Quantcast

Is Snopes.com always truthful and reliable?

O'Grady 2009/01/25 00:45:30
No, they are always unbiased and use all available resources.
Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
It's a little of both.
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
I've noticed lately that any time I check out subject matter on Snopes that has any Biblical component or could shine any negative light on President Obama (even before he was elected), they have been quick to dismiss it, even in spite of many other credible source documents available on the internet. Examples: (1) NASA's computer debacle of the lost day, supporting the account of the book of Joshua
(2) Court case "Berg vs. Obama" documents posted by Berg, himself, showing admission by Obama that he's currently not a U.S. citizen.

It all just seems a little fishy to me. No pun intended, Rahm Emanuel!
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • YadaYadaYada 2010/08/13 13:08:26
    It's a little of both.
    YadaYadaYada
    +3
    Well curiously the truth has always had a liberal bias. What I'm having a tough time seeing though is where this left bias would be necessary when researching the movies, fauxtos, old wives tales, cars, etc.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • iDryft 2013/12/11 14:16:18
    No, they are always unbiased and use all available resources.
    iDryft
    the examples you give are myths fabricated by the right wingnuts. sheep.
  • Debi57 2012/11/19 02:31:33
    It's a little of both.
    Debi57
    They are liberally biased..Obama is a Muslim..it's not accurate if the facts aren't.
  • katie.capshaw 2011/11/18 05:47:45
    No, they are always unbiased and use all available resources.
    katie.capshaw
    I just read a story from the washington times that snoops.com said was false.The reality is this site is owned in part by msnbc. They are full of crap. Anything negative about Obummer is said to be false, including the amount of his stimulas money! Really snoops?! Now I know you are full of BS!
  • YadaYadaYada 2010/08/13 13:08:26
    It's a little of both.
    YadaYadaYada
    +3
    Well curiously the truth has always had a liberal bias. What I'm having a tough time seeing though is where this left bias would be necessary when researching the movies, fauxtos, old wives tales, cars, etc.
  • O'Grady YadaYad... 2010/08/14 06:14:20
    O'Grady
    In my recent collegiate experience, I've learned that almost any subject matter can be an open door for secular, left-leaning thought. Communist rabbits are being chased by professors every day.
  • Lee The Hybrid Snowflake 2009/02/07 19:08:37
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    Lee The Hybrid Snowflake
    I hope so, I use it a lot!
  • katie.c... Lee The... 2011/11/18 05:50:36
    katie.capshaw
    +1
    They are part of the liberal media. They lie about Obama constantly, even facts that are easily checked through reliable sorces. And it makes complete sense, anybody can start a web page called facts.com, snoops.com ect.
  • Lee The... katie.c... 2011/11/18 13:30:06
    Lee The Hybrid Snowflake
    I guess there are no reliable sources anymore.
  • anonymous 2009/02/01 07:49:59
    Undecided
    anonymous
    +1
    I use snopes.com to check urban legends -- chain e-mail forwards and the like. I use politifact.com and factcheck.org to verify political statements.
  • O'Grady anonymous 2009/02/02 02:48:16
    O'Grady
    +1
    Thanks for the advice!
  • Trader1 is kerbonkin' 2009/02/01 06:54:00
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    Trader1 is kerbonkin'
    +2
    Popular as in anything with a leftish slant. I used to believe it until I found out who funded it. No more now, I'm more inclined to believe the Huffington Post. At least they admit their agenda.
  • katie.c... Trader1... 2011/11/18 05:51:18
    katie.capshaw
    Exactly!
  • TheDogWalker~In Ayn Rand I ... 2009/02/01 04:49:01
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    TheDogWalker~In Ayn Rand I Trust
    All of these sites are run by people with an agenda. The problem is whether they can be independently verified.
  • dill fazie 2009/01/31 22:49:26
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    dill fazie
    +1
    on the big issues, they allow the popular opinions to rule, like the rest of those truth sites...
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2009/01/31 05:18:25
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +2
    Confessing I read some of he comments, if it is funded by George Soros, well so is 0bama; so what does that tell you? Beware! Prejudice abounds, the MSM and all Internet sources controlled by those who support the 0-man.
  • holliday04 2009/01/31 04:55:29
    Undecided
    holliday04
    Haven't used the site enough to say one way or the other
  • **Bessie** 2009/01/31 04:13:27
    Undecided
    **Bessie**
    +2
    I'm not undecided. I don't believe snopes at all anymore . . . they are a waste of a website in my opinion.
  • Skunk " In God We Trust" 2009/01/31 03:44:18
    It's a little of both.
    Skunk  " In God We Trust"
    +2
    Take everything you see on the net,Tv,hear on the radio with a grain of salt.
  • jrtmanmd 2009/01/31 03:26:51 (edited)
    It's a little of both.
    jrtmanmd
    +3
    Sometimes I think they're as full of shit as any other source! LOL

