| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sternline
Senior Member
1152 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2012 : 08:19:14 AM
|
Well, I'm a bit surprised we haven't discussed this latest inadvertent revelation by HRH Bummer; or should I say KGB Bummer?
His slips, remember "My Muslim faith" in the Stepanolopus(sp) interview, seem to be the only windows into this man's true character.
What I saw in the Medvedev slip scared me to death; the Bum is one treacherous fellow.
Looks to me like he wants to wreck our missile defense shield if he is re-elected thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and China. That would make it very easy for him to place us under the rule of the UN.
"His last election"-if he can pull this off he won't need to be re-elected any more-he will declare himself dictator for life!
"Watch what we do,not what we say." John Mitchell
Sea Hunt Triton 202
Yammy 150
|
|
|
cataddict
Senior Member
274 Posts |
|
|
sternline
Senior Member
1152 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 09:29:18 AM
|
I wonder how he would have finished the sentence if George hadn't cut him off?
I do not know what faith this guy really espouses. He did spend a lot of time in Rev Wright's church.
Snopes gets mixed reviews on their accuracy and is generally considered to lean to the Left.
FACTS on the internet are often what their publishers want them to be.
I give little or no credence to anything I read there.
"Watch what we do,not what we say." John Mitchell
Sea Hunt Triton 202
Yammy 150
|
Edited by - sternline on 03/28/2012 09:36:16 AM |
 |
|
|
Easy
Senior Member
2827 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 09:44:15 AM
|
| cataddict, I have just(this minute) started a new Fact Check web site. I will check out anything you question and tell you what I think the facts are. You can take my ansnwers to the bank! That should be all you need for proof about anything you have a question on. The web site is named (The Answer you want to be true from your stand point)! |
|
|
|
DFreedom
Senior Member
6605 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 10:39:12 AM
|
| Snopes is definitely not the "be all end all". |
|
|
|
sternline
Senior Member
1152 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 10:55:35 AM
|
Easy-You may have just found your fortune!!
What a great idea for a website! Put me down for the first subscription. I need all the help I can get.
Oh, well, I guess nobody wants to discuss Bummer's latest gaff.
"Watch what we do,not what we say." John Mitchell
Sea Hunt Triton 202
Yammy 150
|
|
|
|
SirSpear
Senior Member
897 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 5:58:35 PM
|
Can someone point out some examples where snopes was wrong? I'm genuinely curious -- my understanding is they have a pretty good reputation.
It seems like some people on this forum are butthurt about all their chain e-mails being phony. |
|
|
|
sternline
Senior Member
1152 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 07:51:07 AM
|
Chain e-mails are obviously way to plebeian for the highly sophisticated and knowledgeable group who dominate the posting on this forum.
That notwithstanding, I must confess my love for them. To me they are a refreshing offset to the endless stream of media and WH propaganda we are inundated with every day.
It's true that many of them are phony, many have some basis in fact, many are true and some are just hilarious.
Therefore, please be advised that yours truly has been sufficiently chastened and has removed "Politics" from his chain e-mail list.
BTY-SS it's OK if you want to address me directly; I do not get "butt-hurt" from posting exchanges on internet forums.
When I take a pratfall on my boat in rough seas, that does hurt my butt!!
"Watch what we do,not what we say." John Mitchell
Sea Hunt Triton 202
Yammy 150
|
Edited by - sternline on 03/29/2012 1:23:40 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18094 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 09:54:28 AM
|
First, I want to say that I think the "my muslim faith" slip was just that--a slip. I dont believe it indicates that President Obama is a Muslim. The topic was on his mind. I'm not saying hes not a Muslim. I couldn't begin to tell you the man's true beliefs. I just dont see that slip as evidence of anything.
With that being said, though, I do see merit in the criticisms against Snopes, and I've made them myself. I'll explain.
The criticism against Snopes isn't exactly that they get the verdict wrong--not always, anyway. Their verdict is usually right, and they shoot down a lot of false rumors. The main problem with Snopes, in my experience, is that they spin the facts in their commentary, with an apparent bias, attempting to lead the reader to a conclusion regardless of the true or false verdict. They are also an unqualified, self-proclaimed source for absolute truth on the internet, and that presents problems that ANYONE should appreciate. The most significant objectivity problem I've seen, though, is that their commentaries and explanations end up sounding more like opinionated arguments on various topics. It is in those slanted, opinionated arguments that they make false statements or push the reader toward a certain way of INTERPRETING the situation, seemingly blowing their cover and revealing a personal bias.
