Quantcast

Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked

millermedia 2013/02/18 20:54:40
I have always trusted Snopes.com
I have never trusted Snopes.com
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos


Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti-Obama information in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out. For some time we’ve seen reports that Elaina Kagan was Obama’s attorney fighting those pesky "he isn’t a citizen" law suits. Lawsuits that Snopes says don’t exist or at least that Kagan didn’t represent Mr. Obama in those suits. Guess what ... they lied! She did represent Obama.


Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan. Well now I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya'll don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya?


We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!


Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. Read More


I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep, you got it; Snopes lied! Every one of those dockets are there.

So, here is what I wrote to Snopes:


Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:


The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.


That being said, I'll bet you didn't know this:


Kagan was representing Obama in ALL the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out!


Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer.


It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.


Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!


Check out these examples:



http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles...


http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles...






Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ProudProgressive 2013/02/19 01:43:30 (edited)
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    ProudProgressive
    +13
    1. Kagan never represented the President in any of the idiot racist birther lawsuits. Because she was the Solicitor General, she was the lead attorney on every lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. But she did not participate in any of the cases. Most likely they were given to the intern that came in two hours a day to do filing, because it didn't require any particular legal skill to oppose something so blatantly frivolous.

    2. Snopes' own article does NOT say that "there were no such dockets". What they DID say, accurately, was this:

    One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.

    Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the...









    1. Kagan never represented the President in any of the idiot racist birther lawsuits. Because she was the Solicitor General, she was the lead attorney on every lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. But she did not participate in any of the cases. Most likely they were given to the intern that came in two hours a day to do filing, because it didn't require any particular legal skill to oppose something so blatantly frivolous.

    2. Snopes' own article does NOT say that "there were no such dockets". What they DID say, accurately, was this:

    One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.

    Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the nine entries cited by WND had anything at all to do with cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States; in fact, most of them actually stemmed from cases which were originally filed against the federal government long before the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (but which since "rolled over" to the current administration).

    http://www.snopes.com/politic...

    3. Snopes receives no funding from George Soros or anyone else. The site is run entirely on advertising revenue.

    The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators, Barbara and David Mikkelson, and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization.

    http://www.snopes.com/info/ab...

    4. Have you ever noticed that any source of reliable verified information which debunks the endless Right Wing fantasies is automatically dismissed as part of the vast conspiracy. MediaMatters is one of the most heavily sourced sites on the web. Factcheck was a favorite even of conservatives until they verified that the President's birth certificate was genuine. Even the New York Times, probably the most reliable source of factual information in the world, is automatically condemned. Yet the same folks look at something like Fox or Drudge, which pretty much make no secret of the fact that they exist only to propagate Right Wing talking points, and claim that they are reliable.
    (more)

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

  • Ozzyboy 2013/02/19 17:52:06
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    Ozzyboy
    +1
    Couldn't trust those old old hippies when every time anything negative on their messiah came back as inconclusive or unknown. The writing was on the wall over four years ago on all of this.
  • Car1u5~PWCM~JLA 2013/02/19 16:02:51
    Undecided
    Car1u5~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    never heard of it.
  • Transquesta 2013/02/19 07:50:15 (edited)
    Undecided
    Transquesta
    +3
    Here's how it works, guys, in one easy lesson.

    A bunch of enterprising individuals start up a website and provide an outstanding product or service. The site gets famous and the owners become free to pursue their real agendas. Quality/accuracy falls off and/or the site becomes that which its founders previously hated. Remember Google? The site started by a couple of guys with the simple motto: "don't be evil"? Well, Google is now the functional appendage of the federal government's surveillance apparatus and serves as a VAST pool of user data ripe for the warrantless picking by any spook on the planet with enough pull or money to access it.

    Am I surprised Snopes is 'all of a sudden' not on the up and up? Oh HELL no! I've seen this happen so many times I'm beginning to think there's a formula someplace.
  • redhorse29 2013/02/19 07:41:11
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    redhorse29
    +1
    Obama's entire administration is an abomination and insult to the nation. .
    Congress and the supreme court should be ashamed of themselves for abandoning their responsibility and accountability to the people and Constitution
  • Sal Monella ~PWCM~JL 2013/02/19 06:47:46
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    Sal Monella ~PWCM~JL
    +1
    Owned by and run by Progressives.

    What could go wrong?
  • Goodliven Sal Mon... 2013/02/19 06:49:24
  • Sal Mon... Goodliven 2013/02/19 06:56:14
    Sal Monella ~PWCM~JL
    +1
    Progress to what? $10 per gallon gas prices? $16 trillion dollars in debt and what do we have to show for it? Millions of people on food stamps and millions more unemployed for years on end?

