SenatorRock 708 Posted June 24, 2018 Latest propaganda being spread by the MSM: "Trump paid $400 million to group that is running the concentration camps" Snopes even has a "fact check" up already: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-trump-administration-southwest-key-458-million/ And racist Samuel Jackson is already tweeting about it: https://twitter.com/SamuelLJackson/status/1009626527477071872 (interestingly, he walks back his tweets a few hours later, after being told to stfu because the HMIC is "one of us") Nowhere in any of the MSM articles, or the Snopes article, does it mention this company running the concentration camps has been on the fed gov payroll for a decade +. In fact, under the last president ("Put brown chirrens in cages" Obama) the company was paid a billion dollars. https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/RecipDetail?arg_RecipId=06BHspu4p3T4AaCcnSxzaA%3D%3D Nor do the MSM or Snopes mention that the budget is set by Congress. No matter what side of the spectrum you are on (and for some of you I do mean the autism spectrum), I think we can all agree that if a company run by Hispanics is receiving billions of dollars to house illegal children then there is something suspicious going on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted June 24, 2018 Is the chirrens thing supposed to be clever? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,567 Posted June 24, 2018 Their "ruling" is supposed to be related to the title of the "hoax". The title of this particular "hoax" was "poor brown kid was put in cage by ICE after being separated from his family". No reasonable person would call that a "miscaption". It is a flat out lie, or in Snopes terminology "false". (not sure if Voltaire is a retard like wiff and sho or if he is just uninformed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say uninformed. This is what happens when people are too lazy to dig into something themselves and just take everything at face value) This is Snopes' problem. You can't quote them to conservatives because they do stuff like this. Anyway, how can I be uninformed when they did their homework for us and they didn't sugarcoat the story? They tell about the kid and how he's not actually separated from his family he's a child on display as part of a protest in front of the Texas state house. They mislabeled 'miscaption'. It speaks to their liberal bias, not their integrity. The photo's a real tear-jerker and made the rounds online a few dozen times presented as a kid in detention, not a protester's child put on display in fake detention. So, yes, I think they screwed up in labeling it as "miscaption". I drew my own conclusion based on their (good) research. I doubt that 1% of the people that saw this image will ever learn it's not real. But this is what gets me.... there's supposed to be 2500 real kids out there with real separation stories, why the fock doesn't the MSM go photo one of them? It shouldn't be hard, then their credibility problem goes away. The Time magazine girl wasn't separated from her mother, this kid wasn't either, then the other photos they use are from the Obama administration. All this flood of fake photos they're putting out is easily corrected.... go find a real kid. Jeebus. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,567 Posted June 24, 2018 Is the chirrens thing supposed to be clever? I look at it like it's supposed to be a Mexican accent, but cannot verify. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,714 Posted June 24, 2018 Yeah, there is no doubt it is a propaganda arm of the DNC. It's really not even debatable. It's so far biased that anyone that uses it as a source should themselves be suspect of lying. Spot on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 917 Posted June 24, 2018 I look at it like it's supposed to be a Mexican accent, but cannot verify. Hes referencing how some black people annunciate children chillren. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thornton Melon 544 Posted June 24, 2018 Ive only looked at Snopes a few times, and I never knew/thought about any political bias on their site. I just think anyone who thinks one website is 100 percent accurate about everything is an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 1,289 Posted June 24, 2018 Another pointless thread. Without reading a single reply I can already tell you the 'answer' to the topic: Lefties: Snopes is a reliable, impartial site Righties: Snopes is a left-wing propaganda site Don't forget about endless name calling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites