Breaking:Take note Conservatives. Snopes run by fraudster. Staff include porn stars and escorts

[Faun]

And another...

Okay, I'm confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.

Here (Flights of Fancy) is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I've found say Snopes changed their answer from "False" to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says "false" and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.

What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?

Flights resumed on 9/13 ...

CNN.com - Flights resume, but situation remains tense - September 14, 2001

Here's A story of the Saudi's begin flown out on 9/13...

October 2003: Craig Unger Saudia Arabia

....while the pilot recalled all flights were grounded, he might not have been aware that order was lifted earlier that same morning.

The snopes article reads...

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.​

So where are they wrong?

Yes. They were.

Don't just say they were wrong ... prove it. The Saudi's would have had to fly out on the 12th. Prove that happened....

They were also wrong in not acknowledging that the crashed airplane photo was photo shopped. I grant you it's mainly a joke, but the fact remains that the picture isn't real, and they say it is. There are many, many more. Most are harmless, such as the airplane crash picture, but there are some that are outright fiction. There are plenty of threads on the Straight Dope website that show the errors they have made and their unwillingness to change them.

There are 2 photos and the first one appears untouched. The second photo shows the sign in it's actual location, but flipped it so the contents would be visible. I agree there should be notice the second image was touched but they still got the article right.

The claim: Photograph shows small plane crashed into a tree next to a sign advertising flight lessons.

Status: True

and it is true.

If the bet you can muster is them posting a touched up photo along with an untouched photo to show their rating of true is accurate, you've got nothing.

Find an article they rated wrong...?

Personally, I believe just on odds alone, there's gotta be at least one -- but I've yet to find one.

They do lean left in that most of their articles debunk rightarded nonsense more than lefttarded nonsense, but so what, who gives a fuck? It's accuracy that matters, not hurt feelings because they're not balanced.

You've been shown several. Like a typical prog though, you ignore them.

I refuted them. All I ignored was the 1000 posts of whining about the Mikkelson's you posted. I responded to the claims they were wrong.

I explained how snopes got the Emery story right as there was no "emergency counseling." Nothing in the chicken article was identified as wrong. And the story of a plane crashing next to a sign advertising flying lessons was true, as they claimed.

So can you prove the Saudi's were flown out while all flights were grounded or are you just gonna stomp your feet and claim snopes was wrong without being able to prove it...?

 

[MikeK]

Have any of Snopes' assertions been disproved? That is the issue, not the fact that the principal likes pussy a lot and stole some money to pay for it. I don't care about that. I'm concerned with Snopes' accuracy.

 

[westwall]

I gave you one. Here's another. No doubt you'll ignore it too.

What's the 'dope on Snopes? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

 

[rightwinger]

More on Kim Lacapria the escort/dope smoking fact checker for Snopes.

"Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker.

But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship"

Fact-Checking Snopes: Website's Political 'Fact-Checker' Is Just A Liberal Blogger

Easy....prove anything she wrote is wrong

That is what fact checking is about

 

[Coyote]

Stop lying, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. The link you gave was someone's opinion that snopes wrongly rated the part of that story as false where claims were made that "emergency counseling" was made available for students; when in fact, there was no emergency counseling.

Ill get back to ya after I check this one out too.

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

 

[Syriusly]

Christmas came early today. Check this out and make certain all your conservative friends and relatives learn that Facebook's fact checker Snopes is a fraud. that what we suspected for a long time is true. Snopes is not unbiased.

Unreal. Eat this Facebook!

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook 'fact checker' who will arbitrate on 'fake news' is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes - and its staff includes an escort-porn star and 'Vice Vixen domme'
Facebook has announced plans to check for 'fake news' using a series of

• 
  
  
  • organizations to assess whether stories are true One of them is a website called Snopes.com which claims to be one of the web's 'essential resources' and 'painstaking, scholarly and reliable'

• It was founded by husband-and-wife Barbara and David Mikkelson, who used a letterhead claiming they were a non-existent society to start their research
• 
  
• Now they are divorced - with Barbara claiming in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on 'himself and prostitutes'
• In a lengthy and bitter legal dispute he is claiming to be underpaid and demanding 'industry standard' or at least $360,000 a year
• 
  
• The two also dispute what are basic facts of their case - despite Snopes.com saying its 'ownership' is committed to 'accuracy and impartiality'
• Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator
• 
  
• She has worked as an escort and porn actress and despite claims website is non-political ran as a Libertarian for Congress on a 'Dump Bush' platform
• 
  
• Its main 'fact checker' is Kimberly LaCapria, whose blog 'ViceVixen' says she is in touch with her 'domme side' and has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot

Bwahahahahaha! Merry Christmas! Happy Birthday! Happy New Year!

Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online

Any of them pose with photos of the new First Lady?

Nah. They're escorts *cough* and porn stars. Melania was a super model. Worlds apart.

Really? Worlds apart?
Melania Trump’s girl-on-girl photos from racy shoot revealed

 

[westwall]

By the way the animated sig pic at the bottom of your posts is "fake news" all the way. That was busted big time ages ago. It was a complete and utter lie.

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life. So...KNOWN Nazi accessory to crimes against humanity. KNOWN criminal wanted in multiple countries for currency manipulations that destroyed the Public Employee Pension programs, vs. a bunch of idiots who can't afford to buy a warehouse in my state....and they're pretty cheap here.

Me thinks the two are nothing even close to alike.

 

[Syriusly]

I just want to point out that this is all based upon divorce papers......

And speaking of what a former wife accuses someone of in divorce papers

Donald Trump's ex-wife once claimed he 'raped' her

Donald Trump's ex-wife's claim he 'raped' her resurfaces in new documentary
The allegation comes from a sworn deposition

 

[Syriusly]

You know what, I was wrong about Bannon (personally being anti-semite) - but not about the way he trafficked in that kind of stuff (alt-right) for gain - whether political or for other reasons, he changed the focus of Breitbart.

I think you are wrong though in defending Trump on this particular thing. He did it, and it's on video. A bit hard to deny or excuse. It was the behavior of someone completely lacking in empathy.

Portman says FBI chief said Syrian refugees can't be vetted
Special Needs Truth: Fact Check: Did Donald Trump Mock Reporter with a Disability?
Truth Test: Did Trump mock a man with a disability?

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

I have to admit I barely pay attention to Soros- no more than I do the Koch Brothers-

So please provide citations for your claims.

 

[Coyote]

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

I have to admit I barely pay attention to Soros- no more than I do the Koch Brothers-

So please provide citations for your claims.

I don't either. I just hear all these claims that he's behind every bad thing.

 

[westwall]

He did nothing any more egregious than we do here. He provided a website that was relatively loose. Where morons could post whatever BS they wished, and others could call them on it. Nowhere near as quickly as they can here, but to claim he trafficked in it is untrue. He merely allowed them to post. Just like the Huffington Post which allows leftist morons to post their vile things. I would never make the claim that because the Huffpo allows moronic posts, that they believe them.

Just sayin...

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

I have to admit I barely pay attention to Soros- no more than I do the Koch Brothers-

So please provide citations for your claims.

No problem.


England was in a precarious position in 1992. It had an agreement with other European nations to maintain its currency within certain bounds relative to the German mark under the ERM- Exchange Rate Mechanism- system. Economic troubles had reduced the true value of the pound, but still it was held at a rate of roughly three marks to the pound. Increasingly, England was being pressured to devalue the pound, despite treaties to the contrary. But when would they take an action so contrary to national pride? On Wednesday, September 16, Soros leveraged the entire $1 billion value of his fund, and was able to take a $10 billion position against the pound. The $10 billion bet against them was the final blow, causing the government to announce a devaluation. All told, Soros made $2 billion in profits on the trade, tripling the value of his fund, at the expense of the British government. Without a global network and precise timing to rely on, Soros could never have pulled such an extreme trade. The lesson is not to stop the development of global networks or inhibit technology growth, but to be aware of the new opportunities available to the most aggressive investors. Such assaults are clearly not in the best interests of the nations involved (Asia is still recovering from its currency crisis), and some sort of world leadership is needed to prevent individuals from destabilizing governments for their own profit.

Untitled Document

 

[westwall]

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

I have to admit I barely pay attention to Soros- no more than I do the Koch Brothers-

So please provide citations for your claims.

I don't either. I just hear all these claims that he's behind every bad thing.

The claims are true. He has been a behind the scenes player for decades. Those of us who worked internationally always had to watch our backs when he got involved in some scheme. He is one of the truly evil people on this planet. Absolutely merciless, and without a shred of compassion.

 

[tinydancer]

Christmas came early today. Check this out and make certain all your conservative friends and relatives learn that Facebook's fact checker Snopes is a fraud. that what we suspected for a long time is true. Snopes is not unbiased.

Unreal. Eat this Facebook!

