Glaucon

Not true. Provide prof or STFU. You would go so far in an attempt to be able to believe you are right that you would try to smear a legitimate fact check source. Only dum dums attack the messenger.

DISHONEST AND DESPERATE

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Only for you proggies disinformation and indoctrination.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Legitimate??? Only to you proggies.

Glaucon

Old Gringo, Is there anything you would like to discuss on this site or are you on here merely to annoy, divert and be cute?

Glaucon

If you want verification of Snopes, see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

That is what you do. I wouldn't want to intrude on your expertise.

Glaucon

OldGringo, Is being annoying your only reason for being on this site? do you have thoughts, opinions, information or only insults, attacks, and cutesy stuff?

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

A sister Pub of snopes. Both proggie run for you proggies. Next you will be quoting Media Matters and the DailyKos as legitimate pubs.

Glaucon

This is the deepest and most insightful comment you have made, I think you are saying, something bounces off of you and sticks to me. Or is it, I know what you arel, but what am I? Grow the fuck up.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Find them yourself........you are the one who is now in doubt, not me.

Snopes Got Snoped
By Joe_Bakanovic August 16, 2013

I love this story. Not only does it explain why I do not place much credibility in Snopes, the fact that it is done by someone with the exact same credentials drives homw the point. The only thing that separates the two is that the “MSM” has ‘blessed’ Snopes, thereby giving it the appearance of credibility. But then, given what is in the story, why wouldn’t the MSM support Snopes? Snopes is helping them do their primary job of misleading people about the Leftist agenda and doings:

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.

What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

ADDENDUM:

Watch how this post will be attacked by citing other Left-leaning sites that purport to ‘de-bunk’ myths. This is the essence of the issue. If all Snopes does is use the internet for their sources — which they do — then what they determine to be true depends on what they accept as ‘credible’ sources. If they only accept Left-leaning sources as ‘credible,’ then — by definition — they are guilty of what the post I linked to claims. Furthermore, no one is infallible, but Snopes is always defended by its supporters as being just that: perfect. This is a decidedly Leftist characteristic. Think about it: when was the last time you heard someone on the Left admit they were wrong without trying to offer an excuse or explanation for how or why they were wrong? The fact is, Snopes has been proven wrong — many times. But every time the evidence is presented, Snopes Left-leaning supporters simply deny the evidence or point to another, Snopes-like, Left-leaning site to prove Snopes is not wrong. That is fallacious reasoning/arguing — another Leftist characteristic.
http://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/

Truth about Snopes com
Cookeville, TN

Snopes fails truth test
Snopes blows their credibility.
It’s time to take a close second look at a lot of issues that were thrown under the bus by Snopes.
It’s now common knowledge that it’s owned by an ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay area couple, but until now only a handful of people knew they were bankrolled by George Soros, one of Obama’s primary financial supporters.
For instance, on a hunch some folks performed a search on Snopes to look into the dockets of the newest Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. According to Snopes the online email about this topic was false and no such dockets existed. So they Googled the Supreme Court website, typed in Obama-Kagan, and viola, Snopes matter-of-factly lied. Each of the dockets had been posted and made readily available.
Many people discovered several years ago that the Snopes couple always tended to side with the leftwing, but this was simply an outright lie and they’ve had their hand called on it online.
So this group decided to dig a little deeper and confirmed some additional information that may rock you back in your chair.
1) Kagan has been representing Obama in every petition attempting to prove his citizenship.
2) She may have an opportunity rule on them in the near future—not exactly ethical in the eyes of the general public. It’s now becoming clear about the reason Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court in the first place to protect his murky background.
It gets better; Kagan was also the Solicitor General for every suit against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her and the nomination was the payback that just happened to work fine since at the time the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. As you might have assumed, all of the Supreme Court requests regarding his citizenship were denied, not a one of them has been heard—what a surprise.
Check out any of these websites for the Supreme Court Docket to search for some of these hearings and surprise, surprise, Elana Kagan was the attorney representing Obama.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...

Nothing smelly going on here….

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

I do seem to have devolved to your level haven't I? Sorry, I shall endeavor to rise above you in the future.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

My oh my, you do seem to have gotten your dander up. Try a shot of tequila and lie down for awhile; perhaps you may cool down a wee bit. Oh, and thank you for the complement.

PeterS

It is no different that any other religious theology and protected by our constitution. The presidents choice of religious beliefs are his alone. If you don't like that then rewrite the constitution. Personally I think religion should be taken out all thogether...

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

While I am not a "religious" person, I have no disagreement with those that do practice it. I could care less what obama's religion is, if he has one.

Glaucon

No Mas!!!!!