Just an FYI on a snoops.com comment somewhere in the posts

[easytax]

I tend to use snoopes.com a lot but found a piece of information I'd like to share.

Basically I'm seeing this as taking snoopes with a "grain of salt":

SNOPES EXPOSED

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama!

In our Search for the truth...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.

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

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

Every one 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.

Again, just as an FYI.

[kcjenkins]

Thanks for confirming something I had suspected. Useful for some things, but not so reliable on political questions.

[Mr. Pencil]

I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied.

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

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

I'm confused by your post. Your two links go to articles that explain the original conspiracy theory was reported by WorldNetDaily, which has since retracted its report saying, "Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court." One of your links even spells out the topic of each case, showing that none involved Obama's eligibility for office. It then explains why the names of the President and Solicitor General appear on Supreme Court dockets that do not personally involve them. These are your own links, not mine, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[easytax]

Yes the links go to the snopes comments --- when I originally saw this (few years ago) I did the basic search and believe (can't swear as memory not there) that snopes basically stated 'no dockets there between the two' --- at the time, I found there were dockets listed and fully believe the article was wrong when it stated there were no dockets --- which is not what is stated at the snopes article now. ---- Since from what I believe you said here - you've reviewed the cases, etc. -- I'll bow to your knowledge ---

Regardless, my point here is NOT about Obama and Kagan --- but about taking what snopes states (politically wise) with a "grain of salt", since they apparently have (I have NOT verified this myself) a George Soros connection ---- NOT a Koch brothers connection (just in case you were thinking the Repub's have supporters too).

People are going to believe what they want to believe --- my point is what I was guilty of (I blindly believed snopes was MY fact checker - without doing verification my self independently from them) only checking one source and believing they were impartial. I found I was wrong, and thusly shared an FYI here.

Thanks for questioning me --- you've made my point too.

[Mr. Pencil]

my point is what I was guilty of (I blindly believed snopes was MY fact checker - without doing verification my self independently from them) only checking one source and believing they were impartial

Even more confusing. If your point is to encourage independent fact-checking, why state "they apparently have... a George Soros connection," with the parenthetical that you haven't bothered to fact-check that statement? Could you at least identify the source for what seems so apparent to you?

I have not reviewed the court cases. I only read the two articles you yourself linked, to see if they actually supported what you said about them. Which they didn't. Now you say you knew all along that what you were posting was inaccurate as to facts. Some people might call that rumor-mongering. But I'm just confused.

[Richcpaman]

Easy:

Yes, I have read those links in the past, and have followed up on the "Soros" connection.

Doesn't seem to be much in that direction. And I looked even further.

But if *I* wanted to discredit something that kept proving me wrong, the first thing I would do is tie it to "Soros" and "Obama".

Since I can not win the argument on the merits, I have to win by discrediting the person, with unfounded accusations.

And Snopes has *always* posted thier sources of thier research. The *discrediting* ones only post accusations and nebulous sources.

Is Snopes perfect? No. But give me 100 posts from the Internet, and 100 from Snopes and I would go with Snopes truthfullness just about 100% of the time.

Rich

[easytax]

Mr. Pencil,

The original post --- I did believe as I DID NOT go back to check what I had originally placed in my database, from when I placed it (several years ago) and as stated "I did the basic search and believe (can't swear as memory not there) that snopes basically stated 'no dockets there between the two' --- at the time, I found there were dockets listed and fully believe the article was wrong when it stated there were no dockets ---- hence I was discrediting snopes outright - not rumor mongering -- stating what I believed FROM WHEN I originally found the article (again, several years ago) and posted it here as fact - again, what I believed - till you showed me I was incorrect (based on what snopes says today at those links).

Again, not what I remembered seeing but what is there today -- hence my comments about not relying on one source to confirm facts. As to the Soros comment, I again believe based on a myriad of "impressions" (AGAIN not individually confirmed, in life, people either think good of you or not (from impressions and gleanings of knowledge) many times that can change or be changed by better/different impressions/gleanings, etc. The Soros impression (of mine) is not all good --- not all bad either --- just mine as from my impressions, I do not think he has the best interests for the U.S. and it's people at the forefront of what he does.

As Eric stated too, snopes has a good track record and is looked at by many (including me) to separate myth for fact. I just don't use it for politics anymore. No, I haven't checked to see if SOROS has given money or support to snopes, that part was in the past and I don't really care __ but I believed that since I was incorrect on the Obama/Kagan part that I should state -- that I haven't confirmed the SOROS impression either.

When I read your reply, I went back and checked the links, etc. and found what you stated (snopes said WMD had retracted, etc.). In my reply, I stated I hadn't checked the Soros comment (verified it) as I tried to explain not just for the Soros comment, but for the posting in general that WHEN originally done (again, several years ago), it was my belief; now after your questioning and comments, it shows otherwise AND I'm agreeing.

HOWEVER the point still being that --- more than one source should be checked to assure yourself of information.

Sorry to confuse you, that is far from my intention --- as a matter of fact, that's where I "fall down" a lot --- trying to explain myself and all the different ways I think/see things/ look at information, etc. Being a two finger type-er makes it even harder as my mind can be one place but my fingers haven't caught up yet.

Eric

I pretty much agree with your comments, especially about the discrediting ways, etc. (now I'm not perfect and no party is BUT that's why I'm a registered Repub --- vote whoever is best but definitely leaning toward the conservative repub side). I like those who give sources, not just (impressions) --- again, hence my belief NOW about checking multiple sources (not like I was - even a year ago).

[Mr. Pencil]

my mind can be one place but my fingers haven't caught up yet.

That's not too bad--for some people, it's their brains that never catch up! One of the great things about how Eric has set up this forum is that it's so easy to go back and edit a post. (Hopefully someone else hasn't already quoted it.) I often edit my posts a few minutes after I write something too personal or otherwise stupid.

Snopes.com is not actually a "source." It's pretty smart, but still only commentary. I believe you that they have updated their commentary on this old birth certificate controversy.