    No thanks.
  • Ozzyboy Sal Mon... 2013/02/19 17:55:18
    Ozzyboy
    +1
    And 11 million more getting ready to become "legal" citizens. Tell me again what Americans get out of all of this other than the bill at the expense of their own families?
  • Sal Mon... Ozzyboy 2013/02/20 04:15:33
    Sal Monella ~PWCM~JL
    +2
    Oh Goodliven has been deactivated ......... 404'ed couldn't happen to a ..... well, never mind.

    Yeah, "real" unemployment approaches 20% and they are adding 11-20 million more to the welfare roles.

    This country is way further down the sh*thole than even I imagined.
  • Cat 2013/02/19 04:36:57
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    Cat
    +2
    "Kagan was representing Obama in ALL the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly."
    Yes REAL DARNED UGLY!
  • askmike Cat 2013/02/19 05:20:38
    askmike
    +1
    OK. I bite. Just what is the duty of the Solicitor General? Hmmm? Was Kagan the very first Solicitor General? And why is there identical documentation connecting Georgie Boy and his Solicitor General? And why is there identical documentation connection Big Bush with his Solicitor General? I could go on, but I think you need to get informed so you will stop looking ignorant.
  • Cat askmike 2013/02/19 05:23:35
    Cat
    +1
    But should she rule on cases she prepared or should she recuse herself?
  • askmike Cat 2013/02/19 05:55:35
    askmike
    +1
    Silly. Please learn about the position of Solicitor General. You are asking a silly question.
  • Cat askmike 2013/02/19 05:57:48
    Cat
    +3
    Odd that ASK mike won't answer, and just name-calls.
  • askmike Cat 2013/02/19 06:03:50
    askmike
    +1
    Your ignorance is showing. The Solicitor General is not the attorney for any individual. Keep that silly stuff coming. And I want to hear your take on the Solicitor Generals under the Bushes and Reagan!
  • Cat askmike 2013/02/19 06:23:37
    Cat
    +3
    I'm sure if I followed some of your conversations I could find a few errors.
    I do not repeatedly call people "silly" or "ignorant". AND
    I WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CONTINUE TO CALL ME NAMES
    You were warned and yet you continued to insult me. GOODBYE
  • askmike askmike 2013/02/19 16:07:08 (edited)
    askmike
    How about that! The pussy blocked me. Instead of learning about the job of Solicitor General, she continued to strut her ignorance for all to see. OK. What a block achieves is not what she thinks. Instead, it proves she made a fool of herself and that she has no intelligent way of communicating. I pity her for her lack of intelligence.
  • askmike 2013/02/19 04:35:20
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    askmike
    +3
    You are one of the top 3 knee slapping silly posters on SH! Bravo! Your ignorance practically drips from your posts. Learn about Solicitor General. But keep on posting the silly stuff.
  • RogerCoppock 2013/02/19 03:39:57
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    RogerCoppock
    +6
    When a RWNJ encounters facts they can not handle they make up zany conspiracy theories. This is one example.

    rotflmao
  • MtDuffer 2013/02/19 03:14:02
    Undecided
    MtDuffer
    +2
    They are not anymore than FactCheck--- Both advertise being nutral but both are really leaning hard left now that is what it is. The problem I have of Lefties is that they seem not to admit how far some of there programs and people are.
  • Jeff 2013/02/19 02:57:44 (edited)
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    Jeff
    +2
    They and FactCheck are biased and deceiptful. I checked them both out briefly, however, I wasn't aware that Snopes was financed by Soros. It makes perfect sense.
  • Goodliven Jeff 2013/02/19 03:16:48
  • Rev. J. B. Jeff 2013/02/19 11:39:23
    Rev. J. B.
    Did you notice that no evidence was offered to verify that it's financed by Soros. It's an unsupported accusation.
  • Starman 2013/02/19 02:46:13
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    Starman
    +6
    You're a birther too, aren't you.
  • mighty mouse ~PWCM~JLA 2013/02/19 02:32:48
    I have never trusted Snopes.com
    mighty mouse ~PWCM~JLA
    +8
    I have found them to be liberal biased. Same as fact check.
  • Tennyso... mighty ... 2013/02/19 04:04:08
    Tennyson James
    Accidental rave.
  • Goodliven 2013/02/19 02:27:40
  • ProudProgressive 2013/02/19 01:43:30 (edited)
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    ProudProgressive
    +13
    1. Kagan never represented the President in any of the idiot racist birther lawsuits. Because she was the Solicitor General, she was the lead attorney on every lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. But she did not participate in any of the cases. Most likely they were given to the intern that came in two hours a day to do filing, because it didn't require any particular legal skill to oppose something so blatantly frivolous.

    2. Snopes' own article does NOT say that "there were no such dockets". What they DID say, accurately, was this:

    One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.

    Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the...









