Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?
Links are hard.
If you are HondoFS.
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.
That you didn’t look at.
I told you how to find more.
That you didn't do.
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
Not a good combo.
HondoFS
Keep hitting reply and putting your fucktardedness on display.
So you can't show how politifact statistically attacks one side now than the other. Got it! Nice work man. Say a bunch of shit but can't back it up.
I did.
800+ unique and distinct descriptions of Politifact's bias.
Of which they admit is limited by their time/resources as there are many more.
Including how Politifact literally labels the same statements differently based on if a Democrat or a Republican said them.
You won't read it.
Much less anything else I link
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
And not interested nor capable of looking at something in a different way.
Not a good combination...in fact a pretty shitty way to have to go through life.
HondoFS.
Feel free to keep hitting reply and putting your mental limitations on display.
And I did pull up your link and like I said, it was just blog of shit.
Proving that Hondo didn't even bother to read it yet still immediately labeled it as a "blog of shit" based on nothing but his worthless fucking opinion.
Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?
Links are hard.
If you are HondoFS.
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.
That you didn’t look at.
I told you how to find more.
That you didn't do.
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
Not a good combo.
HondoFS
Keep hitting reply and putting your fucktardedness on display.
So you can't show how politifact statistically attacks one side now than the other. Got it! Nice work man. Say a bunch of shit but can't back it up.
I did.
800+ unique and distinct descriptions of Politifact's bias.
Of which they admit is limited by their time/resources as there are many more.
Including how Politifact literally labels the same statements differently based on if a Democrat or a Republican said them.
You won't read it.
Much less anything else I link
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
And not interested nor capable of looking at something in a different way.
Not a good combination...in fact a pretty shitty way to have to go through life.
HondoFS.
Feel free to keep hitting reply and putting your mental limitations on display.
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.
And I did pull up your link and like I said, it was just blog of shit.
Yes, everything that doesn't agree with a speed-limit IQ burger flipper/Soros paid troll is a "blog of shit". According to your own rules, you said this but "failed to support it". Have an actual argument, or you just making shit up as always? That's what I thought.
Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?
Links are hard.
If you are HondoFS.
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.
That you didn’t look at.
I told you how to find more.
That you didn't do.
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
Not a good combo.
HondoFS
Keep hitting reply and putting your fucktardedness on display.
So you can't show how politifact statistically attacks one side now than the other. Got it! Nice work man. Say a bunch of shit but can't back it up.
I did.
800+ unique and distinct descriptions of Politifact's bias.
Of which they admit is limited by their time/resources as there are many more.
Including how Politifact literally labels the same statements differently based on if a Democrat or a Republican said them.
You won't read it.
Much less anything else I link
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
And not interested nor capable of looking at something in a different way.
Not a good combination...in fact a pretty shitty way to have to go through life.
HondoFS.
Feel free to keep hitting reply and putting your mental limitations on display.
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.
And I did pull up your link and like I said, it was just blog of shit.
Yes, everything that doesn't agree with a speed-limit IQ burger flipper/Soros paid troll is a "blog of shit". According to your own rules, you said this but "failed to support it". Have an actual argument, or you just making shit up as always? That's what I thought.
You lied about saying these morons impact what people see in social media. They do.
You ignore any information that disagrees with your preconceived notion.
You ignore examples that show different standards Politifact applies to people depending on their political affiliation.
You won't read any link poasted.
You make general statements without backing anything up.
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
And not interested nor capable of looking at something in a different way.
Not a good combination...in fact a pretty shitty way to have to go through life.
HondoFS.
Feel free to keep hitting reply and putting your mental limitations on display.
GFY Speed limit IQ.
So you say they have different conclusions on the same words then link to pages where they have the exact same conclusion on the 1913 tax. They realized the error when it was pointed out, fixed the error, AND left the trail on their on the web page. Got any other examples where they actually came to a different conclusion as you assert?
On the Facebook thing. Your first comment was they used fact checkers to delete posts. Then your support link says they used them to slow the spread of fake news. Completely different statements.
I read most of your links and mostly laugh at them. They are arguing semantics like the apology tour. And what constitutes charitable work by Hillary's foundation. What I didn't find was any examples where they were actually wrong. They were just showing the same bias you are whining about. At least politifact has recognized errors and corrected them when pointed out.
I do chuckle at you saying I'm biased given your track record of bias. Idiot.
They changed it 15 MONTHS later after it became an example in numerous articles of how biased (and stupid) they are. They are as bright as you if that constitutes "realized the error when it was pointed out".
