Interesting that you provide a link
Posted By: that on 2009-03-30
In Reply to: Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc - me
directly addresses and refutes your allegations that Snopes is steeped in liberal bias.
Quote:
Is TruthorFiction.com a more reliable source?
TruthorFiction.com has condemned this anonymous attack against Snopes.com and lauded the website as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.
What's ironic about the claim that TruthorFiction.com is more reliable than Snopes is that when you compare the contents of the two, their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way (does that mean TruthorFiction.com is biased too?).
Where the sites do differ is in the depth and quality of their coverage. On Snopes.com the Mikkelsons go to great lengths to address the finer details of each text. They supply critical analysis, as well as background and contextual information. They cite sources.
Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler -- who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource -- but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.
Snopes.com boasts a 12-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.
Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.
LINK/URL: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Would you please provide a link so we can see what it really says?
//
Can you provide a link to what you are saying? Thanks. nm
nm
Please provide details and link regarding the...sm
42 meth labs in Wasilla. I have not heard of this. Was it while SP was in office as mayor there, or what?
I truly want to know....thanks.
Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
Interesting link
This person has some interesting comments. Makes you think twice. Brings to light some issues about Obama.
http://www.pyrabang.com/contenteditor.php?pd=4057&ps=4121&org=3955&target=http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr10-17-08.html
Interesting link regarding what's really going on
Found this last night. It was written by someone in the Obama camp.
http://www.rense.com/general83/nrw.htm
A friend sent me this link...very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=bz302
Please check out this video.
Interesting link inside
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27012038
thanks for the link. interesting stuff.
.
Interesting link - learned something new
I found a site that has an interesting interview with a historian. He wrote....
"Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members."
Below is a link with his interview. Very interesting. There are two parts to the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k&feature=related
No, not interesting. I followed the link to the source.
and watched the Fox clip. Oh, and I do watch Fox from time to time to watch the clowns Beck and O'Reilly constantly spouting their hate propaganda and to give me insight into some of the minds of the people who post on this forum, whereby, I can always tell where they get their info, because it is almost always word-for-word out of the Fox pieholes. It's really quite amusing and always gives me a good laugh for the day!! LOL
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
Hmmmmm, interesting. Also see link inside
It's quite long but worth reading. How many high-profile conservatives with ties to Reagan and Bush 1 have to jump ship for something meaningful to happen? javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',' ');
http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-02-16/news/feature_full.html
Interesting article see link inside
Looks like the feminists are supporting Palin. Very interesting article and it explains why they are supporting her.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/09/06/palin-punditry-you-wont-see-in-the-papers-or-on-the-tv-news/
Thanks for posting this. It is interesting...link inside for those interested.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
You can't provide them. Just say so. lol.
nm
So are you saying you are not able to provide
one single solitary link, citation or reference? I keep up with all sorts of news, though I must confess I am not a Fixed News fanatic. I am simply asking you to back up your own claim. Either you can or you can't.
It is as American as apple pie to challenge close election results and certainly is not a phenomenon confined to the blue side of the aisle. In fact, a fixed recount was the ONLY way W was able to slither into office in 2000 (can you say hanging chads?).
Are recounts only legitimate when they favor the GOP, as was the case of Saxby Chambliss in Georgia? Thank God we avoided one in Alaska. We could have ended up with a convicted felon being shunned in the Senate chambers and defeated GOP VP candidate/Gov Palin annointing, er I mean appointing herself as his successor. What a disaster that would have been.
In any case, recounts have their place. It does seem that Coleman's claim to victory may have been a tad premature, even though he did arrogantly concede that Franken did have the right to "purse official review." This was mighty big of him, considering it is mandated in Minnesota when the margins are less than 1%.
If you are defending Cornyn in his assertion that the process should "play it self out," why do you have such a problem seeing that happen in Minnesota? Could it have anything to do with the looming threat of supermajority? Suppose we just wait and see which way the ball bounces. If it doesn't happen to land in your court, better luck next time.
but they will also provide
energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil is such a big thing.....I would think that would be top priority, but it doesn't seem to be. I still say we look into solar, wind, biofuels, and go ahead and drill where we know we have oil. It is just stupid of us to continue giving money to people who hate us.
