I've been seeing this Snopes.com cited a lot lately so i looked into it. I figured it was a site with a number of investigators or somesuch - turns out it's just a husband and wife - David and Barbara Mikkelson - who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda. Personally i could give a flying f*ck whether they slant to the left or right in their politics, but propaganda and disinformation tends to give me a case of the red ass, especially when it's from a source that's cited as being some kind of fact based internet mythbuster.
I've seen some pretty shoddy and opinionated crap come off the site in much the same asinine, dishonest style as Glenn Beck. I guess that's a part of political homostasis in this country - the conservatives can't have all the tards, amirite?
b.k. barunt wrote:I've been seeing this Snopes.com cited a lot lately so i looked into it. I figured it was a site with a number of investigators or somesuch - turns out it's just a husband and wife - David and Barbara Mikkelson - who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda. Personally i could give a flying f*ck whether they slant to the left or right in their politics, but propaganda and disinformation tends to give me a case of the red ass, especially when it's from a source that's cited as being some kind of fact based internet mythbuster.
I've seen some pretty shoddy and opinionated crap come off the site in much the same asinine, dishonest style as Glenn Beck. I guess that's a part of political homostasis in this country - the conservatives can't have all the tards, amirite?
Honibaz
look man, if you need that badly to believe all the chain letters about obama you obsessively forward to everyone you know are actually true, we're not stopping you. no one on your contact list is even reading them anyway
Stephen Colbert, winner of a coveted George F. Peabody Award wrote:
The facts have a well-known liberal bias.
... facts.
Excuse me, I misquoted Dr. Colbert. Fixed above. Damned liberal media.
No, I was just laughing because Peabody-Award Winner Stephen Colbert referred to media bias as involving any kind of facts. The issue is not with the facts, it's with the presentation of the facts, both what facts to present and how they are presented.
I think he said "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Which is funny because he's a comedian, and comedians almost invariably lean left because their profession requires the portrayal of warped views of reality.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:I think he said "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Which is funny because he's a comedian, and comedians almost invariably lean left because their profession requires the portrayal of warped views of reality.
Comedians and actors lean left because it's cooler... seriously. That's the only explanation.
Snopes.com wrote:As for Barack Obama's "fifty-seven states" verbal slip-up, it wasn't long before some wags also spoofed a previous controversy over the senator's eschewing the wearing of a U.S. flag lapel pin by coming up with a revised version of that familiar adornment:
b.k. barunt wrote:- who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda.
Wait...what's their political agenda?
They are obviously Anti Kidney Thieves.
Also, they are actively trying to convince the populace that the generous Nigerian royalty does not want to give them millions of dollars, because they want it all for themselves.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
b.k. barunt wrote:I've been seeing this Snopes.com cited a lot lately so i looked into it. I figured it was a site with a number of investigators or somesuch - turns out it's just a husband and wife - David and Barbara Mikkelson - who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda. Personally i could give a flying f*ck whether they slant to the left or right in their politics, but propaganda and disinformation tends to give me a case of the red ass, especially when it's from a source that's cited as being some kind of fact based internet mythbuster.
I've seen some pretty shoddy and opinionated crap come off the site in much the same asinine, dishonest style as Glenn Beck. I guess that's a part of political homostasis in this country - the conservatives can't have all the tards, amirite?
Honibaz
And what do you get for promoting this site full of propaganda and disinformation?
Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.
The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
If "fifty...
...
...
...seven" is the same as 57, then yes.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
thegreekdog wrote:The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
When I first heard the story, I thought he had just been staring too long at the Heinz Ketchup bottle.
My reaction is who cares if he said 57 states, and that should be everyone's reaction. However, he did say it. It's like the Bushisms. Do we care? No. Did he say them? Yes.
Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.
The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
If "fifty...
...
...
...seven" is the same as 57, then yes.
Who gives a shit? By trying to defend him you sound a lot like the Bushism defenders. I'll repeat... who gives a shit? The man said it, he was tired, people slip up when they make 4 billion speeches a year. It doesn't have anything to do with his leadership skills and/or policies.
Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.
The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
it's not just about that. it's about a specific popular email forward which claims "obama said he visited 57 states [true] and this is a SECRET NOD TO HIS SINISTER PLAN TO ENMUSLIMATE AMERICA [false]"
therefore the article gets the "partially true and partially false" designation
Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.
The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
If "fifty...
...
...
...seven" is the same as 57, then yes.
Who gives a shit? By trying to defend him you sound a lot like the Bushism defenders. I'll repeat... who gives a shit? The man said it, he was tired, people slip up when they make 4 billion speeches a year. It doesn't have anything to do with his leadership skills and/or policies.
But guess what? He said it.
Fine, fine. Chill out. I'm not defending anyone. I know you're capable of paying attention so please take note of whenever someone is prepared to agree with you. I didn't think Greek pitbulls were this aggressive... sheesh!
Also what Sultan said.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.
The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.
it's not just about that. it's about a specific popular email forward which claims "obama said he visited 57 states [true] and this is a SECRET NOD TO HIS SINISTER PLAN TO ENMUSLIMATE AMERICA [false]"
therefore the article gets the "partially true and partially false" designation
what is so hard to understand about this
What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.
As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?
... facts.
