Snopes has had a busy year

[Father Time]

Snopes has a proven Left-wing bias, which is unfortunate since it would be nice to have a neutral source. In any case, the Republicans don't need to make stuff up about Obama. He is already on his way to being remembered as a President worse than Jimmy Carter, why the need to fabricate anything?

Proven how?

From the specific examples given in the first link I posted about this.

You gave a free republic forum post with nary any sources in it from 2003.

If that's a good source in your book then snopes itself should also qualify as a good source.

 

[Gadawg73]

I wonder how many here are old enough to remember Clinton's election and the same distortions, aspersions, and craziness from the right wing conservatives and corporate worshipers. It was the same folks. Well now maybe just a bit worse as power and money has created even more partisan groups in opposition to Obama. The interesting question is why - and not the usual denial or projection?


"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Jerry Falwell's "Clinton Chronicles".
But hey, we all know that Slick Willie Boom had 47 people killed in Arkansas as Governor.
Mike says he has "proof".

 

[Coyote]

And I care what snopes says because?

Because they actually do research to verify all the rumors floating around on the internet.

Here is something that I wrote about the top ten liberal lies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1978892-post1.html

What a funny set of lies...funny because, they aren't what liberals were saying - exactly. As usual with wingnuts, context is removed.

There are a lot of them, here are some

1) Hussein had no ties with Al Qaida.

That wasn't the argument - Saddam Hussein had no substantive ties with Al Quaida. Al Quaida attempted ties, but was largely rebuffed (there is only room for one dictator in a dictatorship). There were certainly not enough to make a case for war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations:
The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

That's multiple sources cited, including the intelligence community reports to the president and a bi-partisan commission.

2) Hussein had no WMD

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

That's a joke right? No evidence was ever found to support that.

3) Pres. Bush lied about WMD and therefore is guilty of war crimes.

Wrong.

Pres. Bush just got into office when 911 occurred. The whole democrat leadership spoke of Hussein's WMD and his biological and nuclear program. This includes Bill Cinton, Hillary, Gore, Barney Frank, John Kerry, among others. If Pres. Bush lied your entire democrat leadership lied too.

President Bush made the case for war and sold it. Congress bought it and with the exception of a handful of people - failed to do their job, failed to ask tough questions, failed to question contradictory intelligence. Frankly - Congress' failure was as big as the Presidents. However that doesn't make the President's dishonesty any less - lies of ommission are still lies. Whether that qualifies as "war crimes" is highly debatable and unlikely.

4) Pres. Bush were torturing terrorist left and right.

Wrong.

Waterboarding was done only to 3 arch Al Qaida terrorists

You're right - it's wrong, in more ways than one because you lumped it all together. The argument being made was two-fold:

Torture is wrong, and waterboarding is torture.

What happened in Abhu Graib was torture (and more than 3 people)

5) Wateboarding was not only evil it also didn't didn't get any information out of the terrorists

Wrong.

According to a CIA declassifed memo by Obama, the three terrorists didn't cooperate before being waterboarded. When asked about terrroist attacks, they simply responded ominously "soon you will know."

Because of the wateboarding a terrorist attack of a plane crashing into a Los Angeles building was thwarted.

Debatable. All that has been heavily debated and your case has not been proven. You can call it a difference of opinion because there is clear evidence supporting it - but it's not a lie.

6) Global warming is a fact that is undisputed

Wrong.

According to the founder of the weather channel, global is a hoax that is centered around getting money

Right - the founder of the weather channel...

7) Small business is not taxed enough, and they are rich anyway, they can afford it

Wrong.

Oh brother. You don't even have that "lie" correct. The argument is typically centered around "Big Business". Try to keep your lies straight.

Not worth even addressing the rest.

 

[Coyote]

All sources are biased. Since humans are biased, everything they write or say is biased.

The trick is to have the brains to research something for yourself and see whom said what.

I remember in another forum a left wing mod chick ended threads by posting from factcheck, yet another left wing organization that claims to be unbiased.

Ahhhh I sense a pattern here.

Factcheck and Snopes both bust some of the most enduring rightwing lies (along with leftwing ones)....but some wingnuts just can't stand to be wrong.

They don't prove them wrong, they just tell liberals what they want to hear.

Thank you for your condolences regarding Fred in the other thread.