Since you asked for an example, I'll provide one. I've provided this example before, along with some others, so it's false when people say that no one has ever presented an example.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
In that article, Snopes is forced to admit that a certain "chain email" is true, getting the verdict right, but they go on the 'splain it away as insignificant by making the following statement their bottom line on the matter:
"So, it isn't just the Arabic/Islamic states who consistently vote against the United States in the United Nations--pretty much the rest of the world does too."
Look at their percentage charts. The data that THEY provided proves their conclusion statement to be blatantly false, and this disparity between the facts and their conclusion seemingly reveals an intent to play down the truth, not to mention 101-level breaks in logic. Their own data blatantly refute their statement, and their argument is not cogent.
As you can see in the article, Snopes based its analysis on a survey of the percent of votes that each nation cast against the United States in the United Nations. Averaged together, the Arabic/Islamic states that they included in their report voted against the United States a whopping 88% of the time. Compare that 88% with the average vote of the non-Islamic/Arabic states against the United States--42%. 58% of the time--which is a significant majority--those non-Arabic/Islamic states voted WITH the United States. Even if we take Israel out of the picture, the non-Arabic/Islamic states still only voted against the United States an average of 48% of the time, and voted WITH the United States the majority of the time--52%.
The Arabic/Islamic states voted against the United States an average of 67 times, and with the United States only 9 times. The other nations voted against the United States only 27 times, and with the United States 37 times. So, the Arabic/Islamic nations voted against the United States more than twice as often as often as the other nations, and voted with the United States less than 1 fourth as often as the other nations. The non-Islamic/Arabic nations voted with the United states more than four times as often as the Arabic/Islamic states, and agains the United States less than half as often.
In other words, the "rumor" is simply TRUE, and if Snopes were really just about advancing truth, they would leave it with that.
Somehow, though, Snopes calls those percentages (88% versus 42%) similar in value and importance. Somehow, voting against the United States a MINORITY of the time constitutes a "consistent" opposition, similar to that of states voting against the United States 88% of the time. Do they think we are that stupid? Who could make such an illogical analysis without bias or some interest pushing them in that direction? Tell me something. If someone disagrees with you 42% of the time, do you honestly consider that about the same as someone who disagrees with you 88% of the time? I doubt it.
In light of those facts, Snopes is just factually incorrect to say that "pretty much the rest of the world" consistently votes against the United States in the United Nations. That is completely false and a blatant break in logic.
If anyone wants to argue with me on this, I'll even let you leave out Israel in your counter-argument, and use the resulting numbers that are more in Snopes' favor. That still leaves you with 88% versus 48%. Remember, this is their OWN data.
Now, with those percentages, can we all admit that Snopes is factually incorrect? Seriously. Let's be purely empirical here. 88% versus 42%? 88% versus 48%? I think we all know that Snopes blew this one.
OK, now, wouldn't it have been a lot more objective and respectable for them to have simply said "TRUE" and to have NOT attempted to lead us into thinking the verdict is insignificant by painting countries who vote FOR the United States the majority of the time as being equal with states who vote AGAINST the United States almost 90% of the time? Can you see that Snopes obviously tried to deflate and minimize the importance of the true verdict with a false explanatory argument? Do you honestly not wonder why? Does it not at least make you a little more wary about taking their word for things?
Well, whether or not any present Snopes defenders can see this problem, examples like this are why a lot--and I do mean a lot--of people refer to the personal bias of the Snopes "researchers". It's mostly in their colored commentary, which attempts to lead the reader to reach a conclusion that is skewed by the personal perspective of Snopes, rather than leading to reader to just consider the facts for themselves. In this example, without Snopes' interpretive and opinionated commentary, the average reader would look at the charts, and simply see that, YES, the Arabic/Islamic world DOES, INDEED oppose the United States not only consistently, but the vast majority of the time, and much more often than non-Islamic states surveyed. Instead, Snopes leads people to believe it's nothing really--that the rest of the world is about the same. The propagate a false perspective.
So, if Snopes would leave out the commentary, and just present the FACTS, which is what they are allegedly supposed to be doing, then they would have a much more credible claim to being objective truth finders, and they would get less criticism.
