So you found a couple of cherry-picked cases where it can be argued that snopes wasn't perfect. That's not proof that snopes is liberally biased. That's proof that imperfect humans work for snopes.
The denial runs strong in you.
If someone were so inclined they could find examples where Snopes erred in the other direction.
Please, cite three such examples where Snopes had an obvious conservative bias.
For example their reporting on the Clinton uranium non-scandal. For months their article left out the key fact that the russian company never even had an export license. It wasn't until the April 5th update that the author finally added that major part to the story.
So, the one example you cite exonerates Clinton from a charge of corruption and 'pay to play'. And their error is not mentioning an export restriction.
Regardless, the handful of supposedly biased articles doesn't even come close to the absolute mountain of examples where they were 'perfect.'
You come so close in your wisdom, to veer into the mountainside at the last moment.
The entire argument of "Snopes has a liberal bias in its political articles" is that they are very trustworthy in their non-political articles. They don't shade the truth, and they don't just take someone's explanation at face value. But even in the one example you give, there is an obvious decision to accept Hillary's explanation of the Clinton Foundation's donations, and spin all assumed facts into an exoneration of her personally.
From your example:
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
This completely ignores two crucial points. First, "all the evidence" is Hillary's comments that she didn't do it, and her underling's comments that she didn't do it.
Second, it dismisses a donation of over $100,000,000, because of "timing", as if people running governments and businesses never plan more than one month ahead. No one in Russia said, "Hmmm, maybe we should bribe the next US President with a hundred million dollars so we can buy their uranium." After all, in 2007, no one knew Hillary Clinton was going to be Secretary of State in 2009.
Although it can't be proven that the donors did indeed pay Clinton to ensure the deal was approved, that claim cannot possibly be proven false as that article does. That is why there are claims from right-leaning voices that say that Snopes' political articles are left-leaning.
Sources claiming Snopes is liberal are all right leaning.
You spend all day thinking up something that obvious? (Checks timestamps) No, just two hours.
Of course the liberal sites that agree with Snopes' liberal political leanings are not going to say Snopes is liberal-biased. The liberal sites will claim Snopes is non-partisan, therefor they can be trusted when they don't find any lies or deceit in Hillary's comments.
When you want to prove a point with a bomb strike, not a body count, you give warning that you are doing it. This lets the 'enemy' move their troops out, and prevents the news coverage from focusing on all those "poor innocent soldiers" lying dead in the target zone.
The fact that you can't even conceive there is a reason to warn the enemy this way shows how much you understand of the real world.
Now go back to class so you can get more idiotic arguments shoved into your brain.
Women can fix this by changing their selection criteria en masse. As long as women only choose those men who can support themselves and others while men choose women with youth and beauty, the future will be still be filled with men who have to compete and women who don't.
Women are working on that now. Have you seen some of the wimpy dolts that couldn't survive on their own for a month, but as long as they speak the correct drivel they have dumb college girls clinging to them?
The balancing force of that species suicide is that when the useless dolts manage to impregnate them, the girls get abortions because they realize that the dolts can't support themselves, much less a new child.
People thinking like you are who got Trump elected in the first place, when it was shown many times the media were in collusion with Hillary Clinton's campaign..
Agreed. Once I have the health condittion of "out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff", you have my permission to kill me, as a cancer on society.
Now that we have that out of the way, can I count on you to help eliminate the rest of the cancers? Or will you waffle on your decision?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that if you ate a similar diet and added steamed rice ( reducing proportionately fats and protein), you'd get similar results.
Maybe not. Have you seen a Hawaiian person lately? They eat rice with everything.
My neighbor used to shoot the milk from the teat right into his cat's mouth. His cats were very happy creatures.
At first cat urine tastes awful, but then you get used to it. Then the old plain water now tastes yucky.
So, you're saying to starve them at home too?
If you would rather your kids only have the meals shown in those two photos, instead of anything else schools had a decade ago, you are a moron.
Those two pictures, taken by the students themselves I'm sure, border on child abuse and neglect.
But it was super healthy garbage. That's what counts.
What? You didn't read about the Hippo Butt Leeches?
So you found a couple of cherry-picked cases where it can be argued that snopes wasn't perfect.
That's not proof that snopes is liberally biased. That's proof that imperfect humans work for snopes.
The denial runs strong in you.
If someone were so inclined they could find examples where Snopes erred in the other direction.
Please, cite three such examples where Snopes had an obvious conservative bias.
For example their reporting on the Clinton uranium non-scandal.
For months their article left out the key fact that the russian company never even had an export license. It wasn't until the April 5th update that the author finally added that major part to the story.
So, the one example you cite exonerates Clinton from a charge of corruption and 'pay to play'. And their error is not mentioning an export restriction.
Regardless, the handful of supposedly biased articles doesn't even come close to the absolute mountain of examples where they were 'perfect.'
You come so close in your wisdom, to veer into the mountainside at the last moment.
The entire argument of "Snopes has a liberal bias in its political articles" is that they are very trustworthy in their non-political articles. They don't shade the truth, and they don't just take someone's explanation at face value. But even in the one example you give, there is an obvious decision to accept Hillary's explanation of the Clinton Foundation's donations, and spin all assumed facts into an exoneration of her personally.
From your example:
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
This completely ignores two crucial points. First, "all the evidence" is Hillary's comments that she didn't do it, and her underling's comments that she didn't do it.
Second, it dismisses a donation of over $100,000,000, because of "timing", as if people running governments and businesses never plan more than one month ahead. No one in Russia said, "Hmmm, maybe we should bribe the next US President with a hundred million dollars so we can buy their uranium." After all, in 2007, no one knew Hillary Clinton was going to be Secretary of State in 2009.
Although it can't be proven that the donors did indeed pay Clinton to ensure the deal was approved, that claim cannot possibly be proven false as that article does. That is why there are claims from right-leaning voices that say that Snopes' political articles are left-leaning.
Sources claiming Snopes is liberal are all right leaning.
You spend all day thinking up something that obvious? (Checks timestamps) No, just two hours.
Of course the liberal sites that agree with Snopes' liberal political leanings are not going to say Snopes is liberal-biased. The liberal sites will claim Snopes is non-partisan, therefor they can be trusted when they don't find any lies or deceit in Hillary's comments.
Not hard to find out about Snopes political bias:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/...
Go google more yourself.
No, it was you, opening the door and inviting the thief into your home to stay the night.
Every argument you make is spot on. Thank you for the reply.
When you want to prove a point with a bomb strike, not a body count, you give warning that you are doing it. This lets the 'enemy' move their troops out, and prevents the news coverage from focusing on all those "poor innocent soldiers" lying dead in the target zone.
The fact that you can't even conceive there is a reason to warn the enemy this way shows how much you understand of the real world.
Now go back to class so you can get more idiotic arguments shoved into your brain.
But Gorean beliefs are clearly incompatible with those of the Drupal foundation.
Wasn't it just a sex thing? I'm generally not in favour of giving people a pass for political things, ....
You don't allow people to think differently than you do? That's a shock.
It seems that "effectively managing the relationship" included firing the guy. Postponing it until the "final straw" doesn't make it unjustified.
Now that you've been given a cite, what's [his] response?
As usual, crickets chirping.
That's why I bought my own. I'm not sharing with unknown strangers anymore. Those days are long gone.
That's what I did. Went to Best Buy for a router, not the fa$te$t router available, but close.
My bandwidth is my own. Comcast can go suck eggs.
I think being amused by their creation dates is pedantic.
What the author was trying to convey is that COBOL is a dead language,
It seems that billions of dollars would disagree.
Those so called warm periods were localised. They didn't encompass the entire planet.
Can you point to the studies that prove that?
Women can fix this by changing their selection criteria en masse. As long as women only choose those men who can support themselves and others while men choose women with youth and beauty, the future will be still be filled with men who have to compete and women who don't.
Women are working on that now. Have you seen some of the wimpy dolts that couldn't survive on their own for a month, but as long as they speak the correct drivel they have dumb college girls clinging to them?
The balancing force of that species suicide is that when the useless dolts manage to impregnate them, the girls get abortions because they realize that the dolts can't support themselves, much less a new child.
>
It has to be the *right* woman, not just the only one running.
Please read my sig.
"...I no longer trust the news I am reading..."
People thinking like you are who got Trump elected in the first place, when it was shown many times the media were in collusion with Hillary Clinton's campaign..
http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...
So by your logic here, new cars should cost less than less-equipped models from four decades ago.
Agreed. Once I have the health condittion of "out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff", you have my permission to kill me, as a cancer on society.
Now that we have that out of the way, can I count on you to help eliminate the rest of the cancers? Or will you waffle on your decision?