Snopes update #368...

[Bigmack]

"Political rumors continue to swell around the two major-party presidential contenders, Barack Obama and John McCain."

When you click on the rumors for McCain, you get 3... all of them positive. Glurges, in fact.

When you click on the rumors for Obama, you get 19... all of them wildly negative.

Two possibilities: Dems and the Left just aren't trying hard enough to make shit up about McCain....or..... Repubs and the Right are total lying motherfuckers.

Could it be both?

Obama needs all the money he can get. I want him to blow those fuckers out of the water entirely.

[Gman]

1. We're obviously not trying hard enough

We need to get very creative.

[Bigmack]

4. Actually, the ReichWing is doing...

our work for us at http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/ but the shit there is getting none of the attention that the same guys got when they smeared Kerry.

[arcadian]

2. Snopes always swings to the right.

n't

[JackRiddler]

7. Amazing, isn't it?

All you have to do is call yourself the League of Skeptics or the Neutral Hoax Assessors or some such, and people will actually make you into their authority. A big irony in there.

Snopes should stick to alligators on the subway and the man with the hook-hand. Their politics are obviously on the right, or rather, appropriately enough: that part of the right that considers itself "centrist." I loved it when they went rabid attacking Michael Moore for reporting (correctly) on the Bin Ladin/Saudi family flights authorized after 9/11, and then had to retract and apologize. Although, kudos to them, you don't see the same integrity in the full-time 9/11 bedunkers.

A typical Snopes game goes like this: Jingo e-mail circulates. They ask, did General Butkus really make a speech about feeding the Afghani children? They'll confirm it: Indeed, he did! This is just a way to re-circulate jingo e-mail.

[Berry Cool]

8. I have never found Snopes to lean one way or the other politically.

They have always been across-the-board fair, because if they were not, their credibility would be worth shit.

If there are more debunked crap rumors about Obama on their site than about McCain, all it proves is that there are fewer crap debunked rumors about McCain.

[arcadian]

11. It's like JackRiddler posted above

Snopes news item: Was wounded American soldier in Iraq wearing a 4 leaf clover?

First off, who gives a shit. Second, is it that unusual for people in combat to be superstitious? Answer: no. Third, it's a way for the right to distribute "feel-good" stories from an extremely unpopular war. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.

[baldguy]

3. All the negative shit about McCain is obviously true.

No Snopes needed to debunk him calling Cindy a "c*nt", or that he's been on every side of every major issue, or that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground in regards to the economy, or that his military experience is a record of incompetance.

[Bigmack]

5. Exactly...

Why isn't that stuff flying around the country at nano-speed? Why isn't it in snopes?

[lpbk2713]

6. Well, it's no earth shaking revelation that rethugs are total lying mofos.

Lies and distortions are just business as usual for them when it comes to smearing the opposition.

[LiberalEsto]

9. Psst.

I hear McCain wets his bed.

[CBGLuthier]

10. Bombard them with requests

Allegedly they investigate those rumours that are reported.

If everyone would ask them to debunk this awful rumour about what he called his wife or his use and defense of racist language they should respond.

Otherwise they are just the RW shills that many, myself included, have suspected for years.

[donco6]

12. When you have no moral compass . . .

. . . there's no problem in making up lies about the opposition. Which eventually show up debunked on Snopes.

[uppityperson]

13. I noticed that last wk also. Same for McCain's/Obama's websites.

Nice to see you found it also. k&r.