Snopes Got Snoped

[NLT]

David P. Mikkelson & his wife are libtards and are owned by the NYT.

 

[Missourian]

I'm not sure why the right is so dead against Snopes. They try to claim it's biased because it's owned by (insert democrats/Soros/etc)....it's not. It's a good source. It's non-partisan. It becomes partisan when it doesn't agree with you.

Snopes has a liberal bias. As long as one sticks to urban legends, it is quite entertaining...when it comes to the political, their slant is obvious.

 

[BULLDOG]

What you are doing is stating that Snopes factchecking can't be accurate because they are run by rabid leftists according to a site run by rabid rightists. Do you see the issue with logic here?

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines to actually READ the information provided? Regardless of where this came from, there are links to other sources to prove what is being reported. Sadly, people like you are incapable of accepting the truth that doesn't fit with your views.

Well, to reply to the "people like you" claim...let me state this.

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines and actually READ what Snopes writes? Regardless of what you think of them, their analysis is completely right on.

Now, that is all I'm going to say about people like you because people like you can't seem to accept anything that doesn't conform to your partisan view.

I've read what Snopes writers and there can be no doubt of the ultra-left bias in every single article.

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

 

[gipper]

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines to actually READ the information provided? Regardless of where this came from, there are links to other sources to prove what is being reported. Sadly, people like you are incapable of accepting the truth that doesn't fit with your views.

Well, to reply to the "people like you" claim...let me state this.

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines and actually READ what Snopes writes? Regardless of what you think of them, their analysis is completely right on.

Now, that is all I'm going to say about people like you because people like you can't seem to accept anything that doesn't conform to your partisan view.

I've read what Snopes writers and there can be no doubt of the ultra-left bias in every single article.

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, to reply to the "people like you" claim...let me state this.

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines and actually READ what Snopes writes? Regardless of what you think of them, their analysis is completely right on.

Now, that is all I'm going to say about people like you because people like you can't seem to accept anything that doesn't conform to your partisan view.

I've read what Snopes writers and there can be no doubt of the ultra-left bias in every single article.

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

 

[gipper]

I've read what Snopes writers and there can be no doubt of the ultra-left bias in every single article.

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

 

[gipper]

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

One does have to be able to put 2 and 2 together. Amazingly, lefties can only do this with Rs.

WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC
WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC

 

[gipper]

So you're trying to use a fake news site to discredit Snopes. That's just pathetic.

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

One does have to be able to put 2 and 2 together. Amazingly, lefties can only do this with Rs.

WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC
WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC

This is good too...if you care to be informed...from months ago.

No doubt the fake lib MSM failed to inform you.

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion
WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion

 

[BULLDOG]

Many on the Left still get their news from sources proven to be biased toward the D party. Apparently they like their news biased, since none of the so called journalists or reporters exposed by Wikileaks, have been fired.

Little Upchuck Todd is still doing Meet the Press....amazingly.

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

One does have to be able to put 2 and 2 together. Amazingly, lefties can only do this with Rs.

WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC
WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC

This is good too...if you care to be informed...from months ago.

No doubt the fake lib MSM failed to inform you.

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion
WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion

You keep talking, but all I hear is more Alex Jones inspired crap, and a healthy dose of bla-bla-bla

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm not sure why the right is so dead against Snopes. They try to claim it's biased because it's owned by (insert democrats/Soros/etc)....it's not. It's a good source. It's non-partisan. It becomes partisan when it doesn't agree with you.

You answered your own question - the right is aganst them because they're an unbiased source.

There's no place for "unbiased" in the world of Brietbart, Alan West, Alex Jones ...

 

[gipper]

It's noted that Russia only released names to wiki that don't fall into the Alex Jones / Hannity fake news category..

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

One does have to be able to put 2 and 2 together. Amazingly, lefties can only do this with Rs.

WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC
WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC

This is good too...if you care to be informed...from months ago.

No doubt the fake lib MSM failed to inform you.

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion
WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion

You keep talking, but all I hear is more Alex Jones inspired crap, and a healthy dose of bla-bla-bla

Who is Alex Jones?

Your shrink?

 

[Coyote]

Apparently you are uninformed.

Emails by those listed above prove collusion. Those listed were actively working for Clinton's election and against Trump.

That is the problem with some lefties. You are generally uninformed so facts surprise you.

Of course a fake news junkie like you would think that

One does have to be able to put 2 and 2 together. Amazingly, lefties can only do this with Rs.

WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC
WikiLeaks Revelation: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Takes Marching Orders from DNC

This is good too...if you care to be informed...from months ago.

No doubt the fake lib MSM failed to inform you.

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion
WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion

You keep talking, but all I hear is more Alex Jones inspired crap, and a healthy dose of bla-bla-bla

Who is Alex Jones?

Your shrink?

Part of the new White House press corps.

 

[Coyote]

What you are doing is stating that Snopes factchecking can't be accurate because they are run by rabid leftists according to a site run by rabid rightists. Do you see the issue with logic here?

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines to actually READ the information provided? Regardless of where this came from, there are links to other sources to prove what is being reported. Sadly, people like you are incapable of accepting the truth that doesn't fit with your views.

Well, to reply to the "people like you" claim...let me state this.

Why is it so hard for people like you to look beyond the headlines and actually READ what Snopes writes? Regardless of what you think of them, their analysis is completely right on.

Now, that is all I'm going to say about people like you because people like you can't seem to accept anything that doesn't conform to your partisan view.

I've read what Snopes writers and there can be no doubt of the ultra-left bias in every single article.

Oh? What did they get wrong?

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised @ Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

All one has to do is conduct a Google or Bing search to find example after example of biased pieces published in Snopes. Try it for yourself - if you dare.

Let's deconstruct this one and see if Snopes was wrongj or as you put it "lied".

Here's the actual Snopes article:

FALSE: Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist

Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.

Your source says:

Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections don’t match the claim. That’s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.


Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isn’t the only successful defense outcome.


Clinton also laughed about the case. What would you call this? (from FactCheck.org)​

Yet...your source neglected to include the next paragraph where in the origins of the claim - it provided the complete claim (not the abreviated version) which the True and False sections were also answering (no moving of goal posts):

Origin: In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Thomas Alfred Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated.​

Specifically:
She volunteered
She new he was guilty
She claimed the victim made up the story
She laughed about the OUTCOME

So right there, your source already screwed up on the facts.

She laughed at recounting certain aspects of the case and the distinction could be a judgement call. As Factcheck.org (another good factchecking site) noted: But Clinton did laugh in the retelling of some unusual aspects of the rape case, and we leave it to others to decide whether her laughter was appropriate or not.