Fox for the same reason but I do not buy into everything they say either. In fact I watch Fox very seldom but do watch FBN a couple of hours a week. Vit calls me a kool aid drinker but it is he who falls in that category.
My final comment on the matter of Snopes. Sounds too much like "snoops". They pick and choose who and what they fact check and that should be considered. You say they are not "liberal run" and I say the facts speak for themselves. BOL
Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
Fact-checking the statements of politicians, a growing trend in recent years, has been especially visible in this year's presidential campaign, thanks to the likes of Politifact.com, Factcheck.org and fact-checkers in the mainstream media as well.
Democrats have latched on to fact-checkers' reports labeling Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan serial liars. Republicans have claimed that the supposedly independent fact-checkers are liberal journalists in bed with the Democrats. Is such fact-checking a legitimate enterprise, or an attempt to hide bias behind a neutral façade? Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?
Take one widely ridiculed Ryan "lie": the claim that President Obama broke a campaign promise to keep a Janesville, Wis., auto plant open if elected. Several fact-checking reports labeled the charge false because it implied that the plant had closed on Obama's watch; in fact, it ceased production in December 2008 -- before Obama took office.
Not so fast, said conservative bloggers. Some operations at the plant continued well into 2009. Moreover, the plant is still "on standby" and could be reopened (though its prospects dimmed when General Motors decided to reopen another idled plant, in Tennessee).
The Janesville plant was already slated for shutdown in February 2008 when then-candidate Obama chose it as the location for a major speech and said, "I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years." A few months later he reiterated that, as president, he would "lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville."
Of course, Obama made no guarantee to keep the plant open. But Ryan's basic point -- that Obama made a lot of grand promises on which he did not deliver -- stands.
For a much more complex fact-checking debate, there's the question of whether the Obama administration has, as Romney charges, sought to "gut" the work requirement for welfare recipients that was central to President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform.
Democrats dismiss this claim as "thoroughly debunked": according to fact-checkers at Politifact, CNN.com and other venues, the Obama administration has merely agreed to grant waivers at the request of states -- some led by Republican governors -- and only if the states can demonstrate that their proposals can ultimately move more people into jobs.
But some experts -- not only Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation, but also maverick Democrat Mickey Kaus -- have ventured to rebut the rebuttal. They argue that the waivers come with such flexible standards they could make the work requirement meaningless. Even Ron Haskins, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, who supports the waivers, thinks they represent a major enough change to the 1996 law to need congressional approval.
Especially on complex policy issues, facts are rarely just facts. Is Obama's health care law a "government takeover" of health care, or merely an expansion of government's role? Would Ryan's Medicare reform plan represent the "end" of Medicare, or merely an overhaul? Is rhetorical exaggeration a lie? Is an out-of-context statement false?
Not all questionable fact-checks are slanted left. Factcheck.org brands as a falsehood the Obama camp's claim that the Republican Party platform would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest; the platform simply doesn't mention these exemptions. Yet, since it states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life," is it illogical to conclude that this right would apply to unborn children conceived through rape?
Liberal bias or no, it's always a slippery slope from fact-checking to fact interpretation and labeling dissenting analysis a lie. What should pundits do? Either offer clearly labeled opinions, or present the facts as thoroughly as they can and leave readers to draw conclusions.
- Article by: CATHY YOUNG
- Updated: September 17, 2012 - 8:36 PM
Fact-checking the statements of politicians, a growing trend in recent years, has been especially visible in this year's presidential campaign, thanks to the likes of Politifact.com, Factcheck.org and fact-checkers in the mainstream media as well.
Democrats have latched on to fact-checkers' reports labeling Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan serial liars. Republicans have claimed that the supposedly independent fact-checkers are liberal journalists in bed with the Democrats. Is such fact-checking a legitimate enterprise, or an attempt to hide bias behind a neutral façade? Who will fact-check the fact-checkers?
Take one widely ridiculed Ryan "lie": the claim that President Obama broke a campaign promise to keep a Janesville, Wis., auto plant open if elected. Several fact-checking reports labeled the charge false because it implied that the plant had closed on Obama's watch; in fact, it ceased production in December 2008 -- before Obama took office.
Not so fast, said conservative bloggers. Some operations at the plant continued well into 2009. Moreover, the plant is still "on standby" and could be reopened (though its prospects dimmed when General Motors decided to reopen another idled plant, in Tennessee).
The Janesville plant was already slated for shutdown in February 2008 when then-candidate Obama chose it as the location for a major speech and said, "I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years." A few months later he reiterated that, as president, he would "lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville."
Of course, Obama made no guarantee to keep the plant open. But Ryan's basic point -- that Obama made a lot of grand promises on which he did not deliver -- stands.
For a much more complex fact-checking debate, there's the question of whether the Obama administration has, as Romney charges, sought to "gut" the work requirement for welfare recipients that was central to President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform.
Democrats dismiss this claim as "thoroughly debunked": according to fact-checkers at Politifact, CNN.com and other venues, the Obama administration has merely agreed to grant waivers at the request of states -- some led by Republican governors -- and only if the states can demonstrate that their proposals can ultimately move more people into jobs.
But some experts -- not only Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation, but also maverick Democrat Mickey Kaus -- have ventured to rebut the rebuttal. They argue that the waivers come with such flexible standards they could make the work requirement meaningless. Even Ron Haskins, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, who supports the waivers, thinks they represent a major enough change to the 1996 law to need congressional approval.
Especially on complex policy issues, facts are rarely just facts. Is Obama's health care law a "government takeover" of health care, or merely an expansion of government's role? Would Ryan's Medicare reform plan represent the "end" of Medicare, or merely an overhaul? Is rhetorical exaggeration a lie? Is an out-of-context statement false?
Not all questionable fact-checks are slanted left. Factcheck.org brands as a falsehood the Obama camp's claim that the Republican Party platform would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest; the platform simply doesn't mention these exemptions. Yet, since it states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life," is it illogical to conclude that this right would apply to unborn children conceived through rape?
Liberal bias or no, it's always a slippery slope from fact-checking to fact interpretation and labeling dissenting analysis a lie. What should pundits do? Either offer clearly labeled opinions, or present the facts as thoroughly as they can and leave readers to draw conclusions.
Donald Hank
November 27, 2008
Is the owner of Snopes.com a liberal?
By Donald Hank
Snopes.com has been accused of being run by a "flaming liberal." But now a defender of Snopes, about.com, has rushed to their aid, writing a story about how conservatives have attacked poor Snopes. They write, in part:
Is it true that "Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal" and that "this man is in the tank for Obama"?
Well, first off, Snopes.com is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson. [Oh, well, that makes a world of difference. Two people in a team could not possibly be leftists, now could they?]
Second, the Mikkelsons' political views are between them and the ballot box. I don't know what they are; you don't know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn't know what they are. According to a boilerplate statement issued by the site, "Neither of the operators of Snopes.com has any affiliation with, has ever made a donation to, or has ever publicly expressed support for any political party or candidate." [The fact that the owners claim no affiliation and don't donate money proves what?]
Anyone who has proof to the contrary should come out with it.
Ok, I will. Here is my proof:
First, there is something you should know about about.com. As clearly stated at the bottom left of their home page, they belong to the New York Times, a news outlet most Americans have said they don't trust and that is demonstrably far left. Hardly inspiring of confidence. Frankly, the reader should be questioning about.com a whole lot more than snopes.com, although the fact that about.com is defending snopes is to snopes' discredit.
Beyond that, there are little clues that stand out everywhere in the article appearing on Snopes itself and quoted at about.com. One of the biggest clues is the versions of the emails whose veracity Snopes doubts. For example, if you look up the stuff about Obama's nationality, you find that they print a version that accentuates the silliest claims in order to make the reasonable ones seem silly too. That is what we call a red herring. The Left is very adept at this tactic.
For example:
"...rumors swirling about that Barrack Obama was a Muslim with a middle name of Mohammed..."
Really? Did you ever hear that rumor?
I have gotten hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails on this topic and never heard that one. It is clear that Snopes used this grotesque exaggeration to mask the legitimate suspicion that Obama may not be a US citizen. If Snopes were sincere about disproving that claim, they would not have needed to present this other, much sillier, claim that is so rare most have never read it, and I suspect it may have just been floated by the Left to make conservatives look like rumor mongers.
Worse, the whole tenor of this argument ignores, and masks, the proven fact that Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school as a Muslim. In other words, it makes the claim that Obama was, at least in his youth, a Muslim seem questionable when in fact we know it to be true. (Not to mention the fact that in an interview with George Stephanopolis, Obama made the Freudian slip of saying "my Muslim faith.")
The following quote from about.com certainly does not comfort me:
"Second, the Mikkelsons' political views are between them and the ballot box. I don't know what they are; you don't know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn't know what they are."
Not true. If Mikkelson were not politically aligned, he would not have endorsed only leftwing TV news channels as he did in an interview on CNN:
DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you're generally going to see it in more than one place. If you're finding something that seems rather sensational and it's only on one Web site and it's not something major like CNN or ABC, that's a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.
Besides, if the NYT reporter who wrote this didn't know the Mikkelsons' political leanings, all he had to do was ask the Mikkelsons or do some quick research, as I did.
Obviously, the Mikkelsons are not conservative. A conservative would have at least mentioned Fox News or a conservative site in this context and would have been proud to tout his conservatism. Liberals hide their views because they know they aren't popular.
Snopes' reasons for believing in Obama's credentials are not comforting either:
"Judge Surrick ruled Berg's attempt to use certain laws to gain standing...were frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
For real conservatives, the last people they trust are judges. They know our rights are being stripped one by one and that it is chiefly the judges who are doing the stripping. To hear a judge state that a US citizen has no right to know if a candidate for president is a US citizen and hence in compliance with the Constitution, is just more evidence of a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, not evidence that the lawsuit against Obama was not valid.
The real fact of the matter is that the DNC and the electoral college should have delved into this matter a long time ago and it is clear that they did not.
And we shouldn't care what the Mikkelsons — or their defenders at the very far-left pro-Obama New York Times — say about this.
Conclusion: be wary of Snopes. I don't necessarily think they lie, but they present conservative emails in a very unfavorable light, so unfavorable that it is hard to call their presentation objective. You may wish to pass this article along to them — and more importantly, to your friends.
© Donald Hank
Guesser: As you can see I do my homework. I do not simply lurk on this forum waiting to dispense name calling and attempting to kill the messenger like Vitard. There may not be a right or a wrong when it comes to fact checking but there is a right and a left when it comes to political issues. No I do not drink kool aid, that would be Vit. The lack of research he does in proportion to the amount of time he spends lurking speaks for itself. I read, I research, I form my own opinions. I am also not an Obama hater but I do hate the way he has divided this country and that is reflected on this forum. Vit refutes anything anti-Obama and he classifies anything anti-Obama as anything that even slightly hints that Obama has screwed up or is not doing his job as well as it could be done. Vit is always on the defense because Obama has not been successful in regards to the economy, unemployment, the deficit, or over spending. He blames the parts who has the House instead and anyone who tries to defend them. Just trying to point out that Vit tries to increase the separation and I am merely trying to separate myself from him as much as possible in terms of contributing to the forum without mindless name calling and lack of real contribution. You seem to be doing the same. BOL
Donald Hank
November 27, 2008
Is the owner of Snopes.com a liberal?
By Donald Hank
Snopes.com has been accused of being run by a "flaming liberal." But now a defender of Snopes, about.com, has rushed to their aid, writing a story about how conservatives have attacked poor Snopes. They write, in part:
Is it true that "Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal" and that "this man is in the tank for Obama"?
Well, first off, Snopes.com is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson. [Oh, well, that makes a world of difference. Two people in a team could not possibly be leftists, now could they?]
Second, the Mikkelsons' political views are between them and the ballot box. I don't know what they are; you don't know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn't know what they are. According to a boilerplate statement issued by the site, "Neither of the operators of Snopes.com has any affiliation with, has ever made a donation to, or has ever publicly expressed support for any political party or candidate." [The fact that the owners claim no affiliation and don't donate money proves what?]
Anyone who has proof to the contrary should come out with it.
Ok, I will. Here is my proof:
First, there is something you should know about about.com. As clearly stated at the bottom left of their home page, they belong to the New York Times, a news outlet most Americans have said they don't trust and that is demonstrably far left. Hardly inspiring of confidence. Frankly, the reader should be questioning about.com a whole lot more than snopes.com, although the fact that about.com is defending snopes is to snopes' discredit.
Beyond that, there are little clues that stand out everywhere in the article appearing on Snopes itself and quoted at about.com. One of the biggest clues is the versions of the emails whose veracity Snopes doubts. For example, if you look up the stuff about Obama's nationality, you find that they print a version that accentuates the silliest claims in order to make the reasonable ones seem silly too. That is what we call a red herring. The Left is very adept at this tactic.
For example:
"...rumors swirling about that Barrack Obama was a Muslim with a middle name of Mohammed..."
Really? Did you ever hear that rumor?
I have gotten hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails on this topic and never heard that one. It is clear that Snopes used this grotesque exaggeration to mask the legitimate suspicion that Obama may not be a US citizen. If Snopes were sincere about disproving that claim, they would not have needed to present this other, much sillier, claim that is so rare most have never read it, and I suspect it may have just been floated by the Left to make conservatives look like rumor mongers.
Worse, the whole tenor of this argument ignores, and masks, the proven fact that Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school as a Muslim. In other words, it makes the claim that Obama was, at least in his youth, a Muslim seem questionable when in fact we know it to be true. (Not to mention the fact that in an interview with George Stephanopolis, Obama made the Freudian slip of saying "my Muslim faith.")
The following quote from about.com certainly does not comfort me:
"Second, the Mikkelsons' political views are between them and the ballot box. I don't know what they are; you don't know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn't know what they are."
Not true. If Mikkelson were not politically aligned, he would not have endorsed only leftwing TV news channels as he did in an interview on CNN:
DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you're generally going to see it in more than one place. If you're finding something that seems rather sensational and it's only on one Web site and it's not something major like CNN or ABC, that's a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.
Besides, if the NYT reporter who wrote this didn't know the Mikkelsons' political leanings, all he had to do was ask the Mikkelsons or do some quick research, as I did.
Obviously, the Mikkelsons are not conservative. A conservative would have at least mentioned Fox News or a conservative site in this context and would have been proud to tout his conservatism. Liberals hide their views because they know they aren't popular.
Snopes' reasons for believing in Obama's credentials are not comforting either:
"Judge Surrick ruled Berg's attempt to use certain laws to gain standing...were frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
For real conservatives, the last people they trust are judges. They know our rights are being stripped one by one and that it is chiefly the judges who are doing the stripping. To hear a judge state that a US citizen has no right to know if a candidate for president is a US citizen and hence in compliance with the Constitution, is just more evidence of a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, not evidence that the lawsuit against Obama was not valid.
The real fact of the matter is that the DNC and the electoral college should have delved into this matter a long time ago and it is clear that they did not.
And we shouldn't care what the Mikkelsons — or their defenders at the very far-left pro-Obama New York Times — say about this.
Conclusion: be wary of Snopes. I don't necessarily think they lie, but they present conservative emails in a very unfavorable light, so unfavorable that it is hard to call their presentation objective. You may wish to pass this article along to them — and more importantly, to your friends.
© Donald Hank
Russ, the above is classic McCarthysism. Trying to paint Snopes and their owners as liberals(they may be, who cares when it has nothing to do with how they run their site?), because about.com is "connected" with the NY Times, and about.com defends them??? C'mon man, you're better than that. All I took out of the above is this guy Hank, a conservative, is pissed because the Mikkelson's may not be conservative, so therefore you can't trust snopes???? Snopes has no POV. The sites that put them down have a POV!!!
