[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I used to, until I detected a leftist slant to their site, something serious debunkers avoid. Serious debunkers let the chips fall where they may and don't jump the gun until all facts are in. Plus they don't reconstruct a debunking to make it fit an agenda.

This is the best example;

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/navyflag.htm

This is the third incarnation of this debunking. I used to check their site every day. When this first appeared, not only did they mention the flag, but also that Clinton had no trip to Vientnam scheduled. That was the other half of the story. They were also pretty vocal about debunking the trip part of the story. A week later the Clinton administration admited that a trip to Vietnam was indeed in the works. Snopes just chopped that part off of this whole issue.

Geoff Metcalf at World Net Daily still stands behind the story, even after Snopes "debunked" it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21167

He cited active military sources who wanted to remain unknown, for obvious reasons. This would classify it as "can't be verified at this time" to serious debunkers. Snopes had it up as "False" from day one.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Sorry, first line last post should read "I used to visit Snopes every day..."

I forgot to add that they also had Geoff Metcalf listed as the "single source" but dropped him out of their piece for unknown reasons.

I rarely go to Snopes anymore. Just off the top of my head, there are also a couple of things at Snopes I know are flat out wrong but they don't care.