Meet "Snopes." I am not joking. These are the 2 people who began and run the Snopes "fact-checking" website. They are Barbara and David Mikkelson of California. Again-- I repeat, this is not a joke. You are looking at "Snopes." That is their cat.
Meet "Snopes." I am not joking. These are the 2 people who began and run the Snopes "fact-checking" website. They are Barbara and David Mikkelson of California. Again-- I repeat, this is not a joke. You are looking at "Snopes." That is their cat.
So, they’re lesbians?
Hey, Snopes must be correct. I mean, Andrea Mitchelle thinks so. That’s good enough for me! And the FBI, why, they’d be all over it if it were true!
The cat is probably the one who does all the heavy lifting...
Snopes is so far left you can’t even find them.
But no, there’s no bias there at all.
/sarc
They took less than 4 minutes to defend her with a lengthy article, on a subject different from what she said. Maybe they should handle our nuclear codes. The real takeaway is she screwed up the topic. Any president will retaliate if told a strike is on its way.
I have seen a pattern in how snopes gets a false rating on stuff they don’t want people to know is true. They find a version of the true story that was botched...that got some facts wrong or added parts that weren’t real. Then instead of rating the real story they rate the botched one as false.
There was something wrong with how Hillary said it. Struck me as deliberate & forced, as if she knew she shouldn’t go there but decided to anyway.
Simple way to verify this: submit a FOIA request to STRATCOM, asking two questions: is the classification of the response time treated as anything other than than ‘UNCLASSIFIED’? If so, is the statement made by the former Secretary of State in a public forum accurate?
Good luck getting a response as favorable to Hillary from that.
biased left wing morons
Snopes is as reliable as Al Gore and his global warming message.
So according to snopes from their standpoint the classified info is already out there, so that makes it ok for Hillary to publicly confirm that info as fact during a debate.
Snopes used as evidence was a link to a hypothetical story that gave an eight minute window.
Son and mother ... or man and wife?
On Thursday’s broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr reported that Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement about the time it takes to launch nuclear weapons is “extremely classified,” and while there is a lot of information available to public on what the process is for launching nuclear weapons, “if you know information to be classified, and you’re a government official, even if it’s in the open source, even if it’s on the Internet, you are not supposed to disclose it.”
She further stated, “the bottom line is, the US military, not especially thrilled to be discussing in precise detail what it takes to launch nuclear weapons.”
Jim, I ask you to re-consider using "Snopes" as a front page source/link for Free Republic. The site may have started off as a decent urban myth buster, but now seems to be owned and operated by extreme leftists.
The wicked witch has dispatched her flying monkeys to dump piles of excrement everywhere in an attempt to obscure the “four minute” treason.
They are kinda noticeable. :-)
Snopes also denies many of the facts surrounding Hillary’s defense of a pedophile rapist even though her comments are ON TAPE.
Snopes is accurate? FALSE!
Yikes, she looks like Michael Moore.
They must get paid by whoever wants to ‘debunk’ information that is true. Must make a lot of money off the Democrats, then.
The lag time to launch might be 4 minutes but only if the missile has been “spun up” in preparation.
It takes time for the gyros aboard an ICBM to get up to speed. I don’t know the actual “spin up” time for any of the various models but I believe it is more than 15 minutes.
Well, I had lunch yesterday with a retired AF two star - he is PISSED OFF at Illary. Ten minute diatribe about her treason.