Snopes caught being dishonest?

Yurt said:
liar...soc never said i defended the rape of little boys
Click to expand...

So what is this then?

Ok Yurt, I will bite, how is NOT doing something about this NOT tacitly condoning it. The US Embassy was asked to help quash the story. I KNOW you know what quash means. The US government was advised that a contractor with Dynacorp gave boys to Afghans to be used for sex. If you travel from the US to countries like Thailand for the purpose of having sex with children, you can be prosecuted in the US for it. So I am certain the US could be prosecuting officials from Dynacorp. They are not, ergo they are tacitly condoning the acts.
Click to expand...
 
tom prendergast said:
So what is this then?
Click to expand...

wow...you are dumb....lets look at it again:

Ok Yurt, I will bite, how is NOT doing something about this NOT tacitly condoning it. The US Embassy was asked to help quash the story. I KNOW you know what quash means. The US government was advised that a contractor with Dynacorp gave boys to Afghans to be used for sex. If you travel from the US to countries like Thailand for the purpose of having sex with children, you can be prosecuted in the US for it. So I am certain the US could be prosecuting officials from Dynacorp. They are not, ergo they are tacitly condoning the acts.
Click to expand...

yep...just as i read it the first time...he is asking me how it can't be "condoning"....which is wholly different than accusing me of defending and condoningthe rape of little boys...

keep up the lies tom...they look good on you
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
Wow, an E-Mail chain letter ID's batshit nut's relatives sent her while wasting good air vs. Snopes. Who am I going to believe?
Click to expand...
Maybe the links to the SCOTUS website might convince you. Attacking the source without verification usually bites you in the butt, I'd have thought you'd figure that out by now.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Crap. I quoted the wrong post. LOL. Well, it almost made sense there. Anyway, if you look at the links then use that same SCOTUS site you can actually read what cases were in the dockets and find out that none of those cases were about Obama's birth certificate.

It wasn't that hard to do.

It's also interesting that WND itself had this to say after they rewrote their article:

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Crap. I quoted the wrong post. LOL. Well, it almost made sense there. Anyway, if you look at the links then use that same SCOTUS site you can actually read what cases were in the dockets and find out that none of those cases were about Obama's birth certificate.

It wasn't that hard to do.

It's also interesting that WND itself had this to say after they rewrote their article:
Click to expand...

damo...what is this case about:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top