They did something similar with Al Gore. He said he "took the lead in creating the internet". They said the rumor that he said he "invented" the internet is false, even though they admitted that he said he lead the effort to "create" it. Really? We're going to argue the difference between "invent" and "create"? Intelligent people really don't like to waste time on such quibbling. When self-proclaimed bastions of unbiased truth split semantic hairs like that, it's not good for credibility. They should have called that one "true", and the explanation, if any, should have simply detailed what, exactly, Gore was talking about when he made the statement. The truth is that Gore did take a lead role, politically, on expanding the internet to the public-use status that it has today, but it was actually "created" before his time. He did not create or invent it, nor did he take the lead in doing so, but he DID take a lead role in expanding it into what it is today. So, his claim of "creating" it is less dramatic than it otherwise sounds. In a sense, he's not entirely wrong to summarize it that way. He's just exaggerating in an way that's arguably worthy of some humorous criticism.
Anyway, thats what he was talking about, so they would be perfectly right to just focus on that. Instead, though, they called the rumor "false" when it isnt false. They spun it a little. I dont think that was bias. I think that was an example of how and where they lack logical discipline and color truth with their own personal interpretations. Either way, they were a bit off, as people often complain.
So, the bottom line is that people are RIGHT to criticize the wholesale use of Snopes as a "be-all, end-all" source for truth. Just like ANY self-proclaimed, unqualified internet source of average bloggers, it is considerable flawed. How can people blindly trust nobodies on the internet with no qualifications, experience, or credentials? How can people miss the obvious setup of self-proclaimed "fact" finders in such a politically-charged world? Can't anyone start a site and call it, "ObjectiveFactVerification.com"?
With that being said, Snopes DOES help stomp out a lot of fale rumors, and its writers do deserve a little credit for that, but on certain political hot-button issues, their bias prevails.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 03/29/2012 10:50:30 AM |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 10:51:14 AM
|
Holy Long Posts, Gotcha! That was quite a tome!
Regardless of his religion, or lack thereof, what matters are his actions. I have not seen him acting on his religion so far. But he has acted on his political and philosophical beliefs, which scare the hell out of me!
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
Edited by - JimIslander on 03/29/2012 10:54:48 AM |
|
|
|
Easy
Senior Member
2827 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 11:06:55 AM
|
Gotcha, are you trying to ruin my new business? quote:
How can people miss the obvious setup of self-proclaimed "fact" finders in such a politically-charged world? Can't anyone start a site and call it, "ObjectiveFactVerification.com"?
|
|
|
|
sternline
Senior Member
1152 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 1:27:27 PM
|
Just Dam, gotcha, most impressive!
Er, is there any chance we can get this thread to focus on my original post or should we just "forget about it".
No matter which, it's been pretty interesting as a derailed thread anyway!
"Watch what we do,not what we say." John Mitchell
Sea Hunt Triton 202
Yammy 150
|
Edited by - sternline on 03/29/2012 1:31:45 PM |
|
|
|
Easy
Senior Member
2827 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 1:45:13 PM
|
| mmmmm, what was the question again? |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18094 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 2:50:28 PM
|
GOOD POINT! THE TOPIC!!
OK, here goes.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/27/why-obamas-open-mic-slip-could-seriously-hurt-his-reelection-hopes/
Conversation caught on tape unbeknownst to the President who didn't realize the mic was on (again):
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but its important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
OK, there you go. The President of the United States--President Obama--just strongly implied to the Russians that he is going to change his tune and sell us out after he gets re-elected. The man just gave us an unwitting peek into his freightening character and dishonesty, and Snope has nothing to do with it.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
Swamp Angel
Senior Member
1737 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 8:50:29 PM
|
There was an article today on MSNMoney about the liar in chief concerning the whole budget cuts v. Higher taxes issue.
If you got time to lean, you got time to clean. |
|
|
|
jstrange
Senior Member
3120 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 10:50:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Easy
cataddict, I have just(this minute) started a new Fact Check web site. I will check out anything you question and tell you what I think the facts are. You can take my ansnwers to the bank! That should be all you need for proof about anything you have a question on. The web site is named (The Answer you want to be true from your stand point)!
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sponsored by sycophants united!!
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Obamas flexibility to lie after election
