Snopes caught being dishonest?

C

Canceled2

Banned
Got this email... Anyone know if it's true?

Snopes Lied - among other things!



“…. In our Search for the truth...…..justice department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check this out and they said it was false and there were no such dockets so I ‘Googled’ the Supreme Court, typed in ‘Obama-Kagan,’ and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied. Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote Snopes:
Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Court’s website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to . I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.
Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future.
*************

That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them.
Folks, this is really ugly.

Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on...

Once again the US Senate sold us out!
Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:
You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!!




Check out these examples:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
 
Snopes amended their original article in response to this (I am posting the amendation):

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp

You'd think all that would be a pretty convincing debunking, especially after other fact-checkers vetted our own article. Not so.

Within a couple of weeks we received e-mail from a "reader" who clearly didn't bother actually reading any portion of our article, who made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" was a presidential eligibility case), and accused us of being politically biased liars:
WND article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets. The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed by WND and the examples you gave are blatently false. I went directly to the Supreme courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that WND made reference too. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.

Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future.
This correspondent's e-mail was also posted to the web, and from there it was embellished and sent winging around the Internet through e-mail forwards and blog posts, all undertaken by people who also didn't bother actually reading our article or otherwise verifying the veracity of what they were reproducing — they gleefully passed it on with complete disregard for the truth because it seemingly confirmed concepts they wanted to believe.

This phenomenon prompted a wave of e-mail messages to us (many of them collected here) from people who mindlessly forwarded us the original message, accused us of being liars, insisted they would never, ever trust us again, and demanded that we remove the "false" information about the non-existent Obama/Kagan eligibility connection from our site. All of these correspondents had clearly not made even the slightest effort to read our article (if they had, they'd have known that we didn't claim no docket items containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" existed; we instead listed all of those docket items and documented that none of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues); they instead either blindly accepted the accusatory e-mail at face value or repeated the very same error that WND made and then berated us for supposedly stating that "there were no such dockets."

Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven't received a single apology.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
Snopes amended their original article in response to this (I am posting the amendation):

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp

You'd think all that would be a pretty convincing debunking, especially after other fact-checkers vetted our own article. Not so.

Within a couple of weeks we received e-mail from a "reader" who clearly didn't bother actually reading any portion of our article, who made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" was a presidential eligibility case), and accused us of being politically biased liars:
WND article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets. The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed by WND and the examples you gave are blatently false. I went directly to the Supreme courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that WND made reference too. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.

Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future.
This correspondent's e-mail was also posted to the web, and from there it was embellished and sent winging around the Internet through e-mail forwards and blog posts, all undertaken by people who also didn't bother actually reading our article or otherwise verifying the veracity of what they were reproducing — they gleefully passed it on with complete disregard for the truth because it seemingly confirmed concepts they wanted to believe.

This phenomenon prompted a wave of e-mail messages to us (many of them collected here) from people who mindlessly forwarded us the original message, accused us of being liars, insisted they would never, ever trust us again, and demanded that we remove the "false" information about the non-existent Obama/Kagan eligibility connection from our site. All of these correspondents had clearly not made even the slightest effort to read our article (if they had, they'd have known that we didn't claim no docket items containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" existed; we instead listed all of those docket items and documented that none of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues); they instead either blindly accepted the accusatory e-mail at face value or repeated the very same error that WND made and then berated us for supposedly stating that "there were no such dockets."

Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven't received a single apology.
Click to expand...


Now see you can keep your wee-wee in your pants:awesome:
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
^the modern right
Click to expand...
No, she is one of the fringe radicals, much like O'Donnell and that hag in Nevada! A real hater and a social misfit who once pretended she went to church! Who does she think she is fooling! The church would collapse on her head! The pastor would excommunicate her if he saw some of her posts on here!
 
Rana said:
No, she is one of the fringe radicals, much like O'Donnell and that hag in Nevada! A real hater and a social misfit who once pretended she went to church! Who does she think she is fooling! The church would collapse on her head! The pastor would excommunicate her if he saw some of her posts on here!
Click to expand...

Well no one could fool you ms. stoopie! Nuh-uh no-way. You're just too damned smart for me :rofl:
 
Ice Dancer said:
Then why did you suggest I was wrong about this Tom? Is that you "missed" I had asked the question not only in the threads OP, but in its title as well?
Click to expand...

The very thought of the sweet taste of your public redress was more than he could bear. He is still wiping his chin and quivering.

He zigged when he shoulda' zagged. Pooped when he shoulda' popped!

:lmao:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top