Return to Index  

Hi Jackie...You mentioned that you "believe" this. Why is that?

November 19 2011 at 12:51 AM
No score for this post

Rainbow  (Login janeway1111)

Response to Funny ole game, hop, this left and right business!

If you searched for the truth, you wouldn't believe that nonsense. Snopes is owned and run by Canadians. They can't vote in the U.S. and don't have any interest in U.S. political leaders..........

From another site that is dedicated to bringing the truth to people (UrbanLegends-About):

An email alleges that the urban legend debunking site is 'owned by a flaming liberal' (Soros) who is 'in the tank for Obama' and can't be trusted to provide reliable information.

Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Oct. 2008
Status: False

Analysis: It apparently never occurred to this anonymous emailer to cite even one actual instance of promulgating "half-truths" or "lies" under the guise of providing reliable information. So much for credibility (the email's, I mean).

It's doubly ironic that such a scurrilous attack should be mounted against the oldest and most respected fact-checking site on the Internet at the denouement of an election year (2008) marked from beginning to end by unrestrained smear-mongering, much of which it fell to to debunk.

Let's examine the specific accusations.

CLAIM: is 'owned by a flaming liberal' with a partisan bias.

First off, it's clear that whoever wrote this piece made it up as they went along. Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing knows that the website is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of southern California. This is stated on the website and has been common knowledge for quite some time.

Second, the charge of partisanship is laid without evidence. At no time have the Mikkelsons publicly stated a political preference or affiliation, or expressed support for any particular party or candidate.

Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. In a statement to, David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican, documents provided to show, and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate" (source:

Anyone who claims proof to the contrary needs to come out with it.

NOTE ON GEORGE SOROS: A later variant of this rumor alleges, without evidence, that is financed by liberal philanthropist and hedge fund tycoon George Soros. This is false. The website is entirely self-supporting through advertising sales.

CLAIM: is 'in the tank' for Obama and 'tells lies' about McCain and Palin.

You'd think it would be easy for someone so blithely asserting that the owners of are "flaming liberals" to offer evidence that they're "in the tank" for Obama and "covering up" for him. None is provided.

As of this writing dozens of forwarded texts pertaining to Barack Obama and his running mate have been analyzed on, each meticulously researched with copious references cited. I have perused them all, not to mention the twenty-odd texts concerning Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, and find no discernible pattern of bias or deception, nor any evidence of advocacy for or against. To the contrary, I see a consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses of texts which more often than not are themselves dripping with political bias.

That's my assessment, as someone who has investigated the bulk of these rumors himself and can boast a better-than-average familiarity with the subject matter. I invite you to make your own.

CLAIM: is a more reliable source than Snopes.

First off, has condemned this anonymous attack against and, in fact, lauds the site as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.

What's ironic about claims to the contrary is that when you compare the contents of the two sites their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way. Shouldn't we therefore conclude that is biased too?

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

Find more forums on Religion and PhilosophyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2015 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement