Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fact checker sites are liberally biased

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.

Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. I needed a good laugh. Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Lmao.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:22:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:18:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.

Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. I needed a good laugh. Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Lmao.

Which was fact checked as false.

And I found it particularly telling that when I say that republicans, including trump demonstrably lie through their teeth, you don't deny it, you don't say "yeah they do, and I don't like it", you idiotically pressume that I am claiming that democrats don't.

No; nothing in your response is denying how much bulls**t is being stated by republicans.

And you also it seems.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:40:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:22:23 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:18:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.

Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. I needed a good laugh. Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Lmao.

Which was fact checked as false.

And I found it particularly telling that when I say that republicans, including trump demonstrably lie through their teeth, you don't deny it, you don't say "yeah they do, and I don't like it", you idiotically pressume that I am claiming that democrats don't.

No; nothing in your response is denying how much bulls**t is being stated by republicans.

And you also it seems.

You do know snopes' main writer is a liberal die hard correct?

Nevertheless, the link I will provide you must be when Hillary was a Republican.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
When Hillary apparently was a Republican-

http://m.washingtontimes.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:48:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Mostly this, also, the selection process of which facts to spotlight is carefully shrouded.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Hillary Clinton stole furniture from the whitehouse. "White" house privelege?

WASHINGTON " President Clinton and his wife started shipping White House furniture to the Clintons' newly purchased home in New York more than a year ago, despite questions at the time by the White House chief usher about whether they were entitled to remove the items.

The day before the items were shipped out, chief usher Gary Walters said he questioned whether the Clintons should be taking the furnishings because he believed they were government property donated as part of a White House redecoration project in 1993, during Clinton's first year in office.

But Walters was told by the White House counsel's office that the items he asked about--which included an iron-and-glass coffee table, a painted TV armoire, a custom wood gaming table and a wicker table with wood top--were "personal gifts received by the Clintons prior to President Clinton assuming office."

Personal property brought to the White House by an incoming president does not have to be disclosed on financial reports. As a result of the counsel's determination, the furnishings were sent on to the Clinton's new home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

http://mobile.nytimes.com...

http://articles.latimes.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:07:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

LOL. For you Brondo, facts all have a liberal bias.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:28:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 10:07:52 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

LOL. For you Brondo, facts all have a liberal bias.

As the quote goes, reality has a liberal bias. What's really funny here is how Bronto's dogmatic hatred has led him to the obviously false conclusion that Hillary Clinton = every single liberal.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

Perhaps if American conservatives were more concerned about facts, there would be more conservative biased fact checking sites. Oh, well... you still have the Media Research Center...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:49:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

Whenever money is involved with anything, there is bound to be some level of corruption, imbalance, greed, favoring of one side over the other, etc.

I tell everyone who is serious about finding the truth about something, take the following steps in order:

1) Determine which side of the argument you currently favor
2) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you do NOT favor; do this with a completely open mind, do not mentally argue or dispute any information they present, just listen and process it as if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
3) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you DO favor; perform the exact review as you did before.
4) Sit and think about what you just learned from both sides for at least 30 minutes.
5) Using only the information provided by both sides, document the action in question start to finish, using both side's accounts, and without bias. So if there is controversy over whether or not Hillary blamed Benghazi on a Youtube video and arguments include who said what and when; then you create a timeline of events using only the information they provided.
6) Find at least three new sources, from multiple points of view, who cite facts, documents, recordings, provide first hand accounts including direct interviews, etc.; the most comprehensive and detailed accounts you can find are what you are aiming for here
7) Using the document you created earlier, add in the "facts" you learned from the sources in step 6 above. So inject the new views you just went through, directly into the timeline you already have created. Make sure each source's views are clearly delineated from one another. I like to use a horizontal timeline with each individual source having its own line directly below the previous, while also color coding each source.
8) Begin to work your way through the timeline, one step at a time. Every step that has full agreement, turn it into a single line which indicates fact. Where there is disagreement, branch the single timeline into as many lines as their are differing accounts of events. Like the Back To The Future 2 explanation of alternate realities. Here is a video if you are not familiar.

https://www.youtube.com...

9) Each point of disagreement (alternate reality) remaining should be checked for common sense logic. If something seems outlandish or unrealistic, it probably is. Research that specific event or action; ask yourself: "With the more I learn about how this one single thing actually works, does it seem like it fits in reality, or is more likely an alternate reality?"

10) As you dwindle down through all of the nonsense, it becomes easier to see who is lying the most and about what. It also becomes much easier to fit the missing and disputed pieces to the timeline correctly.

This process seems long the first few times you use it, but it is the base model of a VERY accurate, very precise, and very dependable system that becomes much more efficient to use with practice.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:24:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

Snopes is kind of trashy, tbh. Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. I've found more than a few errors there, and frequently they don't check stuff out as in depth as they should, while, at the same time, they hold themselves out to the world as the final authority on conspiracies, rumors, scandals, etc. The notion that there could be a "final authority" on matters like that, though, is pretty funny. However, I think the majority of people who go there do so only to validate their own understandings of things... not for the actual truth of the matter.

Politifact is totally biased to the left, too, but that's well established. Like, everyone knows it so Idk why it's even controversial at this point.

Politico has pretty good coverage, as does the Wall Street Journal and a few other papers out there. McClatchy does a pretty good job, but they're more info based. Roll Call is pretty good too. But really, most of the sort of "insiders" sources for information don't appeal to the masses.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com...

https://www.rollcall.com...

But really, bias towards the left and the right doesn't matter. I mean, any idiot can figure out if they're being taken for a walk.... or at least any idiot should be able to. The real bias in the media (and this is also a point of much more substantial and real controversy, such that no one talks about it, even though everyone in the industry knows its true) is their decision to cover, or not cover something at all.

For example, take the genocide in East Timor. https://www.hrw.org...

This totally was ignored by the US media because US corporations were making a lot of money off of the conflict. A lot of similar things happened in Africa in the 1990s.

Or consider the example of what happened in Nicaragua when the Sandanistas won. The amazing part of it was that the Sandinistas still got 40% of the vote, while New York Times headlines proclaimed that Americans were "United in Joy" over this "Victory for US Fair Play." Hint: the Sandanistas were pro-US business.

So those are the real instances of bias. This whole notion of the left versus the right really exists only to the extent that some in the business community haven't made up their minds about stuff.
Tsar of DDO
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:26:18 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 10:49:01 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

Whenever money is involved with anything, there is bound to be some level of corruption, imbalance, greed, favoring of one side over the other, etc.

I tell everyone who is serious about finding the truth about something, take the following steps in order:

1) Determine which side of the argument you currently favor
2) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you do NOT favor; do this with a completely open mind, do not mentally argue or dispute any information they present, just listen and process it as if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
3) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you DO favor; perform the exact review as you did before.
4) Sit and think about what you just learned from both sides for at least 30 minutes.
5) Using only the information provided by both sides, document the action in question start to finish, using both side's accounts, and without bias. So if there is controversy over whether or not Hillary blamed Benghazi on a Youtube video and arguments include who said what and when; then you create a timeline of events using only the information they provided.
6) Find at least three new sources, from multiple points of view, who cite facts, documents, recordings, provide first hand accounts including direct interviews, etc.; the most comprehensive and detailed accounts you can find are what you are aiming for here
7) Using the document you created earlier, add in the "facts" you learned from the sources in step 6 above. So inject the new views you just went through, directly into the timeline you already have created. Make sure each source's views are clearly delineated from one another. I like to use a horizontal timeline with each individual source having its own line directly below the previous, while also color coding each source.
8) Begin to work your way through the timeline, one step at a time. Every step that has full agreement, turn it into a single line which indicates fact. Where there is disagreement, branch the single timeline into as many lines as their are differing accounts of events. Like the Back To The Future 2 explanation of alternate realities. Here is a video if you are not familiar.

https://www.youtube.com...

9) Each point of disagreement (alternate reality) remaining should be checked for common sense logic. If something seems outlandish or unrealistic, it probably is. Research that specific event or action; ask yourself: "With the more I learn about how this one single thing actually works, does it seem like it fits in reality, or is more likely an alternate reality?"

10) As you dwindle down through all of the nonsense, it becomes easier to see who is lying the most and about what. It also becomes much easier to fit the missing and disputed pieces to the timeline correctly.

This process seems long the first few times you use it, but it is the base model of a VERY accurate, very precise, and very dependable system that becomes much more efficient to use with practice.

I like this, responded so I can go back to read and practice it. I question everything, even the so called fact checkers, the unbiased. I think they try, but we all have our preferences and cherry picking what to check.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:34:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:24:19 AM, YYW wrote:


But really, bias towards the left and the right doesn't matter. I mean, any idiot can figure out if they're being taken for a walk.... or at least any idiot should be able to. The real bias in the media (and this is also a point of much more substantial and real controversy, such that no one talks about it, even though everyone in the industry knows it's true) is their decision to cover, or not cover something at all.

Right, that just ties into the shady algorithms these fact checking sites use to cherry pick which facts to ignore.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:36:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:40:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:22:23 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:18:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.

Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. I needed a good laugh. Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Lmao.

Which was fact checked as false.

And I found it particularly telling that when I say that republicans, including trump demonstrably lie through their teeth, you don't deny it, you don't say "yeah they do, and I don't like it", you idiotically pressume that I am claiming that democrats don't.

No; nothing in your response is denying how much bulls**t is being stated by republicans.

And you also it seems.

You do know snopes' main writer is a liberal die hard correct?

Nevertheless, the link I will provide you must be when Hillary was a Republican.

1) You were talking about PolitiFact, now you are talking about snopes. That is a red herring
2) While I won't deny that their lead political editor is a former liberal blogger, the claim that this undermines the credibility of snoops is simply illogical. It says that her fact check on the alleged "Iranian ban" that jimmy carter didn't actually implement "looks more like an opinion column", however, the article really just points out that the claim is false because it ignores context. The second article they claim is biased, they support by saying she doesnt give evidence, however she does provide ample evidence for the claim.
And I would like to point out that this same author has pointed out several false claims by liberals, including defending trump.
http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 1:19:18 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:26:18 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/16/2016 10:49:01 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

Whenever money is involved with anything, there is bound to be some level of corruption, imbalance, greed, favoring of one side over the other, etc.

I tell everyone who is serious about finding the truth about something, take the following steps in order:

1) Determine which side of the argument you currently favor
2) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you do NOT favor; do this with a completely open mind, do not mentally argue or dispute any information they present, just listen and process it as if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
3) Review the "facts" being presented by the side you DO favor; perform the exact review as you did before.
4) Sit and think about what you just learned from both sides for at least 30 minutes.
5) Using only the information provided by both sides, document the action in question start to finish, using both side's accounts, and without bias. So if there is controversy over whether or not Hillary blamed Benghazi on a Youtube video and arguments include who said what and when; then you create a timeline of events using only the information they provided.
6) Find at least three new sources, from multiple points of view, who cite facts, documents, recordings, provide first hand accounts including direct interviews, etc.; the most comprehensive and detailed accounts you can find are what you are aiming for here
7) Using the document you created earlier, add in the "facts" you learned from the sources in step 6 above. So inject the new views you just went through, directly into the timeline you already have created. Make sure each source's views are clearly delineated from one another. I like to use a horizontal timeline with each individual source having its own line directly below the previous, while also color coding each source.
8) Begin to work your way through the timeline, one step at a time. Every step that has full agreement, turn it into a single line which indicates fact. Where there is disagreement, branch the single timeline into as many lines as their are differing accounts of events. Like the Back To The Future 2 explanation of alternate realities. Here is a video if you are not familiar.

https://www.youtube.com...

9) Each point of disagreement (alternate reality) remaining should be checked for common sense logic. If something seems outlandish or unrealistic, it probably is. Research that specific event or action; ask yourself: "With the more I learn about how this one single thing actually works, does it seem like it fits in reality, or is more likely an alternate reality?"

10) As you dwindle down through all of the nonsense, it becomes easier to see who is lying the most and about what. It also becomes much easier to fit the missing and disputed pieces to the timeline correctly.

This process seems long the first few times you use it, but it is the base model of a VERY accurate, very precise, and very dependable system that becomes much more efficient to use with practice.

I like this, responded so I can go back to read and practice it. I question everything, even the so called fact checkers, the unbiased. I think they try, but we all have our preferences and cherry picking what to check.

Glad you appreciate the method.

Biases / cherry-picking are one thing, and they can be understandable and workable, as long as they are reasonable. However, the biggest issues are two:

1) The leadership and pressure from sources of funding. Over the past couple decades we have seen media outlets from both sides of the political spectrum, but most notably the left, slowly creeping further to their extremes. Once Obama ran for president in 2007 and the left had the prospect of electing America's first black president, the media outlets on the left turned into a black male youth in Baltimore during the riots; full on anarchy, I'll do what I want cuz who's gonna stop me.

2) The cultural development of echo chambers within the employee base. When you eliminate all voices of dissenting opinion within the office, which the left's media outlets have done vigorously for the past 10-15 years, you end up with a sheltered, incubated hatchery of what I call "Yuppies" (Like the fish Guppy). Everyone agrees with everything, so they spend 30 - 70 hours a week nodding their heads in agreement, echoing the same exact ideas back and forth, in mass saying "Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup". When a person with a dumb idea, gains encouragement and backing from the crowd around them, it only makes them louder and bolder, pushing the limits further.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 4:25:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:24:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Politico has pretty good coverage, as does the Wall Street Journal and a few other papers out there. McClatchy does a pretty good job, but they're more info based. Roll Call is pretty good too. But really, most of the sort of "insiders" sources for information don't appeal to the masses.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com...

https://www.rollcall.com...

Thanks! I've been trying to find some halfway decent news sources. :)

I love the WSJ, by far my favorite news source all-around (likely because they cover a lot of economics).
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 8:25:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:40:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:22:23 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:18:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:36:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Politifact, snopes, all have liberal political agendas. Asking them for facts is like asking a murderer what really happened on that tragic, bloody night.

http://www.usnews.com...

I note that the "study" merely states that republican statements are found to be rated false at a greater than democrat statements. That doesn't surprise me, as there is a lot of flagrant lies and distortion coming from the right wing; and democrats are generally much more careful.

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Either way, the people you support lie consistently, about everything; and they can demonstrably be shown to be lying about everything; and there is no getting away from that.

Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. I needed a good laugh. Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia. Lmao.

Which was fact checked as false.

And I found it particularly telling that when I say that republicans, including trump demonstrably lie through their teeth, you don't deny it, you don't say "yeah they do, and I don't like it", you idiotically pressume that I am claiming that democrats don't.

No; nothing in your response is denying how much bulls**t is being stated by republicans.

And you also it seems.

You do know snopes' main writer is a liberal die hard correct?

Nevertheless, the link I will provide you must be when Hillary was a Republican.

And this affects that Republican politicians, specifically including trump lie hideously and repeatedly about much of what you are repeatedly claiming is true, how?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 9:48:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

There is no evidence that any of the fact checks from those sites are actually factually wrong in any of what they say; and indeed the worst accusation is that they simply don't check as many democrat statements as republican.

Mostly this, also, the selection process of which facts to spotlight is carefully shrouded.

People use the word "Bias" all the time, and it's pretty easy to accuse bias, then shut the conversation down so you don't have to address anything that is being said.

That trump repeatedly lies, distorts and has walked back on a significant number of things he said, should be massively concerning to you; not least for the fact that the reason people like you hate Hilary so much is in no small part because of perceived lying.

The thing that gets me, is that the thing that Trump lies most about, is what he believes, how he believe it and what he's going to do, and how: the very thing that is causing people to support him.

But, it seems that people who support him, don't seem to really care; all the while lambasting Hillary for lying.

The media is most assuredly biased; and they are actually biased in different ways at different times. The "liberal media" are biased because they mainly contain liberals, and it's impossible to write a story about a politician you may support in a completely unbiased way.

Most of the accusations of Bias is been because of coverage of Trump; that he somehow gets pilloried in the press, and have lies being told about him.

In reality, most of what is said in the mainstream liberal media is generally true; Trump did insult a Gold star family; he did repeatedly walk back comments, change his mind repeatedly on some of the deep seated policies that he has.

The accusations against the mainstream liberal media for lying, is broadly untrue; and the best accusation of bias you can make, is that they take his words somewhat out of context, or that they twist his words. For example, his tweet about females in the military. Unfortunately, this is only a marginal form of bias, because they are reporting what he says, and trying to tease out what he means; and in most cases from what I can see, many of his comments reported negatively are treated that way because that is what he actually says, and what a relatively reasonable person would interpret them.

Now, that's no problem, and that is why politicians tend to clarify their remarks.

For example, Trump has the ability to shut down pretty much ANY of the criticism of his words in their entirety.

For example, when he claimed Obama founded ISIS, he could have clarified his remarks on a conservative radio broadcast by saying "Of course he didn't literally found it, I mean that all of his decisions led to a systematic increase in the influence of ISIS, and because of him and his actions in Iraq, his policies allowed them to flourish."

Instead, he stood by his comments, and when asked to clarify objected to the above characterization; only to them claim "sarcasm"; which no definition seems to match, then claim not so much sarcasm. Watching his surrogates dance on this was hilarious too.

That's the problem; in this respect people like you claim "bias in the media", because many believe you understand what he meant, even though it is not what he's said, and not what he's clarified his position to mean even after several days of questioning; and the fact that the Media isn't automatically taking the best possible interpretation of his quote, or tweet even though that doesn't appear to be exactly what he said either at the time, or with clarification is somehow objectionable.

Now, similarly, you may claim that people are subjectively reporting about Hillary. Again, that doesn't make much sense either; as most of the liberal mainstream media report pretty much EVERY major evidenced report, criticism, or negative news about Clinton; including the emails, clarifications about the emails, new emails, statements about Colin Powell blasting Hillary in his private emails and in public about the Clinton team trying to pin it on him (All of these were mentioned in the NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, CNN, the BBC and RCP); indeed, for example, in multiple outlets, while there was definitely mentioning of Trump as a disgusting candidate, there were also both mentions AND headlines of how he talked about Hillary too.

Hell, even the recent health of Hillary Clinton; I can't remember now who it was; lambasted the press and Facebook for it not being trending withing about 30 minutes or so of it happening; when I saw the thread, it was trending on Facebook, and was the headline of every major news outlet I could find.

This is the problem; that poster claimed bias; and didn't apologize or walk back that claim when what he said should have been happening, happened.

In reality, there is some bias in the liberal media. Some more than others; but most go further than they need to in weird ways to try and balance it out.

This is why Trump hasn't been blasted in interviews; he would not survive 2 minutes alone with Jeremy Paxman, if he were real time fact checked, on comments.

You want Bias? If Trump said he never supported the Iraq war; and a journalist says "well you did, I think we can pull up the VT of you supporting the Iraq war". How do you think that would work.

If when asked if he he accepted David Dukes endorsement, and said "I don't know David Duke", what if the journalist had asked the follow up question "Well, you've talked about him multiple times negatively in the past", or even "how much do you need to know about a white supremacist groups before denouncing them?"

Trump, much moreso than Clinton is given a free pass in most interviews; and you've seen it pretty much every time. When he is giving a ridiculous answer to a question, if the press was really as hostile as everyone claims to him, they would have been making the problem an order of magnitude worse by getting the candidate himself to struggle with these sorts of probing follow ups.

This combined with his inability to clarify his remarks the same way a normal human being would; is what is responsible for most (but by no means all) the perceived bias in the media.

Of course, any accusations of bias can be supported by in-depth, detailed analysis. That data should be there. You should be able to point out oodles of situations where the bias is inherent. It should be trivial. And yet, there are very few significant examples, and no examples of the type of sustained, extreme bias republicans are always asserting with a single exception: fox news; but that is by no means a liberal bias.

Bro's report mainly stated that Republicans were found lying 3:1 compared to Democrats. Now, that could be that Republicans lie three times more often than democrats, or that the site is 3:1 biased against republicans. At which point you should be able to find 3 times as many clearly inaccurate statements by democrats that fit the appropriate criteria of being wrong at the time (not turned out to be wrong).

Of course, no one deems it necessary to find that; and simply systematically assert media bias, when confronted with media opinions that don't match your own.

And therein is the rub. Asserting media bias, is generally a get-out-of-jail play to dismiss the reasons why a significant proportion of people think your candidate is obscene and vile; rather than to acknowledge that there are elements of your candidate that are obscene and vile.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 9:06:56 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/16/2016 9:48:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:48:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


People use the word "Bias" all the time, and it's pretty easy to accuse bias, then shut the conversation down so you don't have to address anything that is being said.

That trump repeatedly lies, distorts and has walked back on a significant number of things he said, should be massively concerning to you; not least for the fact that the reason people like you hate Hilary so much is in no small part because of perceived lying.

The thing that gets me, is that the thing that Trump lies most about, is what he believes, how he believe it and what he's going to do, and how: the very thing that is causing people to support him.

But, it seems that people who support him, don't seem to really care; all the while lambasting Hillary for lying.


The media is most assuredly biased; and they are actually biased in different ways at different times. The "liberal media" are biased because they mainly contain liberals, and it's impossible to write a story about a politician you may support in a completely unbiased way.

Most of the accusations of Bias is been because of coverage of Trump; that he somehow gets pilloried in the press, and have lies being told about him.

In reality, most of what is said in the mainstream liberal media is generally true; Trump did insult a Gold star family; he did repeatedly walk back comments, change his mind repeatedly on some of the deep seated policies that he has.

The accusations against the mainstream liberal media for lying, is broadly untrue; and the best accusation of bias you can make, is that they take his words somewhat out of context, or that they twist his words. For example, his tweet about females in the military. Unfortunately, this is only a marginal form of bias, because they are reporting what he says, and trying to tease out what he means; and in most cases from what I can see, many of his comments reported negatively are treated that way because that is what he actually says, and what a relatively reasonable person would interpret them.

Now, that's no problem, and that is why politicians tend to clarify their remarks.

For example, Trump has the ability to shut down pretty much ANY of the criticism of his words in their entirety.

For example, when he claimed Obama founded ISIS, he could have clarified his remarks on a conservative radio broadcast by saying "Of course he didn't literally found it, I mean that all of his decisions led to a systematic increase in the influence of ISIS, and because of him and his actions in Iraq, his policies allowed them to flourish."

Instead, he stood by his comments, and when asked to clarify objected to the above characterization; only to them claim "sarcasm"; which no definition seems to match, then claim not so much sarcasm. Watching his surrogates dance on this was hilarious too.

That's the problem; in this respect people like you claim "bias in the media", because many believe you understand what he meant, even though it is not what he's said, and not what he's clarified his position to mean even after several days of questioning; and the fact that the Media isn't automatically taking the best possible interpretation of his quote, or tweet even though that doesn't appear to be exactly what he said either at the time, or with clarification is somehow objectionable.

Now, similarly, you may claim that people are subjectively reporting about Hillary. Again, that doesn't make much sense either; as most of the liberal mainstream media report pretty much EVERY major evidenced report, criticism, or negative news about Clinton; including the emails, clarifications about the emails, new emails, statements about Colin Powell blasting Hillary in his private emails and in public about the Clinton team trying to pin it on him (All of these were mentioned in the NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, CNN, the BBC and RCP); indeed, for example, in multiple outlets, while there was definitely mentioning of Trump as a disgusting candidate, there were also both mentions AND headlines of how he talked about Hillary too.

Hell, even the recent health of Hillary Clinton; I can't remember now who it was; lambasted the press and Facebook for it not being trending withing about 30 minutes or so of it happening; when I saw the thread, it was trending on Facebook, and was the headline of every major news outlet I could find.

This is the problem; that poster claimed bias; and didn't apologize or walk back that claim when what he said should have been happening, happened.


In reality, there is some bias in the liberal media. Some more than others; but most go further than they need to in weird ways to try and balance it out.

This is why Trump hasn't been blasted in interviews; he would not survive 2 minutes alone with Jeremy Paxman, if he were real time fact checked, on comments.

You want Bias? If Trump said he never supported the Iraq war; and a journalist says "well you did, I think we can pull up the VT of you supporting the Iraq war". How do you think that would work.

If when asked if he he accepted David Dukes endorsement, and said "I don't know David Duke", what if the journalist had asked the follow up question "Well, you've talked about him multiple times negatively in the past", or even "how much do you need to know about a white supremacist groups before denouncing them?"

Trump, much moreso than Clinton is given a free pass in most interviews; and you've seen it pretty much every time. When he is giving a ridiculous answer to a question, if the press was really as hostile as everyone claims to him, they would have been making the problem an order of magnitude worse by getting the candidate himself to struggle with these sorts of probing follow ups.

This combined with his inability to clarify his remarks the same way a normal human being would; is what is responsible for most (but by no means all) the perceived bias in the media.


Of course, any accusations of bias can be supported by in-depth, detailed analysis. That data should be there. You should be able to point out oodles of situations where the bias is inherent. It should be trivial. And yet, there are very few significant examples, and no examples of the type of sustained, extreme bias republicans are always asserting with a single exception: fox news; but that is by no means a liberal bias.



Bro's report mainly stated that Republicans were found lying 3:1 compared to Democrats. Now, that could be that Republicans lie three times more often than democrats, or that the site is 3:1 biased against republicans. At which point you should be able to find 3 times as many clearly inaccurate statements by democrats that fit the appropriate criteria of being wrong at the time (not turned out to be wrong).

Of course, no one deems it necessary to find that; and simply systematically assert media bias, when confronted with media opinions that don't match your own.

And therein is the rub. Asserting media bias, is generally a get-out-of-jail play to dismiss the reasons why a significant proportion of people think your candidate is obscene and vile; rather than to acknowledge that there are elements of your candidate that are obscene and vile.

Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior; whether they have tacitly lied systematically about what they will or won't do in power; whether they have abused systems to give themselves financial gain, whether they appear to be profiting personally from the political campaign. What really matters isn't actual profiting from decisions, or giving their major donors not just access but roles in setting policy; what matters isn't whether what they claim is possible is impossible, or whether their positions are regularly important. Whether they repeatedly claim that someone isn't open, or accountable, or forthcoming; and yet systematically refuses to reveal key details, or himself appear to be accountable.

Obviously, what matters most to you is a subjective interpretation, slave to personal bias rather than facts, and skewed by whatever pre-existing interpretation or narrative you have already made.

That is the problem; that is why you don't have a problem with Trump, because you ignore all the red-flag information, and boil it down to what the politician wants based on incomplete data, and subjective interpretation of the evidence.

If Hillary was being investigated by a State Attorney General, then donated to her, and had the charges been dropped; you would be lambasting her for being corrupt.

If Hillary had bought a large painting of herself with Clinton Foundation Money, you would be lambasting her for being corrupt.

If Hillary refused to release her tax returns; you would lambast her for what those tax returns contained, and for her hiding it.

If Hillary released a Doctors note, titled "To Whom it concern", and with the outrageous statements that Trumps did; you would be demanding to know what she was hiding.

If Hillary said she wouldn't have disclosed her doctors report if there was anything bad in it, you would be demanding her resignation.

If Hillary was part of lawsuits claiming that she had discriminated against black people, you would be lambasting her for being racist.

And yet, when this is pointed out; the issue is not "holy crap, we're some of the most hypocritical, disingenuous supporters there are, and we need to clean up our act and start actually acknowledging reality", you say "nah, media bias".
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:27:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.

Cool, so you're willing to admit that you're complete unwillingness to actually engage in anything of what I'm saying (and indeed for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you), indicates your motivation is to avoid opinions and conversations that disagree with you because you have no argument against them, and know you have no argument against them because you are inherently intellectually dishonest?
ThinkBig
Posts: 1,620
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:33:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
That's because facts have a liberal bias. Sorry craptor.
ThinkBig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notable Notes and Quotable Quotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I GOT SIG'D"
"WELL FVCK ME IN THE A$SHOLE AND CALL ME A CUCK I GOT SIG'D AGAIN"
-Kiri
If anyone's getting modkilled, it's kiri. Just for his sig.
-7th
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge or vote? Nominate me!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:27:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.

Cool, so you're willing to admit that you're complete unwillingness to actually engage in anything of what I'm saying (and indeed for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you), indicates your motivation is to avoid opinions and conversations that disagree with you because you have no argument against them, and know you have no argument against them because you are inherently intellectually dishonest?

I thought I did agree with you?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 10:53:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:27:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.

Cool, so you're willing to admit that you're complete unwillingness to actually engage in anything of what I'm saying (and indeed for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you), indicates your motivation is to avoid opinions and conversations that disagree with you because you have no argument against them, and know you have no argument against them because you are inherently intellectually dishonest?

I thought I did agree with you?

lol liberals tell you you're wrong even when you agree with them, now that's funny.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 11:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:53:04 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:27:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.

Cool, so you're willing to admit that you're complete unwillingness to actually engage in anything of what I'm saying (and indeed for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you), indicates your motivation is to avoid opinions and conversations that disagree with you because you have no argument against them, and know you have no argument against them because you are inherently intellectually dishonest?

I thought I did agree with you?

lol liberals tell you you're wrong even when you agree with them, now that's funny.

Indeed!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 11:02:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 10:37:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:27:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:25:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/18/2016 10:10:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/18/2016 9:28:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Every politician lies. It's what they really want that matters. For that, you have to look at who is pulling the strings, and what favors they owe to their crony donors.

Yes, what really matters isn't action, record, past behavior;

Actually, past behavior helps determine motivations.

Cool, so you're willing to admit that you're complete unwillingness to actually engage in anything of what I'm saying (and indeed for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you), indicates your motivation is to avoid opinions and conversations that disagree with you because you have no argument against them, and know you have no argument against them because you are inherently intellectually dishonest?

I thought I did agree with you?

Are you saying that it's next to impossible for most people to determine motivations in most cases, because of the implicit ingrained biases and pre-existing narrative they already have subjectively weight evidence, and come to different inferences?

Are you agreeing that this is exactly what you yourself are doing with Hillary vs Trump in most of the rest of your posts, rather than being actually based on factual evidence?

If you're agreeing on both counts, I stand corrected!