    1. Kagan never represented the President in any of the idiot racist birther lawsuits. Because she was the Solicitor General, she was the lead attorney on every lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. But she did not participate in any of the cases. Most likely they were given to the intern that came in two hours a day to do filing, because it didn't require any particular legal skill to oppose something so blatantly frivolous.

    2. Snopes' own article does NOT say that "there were no such dockets". What they DID say, accurately, was this:

    One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.

    Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the nine entries cited by WND had anything at all to do with cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States; in fact, most of them actually stemmed from cases which were originally filed against the federal government long before the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (but which since "rolled over" to the current administration).

    http://www.snopes.com/politic...

    3. Snopes receives no funding from George Soros or anyone else. The site is run entirely on advertising revenue.

    The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators, Barbara and David Mikkelson, and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization.

    http://www.snopes.com/info/ab...

    4. Have you ever noticed that any source of reliable verified information which debunks the endless Right Wing fantasies is automatically dismissed as part of the vast conspiracy. MediaMatters is one of the most heavily sourced sites on the web. Factcheck was a favorite even of conservatives until they verified that the President's birth certificate was genuine. Even the New York Times, probably the most reliable source of factual information in the world, is automatically condemned. Yet the same folks look at something like Fox or Drudge, which pretty much make no secret of the fact that they exist only to propagate Right Wing talking points, and claim that they are reliable.
    (more)
  • MtDuffer ProudPr... 2013/02/19 03:06:00
    MtDuffer
    +2
    So, now if a person daughts Obamas' birth place that person is automatically a racist? I didn't agree with President Bush, Clinton and especially President runner up Kerry. Now, am I still a racist? Please answer my question.
  • ProudPr... MtDuffer 2013/02/19 12:27:38
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    If, in spite of the evidence presented and in spite of the fact that over 100 courts have unanimously rejected the birthers' claims you still question whether the President is legally eligible to serve as President of the United States then you are a racist.
  • MtDuffer ProudPr... 2013/02/19 16:59:58
    MtDuffer
    +1
    It is not that I question anything I just do not know. In fact we will never know. What was the political slant of the Judge? The use of calling someone Racist is actually is actually being racist, expectially if you do even know the person and all you is read their comments and judge that person because of "so called" CODE WORKS which in fact if you would take the time to look up the meaning you would find a different meaning.
  • Tuna MtDuffer 2013/02/19 13:03:45
    Tuna
    +1
    And if you don't like the fact that Hillary Clinton protested against her country on Russian soil during the Cold War, then you are a feminist but if you believe Sarah Palin is a fine politician, Mother, and Patriot then you are crazy; see how it works?
  • MtDuffer Tuna 2013/02/28 17:49:38
    MtDuffer
    Yep.
  • Ashley ... MtDuffer 2013/05/24 00:01:55 (edited)
    Ashley Anderson
    No, I think it's a little weird to question one president's birthplace when most others' birthplaces have not been questioned. You then have to think about what differences between this president and the last would even make that a question. A last name is not enough in a country like America to determine where one was born... And if it it isn't his color, then what is it? I'm not accusing, but I'm curious then, what thing that wasn't based on his appearance made you question his place of birth and not the others?
  • MtDuffer Ashley ... 2013/05/24 03:08:57
    MtDuffer
    What are you implying? This is what I wrote:

    "So, now if a person daughts Obamas' birth place that person is automatically a racist? I didn't agree with President Bush, Clinton and especially President runner up Kerry. Now, am I still a racist? Please answer my question."

    Then I responded with this:

    "It is not that I question anything I just do not know. In fact we will never know. What was the political slant of the Judge? The use of calling someone Racist is actually is actually being racist, expectially if you do even know the person and all you is read their comments and judge that person because of "so called" CODE WORKS which in fact if you would take the time to look up the meaning you would find a different meaning."

    Then Tuna goes off on another thing by bringing in Hillary into the mix.
  • Rev. J. B. ProudPr... 2013/02/19 11:42:06
    Rev. J. B.
    +1
    They're not going to get it. Mostly because they don't want to.
  • millerm... ProudPr... 2013/05/24 13:01:50
    millermedia
    I apologize for a mistaken rave which is not deserved.
  • Tennyson James 2013/02/19 01:38:15
    I have always trusted Snopes.com
    Tennyson James
    +4
    If I look to snopes to prove/disprove something it's always the sources they post that convince me. Snopes is owned by a mrried couple and funded through advertising. if Soros - or any other corporate billionaire - was funding the site it would probably look a lot better. ;-)
  • ProudPr... Tennyso... 2013/02/19 01:44:07
    ProudProgressive
    +7
    Snopes is entirely funded by ad revenue. They do not take contributions from individuals or corporations.
  • MtDuffer ProudPr... 2013/02/19 03:06:59
    MtDuffer
    +2
    And your proof is?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 07:03:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals