More Obama vetting; Dem Congressman accepts award from communists

the SS rumor began with Orly Taiz ... that alone should be enough for any sane human, nonetheless

the SS admin itself said Obama had his number long before the guys # he supposedly copied died

but hell everyone knows the SS admin is just a bunch of libs dont they !!

eos

Yet another site vouches for Snopes:

From/Source: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/int..._exposed_2.htm

Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler, who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource, but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.

Snopes.com boasts a 15-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.

Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.

UPDATE: The Bud Gregg incident

A subsequent variant of this rumor purports to describe a verified instance of political bias on the part of Snopes.com:

Excerpt from forwarded email contributed by Paul S., Oct. 29, 2008:

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!


As claimed directly above, the Snopes.com page in question concerns a political (anti-Obama) sign erected by Mandeville, Louisiana State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg. Snopes.com indeed states that Mr. Gregg was asked by State Farm's corporate office to remove the sign. But whereas the above text claims that "nothing of the sort ever took place," State Farm has confirmed in writing that "Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known."

Ya Stevie is right about snopes... OH opps, no he's not. Sorry I read that wrong.


I can't remember what the subject was, but sometime ago they were busted for having an agenda. I was sorta crushed when that happened and they lost all credibility with me. It was even something that would have made me very happy if it were true, but I don't want it if it's dressed up to look true from a source I trusted. Believe it or not most of us actually care about the truth.

However, that does not change the fact the congressman did in fact receive an aware from those commies.

yup, I'd be sure to refer to a president as 'Baboona' too

just for the CLAS ACT full effect mind you. Originally Posted by CJ7

I've never done that. Just for the record.

And who gives a rat's ass where his SS card came from? This is more birther BS. The man is a bad president, and ought not be re-elected. Going off on these snipe hunts is ridiculous, and distracts us from the real objective, which is electing a new President.

These issues are irrelevant. We need to elect a Libertarian President, and Congress; implement Libertarian policies, and prove that it is a better way to govern. If it's not, you will be free to elect another (or the same) Marxist.

I've never done that. Just for the record.

And who gives a rat's ass where his SS card came from? This is more birther BS. The man is a bad president, and ought not be re-elected. Going off on these snipe hunts is ridiculous, and distracts us from the real objective, which is electing a new President.

These issues are irrelevant. We need to elect a Libertarian President, and Congress; implement Libertarian policies, and prove that it is a better way to govern. If it's not, you will be free to elect another (or the same) Marxist.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Roger that ... 99% anyway.

Yeah! Quoting a blogger always impresses me!

LMAO! Truth or Fiction is no leftist site and here's what they say about your Soros story! Ooooooooooooooooops

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I'm supposed to believe it's not a leftist site because you say so? You must be kidding. You probably think Pravda and The New York Times are unbiased.

As far as blog sites being unreliable, it was Little Green Footballs (a blog site) that exposed Dan Rather's Sixty Minutes story on George W Bush to be fraudulent back in 2004. That was a blog site that turned out to be more reliable than CBS News.

Blog sites are kind of like the wild west. A lot of times they're unreliable, but they're useful in providing an alternative to main stream media which has been almost completely co-opted by the left.

I trust ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. about as far as I can throw my car.

Yet another site vouches for Snopes:

From/Source: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/int..._exposed_2.htm

Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler, who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource, but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.

Snopes.com boasts a 15-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.

Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.

UPDATE: The Bud Gregg incident

A subsequent variant of this rumor purports to describe a verified instance of political bias on the part of Snopes.com:

Excerpt from forwarded email contributed by Paul S., Oct. 29, 2008:

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!


As claimed directly above, the Snopes.com page in question concerns a political (anti-Obama) sign erected by Mandeville, Louisiana State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg. Snopes.com indeed states that Mr. Gregg was asked by State Farm's corporate office to remove the sign. But whereas the above text claims that "nothing of the sort ever took place," State Farm has confirmed in writing that "Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known." Originally Posted by Little Stevie

It's like the Los Angeles Times vouching for the reliabilty of the New York Times. Both sites are probably leftist crap.

I'm supposed to believe it's not a leftist site because you say so? You must be kidding. You probably think Pravda and The New York Times are unbiased.

As far as blog sites being unreliable, it was Little Green Footballs (a blog site) that exposed Dan Rather's Sixty Minutes story on George W Bush to be fraudulent back in 2004. That was a blog site that turned out to be more reliable than CBS News.

Blog sites are kind of like the wild west. A lot of times they're unreliable, but they're useful in providing an alternative to main stream media which has been almost completely co-opted by the left.

I trust ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. about as far as I can throw my car. Originally Posted by joe bloe

and the BIRFER's holy grail is Faux Nuz.

the SS rumor began with Orly Taiz ... that alone should be enough for any sane human, nonetheless

the SS admin itself said Obama had his number long before the guys # he supposedly copied died

but hell everyone knows the SS admin is just a bunch of libs dont they !!

eos Originally Posted by CJ7

Actually the story began with the private investigator that supposedly discovered the bogus number. Here's an audio tape of her account of what she discovered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6PPL9yVyE

joe, step away from the car! You know you're not ready to drive.

Actually, Little Green Footballs also broke the story where the New Yorker who worked for a brokerage firm on Wall Street copied pictures from a four-year-old Anti-War rally in Portland and labeled them as current pictures of the Occupy Wall Street protesters in November of 2011 and trashed them for burning an American flag (again a picture copied from a 2007 anti-war rally) on the worker's Facebook page.

Aw, somebody working on Wall Street wouldn't do something to discredit the Occupy Wall Street movement, would they?

and the BIRFER's holy grail is Faux Nuz. Originally Posted by CJ7

It's hard to tell if your bizarre spelling is a feeble attempt at humor or just another example of a typical government school graduate.

BIRFER was no accident or attempt at humor.

Fitting describes it very well.

BIRFER was no accident or attempt at humor.

Fitting describes it very well. Originally Posted by CJ7

I'm going to attribute the weakness of your last post to mental fatigue. It's been a long day.

Perhaps you'll be able to think of something more clever in the morning.

Aw, somebody working on Wall Street wouldn't do something to discredit the Occupy Wall Street movement, would they? Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Fact is, the OWS people do enough to discredit themselves.

Woman Raped at Occupy New Haven: Cops
Wednesday, Mar 14, 2012
A woman was raped in a tent at the Occupy camp late on Monday night or early Tuesday morning, police said.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Woman-Raped-at-Occupy-New-Haven-Cops-142627056.html

The sanitation team has reported finding needles in tents, and reports of crack and crystal meth use have surfaced. But the most serious concern most protesters say, is the risk of assault, especially for women and at night.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-security_n_1069597.html

The #Occupiers have put together quite an impressive record:

- 9 deaths, 5 found dead in tents, One found dead after 2 days
- 2 murders (Not counting the protester who strangled his parents and stuffed them in a car)
- Tens of millions of dollars in damages, layoffs, vandalism, law breaking
- Multiple Rapes
- Thousands of arrests
- Public masturbation
- Feces
- Child molestation and baby abuse

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/?refresh=true

HEADLINES tomorrow. "joe crushes Ozombies" LOL