SNOPES.COM
Is totally liberal, in fact I proved them wrong on Facebook and instead of challenging my comment which was not in any form rude or offensive just FACT based, They (Snopes) blocked my from being able to comment on their FB page,
As a business criticism is a key player to understand where your company is going wrong and CLEARLY snopes.com dont like been challenged or proved wrong so their way of dealing with it is "Lets just ban everyone who has an alternative opinion to us" A business should NEVER ban their users regardless if they have different views to you or not? OK on the rare exception that swearing or someone being offensive then its justified but NOT just because of the reasons I have put?
This shows their lack of professionalism and how immature the moderators are there at Snopes.com.
Here is the story I proved them wrong on, My best mate of 30 years works all over the world but mainly in Europe, He has visited Switzerland around 30 times in the last 15 years so knows the place like the back of his hand, He has a house there as well, but in the rural areas, And Snopes.com are saying "NO GO ZONES" Dont exist they are lies by the center and right... REALLY snopes? Even though the BBC has admitted there is...
As snopes are a far left group of liberal sarcomas, this is what you would expect from them, Film makers, journalists' TV crews have been there over the past 10 years and been attacked, spat at, threatened by the "Ahum" delights that have been allowed to live there, BUT snopes says there is no threat over there? The NO GO ZONES are places you don't go out on a night on your own and ONLY if you must do, They are also places females DO NOT GO out on a night with or without someone else with them. Even the police go out in numbers and in the hardcore places they dont go at all, One police man on a documentary I watched even said before we allowed them here we had 2 or 3 crimes a year in his province, now its every other day.
This is purely down to immigration and nothing else.
Here is snopes "Effort" to fool people, Note how they safely quote their statements from the police, These police wont exists or names have been changed and I bet no one else has heard of them!
I have a documentary that was filmed and aired on TV in 2017 that unedited shows these NO GO ZONES, You wouldn't want to be there... The most shocking thing for me isnt that snopes is so biased and radically liberal over this, or the fact snopes ignores the horrors coming from the country or even trying to fool people? The thing that shocks me the most is that there is STILL liberal Swish people who think the country DOESN'T have an issue... HELLO SWITZERLAND? ANYONE THERE!
Read other users reviews on here, its all there.
The Link to Snopes BS https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/
Biased , Biased, Biased, Biased, oh did I mention it's biased!
Soros sponsored
Snopes spends all of its time attacking any narrative or theory that is anti-establishment. Whatever the mainstream media anoints as "truthful" or "not truthful" then they go with that. The Establishment has the final word on pretty much anything in politics and government/corporate activity. Today, one trend we see in the MSM is that Russia and Putin are villains. It doesn't matter what any other non-western news organization says, if the NYT led amen corner of the media repeats all State Department chatter that Russia is a villain, then that's what is true. Snopes will concede to this narrative, and any narrative that supports the government's claims. They ignore inconvenient truths about stories that work against the Democratic and liberal narrative. Go look at the fact that Al Gore bought a mansion at Montecito, CA beach. You will NOT find a Snopes posting for that. It's too damaging and so they wont' touch it or bring more attention to it. They are biased. They prefer to go after Dem vs GOP clickbait stories. They chase every GOP or right wing email circulating about Dems or liberal positions. They even tread carefully when covering the Sanders campaign re the "chair throwing" claims by pro-Hillary sources. They want to leave the door open. But with Hillary Clinton's email issues and Director Comey's conclusion that she didn't do anything wrong is posted by Snopes as the last word in the matter (Establishment). Yet, a little bit of searching will find that many others have gone to prison and been fined for much less. In closing, it is my personal opinion that Snopes are a voluntary or paid agency that Obama appointed Information Czar Cass Sunstein advocated on page 14 of his white paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" where he called for agents to engage in counterspeech against people ----
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
Counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
Parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
Effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
Of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
That's why I don't use Snopes and discourage anyone from using them.
Snopes does not come close to deserving the popularity it has accrued over the years, many have come to regard the site as virtually infallible which it definitely is not.
Snopes at one time was considered the final wordauthority of hard to determine claims made in articles and or broadcasted on television and or the radio.
Snopes once grew to be a reliable source to millions of Americans, including national leaders, who once relied on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction.
Cited by many, Snopes was once considered the final word on both frivolous and important stories, however Snopes was not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect but rather, was the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a trailer park in a Los Angeles suburb.
The Mikkelsons were excellent investigators. They deserve the respect the garnered in the past, however Snopes present day has become a blog with click-bait articles that frankly are done by some very unethical and incompetent writers.
One of our writers at Get Off The Bs has been the recent target of two of Snopes so-called investigative journalists. In Brian Michaels article entitled Deceased FBI Agent Found At Trump Tower With Silenced Pistol, Kim LaCapria writing for Snopes, wrote in her article entitled Whack the Dog, that our article was proven false by Snopes, however she sdid not provide one single source to back up her allegations.
When our Brenda Corpian challenged her about not providing any sources supporting her allegations, other than her own rantings, she Tweeted that she could basically write whatever the he** she wants to, regardless if it is accurate or not. LaCapria followed up her Tweet by blocking Brenda on Facebook and Twitter.
Not surprisingly, LaCapria proudly signs her hit piece articles with a picture of herself sipping from a coffee cup with writing on it that suggests she enjoys swallowing mens semen. I cant imagine how the MiKellsons are proud of that.
In another article by Brian entitled Anonymous Leaks Clinton Payoff To Khan, David Emery writing for Snopes wrote in his article entitled Rank Statement, claimed that Brians article was Unproven based on Emery debunking a sample document listed in the article as altered.
I give Emery credit where credit is due. The document Brian posted in the article, a copy of a bank statement linking Khan to a $375,000 payment by the Clinton foundation is absolutely altered. For those of you who just gasped, please read on.
Why I am screaming FOUL is because if Emery had bothered to read the article he would of found three disclaimers clearly stated in Brians article, including the following:
We apologize to anyone ignorant enough to believe that anyone within their right mind would post anything closely resembling an original bank statement hacked from a prominent lawyers law firm server. That said, if we did not know for a fact by seeing and verifying the original document, you would not be reading about it on this blog. If you choose not believe it, we understand.
For those of you who have read our About Us and FAQs pages, my husband and I freely admit that we are not professional journalists, however as inexperienced as I am in investigative journalism, before I wrote the crap Emery wrote in his article, I would of definitely read the article I was bashing first. The first red flag I would have wanted to clearly understand is why a blog with an impeccable reputation for telling the truth, that has no financial motivation to publish a falsehood, i. E, there is no paid advertising on Get Off The Bs, would post an original hacked [stolen] document ripped off by a hacker from a prominent law firms computer server.
We may give our readers and or the writers at Snopes too much credit, but even without the three notices in the article notifying our readers that the bank statement had been severely altered, we would expect any intelligent person, especially an investigative journalist for Snopes, to realize that there is no way in Hades we nor anyone else with a lick of sense, would put ourselves in the kind of trouble that would surely arise from posting the hacked original bank statement from anybodys server, let alone a law firm.
We are not the only one who has had problems with Snopes new breed of investigative journalists. In performing a Google search using the keywords, complaints about Snopes, Google search returned 171,000 results, including some very nasty complaints made to Ripoff Report and Site Jabber.
In fact Site Jabber, one of the top web site ranking sites on the internet, rates Snopes at 3.2 stars out of possible maximum rating of 5 stars. Considering the previous reputation of Snopes, that is quite a fall from grace.
In doing a search on Facebook, I found that in January of 2012 someone on Facebook created a page entitled Snopes Lies. The about section of the heavily trafficked page states that the publishers purpose is, This site is to help expose the misinformation snopes.com feeds the American public.
Ron of Springfield Illinois wrote in his complaint to Ripoff Report that perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn't a doctored photo.
Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble's logo is really satanic. Snopes.com is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don't count on them being fair and balanced when it comes to anything political or religious.
Although I would of agreed 10 years ago with Rons statement about Snopes, I do not agree with him today because with the merry band of investigative idiots my staff and I have been exposed to from Snopes this week, I am not sure they could debunk the rumor that Elvis Presley is alive and well, living on Mars.
This is Brenda Corpian reporting for Get Off the Bs with one final message to Snopes. When the general election is over maybe you can hire Lyin Crooked Hillary Clinton to write for your blog. There is no doubt she will fit right in with Kim LaCapria and David Emery.
Is Publisher's Clearing House real?
Excellent source for debunking rumors and accusations that ciculate throughout the web.
Great info for debunking myths.