You're welcome - politics is politics and in the end, we can still share a beer or commisserate the loss of a good friend.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rumors and Partisan Politics Sociological Images

In less than two years, Obama rumor-mongers have had nearly twice the output that their Bush counterparts managed in eight years – 87 to 47. And while the Bush rumors split almost evenly true-false, false Obama rumors dwarfed the true ones.

The false rumors about Obama outnumbered the total number of rumors about Bush. And while the lies about Obama are almost all negative, some of the false rumors about Bush are quite flattering, along the lines of the George Washington cheery tree rumor – like the rumor that had Bush paying for the funeral of a boy who had drowned near the Crawford ranch.

What a huge surprise!

and here I was starting to think it might be me.

 

[xsited1]

Rumors and Partisan Politics Sociological Images
...

Snopes has a proven Left-wing bias, which is unfortunate since it would be nice to have a neutral source. In any case, the Republicans don't need to make stuff up about Obama. He is already on his way to being remembered as a President worse than Jimmy Carter, why the need to fabricate anything?

Proven how?

I was wondering when someone was going to ask me about that! I've been noticing this for the past few years. Here's an example:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=76ibI1D0SSw]YouTube - Does ABC Skew the News in Favor of Obama?[/ame]

And the Snopes version. Notice they say this is 'False', but they don't have all the information.

snopes.com: Martha Raddatz/ABC News Interview

If a Republican were in office, it might appear that SNOPES has a right-wing bias. The point is that SNOPES makes mistakes, and I've noticed plenty of them. I'm not just going to take their word for it like Modbert does. If it's important to me, I will check it out and find out the truth for myself.

 

[paperview]

Snopes has a proven Left-wing bias, which is unfortunate since it would be nice to have a neutral source. In any case, the Republicans don't need to make stuff up about Obama. He is already on his way to being remembered as a President worse than Jimmy Carter, why the need to fabricate anything?

Proven how?

I was wondering when someone was going to ask me about that! I've been noticing this for the past few years. Here's an example:


And the Snopes version. Notice they say this is 'False', but they don't have all the information.

snopes.com: Martha Raddatz/ABC News Interview

If a Republican were in office, it might appear that SNOPES has a right-wing bias. The point is that SNOPES makes mistakes, and I've noticed plenty of them. I'm not just going to take their word for it like Modbert does. If it's important to me, I will check it out and find out the truth for myself.

This is what they had to say about that:

"Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to misrepresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

On the one hand, one side claims that the ABC report wasn't supposed to be a representative sampling of party preferences; it was supposed to illustrate that American troops are following the presidential campaign closely and evaluating candidates based on their positions on all the issues (not just the war in Iraq), and some are even favoring Democratic candidates who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Hence, the preponderance of interviews showing soldiers who were not (as many might expect) reflexively endorsing the Republican candidate, John McCain.

On the other hand, critics maintain that by showing only one soldier's expressing a preference for the Republican candidate (prefaced by a laconic Martha Raddatz voice-over intoning, "there were some McCain backers ..."), by separating the portion of the report in which soldiers discussed their candidate preferences from the portion in which they discussed what issues (other than the war) were important to them, and by identifying the report with titles such as "Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?" and "Surprising Political Endorsements by U.S. Troops," ABC News presented the piece as being a survey of American troops' presidential preferences without offering a true representative sampling of those preferences"


Seems pretty even-handed to me.

 

[paperview]

I have found, after many years, and after checking and rechecking, Snopes is pretty fair and quite accurate. Occasionally they miss the mark, but it's rare.

I will agree, it is always good to research ALL the information you can though yourself, from every source you can, to arrive at your own conclusion.

This works well if you have an open mind and utilize critical thinking skills.

 

[xsited1]

Proven how?

I was wondering when someone was going to ask me about that! I've been noticing this for the past few years. Here's an example:


And the Snopes version. Notice they say this is 'False', but they don't have all the information.

snopes.com: Martha Raddatz/ABC News Interview

If a Republican were in office, it might appear that SNOPES has a right-wing bias. The point is that SNOPES makes mistakes, and I've noticed plenty of them. I'm not just going to take their word for it like Modbert does. If it's important to me, I will check it out and find out the truth for myself.

This is what they had to say about that:

"Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to misrepresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

On the one hand, one side claims that the ABC report wasn't supposed to be a representative sampling of party preferences; it was supposed to illustrate that American troops are following the presidential campaign closely and evaluating candidates based on their positions on all the issues (not just the war in Iraq), and some are even favoring Democratic candidates who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Hence, the preponderance of interviews showing soldiers who were not (as many might expect) reflexively endorsing the Republican candidate, John McCain.

On the other hand, critics maintain that by showing only one soldier's expressing a preference for the Republican candidate (prefaced by a laconic Martha Raddatz voice-over intoning, "there were some McCain backers ..."), by separating the portion of the report in which soldiers discussed their candidate preferences from the portion in which they discussed what issues (other than the war) were important to them, and by identifying the report with titles such as "Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?" and "Surprising Political Endorsements by U.S. Troops," ABC News presented the piece as being a survey of American troops' presidential preferences without offering a true representative sampling of those preferences"


Seems pretty even-handed to me.

I applaud you for reading it, but you missed one word: False. They simply did not have enough information to make that call. That's bias. They should have said 'undetermined'.

 

[paperview]

I was wondering when someone was going to ask me about that! I've been noticing this for the past few years. Here's an example:


And the Snopes version. Notice they say this is 'False', but they don't have all the information.

snopes.com: Martha Raddatz/ABC News Interview

If a Republican were in office, it might appear that SNOPES has a right-wing bias. The point is that SNOPES makes mistakes, and I've noticed plenty of them. I'm not just going to take their word for it like Modbert does. If it's important to me, I will check it out and find out the truth for myself.

This is what they had to say about that:

"Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to misrepresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

On the one hand, one side claims that the ABC report wasn't supposed to be a representative sampling of party preferences; it was supposed to illustrate that American troops are following the presidential campaign closely and evaluating candidates based on their positions on all the issues (not just the war in Iraq), and some are even favoring Democratic candidates who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Hence, the preponderance of interviews showing soldiers who were not (as many might expect) reflexively endorsing the Republican candidate, John McCain.

On the other hand, critics maintain that by showing only one soldier's expressing a preference for the Republican candidate (prefaced by a laconic Martha Raddatz voice-over intoning, "there were some McCain backers ..."), by separating the portion of the report in which soldiers discussed their candidate preferences from the portion in which they discussed what issues (other than the war) were important to them, and by identifying the report with titles such as "Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?" and "Surprising Political Endorsements by U.S. Troops," ABC News presented the piece as being a survey of American troops' presidential preferences without offering a true representative sampling of those preferences"


Seems pretty even-handed to me.

I applaud you for reading it, but you missed one word: False. They simply did not have enough information to make that call. That's bias. They should have said 'undetermined'.

This was the claim:

Claim: An ABC News report omitted interviews conducted with several dozen U.S. soldiers in Iraq who expressed support for Senator John McCain.

Status: False.

....
...
"The e-mail is a tiny bit off in claiming that there was "not one mention of the 54 [soldiers] for McCain" in the finished segment:
The beginning of the aired segment included six brief interviews with soldiers, three of whom expressed a preference for Barack Obama, two for Hillary Clinton, and one for John McCain.

More important, we found no evidence supporting its assertion the Martha Raddatz interviewed 60 different service members during her March 2008 visit to Iraq but made no use of interviews with anyone who expressed support for Senator McCain.



The Major General [Louis C.] Buckman to whom the e-mail is attributed has stated that he did not write it,

and in an e-mailed response about this subject, Martha Raddatz asserted that she hadn't interviewed nearly as many service members about their presidential preferences as claimed: The story that was supposedly told by "Katelyn" is simply not true. First ... she must have a hundred aunts and uncles because whoever is forwarding it usually claims to be a close friend of one of them. I never went on a trip with John McCain ... and I certainly didn't interview 60 soldiers about who they are voting for.

These attacks on me started because of a story that aired after a visit I took in March to Balad air base with Vice President Cheney. I followed him down a rope line and was surprised to see how many of the military personnel (largely Air Force) said they supported Barack Obama. I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members.

I was with the VP and had no time! There were, of course McCain supporters and Clinton supporters, as well ... which I mentioned in the story. But this was not a poll. It was simply surprising that so many came forward to voice support for a candidate who is advocating withdrawal, just moments after cheering for the vice president. So if there is in fact a "Katelyn" she is making this up. Not only that, she could not possibly have heard me in the noisy crowd. If you would like to check my integrity with some high ranking active duty officers please feel free to do so.

And, please, if any of you actually knows retired MG Buckman, please pass on his email address and this email so I can let him know what he has started. I assume he would not want this to continue or have any role in it.

Please feel free to share this email. Thanks so much for understanding how important my bond with the troops is and how important I feel it is to cover the amazing job they do on a daily basis. "

I really don't see how you can claim that ragged, falsely attributed e-mail should be tagged as "undermined." Really.

 

[paperview]

This is amazing to me xsited: The right-wing kook case viral email that was circulated was BOGUS. They assigned a name - a General even - to someone who BOLDLY said, in these words:

“I did not author that email … absolutely not.”

Even the originators claim now it is an urban legend, and you really think Snopes should have assigned that false chain email as undetermined???

 

[paperview]

This leads me to the question: Who the fuck makes up these stupid and fake emails that spin like the dancers at the Ice Capades and why do they circulate so readily?

Why do they need to LIE so much to try and make a case - and why is it so easily believed by a good portion of the right wing? without a hair of cynicism, they swallow it whole-meat.

I mean, if the truth is on your side, then why the need to lie so much?

 

[xsited1]

This is what they had to say about that:

"Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to misrepresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

On the one hand, one side claims that the ABC report wasn't supposed to be a representative sampling of party preferences; it was supposed to illustrate that American troops are following the presidential campaign closely and evaluating candidates based on their positions on all the issues (not just the war in Iraq), and some are even favoring Democratic candidates who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Hence, the preponderance of interviews showing soldiers who were not (as many might expect) reflexively endorsing the Republican candidate, John McCain.

On the other hand, critics maintain that by showing only one soldier's expressing a preference for the Republican candidate (prefaced by a laconic Martha Raddatz voice-over intoning, "there were some McCain backers ..."), by separating the portion of the report in which soldiers discussed their candidate preferences from the portion in which they discussed what issues (other than the war) were important to them, and by identifying the report with titles such as "Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?" and "Surprising Political Endorsements by U.S. Troops," ABC News presented the piece as being a survey of American troops' presidential preferences without offering a true representative sampling of those preferences"


Seems pretty even-handed to me.

I applaud you for reading it, but you missed one word: False. They simply did not have enough information to make that call. That's bias. They should have said 'undetermined'.

This was the claim:

Claim: An ABC News report omitted interviews conducted with several dozen U.S. soldiers in Iraq who expressed support for Senator John McCain.

Status: False.

....
...
"The e-mail is a tiny bit off in claiming that there was "not one mention of the 54 [soldiers] for McCain" in the finished segment:
The beginning of the aired segment included six brief interviews with soldiers, three of whom expressed a preference for Barack Obama, two for Hillary Clinton, and one for John McCain.

More important, we found no evidence supporting its assertion the Martha Raddatz interviewed 60 different service members during her March 2008 visit to Iraq but made no use of interviews with anyone who expressed support for Senator McCain.



The Major General [Louis C.] Buckman to whom the e-mail is attributed has stated that he did not write it,

and in an e-mailed response about this subject, Martha Raddatz asserted that she hadn't interviewed nearly as many service members about their presidential preferences as claimed: The story that was supposedly told by "Katelyn" is simply not true. First ... she must have a hundred aunts and uncles because whoever is forwarding it usually claims to be a close friend of one of them. I never went on a trip with John McCain ... and I certainly didn't interview 60 soldiers about who they are voting for.

These attacks on me started because of a story that aired after a visit I took in March to Balad air base with Vice President Cheney. I followed him down a rope line and was surprised to see how many of the military personnel (largely Air Force) said they supported Barack Obama. I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members.

I was with the VP and had no time! There were, of course McCain supporters and Clinton supporters, as well ... which I mentioned in the story. But this was not a poll. It was simply surprising that so many came forward to voice support for a candidate who is advocating withdrawal, just moments after cheering for the vice president. So if there is in fact a "Katelyn" she is making this up. Not only that, she could not possibly have heard me in the noisy crowd. If you would like to check my integrity with some high ranking active duty officers please feel free to do so.

And, please, if any of you actually knows retired MG Buckman, please pass on his email address and this email so I can let him know what he has started. I assume he would not want this to continue or have any role in it.

