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...
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)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.
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.
Congress and the supreme court should be ashamed of themselves for abandoning their responsibility and accountability to the people and Constitution
What could go wrong?
No thanks.
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.
Yes REAL DARNED UGLY!
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
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...
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.
"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.