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



Run by halfwit and Canookie CCL.



Snopes.com has been considered the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, “See, I told you it wasn’t true!” But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com.

Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.



David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website ’Snopes’ about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when ‘Snopes’ was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson’s were quick to “research” this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson’s never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the “final factual word” on the issue.

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.

So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an Internet connection. Don’t go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do.

http://worldtruth.tv/snopes-got-snoped/

there are persistent rumors that George Soros has his grubby Paws in it as well!

rumors about snopes making the rounds,,,

its ironic and funny, yet predictable and expected,,,,

from factcheck



In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word "pressured" as the e-mail claims. What she said was:


Snopes.com: A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns.

And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:


State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.



but its so common now,, if someones views or information is contrary to what others believe or want to believe, to go after anything in their history , any little details at all, to discredit anything and everything else about them,,,,

A liberal defending liberals......Go figure

So what is the difference if you Google it or they Google it? Most likely the results will come out the same except they have already done the work for you..

ad hominem, go figure,,,

ty, and isn't it saying something when research skills are equated to experience using google?....

The difference is choice, opinion and sources.

You can find any number of opinions on google, or let a liberal biased "presumed" authority give you one as fact.

We have a liberal admin already doing that! And how many scandals and questionable Constitutional violations under their belt now?

Why would I not guess that if it had to do with some liberal caught lying that it would be yourself that would jump up in defense?

And to use another liberal lying source to justify the other lying liberal source, well, that is to be expected.

Are these people somehow remotely related, you seem to have some of the same traits.

Fact is, they've already been busted lying and most of the time put the liberal slant on it.

PS
I am an independent thinker and do my own sourcing.

you mean they are back at their nefarious Game again?

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/most-popular/1278-snopes-debunked-after-fbi-raid.html

Human beings should consider with great care their sources for information. By refusing to present certain information, and by influencing people to dismiss certain information as unimportant or unnecessary to consider, many modern institutions seek to control human perceptions and therefore to limit what human being may come to understand.

Truth is objective, meaning that it is not based on perceptions of human beings, which is capable of wavering. Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present, that which is.

But perception is not reality and another's perception tends to mask that reality as it deprives one of the initiative to discover the truth on their own.

Claims of an ad hominem attack, used by those to deflect from the truth of the matter. Wherein the claimant in this case is a proclaimed liberal that has an extreme tendency to defend anything liberal whether justified or logical is well documented, that eliminates the first instance of the definition.

Being this is a statement of fact based on historical data from the claimants background, then it can't be an attack on the posters character. However it is an answer to the contentions made, an extreme liberal that has a history of defending any liberal view even to the extend not only ignoring blatant lies, but to try and justify same.

So claim ad hominem as often as you want, the ignorant masses will choose to not only believe it, but some will even endorse it; but then others know different.

That's a real joke, what skill does it take to type an inquiry into the search bar? Even less than the value of minimum wage?

But then what skill does it take to follow the various trails through to the sources and weigh the sources against each other to present the whole story, a good 6 figure income?

Oh wait, isn't it that the lame liberals believe the first should be paid close to the later?

Oh. Just like the owners of Snopes.

You should try it sometime.

So you're saying you don't have a clue but needed to speak up anyway? There is a huge difference, but is it that you are in a state of nescience or ignorance?

Clue: the facts are not in the realm covered by nescience, they are in the realm of the known.

So, the OP of this thread is quoting a claim coming from an anti-liberal online tabloid.

How pathetic.

I will summarize what that tabloid and the Obama-haters here want everyone to believe:

"Waah! Snopes keeps debunking the false negative rumors about President Obama that Obama-haters keep promoting. So, we must destroy Snopes."

I do it all of the time, which is why I don't buy the false negative claims that are frequently promoted in this forum.