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook 'fact checker' who will arbitrate on 'fake news' is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes - and its staff includes an escort-porn star and 'Vice Vixen domme'
Facebook has announced plans to check for 'fake news' using a series of

• 
  
  
  • organizations to assess whether stories are true One of them is a website called Snopes.com which claims to be one of the web's 'essential resources' and 'painstaking, scholarly and reliable'

• It was founded by husband-and-wife Barbara and David Mikkelson, who used a letterhead claiming they were a non-existent society to start their research
• 
  
• Now they are divorced - with Barbara claiming in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on 'himself and prostitutes'
• In a lengthy and bitter legal dispute he is claiming to be underpaid and demanding 'industry standard' or at least $360,000 a year
• 
  
• The two also dispute what are basic facts of their case - despite Snopes.com saying its 'ownership' is committed to 'accuracy and impartiality'
• Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator
• 
  
• She has worked as an escort and porn actress and despite claims website is non-political ran as a Libertarian for Congress on a 'Dump Bush' platform
• 
  
• Its main 'fact checker' is Kimberly LaCapria, whose blog 'ViceVixen' says she is in touch with her 'domme side' and has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot

Bwahahahahaha! Merry Christmas! Happy Birthday! Happy New Year!

Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online

Any of them pose with photos of the new First Lady?

Nah. They're escorts *cough* and porn stars. Melania was a super model. Worlds apart.

Really? Worlds apart?
Melania Trump’s girl-on-girl photos from racy shoot revealed

Are you freaking kidding me? It's what they do in Europe. Kate Moss and Carla Delevingne just did a shoot for for Burberry Fragrance where they are nude and embracing and it was featured in magazines like Glamor.

A modeling shoot of that kind is not the same as being a hooker or a porn star. Hell's bells Carla Bruni the French President's wife did many a nude spread including one for Harper's Bazaar. Believe it was Italy.

Have you ever seen any European fashion magazines? It's the norm. The models are always stripping off for something.

 

[tinydancer]

I just want to point out that this is all based upon divorce papers......

And speaking of what a former wife accuses someone of in divorce papers

Donald Trump's ex-wife once claimed he 'raped' her

Donald Trump's ex-wife's claim he 'raped' her resurfaces in new documentary
The allegation comes from a sworn deposition

What the hell are you talking about that all of this comes from divorce papers? Kim Lacapria is a known entity that has nothing to do with the embezzlers divorce. Inquisitr.

And both women are still "working".

And as far as bitter divorces go the fucking left wing loons in the media had no trouble at all running with the story that Steve Bannon hated Jews because his ex wife said so. You had no problem with that at all.

So if you want to believe Ivanka and Steve Bannon's ex, we are free to believe Mr. Snopes ex wife.

You know what's good for the goose and all that.

 

[Faun]

I just want to point out that this is all based upon divorce papers......

And speaking of what a former wife accuses someone of in divorce papers

Donald Trump's ex-wife once claimed he 'raped' her

Donald Trump's ex-wife's claim he 'raped' her resurfaces in new documentary
The allegation comes from a sworn deposition

What the hell are you talking about that all of this comes from divorce papers? Kim Lacapria is a known entity that has nothing to do with the embezzlers divorce. Inquisitr.

And both women are still "working".

And as far as bitter divorces go the fucking left wing loons in the media had no trouble at all running with the story that Steve Bannon hated Jews because his ex wife said so. You had no problem with that at all.

So if you want to believe Ivanka and Steve Bannon's ex, we are free to believe Mr. Snopes ex wife.

You know what's good for the goose and all that.

I speak for no others, but who cares what you say about the folks behind snopes? So what if it's true? So what if it's made up from divorce fodder? Their character matters not. Their Liberal bias matters not.

All that matters is the accuracy of their reporting and I've yet to see a single article they got wrong.

To his credit, at least westwall tried to find an article they were wrong about; no one else offered anything. But nothing westwall threw at the wall, stuck. The articles he thought were wrong, were not. The only thing he did find was where they included a modified photo in a story they still got right.

 

[MindWars]

I looked it up. I found about 3 references - that all go to Infowars. No details, nothing. The fact that it also alludes to FB's recent assertion that it was going to use Snopes to factcheck stories (and Infowars stories would certainly fail quite often) makes me think this is just a made up story.

It sounds like a spino off of this hoax: Hoax Alert: Snopes.com CEO NOT Arrested On Charges Of Fraud And Corruption | Lead Stories

View attachment 103229

Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online

View attachment 103230

Ok, sounds like a bitter divorce with accusations flying both ways. Has nothing to do though with their fact checking business.

What qualifications do the escorts and porn stars have to bring to a fact checking site? I'd say that's a very valid question.

Considering the ladies of the night are now going to be working for Facebook to determine whether an article or not is Fake News.

You can't prove a damn thing to the social engineered projects, even court documents aren't proof enough for the common sense impaired.

 

[Coyote]

I just want to point out that this is all based upon divorce papers......

And speaking of what a former wife accuses someone of in divorce papers

Donald Trump's ex-wife once claimed he 'raped' her

Donald Trump's ex-wife's claim he 'raped' her resurfaces in new documentary
The allegation comes from a sworn deposition

What the hell are you talking about that all of this comes from divorce papers? Kim Lacapria is a known entity that has nothing to do with the embezzlers divorce. Inquisitr.

And both women are still "working".

And as far as bitter divorces go the fucking left wing loons in the media had no trouble at all running with the story that Steve Bannon hated Jews because his ex wife said so. You had no problem with that at all.

So if you want to believe Ivanka and Steve Bannon's ex, we are free to believe Mr. Snopes ex wife.

You know what's good for the goose and all that.

As I think I mentioned the goose and gander does apply to you as well...

 

[Syriusly]

From what I've read he altered the direction of Brietbart towards a much more "white supremacist" sort of platform then it had been before. And when it is done for a political goal - it is essentially trafficking. It's using those voices - even if you don't believe in their message - to obtain a goal. That's giving them a platform and a legitimacy in the public sphere.

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site's top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. "I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true," he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart's more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

The term alt-right is a meme that only recently has been used to try and propagandize against the trumpster and his supporters. The actual group alt-right, is a bunch of clowns who barely have a nickel between them. It is a paper tiger. A good friend of mine was the head of the ATF office in Fresno back in the 1970's and they had a huuuge KKK problem. He sent an undercover agent into the group and the very first day he was elected Sergeant at Arms. The next meeting they made him co-leader. The meeting after that they wanted to make him the boss. My buddy pulled him out because they had found out two things. The KKK in the central California area was nothing but a bunch of blowhards who were long on talk but real short on anything else, and the only people who were actually paying their dues were the various undercover agents that they uncovered from the local sheriffs office, the FBI, and the California DOJ.

This alt-right "movement" is the exact same thing. They are loud but the only people doing anything (if at all) will be the various undercover agents that have already infiltrated them. They are a boogeyman for the media to point at and say "see! Bad people! They're everywhere!"

So the alt-right is kind of like Soros then - a political boogeyman empowered by media attention?

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

I have to admit I barely pay attention to Soros- no more than I do the Koch Brothers-

So please provide citations for your claims.

No problem.


England was in a precarious position in 1992. It had an agreement with other European nations to maintain its currency within certain bounds relative to the German mark under the ERM- Exchange Rate Mechanism- system. Economic troubles had reduced the true value of the pound, but still it was held at a rate of roughly three marks to the pound. Increasingly, England was being pressured to devalue the pound, despite treaties to the contrary. But when would they take an action so contrary to national pride? On Wednesday, September 16, Soros leveraged the entire $1 billion value of his fund, and was able to take a $10 billion position against the pound. The $10 billion bet against them was the final blow, causing the government to announce a devaluation. All told, Soros made $2 billion in profits on the trade, tripling the value of his fund, at the expense of the British government. Without a global network and precise timing to rely on, Soros could never have pulled such an extreme trade. The lesson is not to stop the development of global networks or inhibit technology growth, but to be aware of the new opportunities available to the most aggressive investors. Such assaults are clearly not in the best interests of the nations involved (Asia is still recovering from its currency crisis), and some sort of world leadership is needed to prevent individuals from destabilizing governments for their own profit.

Untitled Document
]

What does that have to do with your claims about Soros? Your article just demonstrated that Soros is a Trump style investor who plays the market- something that Donald Trump has bragged he did during the real estate collapse.

The difference being soros is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into groups who are determined to undermine the USA, and he is a self declared NAZI sympathizer who turned Jews over to the Nazi's to be killed and when asked about it he declared it to be the best time of his life..

 

[Nia88]

Wait, so someone that does adult videos and pictures can't be truthful? Does it need to be pointed out about the Melania pictures? Does it need to be pointed out that Trump used to go to Epstein parties? Come on... this is a weak attack.

This is what I don't get. Just because someone is a porn star, doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. It is a perfectly legal job and many of the people questioning their trustworthiness are probably viewers of porn.

But I guess because being an adult actor isn't Christian like, so that makes them untrustworthy.

 

[Lewdog]

Wait, so someone that does adult videos and pictures can't be truthful? Does it need to be pointed out about the Melania pictures? Does it need to be pointed out that Trump used to go to Epstein parties? Come on... this is a weak attack.

This is what I don't get. Just because someone is a porn star, doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. It is a perfectly legal job and many of the people questioning their trustworthiness because of that are probably viewers of porn.

But I guess because being an adult actor isn't Christian like, so that makes them untrustworthy.

Wasn't there an ex-porn star woman that got a high up position in government in Europe?