    shit source lol
  • guinnessman 2009/01/31 03:07:57
    It's a little of both.
    guinnessman
    +2
    it is a little of both...they do present some facts...yet I have found things that they have disproved to actually be the opposite of their findings...

    Then again...it is funded by George Soros...
  • jacalera ~Can You Say Lipton?~ 2009/01/31 02:22:53
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    jacalera ~Can You Say Lipton?~
    +2
    There is so much internet scrubbing it's ridiculous and no, I don't think snopes is always reliable, so if you find something good, download or print it, because tomorrow it might be gone, or 'revised'.
  • morning40oz~mad as hell 2009/01/31 00:49:23
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    morning40oz~mad as hell
    +2
    Have you ever researched the founders of Snopes? They are from California and very much politically active. I found their site to be skewed and biased.
  • hmjtrj-searching for truth 2009/01/31 00:48:46
    It's a little of both.
    hmjtrj-searching for truth
    +2
    They definately lean left
    definately lean
  • Bill - Buffalo Soldier 2009/01/31 00:28:06
    Undecided
    Bill - Buffalo Soldier
    +1
    They are probably the same as factcheck - I find snopes better than factcheck but figure they suffer from the same problems - the person doing the checking may have a bias which creeps into the answer. Find that most often on factcheck.
  • anonymous Bill - ... 2009/02/01 07:52:04
    anonymous
    Really? I thought factcheck did a pretty good job of staying free of bias.

    Have you checked politifact.com? They've got a pretty neat section where they rounded up 500 or so of Obama's campaign promises, and they're keeping a running tally on which ones he's kept, broken, or compromised on. Very good at-a-glance accountability.
  • BlueMax372 2009/01/30 23:36:48
    Undecided
    BlueMax372
    +2
    SNOPES is operated by a pair of libtards.
  • Robert 2009/01/30 22:53:27
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    Robert
    +2
    They are just another liberal, pro-Obama media component.
  • GreenEyedLady 2009/01/30 22:42:28
    It's a little of both.
    GreenEyedLady
    +2
    They are not always correct........since we own a computer repair biz, we check out hysterical emails that people send out claiming that viruses are going to erase your hard drive, steal your kids, sleep with your husband......etc. Sometimes they actually give some truth to this stuff seeming to not really know how computers and software work.
  • Mehuldera 2009/01/30 22:40:49
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    Mehuldera
    +2
    The site is owned by Annenberg which is in Obama's pocket so ANYTHING negavtive about him is of course goint to be deemed false.
  • GreenEy... Mehuldera 2009/01/30 22:43:45 (edited)
    GreenEyedLady
    +3
    Yep, I heard that too......do they have this fact listed on their site as true??? Bet not!
  • Daveman 2009/01/30 22:28:21
    It's a little of both.
    Daveman
    +1
    they have a "claim" spot and they support or prove the claim wrong. i have noticed that they manipulate the claim to show what they want. since then i quit using them.
  • jennifer1969 2009/01/25 18:18:50
    Yes, they allow popular opinion and personal opinions to determine conclusions.
    jennifer1969
    +1
    I used to use them too, but don't as much anymore. A while back I wondered about a claim they said was false, researched elsewhere and came to my own conclusion. I don't remember what the questionable fact was now.
  • Hank 2009/01/25 03:09:15
    Undecided
    Hank
    I visit the site, along with many other sites who claim to be the "real" story. Just curious, when you find information to be a "little fishy" what source or sources do you turn to for more reliable information??
  • O'Grady Hank 2009/01/25 19:09:11
    O'Grady
    Well, some things can be a real challenge to research and I may or may not come to a definite conclusion sometimes. With other subjects like my example of the court case though, there may be several other sources on the net to compare and research. On the court case thing, I believe I came across it on the Heritage.org website put out by The Heritage Foundation. I've found them to be a reliable source of information concerning political topics. They had a link on the site from JustiaDocs.com containing supposed official legal documents from the "Berg vs. Obama" case. It is apparently the most substantial case of I believe 13 others, if I remember right. At the bottom of the documents there was included the full name of the plaintiff Philip J. Berg, who is a Democrat, by the way who worked for the Democratic National Committee at one time. Also included was detailed contact information with several phone numbers for Mr. Berg. Even as a Democrat, he saw corruption in his own party and wanted it exposed. Snopes discounted it, but these documents convinced me. Why would a man who is waging such a lawsuit that was still pending, put false information out to the public? Those phone numbers checked out, by the way. I've also been referred to the Infowars.com site by a friend who told me ...''
    Well, some things can be a real challenge to research and I may or may not come to a definite conclusion sometimes. With other subjects like my example of the court case though, there may be several other sources on the net to compare and research. On the court case thing, I believe I came across it on the Heritage.org website put out by The Heritage Foundation. I've found them to be a reliable source of information concerning political topics. They had a link on the site from JustiaDocs.com containing supposed official legal documents from the "Berg vs. Obama" case. It is apparently the most substantial case of I believe 13 others, if I remember right. At the bottom of the documents there was included the full name of the plaintiff Philip J. Berg, who is a Democrat, by the way who worked for the Democratic National Committee at one time. Also included was detailed contact information with several phone numbers for Mr. Berg. Even as a Democrat, he saw corruption in his own party and wanted it exposed. Snopes discounted it, but these documents convinced me. Why would a man who is waging such a lawsuit that was still pending, put false information out to the public? Those phone numbers checked out, by the way. I've also been referred to the Infowars.com site by a friend who told me it reveals more political exposee`s than I could probably stomach. I haven't yet checked that one out though, so I couldn't really comment much on that yet. The Heritage Foundation has been around for a long time and Reagan consulted them often for advise on policies that would work during his presidency. If they were good enough for him then, well! As far as Biblical topics though, I always trust my good old King James Bible more than Snopes or anyone else! Thanks for your interest.
    (more)
  • Rudy rules~Hendrix we trust\m/ 2009/01/25 01:08:17
    No, they are always unbiased and use all available resources.
    Rudy rules~Hendrix we trust\m/
    +1
    Snopes is non-partisan and a fantastic resource for internet myth busting. Obama is a citizen. Fact.
  • jrtmanmd Rudy ru... 2009/01/31 03:30:28
    jrtmanmd
    +1
    yeah right! LOL

    yeah lol
  • God ~ In Me We Trust 2009/01/25 00:58:09 (edited)
  • God ~ I... God ~ I... 2009/01/25 01:01:19
  • O'Grady God ~ I... 2009/01/25 19:33:30
    O'Grady
    Yeah, it looks like they did at least do their homework on that one. It just amazes me, the ridiculous, frivolous claims people have checked out on there made by people who just hate on public figures, but don't really have a substantial foot to stand on!
  • O'Grady God ~ I... 2009/01/25 19:57:21 (edited)
    O'Grady
    +1
    I hope I didn't already rave you yesterday by accident, because you're obviously racist. I have plenty substantial reasons to not support Obama's policies or his citizenship claims without worrying about his race! Yes, I'm white and not ashamed of that, but I'm also a Christian, and God tells us in his word to love everyone and only hate their sin and our sin. Yes, I did vote for McCain because he was the only sensible choice I had left, but if you ask me there are several conservative black people out there who would have made a better president than him: Michael Steele, Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, and maybe even Condoleeza Rice. If many of certain ethnicities have evil views or ways, it's because it's been taught to them in a sort of tradition, not because they were born to be inferior. It appears that you must be one of those people. What reason are you giving anyone to not be racist against you? God loves you anyway, man.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/26 12:20:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals