The problem is that many Republicans think SNOPES is “Left-wing.” Guess their world view doesn’t mesh too well with reality. :rolleyes:
Rationality and education are both elitist, citizen.
-Joe
:eek: !!! You gotta be fuckin’ kiddin’ me!
Cite?
#1: They Said Snopes Is “Left-Wing”: LIAR! My brother’s friends Wife personally Saw Barbara herself in The store and She Doesn’t have ANY wings!!!
Here’s one. Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias undercuts its credibility)
[Stephen Colbert] Facts have a well-known liberal bias. [/SC]
Well, to be fair, here’s a Democratic Underground discussion about Snopes’ obvious **right-wing ** bias.
The 50 lies thing is still a load of bunk, though.
I found a better laid-out version of that email (though they are numbered slightly differently), and the thing I find so amusing about it, is that often the sources they link to as supposed backup for their claims, do not say anything remotely like what they say it does.
This is a perfect example. They link to a YouTube video from a press conference in 2004, following both his convention keynote speech where everyone started talking in awe about how Presidential he was, and his United States Senate win. He was asked by a reporter why he was, at that time, ruling out running on a national ticket. He responded:
In other words, he (wrongly) thought that he would have to start working towards setting up his national campaign right then, and at that point he hadn’t even set foot in the U.S. Senate. Not to mention that it would have appeared awfully presumptuous to start talking about running for President when he hadn’t even started the job he was just elected to do! How this statement says anything remotely like what these morons claim is beyond me, let alone how there’s any hypocrisy or contradiction therein.
I debunked this nonsense here and here. This also covers #17, I believe.
#s 18 & 19 were answered by others.
This is a lie. See The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act which was passed into law in January, 2007.
I don’t feel like tackling any more of them right now. Perhaps I’ll come back later.
Shayna, you’re just amazing. Truly.
You know, really, on the one hand I’d like to think that only a retarded jackass would be influenced by why at they read as forwarded email spam. But on the otherhand, many people have become powerful and rich by underestimating the average person’s intelligence. It’s like George Carlin said. Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize that HALF of them are even stupider. That’s a lot of really stupid people.
I’ve taken a fatalist approach to dealign with expectaions of people of my own nation these days. Expect the worst possible outcome because it is the most likely. It’s also a very good way to pick presidential candidates too. Maybe Obama will break this streak, but we have consistently gotten very poor results. If we didn’t have a terrible candidate (Kerry… jeez… what the hell) then the other guy won, (Bush). Gore wasn’t that great of a candidate either though guys. He would have made a great Prez i’m sure, but he was a terrible candidate.
I believe they’re referring to a nuclear incident reporting bill by Obama. It was originally worded much harsher but was locked in the Republican (Senator Inhofe, at that) controlled environmental committee and Obama had to compromise it down just to get it off the table and to the floor. Critics point to the compromise bill as Obama pandering to energy companies (namely, Illinois-based Exelon) but ignore how it arrived at its final state. Also, it wasn’t voted down by the Democrats as the e-mail implies, it died from a parlimentary death without ever coming to a vote.
You could berate Obama for “caving in” with a compromise bill but the reality is that the original would have never gotten out of committee, period.
If you can’t easily tell to which action by the candidate a particular item is referring, it speaks to the list’s general slipperiness.
Unfortunately, to a sufficiently incurious observer, piles of poorly researched innuendo are indistinguishable from actual malfeasance.
Might as well start rebutting these now; I’m sure they’ll show up in my inbox soon enough.
All of his state records are publicly available. Furthermore, from the cite:
IOW, “he’s a liar because I don’t agree with his politics.”
Oh yeah, and his friend Ali Abunimah? He favored a binational solution to the conflict. How that got translated into “supports the destruction of Israel” is anyone’s guess.
Anyone got any kind of reference for this? I’m not about to page through years of legislature, just to manually count the number of bills that he passed.
You’re confusing his run for the senate(s), with his run for the presidency. For his presidential run, Obama does not accept money from PACs.
See above. Obama does not accept money from federal lobbyists. My guess is that the author is confused and angry about the non-federal lobbyists… but who knows.
According to GovTrack, Obama has passed 3 bills in the U.S. Senate, as of July 13, 2007. (And 2 more are scheduled for debate.)
By your logic, Hillary’s absurd statement that she landed under sniper fire in Kosovo is fine because hey, there had been sniper fire in Kosovo that year and she was just making a point. I would hardly call Obama’s statement about Selma a “lie”, but there is no doubt that it’s chronologically impossible.
And also, weaksauce. I think it’s a better comparison to Hillary’s statement that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary than the Bosnia thing, and even then, weaksauce.
It’s not just this, either. I went to Snopes.com and did a keyword search on “Obama.” You wouldn’t believe some of the shit they’ve had to debunk already!
You’d think people would start exercising some skepticism when they receive forwards like this, but apparently that’s too much to ask.
“Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on you again. Burn me three times, stop burning me! Burn me four times…”
Just for S&G I just did one on “McCain.” Not nearly so much there. I was expecting something about the “Manchurian candidate brainwashed by the Vietnamese” meme, but apparently it’s not prominent enough (yet) to merit the attention.
I found this site that debunks each one:
http://www.garmentfile.com/2008/05/yet-another-obama-smear-e-mail.html
It was in the comments section of one of the sites that propagated this crap, and apparently had been there for a few days, so I apologize for not seeing it before.
That’s not what the vote was for: the vote was to give social security benefits to those who paid into the system and earned it, regardless of theis legal status. That’s not going to bankrupt social security, that’s paying benefits to people who have earned it.