Yeah, this is all bullshit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8189231.stm
or here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

Do we even need to sift crap like this?

In this part of the world stating "self defence" as a reason for wanting a firearm will disqualify you.

I would certainly consider suicide by firearm as "gun violence", and I would also say that good firearm regulations should make it hard for suicidal people to easily and quickly get their hands on a weapon.

The 1996 Australian gun buyback, which halved the number of gun-owning households here, is credited with a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates (source, via snopes). Although this was an unanticipated benefit of the buyback, I think most of us consider it a good outcome.

Snopes on the story http://www.snopes.com/oklahoma-police-erad-civil-forfeitures/

I was just reading about this on snopes today.
http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/

Here was google's response:

Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.

Something about the walk looks too uniform. I think it's CGI.

But snopes says it's real . http://www.snopes.com/giant-alligator-florida-golf/

Take a look at www.snopes.com/glurge/lastsupper.asp

http://www.snopes.com/snowboarder-girl-chased-by-bear/

We all have our biases.

Conservatives are likely to believe conspiracy nonsense that appeals to their biases (Obama is a muslim/kenyan/communist, etc).

And progressives are just as likely to believe conspiracy nonsense that appeals to their biases (see: anything to do with monsanto).

The trick is acknowledging your biases and fact checking anyway.

I wasn't kidding about automating that. If someone could write a browser plug-in that detected when you were submitting a URL to twitter or facebook and ran it against a snopes-style DB, that would be a boon for humanity.

Sorry, but "believing shit you see on the internet" is not a phenomenon unique to conservatives.

Just limited to Trump and based on my own social media group:
No, Trump's cousin's obituary did not ask people not to vote for him.
No, Trump didn't say republicans are the "dumbest group of voters."
And no, Cruz and Rubio didn't tweet that they would support Hillary over Trump.

And that's just related to Trump and just in the last week.

Don't even get me started on naturopaths/anti-vaxxer morons (although I will categorically state that doctors are not being murdered because they found "cancer enzymes" in vaccines)

The world would be a better place if everyone stopped to take 5 seconds to google whatever nonsense they're about to share. In fact, I think there should a feature on facebook/twitter that does this automatically.

As much as I'd love to see Bernie win the race, this is something snopes had a good go at: http://www.snopes.com/goldwater-girl/

I've done some pretty stupid things in my time - particularly in my youth - and I like to think I've learned from them.

OK, some of them.

Snopes on the subject http://www.snopes.com/goldwater-girl/

Also, somebody better tell her about the threat posed by Dihydrogen Monoxide!

I'm amazed snopes is still saying undetermined. These look absolutely nothing like ants. They don't move like ants, they don't look like ants. It's CG, that's all. It would be easy to replicate this if it was true.

Electromagnetic field, which they use to navigate normally, I'm guessing? I'll go read the snopes article.

From Snopes regarding the video