Yeah. Almost like a conspiracy or something. Ooooohhh...:rolleyes:

I don't know anyone who uses Snopes that way.

I've never made a study of the issue, but Snopes seems to do a good job. I base that assessment on the lack of criticism of their work. If they were unreliable, they would be exposed, I believe. The fact checkers that really get under my skin are http://www.politifact.com and The Fact Checker. They are horrible at their job, especially the Post's "Fact Checker," Glenn Kessler. He repeatedly will state his opinion about something, call his opinion a fact, and then assign a certain number of Pinnochio's based on how much his opinion varies from whatever he is "fact" checking. That the formerly great Washington Post lends whatever remains of its prestige to him is a crying shame.

Are you suggesting that the Obamas really did lose their law licenses?

You like this place because you get "facts" from MB owners viewpoints don't you Honus:);).

Are you suggesting that I am suggesting? I have no prior knowledge of the topic at hand, just what I have read in this post. Lots of discussion as to who is right or wrong. Amusing and Interesting read!

No. I just figured that you intended your comment to have some relevance to the conversation. If you did not intend your comment to be relevant, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.:confused: You see lots of discussion here about who is right or wrong about whether the Obamas lost their law licenses?

your relevance meter appears to have a strong NASCAR alignment pull to it

why so snarky in replies and baiting with your questions? :(.

you already have all the answers, I am just making observations


quite amusing

My relevance meter pulls left? I don't even know what that means. Do you see the issue of the Obamas' law licenses as a matter of left versus right? Are your standards really that low?The only thing "baiting" about my questions is that I am hoping to get a straight answer. The snark is because what you seem to be suggesting is preposterous.What are you talking about? If the question is whether the Obamas lost their law licenses, then I am confident that I do in fact have the answer. Beyond that, I don't know what you are attempting to talk about.Superior much?

It seems to be the definitive fall back for a lot of discussions, not just here on this or other forums, but in other venues as well. If snope yes it's one way or another then it must be true.

Who fact checks snopes? Just curious:D

FWIW, as far as the B & M Obamas law licenses, I am willing to go with the stories that they did not lose their licenses. I cannot see a need for them in their current situations.

Again, just making observations. You seem to be the one extending out and hanging fish hooks and seeing what might bite and itching for a squiggle.

What was I suggesting that was preposterous? Were you ass uming I was inferring one thing or another?

Superior, nah just an average joe that enjoys seeing superior posters make a neddy of themselves from time to time.

That there is a debate about whether the Obamas lost their law licenses. It's possible that they did, but IMHO, there is no debate to be had until someone offers at least some fact to suggest that it happened.Sounds superior to me.

In this case it's not a fall back at all. A logical approach would ask:

Where is the proof that the Obamas involuntarily lost their licenses?"

A conspiracist approach asks:

Where is the proof that they didn't?

And BTW, sorry if I came on too strong.

Snopes is written by humans and is therefore not infallible. They provide sources, though, so anyone can vet their conclusions if they want to. If anyone comes up with any evidence at all to suggest Snopes is incorrect about the Obamas' law licenses, then we can check it out. I think elchivito said it well in the post right before this one.

A personal experience with Snopes:

Some years ago I was introduced to a Gentleman with information on a historical figure that was quite different from the known history. If true this would have been a bit of a story, perhaps a screenplay. It sounded a bit weird and had a rather psychic nature to it. Proof was available, but it was locked up and only a recognized researcher could gain access.

I lost interest in the story as no one could develop it, but I did wonder about the truth of the matter. So I contacted Snopes via an e-mail and told them enough to gain their interest but not everything just in case there was still a story to be wrung out of this thing.

Snopes followed up on the tale and after gaining access to the documents that I could not found the true story to be even stranger than the one I had been told. They even uncovered facts that had been revealed to me by the insider who had never told anyone his story. The facts were in the documents, and Snopes did an article that is interesting in a historical context but not earthshaking in its' information.

The article they wrote was entertaining, factual and free of bias. There were even dead ends they could not go beyond and they were quite open about this, so they did a bit of speculating on the subject but made it clear that part was only speculation and no one should take it as fact.

Why do they do what they do? For fun, I guess. They were doing this long before the internet was around. The internet just gives them a bigger platform.

I can also recommend another site for information on weird tails.

The Straight Dope - Fighting Ignorance Since 1973

I do recall that about six or seven years ago there was a vast right wing conspiracy to defame Snopes. It seems that right wing think tanks were coming up with stuff on H. Clinton and Obama and Snopes was shooting down the fairy tail e-mails as fast as they could be posted.

Right wing talk show hosts went on the warpath against Snopes and warned people to not visit what they called fake web-sites. This lasted a few weeks and accomplished nothing since, as it seems, the people visiting Snopes were seeking the truth and not the types to listen to right wing radio.

One story from that time that I liked was how Obama was ashamed to be from the US so the plane he used to go to Europe had the US flag painted over. I looked at the photo that came with the E-mail and there was no US flag visible.

The Snopes version showed the plane before and after. Before the plane had been rented to a group that had a big cartoon US flag on the tail because this was their logo. Obama's people had painted over this with his logo. The US markings on the body of the aircraft, which included a US flag, was left intact.

So why did no flag show up in the e-mail photo? As Snopes clearly showed the e-mail photo had been taken from under the wing and the wing obscured the view of the US Flag. When you looked at the aircraft from the side the flag was clearly there.

And yet, most of the forwarded right wing emails I read begin with "this has been verified by Snopes", even when Snopes has found the exact opposite to be true.:rolleyes: