Snopes Busted - Nanner, Nanner, Nanner

I never knew quite what to make of Snopes - they would render an opinion with minimal documentation, but it was always like "Trust us, we're Snopes, and therefore authoritative." If any member tried that here they would be quickly pilloried. Now, along comes this fellow who states that Snopes is funded by George Soros, and found that it toes a PC line. No surprise - the PTB certainly try to batten down every avenue of independent thought and research they can. I'm sure they'd do it to ATS, but ATS is supported by a raft of free-thinking, independent thinkers. Yay us! OTOH, I haven't logged onto Snopes in a long time, and now I will keep it that way.

thelastgreatstand.com...

Let's disregard Snopes due to the fact that some of the facts Snopes states, backed with evidence, don't toe our ideological lines. Instead let's use an article on a site known for its blatant right wing lean as proof that Snope is not to be trusted. Love this circular reasoning.

Important distinction:

THIS is a "Nanner"



At least that is what we here in the South in the US call it.

I believe you meant "Neener"

a reply to: eriktheawful

Not so fast buddy...maybe they meant the logic of Snopes was flawed and were using that catchphrase of Spock to make a point?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the correct term is "Nanny, nanny, foo-foo".

Snopes is reliable for the most part, but they're not infallible.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I thought it was nanny nanny boo boo?

I use snopes sometimes to correct my father's rabbit hole thinking- maybe I shouldn't anymore! He'll surely come across that article and use that as proof that his conspiracy addled brain is right!

I usually just skip the "neeners" and go straight to a raspberry, but that's me, I'm a hard ass.

So, one guy's blog proves a site is bogus?

September

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

It looks like all this was started by an article published by World net Daily and the blogger got his "proof" from there. I dislike Obama and can't wait for his last day, but he's incompetent enough that we don't need to depend on lies to make him look bad.

jacksonville.com...

A check of those dockets confirms that. There’s a case about a prisoner civil rights issue, one about a contractor in Iraq and another on a Ugandan in the Guantanamo Bay prison. But not a single one of the dockets is about Obama’s presidential eligibility. In fact, Snopes.com points out, most of the cases were filed against the government before Obama’s presidential candidacy but were rolled over to the current administration, a common practice.

David Emery, who does fact-finding research for the urban legends section of the information website About.com, looked at Snopes.com’s article and called it “exactly right.”

The reason the cases come up under a search for Obama and Kagan on the Supreme Court website is that Obama is listed as the respondent (such lawsuits often list the president as respondent) and Kagan, the solicitor general at the time, was the counsel of record for the federal government. The solicitor general is not a personal lawyer for the president, but merely functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government.

WorldNet-Daily beat a hasty retreat from the article after Snopes.com came out with its findings. That article was removed from WND’s website and replaced with a rewritten article on a different topic that had the following editor’s note, Snopes.com reported:

a reply to: Lazarus Short

You should have read your sources more carefully.

The WND article claims Kagen represented Obama on HIS alleged eligibility issues. NONE of the nine dockets are about Obama's eligibility for the White House.

WND

Elena Kagan tied to Obama's birth certificate.

Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.

One docket was about a federal prisoner in Tennessee, another was about a truck driver who was in Iraq between 2004 to 2006 (before Obama was even elected!)... It goes on and on. Yes, Obama's and Kagan's name are on the dockets, but NONE were about Obama's eligibility.

Snopes is right again.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I never knew quite what to make of Snopes - they would render an opinion with minimal documentation, but it was always like "Trust us, we're Snopes, and therefore authoritative." If any member tried that here they would be quickly pilloried. Now, along comes this fellow who states that Snopes is funded by George Soros, and found that it toes a PC line. No surprise - the PTB certainly try to batten down every avenue of independent thought and research they can. I'm sure they'd do it to ATS, but ATS is supported by a raft of free-thinking, independent thinkers. Yay us! OTOH, I haven't logged onto Snopes in a long time, and now I will keep it that way.

thelastgreatstand.com...

I'm not surprise. Snopes has always towed the power that be line when it came to what it debunked. I've always been suspicious of it because it does tow TPTB line so consistantly. Good find!

Now I know what to reply to those that claim God like Snopes says.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Better read the two posts above yours... Of course, I don't expect facts to change anyone's mind. I know many would rather believe the right wing blog instead of several reputable sites.

This is a new first for me:

slammed for title

slammed for content.

Predictable.

Maybe I should give up posting here.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

You posted this in Chit-Chat.

Chit-Chat is a BTS, Off Topic forum.

If you wanted your thread to have a more serious flavor to it, it should have been posted in one of the ATS forums.

Just a heads up on that. In the future, if you want it to be a more serious discussion, find an ATS forum to post in.

(BTW- wasn't "slamming" your thread title, I was merely poking fun at the word usage).

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Maybe I should give up posting here.

Maybe you should just do a LITTLE research. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out that your OP is completely false.

Hey, how about this? Post something in this thread like, "Sorry guys! You got me. I thought what I was posting was true, but I see it's false now."

Or you can get upset and "stop posting here". We all make mistakes and you have made one. Just own it.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Lazarus Short

You posted this in Chit-Chat.

Chit-Chat is a BTS, Off Topic forum.

If you wanted your thread to have a more serious flavor to it, it should have been posted in one of the ATS forums.

Just a heads up on that. In the future, if you want it to be a more serious discussion, find an ATS forum to post in.

(BTW- wasn't "slamming" your thread title, I was merely poking fun at the word usage).

I looked thru the list of sub-forums twice, and could not find what I thought was a good fit.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Maybe I should give up posting here.

Maybe you should just do a LITTLE research. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out that your OP is completely false.

Hey, how about this? Post something in this thread like, "Sorry guys! You got me. I thought what I was posting was true, but I see it's false now."

Or you can get upset and "stop posting here". We all make mistakes and you have made one. Just own it.

Well, heck, maybe I should not take www articles at face value, even though Snopes is taken at face value. I thought I "owned" it in my OP, and am still not convinced it is false. It all comes down to which source you trust, and in the www world, you can ALWAYS find support for your position, whatever it is. He said. She said. On and on.

Snopes does OK for the most part, but like anything, when you verge into partisan or controversial territory, follow the money to get an idea which way Snopes will interpret text that could be read one way or another based on your personal bias.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Please don't lump all of us Southerners into the 'nanner' using category. We have a hard enough time being taken seriously as it is.

The term 'Soros-funded' is entirely too broad. It could merely be a recipient of funds from a grant he contributes to, or it could be a minor subsidiary at the bottom of a chain of companies he holds interest in.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Not Spock , Mork from Ork. Shazbot , get it right.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Well, heck, maybe I should not take www articles at face value, even though Snopes is taken at face value.

I always look for a second source. I think it's a good habit. I learned to do that recently by accidentally posting a couple false threads to ATS... It was terribly embarrassing. But your source is a VERY biased blog, not a reputable article.

I thought I "owned" it in my OP, and am still not convinced it is false.

You're NOT? Did you look at the docket specifics and read about each one? NONE of them are about Obama's eligibility. The Snopes article is TRUE and the blog is FALSE. But I see that doesn't matter much to some.

It all comes down to which source you trust...

A VERY right-wing blog vs several reputable articles... And you choose the right-wing blog? I guess you're right - you can ALWAYS find support for your position...

Have a fun thread.

a reply to: Gothmog

No. It was definitely Spock. It's right there in the picture.