Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I saw the snopes link first and have answered

Posted By: your trashy post. nm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: See link below - source is from Obama's own book. - Kaydie


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

You give a link that supposedly exposes snopes.com yet SM
that very link (which you apparently didn't take the time to read, or were not able to) disputes everything you say above. Good lord.
the link did not work. It gave me a "do you want to try snopes search engine" msg. nm
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.


Just so you know about Snopes

It's part of the Chicago political machine and has a definite conflict of interest.

Research it for yourself if you don't believe me.  This is not directed towards you.  I'm just pointing this out for the rest of the readers here.

No fan of Obama, but per Snopes -

Sep 28, 8:09 PM EDT

Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak


Buy AP Photo Reprints


Latest Photos of Barack Obama

Audio Slideshow

On the Road with Obama

Latest News

Soldier's mother 'ecstatic' about Obama's bracelet

Obama calls McCain economic ideas 'out of touch'

Correction: Obama home-arrest story

Obama effigy found hanging from Ore. campus tree

Man arrested outside Obama home wanted job


Obama Picks Biden as Running Mate

A look back at the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention

Iraq? Global Warming? Gay Marriage? See Where the Candidates Stand

Your Questions Answered

Ask AP: Hurricane reporters, property in Cuba

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

"I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay," Obama said during the debate. "She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?' No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided."

Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.

She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.

"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops," Jopek said. "My request to both of them is that they honor the troops by lifting the conversation to the issues, and that they continue to live up to the standards our military deserves."

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

[GetClick here for copyright permissions!

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

Snopes is not credible
Especially since it's highly likely that the couple that runs snopes are Obama supporters. There has been no credible evidence on snopes to prove anything.

That's like saying Louis Farrakan or Ayers, or Rev. Wright verified it so we should just believe them.

Let the supreme court judge handle it. We want the truth.

The supreme court judges are there to uphold the constitution. I will listen to their decision.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to defend as you are most likely wrong about this.
If you (and Snopes) take issue

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy.

If you (and Snopes) take issue

with the final quote on banks, NBD.  The othes are quite pithy enough.

Snopes.com leans to the left

Snopes.com leans to the left

July 29th, 2008 · No Comments · General Politics, Politics

Like many others I have used Snopes.com to check things out and make sure what I am reading is actually true.  I never really questioned them before, but then the other day I was reading an item on AL Gore and I began wondering to myself, why are they trying to justify why Gore said this.

I then started to look at other items and found the same thing.  Even when accusations were found to be true about liberals, Snopes would try to either explain it away or defend the position.  Unbeknown to me, this has already been well documented by others for items on the Clintons, John Kerry, Gore, and Barack Obama.

I did a little research and found that the site is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California.  From all accounts I have read, they are Obama supporters, but then of course probably support other Democratic candidates as well.

Now I am not saying that Snopes.com is a completely useless site because they usually do a good job on hoax emails…especially outside of politics. But you should always read what they say with a critical eye and be wary when they don’t just give the facts and start to defend a position.  If you see this I would suggest you check out other fact checking sites to collaborate what they say.

Snopes leans to the left

I can see a blind conservative thinking that perhaps Snopes is politically motivated toward the left. However, just for fun, I looked up the issue of Osama Bin Laden’s family being flown out of the U.S. immediately following the 9/11 attacks, when most air traffic had been grounded. Snopes says this, too, was false. Here, it quotes heavily from the 9/11 commission. Members of the Bin Laden family, the commission concludes, were not flown out before air space were re-opened.

But Snopes, via the 9/11 commission citations, does show that the Bin Ladens were flown out September 20th. The FBI questioned them, but then let them fly out. The commission also says one of the FBI agents who questioned the family was a pilot for the flight, though the vagueness of the report could lead one to conclude that the FBI agent was a pilot in general and not the pilot of the flight. Which begs the question, why mention it at all unless they meant that an FBI agent was the pilot flying the Bin Laden escape plane in question…

Anyway, the point of the whole Bin Ladens leaving the States is that they were allowed to leave so effortlessly and with our government’s help. It sounds great to say the government flew them out when all air traffic was grounded, but that’s just icing. That Snopes claims the rumor is false while the underlying point that the U.S. flew the Bin Ladens out of the States is true shows that Snopes is no more left-leaning than right-leaning. It’s admirable. They seem to take the tack that “if part of statement is false, the whole statement is false.” Very mathematical.



I read this on Snopes, it is true and I found it very

interesting. It is written by a black Christian man stating why he won't vote for Obama. If you just type in Huntley Brown Snopes, it will come up, it's the first link.

I am a fence rider, can't decide who to vote for, since neither one of them has actually given a plan as to what they are going to do for America, just a lot of trash talk from both sides and name calling and schoolyard tactics. Neither one has had to answer any direct questions regarding anything of value to me.

I am neither anti-Obama or anti-McCain; I am sure they are both decent men. I just found this interestingl it's not going to sway be either way, but just thought I would share it.



Wikipedia & Snopes: kissin' cousins
And part of the Chicago/Obama machine.  See for yourself, as you probably wouldn't believe me. 
So because Snopes says so it is truth. Why not have a judge look at it and make the ruling?
I answered you below -
I've got more important things to do than to continue this argument you want to have. You are wrong!
Thanks to you who have answered...
I may be a dem to the core, but I do appreciate your input.
I answered this below......sm
When you can come up with something different, let me know.
You never answered my question.
I asked how many troops our ally Israel sent to Iraq.  I would truly like to know.  It might help to change my mind regarding their commitment to being our ally.
Answered in all honesty...
the entire thread was about the Plame case and whether or not she was covert. I posted the court document where the media outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc) filed to try to stop the judge from compelling the reporters to give their sources (their aim was to protect whistle-blowers, which is definitely not a bad thing). In that brief it was stated: "We do not believe a crime was committed as she was not covert at the time of the incident." CBS acknowledged that they believed that Plame was not covert...supported by the fact that she was openly working at a desk job in the CIA offices and had been for some time. I thought it was hypocritical of CBS to now bring Plame on and in effect say they believe that she was covert. Then some, not all, of the usual posters piled on questioning the integrity of the court and how decisions can be influenced...when it really had nothing to do with the court, but with the filed brief. CBS et AL actually lost the case. If they had won it, there would have been no Libby prosecution. That is what makes what the liberals posted that much harder to understand. It just seemed like just because a conservative posted it, it could not possibly have any merit, and then when they had to admit it did have merit, suddenly the court had no integrity.

Honest answer.
First of all, I don't see that she answered the question. nm
Asked and answered...
...ad nauseam!
Despite the fact that this has been answered over and over,
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
You just answered your own question
about "what critism" when you said Missouri MT said something and then said she didn't say it.
You answered your own question.
My assessment was in line with "most of the world," who laid responsibility for the massacre squarely at the feet of the Israelis, where it belonged, especially since the Shaba and Shatilla refugee camps were under the control of the IDF, not the Lebanese Phalangists, whom the IDF gave access to the refugees in the camps. Do not try to rewrite history that I unfortunately was around to experience directly, at least in its aftermath some 16 days later.

I have not forgotten about the assassination of Bachir Gemayel (Phalangist leader and president-elect, who never took office, BTW) just 2 days before the massacre and the history of hatred between the Phalangists and the Palestinians. If I was aware of it as a young, naïve, ill-informed American, it is only logical that the Israelis were aware of it too and had drawn the conclusion that giving access to the Phalangists was the perfect opportunity for them to commit massacre by proxy, which adds the specter of cowardice to the already atrocious and horrendous act and its outcome.

Trying to belittle me will not effectively disguise your not-so-artful attempt to dodge direct discussion of ISREAL'S invasion of Lebanon, the death of 3000 women, children and elders in the camps and another 30,000 Lebanese they killed during that campaign. So, no, it is pretty easy to distinguish between Israelis, the killers and the Lebanese, the dead guys.

I am not in the habit of giving direct answers to dirt, filth and blatant lies such as yours. Your preposterous notion that Arabs didn't give a flip about the massacre of 3000 Arabs is beyond absurd and speaks for itself, but comes as no surprise from a Zionist who would actually try to gain credibility by discounting 2550 corpses of women, children and elders by disputing fatality figures. The only odd thing here is that your delusions would allow you to believe that anyone in their right mind would accept this callous dismissal as the basis of a credible statement. Evidence of the ice water that flows through you veins can be easily surmised from your bigoted and hateful statement blaming the "Pakistanis" (I am guessing you really meant Palestinians) for somehow inviting the slaughter of the Shaba and Shatila refugees. Yeah, right.

Read my lips. The IDF WAS IN CONTROL of those camps. It was their responsibility to keep them secure. It also would not be the first time they failed to live up to Geneva Convention war conduct imperatives and instead, commit horrendous war crimes. They were the invaders, after all, and Lebanon, the invaded. This seems to be a pervasive affliction of yours, not being able to distinguish between the occupiers and occupied, the invaders and the invaded, the killers and the dead.

My 3000 dead figure is extracted from Sabra and Shatila: Inquiry into a Massacre, penned by ISRAELI journalist Amnon Kapeliouk in June 1984...2000 bodies disposed of by official and Red Crescent sources and another 1000-1500 he documented by investigative reporting and interviews with Phalangist officials. BTW, the findings of an Israeli govt study that Israel was only guilty of not foreseeing the future is like accepting the fox's report about the disappearance of the chickens from the coup. You are more stupid still to say that 3000 "sounds better" than 450, unless you are presuming that I take the same pleasure you obviously take in stacks and piles of Palestinian bodies in mass graves. NOT.

Sorry. I am not able to decipher your last parting shot. What are you referring to when you ask about the [square symbol] attacks on Palestinian refugee camps? Please clarify and I would be happy to comment.

I answered your question.
I provide examples of the current administration's bragging of how effective their policy has been in keeping us safe all turned out to be untrue because the threats were not credible.

I believe you just answered your own question
It's administered just like Medicare and Medicaid.

Lots of fraud within those two organizations, both from users and providers. We all know that from being MTs.

You asked, I answered.
I don't think fairy tales make for good foreign policy. Pre-emptive war under false pretenses that kill over 100,000 people waged in the WRONG COUNTRY to avenge daddy's honor and advance mythical global hegemony. No, Lu, the shrub has not made us safer, though you are free to give credit where you see fit. I would never try to talk down a blind Bushie but I can state with unwavering certainty that there are better, smarter, more honest and less deadly approaches to foreign policy, which you are about to witness first-hand on the dawn of this new era.
No just the poster you answered.

I'm beginning to feel the same way. He's pouring good money after bad. He should get wise and stop it RIGHT NOW.

After giving AIG more money yesterday, I feel all O knows is how to spend and that seems to be his cure-all for what ails the country. You would think he would get the hint by now with the market tanking and everyone losing their pensions and 401Ks.



Yes, you are a bit confused. I answered
your posts - this is a free forum, isn't it? - and you referred to me as JTBB.

Do not try to justify your insensitivity with 'I was just joking', this is lame. Because you were NOT joking. You find all the torture and cruelty done to prisoners amusing and entertaining, as you decorate your comments with .. 'LOL, ROFL, Geez etc....'
You asked a question, I answered it. I'm not sure what you want. nm

OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
He already has answered tough questions and without a

teleprompter.  Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.

Re: "associations" -- you never answered a prior
Jes' curious............
I agree, was very good. -and she answered with
Maybe no one answered the two previous posts...sm
becuase they're tired of getting jumped on by your side, you know, the anti-fanatic fanatics...lol....but true.

I've refrained from commenting on this issue, even though I feel as if Obama is hiding something. Wonder what it could be?

I answered you above - you are making things up
You accused me earlier of being a racist and posting racist posts. I challenged you and you can't find one. You tried to use something I said after you accused me. I also read through all my posts and there are none. When I referred to Michelle not talking like a black woman I was referring to your typical stereotyping us because we don't always talk or write the way you think all black people do. I'll say it again. Michelle Obama is one classy lady.

You know one thing I was taught growing up is if I'm ever wrong to at least have the decency to say I'm wrong and am sorry, but I guess not everyone is like that.
If someone had posted the post I answered, yes...
It would be racist if a white person voted for someone just because he was white. It would be racist for a black person to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a white person not to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a black person to not vote for a white person just because he was white.

Does that clear it up for you?
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
Yes, I know, but the fact remains my question has still not been answered. SM

How is it that people feel they can make these kind of egregious statements about someone so effortlessly and not support those statements with facts.  Pardon me if I am a little insistent that credible proof be provided that Laura Bush was drunk when she was involved in the accident that killed her friend. 

I answered above and your badgering doesn't rattle me,
I feel these questions could have been best answered by Kfir. sm

Frankly, I am not sure how much more evidence you need after the article I posted on the Conservative board regarding Mike Wallace's interview with Iran's president.  You made allegations that Christians are only now interested in Israel because we see *the end* coming.  That just isn't so.  But you state it as fact, not as a personal opinion.  Maybe that is where the disconnect lies, that what you perceive has become fact to you.  As far as personal attacks, I haven't attacked you. You have to admit, though, that your question to Kfir about why the Israeli army did not fight in Iraq was kind of startling in light of what happened in the Gulf war and in light of the hatred between Israeli and Arab.   I would love to debate you, but I don't think we would be debating so much as defending our own belief system.  Again, I say this respectfully and this is based on reading your posts here. Your aggression towards Kfir and his defense of his country is puzzling to me.  Yet you felt the one attacked.  There is just too much emotion here.  This milieu is just not conducive to logical debate.  People say things they would not ordinarily say in person.  I thought the remark you make to Kfir about him not being representative of most Israeli was offensive.  I do, believe this conversation has become way too personal, on all levels.

Hope this post answered your question.
no message
If McCain/Palin win, Heaven has answered my
I asked a simple question, and you answered...nm
I in no way twisted your post, merely asked if it extended to the opposition, as you have mainly been talking about the president in this thread.

Thanks for answering.
A previous poster asked who PNAC was. I answered. sm
They influence US and world policy, so believe they are definitely a threat. I first heard about the Illuminati in a Bible study class. Thought everyone knew about them. You all must think everything said is a conspiracy theory. No, Bush isn't one, but I am sure he takes orders from them, and so does other world leaders. In the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, the creature is a monster known as The Federal Reserve System conjured up at a secret meeting by a group of Illuminati snakes on a remote island off the east coast of America in 1913.

I do believe Islam is a threat, but I also think they are being provoked and persecuted. If you do not know history on the above, then you wouldn't understand why I think this.

I answered you, sam. You are putting words in Obama's mouth
show me where O said he would give rebates to people w/o income and show me where he said they would get a tax break. This question has been answered already. Read the previous post BEFORE you throw out another dodge to my still unanswered question about progressive tax system being socialist, the rebate and your outlandish claims about what you think Obama said.
Stop attacking me!!!!! - and JTBB answered my question
All I asked is where will the troops be coming from that he is going to send to Afghanistan. I didn't state anything else about the troops except that a lot of us thought they'd be coming home. I know the military are committing suicide at an alarming rate. What does that have to do with the question "Where are the troops coming from that Obama is going to send to Afghanistan". The only thing transparent here is how eager you are to attack me for my thoughts and beliefs. Can't anyone ask a question anymore without being attacked for it.

I asked a question and JTBB answered it and I thanked her for it.

And for your information. I don't hate Obama. I VOTED FOR HIM IN THE PRIMARIES!!!!!!! (and don't even call me a pub cos I didn't vote for McCain either). Personally, I like Obama. Good looking guy, in great shape, beautiful family, very pleasant speaking voice. Nothing to hate there and these decisions he is telling us about are not his decisions. He is doing what he is told to do by his bosses. I guess I probably feel the same way lots of people feel about Bush lying to us on certain issues (like Obama's promise for change which he is not keeping it), except I don't have the hatred towards Obama that most do towards Bush.

Please people stop attacking me for me asking questions. If you also read any of my posts you also read that I say over and over - "If I'm wrong I'll admit it" Unlike some of the other posters.

P.S. - Thank you JTBB for being civil to me in your posts. People can disagree and be civil about it and you have shown that so thank you. The rest just please leave me alone!
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.

The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
Okay, thanks, that's not what my link said. SM

Mine also said he failed to mention this case when being questioned.  Well, there's a thousand stories out there.  It really doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect how I think of him one way or the other.