Please feel free to share this email. Thanks so much for understanding how important my bond with the troops is and how important I feel it is to cover the amazing job they do on a daily basis. "

I really don't see how you can claim that ragged, falsely attributed e-mail should be tagged as "undermined." Really.

Ugggghhhhh!!!!! It's still undetermined because they can't know the truth. We've got a "he said/she said" scenario. Even Snopes admits this:

Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to mispresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

You can't just say 'False' when you don't know. The people at Snopes should know this.

 

[xsited1]

This is amazing to me xsited: The right-wing kook case viral email that was circulated was BOGUS. They assigned a name - a General even - to someone who BOLDLY said, in these words:

“I did not author that email … absolutely not.”

Even the originators claim now it is an urban legend, and you really think Snopes should have assigned that false chain email as undetermined???

Oh brother... See my post above. Snopes even admits it's a subjective issue and yet they claim it's 'False' when they don't know.

 

[paperview]

I applaud you for reading it, but you missed one word: False. They simply did not have enough information to make that call. That's bias. They should have said 'undetermined'.

This was the claim:

Claim: An ABC News report omitted interviews conducted with several dozen U.S. soldiers in Iraq who expressed support for Senator John McCain.

Status: False.

....
...
"The e-mail is a tiny bit off in claiming that there was "not one mention of the 54 [soldiers] for McCain" in the finished segment:
The beginning of the aired segment included six brief interviews with soldiers, three of whom expressed a preference for Barack Obama, two for Hillary Clinton, and one for John McCain.

More important, we found no evidence supporting its assertion the Martha Raddatz interviewed 60 different service members during her March 2008 visit to Iraq but made no use of interviews with anyone who expressed support for Senator McCain.



The Major General [Louis C.] Buckman to whom the e-mail is attributed has stated that he did not write it,

and in an e-mailed response about this subject, Martha Raddatz asserted that she hadn't interviewed nearly as many service members about their presidential preferences as claimed: The story that was supposedly told by "Katelyn" is simply not true. First ... she must have a hundred aunts and uncles because whoever is forwarding it usually claims to be a close friend of one of them. I never went on a trip with John McCain ... and I certainly didn't interview 60 soldiers about who they are voting for.

These attacks on me started because of a story that aired after a visit I took in March to Balad air base with Vice President Cheney. I followed him down a rope line and was surprised to see how many of the military personnel (largely Air Force) said they supported Barack Obama. I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members.

I was with the VP and had no time! There were, of course McCain supporters and Clinton supporters, as well ... which I mentioned in the story. But this was not a poll. It was simply surprising that so many came forward to voice support for a candidate who is advocating withdrawal, just moments after cheering for the vice president. So if there is in fact a "Katelyn" she is making this up. Not only that, she could not possibly have heard me in the noisy crowd. If you would like to check my integrity with some high ranking active duty officers please feel free to do so.

And, please, if any of you actually knows retired MG Buckman, please pass on his email address and this email so I can let him know what he has started. I assume he would not want this to continue or have any role in it.

Please feel free to share this email. Thanks so much for understanding how important my bond with the troops is and how important I feel it is to cover the amazing job they do on a daily basis. "

I really don't see how you can claim that ragged, falsely attributed e-mail should be tagged as "undermined." Really.

Ugggghhhhh!!!!! It's still undetermined because they can't know the truth. We've got a "he said/she said" scenario. Even Snopes admits this:

Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to mispresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

You can't just say 'False' when you don't know. The people at Snopes should know this.

They sure as hell can say the email is false when the DAMN GENERAL HIMSELF SAID HE DIDN'T WRITE IT!!

The subjective portion details the portion of whether there was bias in reporting.

That is another issue, and it is argumentative and subjective. and they handled that fairly by bringing both arguments to the table.

But when you start with a baseline of a 100% BOGUS attribution of an email, (inserting a GENERAL no less!) it starts to go downhill from there.

Again, it makes me wonder - why the need to make up these stories and put false names to them, and email them to everyone you know?

 

[xsited1]

This was the claim:

Claim: An ABC News report omitted interviews conducted with several dozen U.S. soldiers in Iraq who expressed support for Senator John McCain.

Status: False.