Can you provide support for this
All the research I have seen says that ectopic pregnancies cannot survive, that an embryo must be in the uterus to thrive. I would love to see some support/back up of this if you have any (I am honestly curious, not trying to be difficult!)
Thanks.
Just WHO do you think does provide jobs?
the middle class?
I see sam has yet to provide us with evidence
are going to be given to people who are not paying tax. Show me what in his plan describes a refundable (AKA non-wastable) tax credit. So far, all I can see is that sam does not understand the basic concepts of socialism, Marxism, tax cuts and tax credits. Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes, based on lowering a tax rate. You cannot reduce a rate on tax in the absence of tax due. Tax credits for the most part are paid against TAXES DUE. The 2 exceptions in the US are the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit
So show me where Obama has said that his tax credit would be a refundable/non-wastable credit. Also, naturally, I am still waiting for sam's answer to my original question on how it is that progressive tax reform is only socialist when it is Obama reform but no other president who has reformed the tax structure is a socialist? Please answer that question and the one about the refundable tax credit. Direct answers would be very much appreciated.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the REAL content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's boring. It's a trick you probably learned from Obama, who figures most people won't even notice that he's changed the conversation.
We notice that you're changing the conversation, so you lose.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the actual content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's painfully transparent and truly boring.
I won't answer your absurd accusations again and return the other readers to the program previously in progress. You just carry on with yourself.
In an effort to provide some information sm
I was on vacation when the posts were made, but a friend of mine copied them and sent them to me. They were no exactly death threats, but under a post wishing President Bush Happy Birthday, there were two posts saying something to the effect that they hoped Bush died and burned in hell. Also, every single thing you accuse conservatives of in this long post, every SINGLE thing, has been committed on this board by liberals. You might also notice that most of the conservative posters have stopped coming over here, something the liberal posters have not been able to do, as their drive-by postings still appear sporadically and predictably.
Please provide factual evidence of this...
....but MUST be from a nonpartison source absolutely. Actually I thought it was just as much the case with the Republican party, but I freely admit that I have no concrete statistics at this point to back that up.
Please provide substantiation for your claim.
After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."
I will provide an answer to your question
I feel it is in poor taste to adopt the moniker of a liberal-leaning poster on a liberal board and then post anti-liberal messages. This is common sense and if you have to ask why it matters...well you are probably lacking common sense, as well as basic manners.
But thought I'd try explaining it anyway.
Signed,
?? (am changing to Teddy, a less ambiguous moniker)
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.
As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?
We will definitely disagree on this one.
Have a good night.
can you provide me a source so I can hear it? x
x
6 mil provide a bit more of an incentive to recant.
su
How did the McCain provide this info??...
xx
Show me where Obama has said he would provide
did not earn income. Try to stay on task with this Sam. The associations argument is a one-way conversation headed toward a dead-end destination. Let's talk PROGRESSIVE TAX...which is the central issue here.
SP seems to be fine with windfall profits....call them what you like, rebate of whatever, but they are still windfall profits redistributed oil company revenues to the owners of "collectively owned resources"...her words, not mine.
Did you look at the chart? Do you have any comment on those telling historical rates? What about McCain's intent to keep the progressive tax structure as is...since it has serve our CAPITALIST economy well in the past.
Your argument is bankrupt. No soup for you.
You won'the provide links because you have none, and
FREEREPUBLIC???? Are you kidding me? They are known to be the whackiest of all the whackos. The majority of republicans even disown them, but that certainly explains a lot about your mentality.
Well a hand up will not provide the people of New Orleans with sm
what they need in this time of crisis.
What are you smokin'? Do you think these people don't need emergency money now, they have lost everything.
Good grief. There are mannnny Americans who still live paycheck to paycheck and if the little they have is wiped out, they have nowhere to go. But some people don't see it that way. I call them the I got mine generation.
I guess Harvard fails to provide that course, eh?
x
Then why didnt O just provide the REAL documents
nm
No bridger, you don't provide the links every time. That's
the point.
Mrs., if there ever was anyone posturing in a contest, you would definitely be the winner.
I don't intend to argue with you. I have cautioned you because you are putting this board and its owners at risk.
I don't click on links people provide because my
x
I worry every time I provide the government
Where will this end up? How long will it stay there? How will it be used? Do I trust the guy presently in office? Congress? Will I trust the next crop of office holders? There is a reason why people are going *off the grid*
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
Please provide verifiable quotes to back up your claim.
I am not right or left and think you are all pretty much full of it but I have to see allegations made without proof. I haven't seen the staunchest of Republicans doing anything of the sort. I really hate when people throw things out without any kind of fact behind it.
Do not cut and paste long text...provide links!
Sheesh!
Please provide a reference showing that you were the first to mention Alinsky?
As you can see by the post below, the first reference to Alinsky found on this forum was made by Jules on 09/02/2008 regarding Alinsky's son's letter to the Boston Globe. Could you please provide us with an earlier reference indicating that you were the first to have mentioned Alinksy?
You can't provide any examples of "gross inaccuracies in the article" because there aren
Why don't you prove me wrong? Is it because you CAN'T?
interesting, indeed nm
nm
This is interesting. SM
I did hear on the news the person that leaked this story is a former coworker of Roberts named Walter Smith who is somehow associated with "People For the American Way", an anti-Christian hate group. It's my belief that this was meant to turn the Republicans against Roberts. Well, big surprise, it didn't work. They have to be shaking their heads.
Somewhat interesting.
AR, posting in a message line that someone is irrational is not the most innocent of maneuvers, so let's not waste too much time congratulating you on your imaginary moral superiority. I sometimes maneuver that way myself but I don't deceive myself into thinking it was anything but honest hostility and I don't act surprised when people respond in kind. So sorry if there was a misunderstanding just in case there was, I'm always willing to give a benefit of a doubt - once or twice. After that you get what you get.
That said and out of the way, what is it about the rest of Bennett's statement that you believe exonerates the controversial part? I did hear the whole thing and I don't know what you're referring to in that respect.
Yup, will be interesting,
Apparently there is a crucial email somewhere that has gone missing and there are some inconsistencies in the testimony. We'll see. I'm sure they'll try to explain it all away.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9630676/site/newsweek
interesting
From John Stossel's Myths, Lies and Straight Talk (link at bottom)
MYTH #8 — Republicans Shrink the Government
Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that big government is not the answer.
President Reagan told us, Our government is too big and it spends too much.
But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.
And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent; it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior; 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.
And the pork keeps pouring out. Even the Peanut Festival in Dothan, Ala., got $200,000.
Alabama congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, got them the money. He wouldn't talk to us about it, but the locals said they like getting your money. I think it's a waste of money, but if they're going to waste money, I guess it's better to waste it here than anywhere else, one man told me.
Economist Stephen Moore, a Republican, says, We fought a war against big government and you know what? Big government won.
He noted, You look at what's happened to the government in the 10 years since the Republicans took control of Congress, the government is twice as big.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606
Yes, I saw that too, PK. It will be interesting, no?
This is interesting...sm
I heard this a few days ago, but since everyone only pays attention to articles in mainstream papers and TV news, thought I would post it. Could explain why Bush is acting like a brat. The pressure coming from the families, the public, and the truth movements is getting intense.
Apparently, CIA officers are buying legal insurance to cover the cost of their defense should they be indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in 9/11. They are worried that the results of an internal CIA investigation into some CIA agents’ roles in 9/11 may soon become public and the public outcry would immediately lead to their arrest for murder and conspiracy among other charges.
CIA officers who are charged with something that was done in the line of duty, i.e., for something that is constitutional and legal; are defended by the largest law firm in the world; the U.S. Justice Department. However, for illegal and unconstitutional charges they are on their own. That is why this private legal insurance has suddenly become so attractive to some employees of the CIA; they know that they will not be defended by the Justice Department because what they did was so illegal and reprehensible. That is why they are busy buying private legal insurance. For a well-researched, excellent article found in the mainstream media see the Washington Post for R. Jeffrey Smith’s story titled, “CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?nav=hcmodule
|