....
...
"The e-mail is a tiny bit off in claiming that there was "not one mention of the 54 [soldiers] for McCain" in the finished segment:
The beginning of the aired segment included six brief interviews with soldiers, three of whom expressed a preference for Barack Obama, two for Hillary Clinton, and one for John McCain.

More important, we found no evidence supporting its assertion the Martha Raddatz interviewed 60 different service members during her March 2008 visit to Iraq but made no use of interviews with anyone who expressed support for Senator McCain.



The Major General [Louis C.] Buckman to whom the e-mail is attributed has stated that he did not write it,

and in an e-mailed response about this subject, Martha Raddatz asserted that she hadn't interviewed nearly as many service members about their presidential preferences as claimed: The story that was supposedly told by "Katelyn" is simply not true. First ... she must have a hundred aunts and uncles because whoever is forwarding it usually claims to be a close friend of one of them. I never went on a trip with John McCain ... and I certainly didn't interview 60 soldiers about who they are voting for.

These attacks on me started because of a story that aired after a visit I took in March to Balad air base with Vice President Cheney. I followed him down a rope line and was surprised to see how many of the military personnel (largely Air Force) said they supported Barack Obama. I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members.

I was with the VP and had no time! There were, of course McCain supporters and Clinton supporters, as well ... which I mentioned in the story. But this was not a poll. It was simply surprising that so many came forward to voice support for a candidate who is advocating withdrawal, just moments after cheering for the vice president. So if there is in fact a "Katelyn" she is making this up. Not only that, she could not possibly have heard me in the noisy crowd. If you would like to check my integrity with some high ranking active duty officers please feel free to do so.

And, please, if any of you actually knows retired MG Buckman, please pass on his email address and this email so I can let him know what he has started. I assume he would not want this to continue or have any role in it.

Please feel free to share this email. Thanks so much for understanding how important my bond with the troops is and how important I feel it is to cover the amazing job they do on a daily basis. "

I really don't see how you can claim that ragged, falsely attributed e-mail should be tagged as "undermined." Really.

Ugggghhhhh!!!!! It's still undetermined because they can't know the truth. We've got a "he said/she said" scenario. Even Snopes admits this:

Regardless of the number of military personnel interviewed, whether this segment reveals some deliberate agenda on the part of ABC to mispresent the political preferences of U.S. military personnel is an argumentative and subjective issue.

You can't just say 'False' when you don't know. The people at Snopes should know this.

They sure as hell can say the email is false when the DAMN GENERAL HIMSELF SAID HE DIDN'T WRITE IT!!

The subjective portion details the portion of whether there was bias in reporting.

That is another issue, and it is argumentative and subjective. and they handled that fairly by bringing both arguments to the table.

But when you start with a baseline of a 100% BOGUS attribution of an email, (inserting a GENERAL no less!) it starts to go downhill from there.

Again, it makes me wonder - why the need to make up these stories and put false names to them, and email them to everyone you know?

Agreed. They most certainly can claim the email was not sent by the Major General, although conspiracy theorists might disagree.

 

[paperview]

Ugggghhhhh!!!!! It's still undetermined because they can't know the truth. We've got a "he said/she said" scenario. Even Snopes admits this:

You can't just say 'False' when you don't know. The people at Snopes should know this.

They sure as hell can say the email is false when the DAMN GENERAL HIMSELF SAID HE DIDN'T WRITE IT!!

The subjective portion details the portion of whether there was bias in reporting.

That is another issue, and it is argumentative and subjective. and they handled that fairly by bringing both arguments to the table.

But when you start with a baseline of a 100% BOGUS attribution of an email, (inserting a GENERAL no less!) it starts to go downhill from there.

Again, it makes me wonder - why the need to make up these stories and put false names to them, and email them to everyone you know?

Agreed. They most certainly can claim the email was not sent by the Major General, although conspiracy theorists might disagree.

Well there you go.

A rep worthy post.

 

[bodecea]

And I care what snopes says because?

Snopes is one of the most non-partisan myth busters on the internet. I think it says something about each side when Obama has more than double the false rumors being spread about in less than two years then Bush in eight years.

Remember...Avatar doesn't care to have myths busted.

 

[CMike]

People have to use their brain and do their own research.

Challenge everything.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People have to use their brain and do their own research.

Challenge everything.

I've been told I'm challenged. Does that count?