Yeah...you "read". Otherwise known as ignored. And in your stupid comment you are proving the overall point...they aren't "fact-checking" anything...labeling something (as they have numerous times detailed in many of those links) as "technically true" but still "mostly false" is not fact-checking. Its opinion-writing.
I, you, Politifact, and everyone is biased...its (Hondo)FS to pretend otherwise. You are just FS to go with it, which is a really bad combination for somebody to have to go through life with. Which is why you run behind morons like these guys because you are too dumb to support your own opinions.
And nice straw-man comparison...I never said "delete". I said "censor". Go look at the definition. It means to suppress. Which is what Facebook does to stories flagged by the morons at Politifact.
They changed it 15 MONTHS later after it became an example in numerous articles of how biased (and stupid) they are. They are as bright as you if that constitutes "realized the error when it was pointed out".
Yeah...you "read". Otherwise known as ignored. And in your stupid comment you are proving the overall point...they aren't "fact-checking" anything...labeling something (as they have numerous times detailed in many of those links) as "technically true" but still "mostly false" is not fact-checking. Its opinion-writing.
I, you, Politifact, and everyone is biased...its (Hondo)FS to pretend otherwise. You are just FS to go with it, which is a really bad combination for somebody to have to go through life with. Which is why you run behind morons like these guys because you are too dumb to support your own opinions.
And nice straw-man comparison...I never said "delete". I said "censor". Go look at the definition. It means to suppress. Which is what Facebook does to stories flagged by the morons at Politifact.
Keep lying though.
HondoFS.
So they fixed the error when it was pointed out and left the trail on the website. For any other examples where the same words are graded differently?
And you are fucking stupid on the technically true and mostly false thing. You see idiot. Hillary's foundation does charitable work themselves. So they only give 10% or whatever to other charities, and simple minds like you think they only spend 10% in charitable activities. When they do in house charitable activities. So it's technically true that they only donate 10% for charitable activities but it false in the fact that way more than 10% go for charity do to their in house charitable work.
Are you seriously that dumb and biased? Your articles talk about that example and only give part of the story. So simple minds like you eat it up and don't think your articles have bias. Where politifact lines the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion.
15 months later. It was pointed out days after. Speed-limit IQ.
The Clinton slush fund is not the point. They don't, but who cares with regards to this. The point is if it is opinion-writing or fact-checking. A pundit said the following (of the over $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation, much from foreign governments): "A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” All true statements. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. In fact, even the Politifact moron literally told the author the statements were “clearly accurate” and “technically true”.
Yet somehow the same moron rated the "fact-check" "Mostly False". Because he's giving his opinion. Not checking facts. Because he's a Liberal Hack. Politifact are not lining "the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion." when they issue a label instead of writing a counter opinion piece. And more importantly censor others from seeing the original article because of their label. My entire point, which you are making for me.
15 months later. It was pointed out days after. Speed-limit IQ.
The Clinton slush fund is not the point. They don't, but who cares with regards to this. The point is if it is opinion-writing or fact-checking. A pundit said the following (of the over $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation, much from foreign governments): "A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” All true statements. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. In fact, even the Politifact moron literally told the author the statements were “clearly accurate” and “technically true”.
Yet somehow the same moron rated the "fact-check" "Mostly False". Because he's giving his opinion. Not checking facts. Because he's a Liberal Hack. Politifact are not lining "the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion." when they issue a label instead of writing a counter opinion piece. And more importantly censor others from seeing the original article because of their label. My entire point, which you are making for me.
Speed limit IQ.
HondoFS.
You are complaining about bias yet your own source uses the word "measly". It's very clear you don't understand how charities work and politifact clears that issue up. Your news source injects opinion and thinks the only charitable with they can do are programmatic grants. You don't think those salaries are paying people for charitable work? Idiot.
Its an opinion piece using literal, verifiable facts to back up that opinion. Politifact did not clear up anything...did verify any facts were wrong? Nope. Did they provide a breakdown funds? Nope. Did they explain why the two largest Clinton Foundation Initiatives are the wonderful charties known as the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative (a annual party of celebs and CEOs)? Nope. Did the moron explain why having the CGI give $2MM to a company 29% owned by a lady who visits Bill regularly and is known by the secret service as the "Energizer Bunny" is somehow a charitable cause? Nope.
Did they do anything but say its actual facts are true but its still not fair? Nope.
It is nothing more than an opinion of a Liberal Hack of why literally true statements are not fair because they paint a bad picture of the Clintons. He didn't dispute the actual facts, and he didn't provide any numbers supporting a contrary opinion. He literally just said that's not fair. And because Politifact doesn't think its fair they labeled it as "Mostly False" and more importantly they get to censor people from seeing the opinion.
Its frightening stuff when you think about it...you can have literal morons like HondoFS deciding what news people can and cannot see. That should scare everybody.
Its an opinion piece using literal, verifiable facts to back up that opinion. Politifact did not clear up anything...did verify any facts were wrong? Nope. Did they provide a breakdown funds? Nope. Did they explain why the two largest Clinton Foundation Initiatives are the wonderful charties known as the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative (a annual party of celebs and CEOs)? Nope. Did the moron explain why having the CGI give $2MM to a company 29% owned by a lady who visits Bill regularly and is known by the secret service as the "Energizer Bunny" is somehow a charitable cause? Nope.
Did they do anything but say its actual facts are true but its still not fair? Nope.
It is nothing more than an opinion of a Liberal Hack of why literally true statements are not fair because they paint a bad picture of the Clintons. He didn't dispute the actual facts, and he didn't provide any numbers supporting a contrary opinion. He literally just said that's not fair. And because Politifact doesn't think its fair they labeled it as "Mostly False" and more importantly they get to censor people from seeing the opinion.
Its frightening stuff when you think about it...you can have literal morons like HondoFS deciding what news people can and cannot see. That should scare everybody.
First of all, the foundation is audited by a big 4 firm and you can see all the audit reports online. If we're you say is true, you'd see that in the audit reports. And the Clintons would be in jail.
Secondly, here is one article about the Clinton foundation. Contrary to what you say, they used actual facts.
Keep deflecting...I'm not talking about what Reince said (of which Politifact gave no verifiable numbers to contradict, and by saying Charity Watch says they are ok as proof is FS because you can just as easily say Charity Navigator, a more prestigious organization, put them on a watch list for potential problematic charities). I gave a specific example with verifiable facts that PolitfactFS didn't like, didn't contradict, and yet still labeled "Mostly False" because they are political opinion hacks (which you literally admitted a few posts back) and not fact checkers.
They can have an opinion...more power to them. Just realize its a liberal hack opinion.
The problem is by categorizing their opinion as "fact-checking" they get to censor the information others see on social media.
Comments
And I did pull up your link and like I said, it was just blog of shit.
Proving that Hondo didn't even bother to read it yet still immediately labeled it as a "blog of shit" based on nothing but his worthless fucking opinion.
One (of many) examples written up a bunch:
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-federal-income-tax-rate-was-0-percen/
(rated half truth)
Same statement rated 2 1/2 years later:
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/
(rated Mostly True, changed 15 months later because it became a prime example of how biased these morons were...)
A one minute skim of a few of the many articles out there on how biased Politifact is:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/11701/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/05/the-ten-worst-fact-checks-of-the-2012-election/#7418d9b81fd4
https://capitalresearch.org/article/dishonest-fact-checkers/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/politifact-hammered-for-avoiding-ruling-on-warren-harris-falsehood-concerning-michael-browns-death
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/facts-half-truths-and-lies/
https://theparadoxproject.org/tag/politifact/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/once-again-politifact-struggles-to-explain-data-showing-they-treat-gop-unfairly
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/lies-damned-lies-and-fact-checking
Etc...etc.
You lied about saying these morons impact what people see in social media. They do.
You ignore any information that disagrees with your preconceived notion.
You ignore examples that show different standards Politifact applies to people depending on their political affiliation.
You won't read any link poasted.
You make general statements without backing anything up.
Because you are a moron.
And biased.
And not interested nor capable of looking at something in a different way.
Not a good combination...in fact a pretty shitty way to have to go through life.
HondoFS.
Feel free to keep hitting reply and putting your mental limitations on display.
GFY Speed limit IQ.
On the Facebook thing. Your first comment was they used fact checkers to delete posts. Then your support link says they used them to slow the spread of fake news. Completely different statements.
I read most of your links and mostly laugh at them. They are arguing semantics like the apology tour. And what constitutes charitable work by Hillary's foundation. What I didn't find was any examples where they were actually wrong. They were just showing the same bias you are whining about. At least politifact has recognized errors and corrected them when pointed out.
I do chuckle at you saying I'm biased given your track record of bias. Idiot.
They changed it 15 MONTHS later after it became an example in numerous articles of how biased (and stupid) they are. They are as bright as you if that constitutes "realized the error when it was pointed out".
Yeah...you "read". Otherwise known as ignored. And in your stupid comment you are proving the overall point...they aren't "fact-checking" anything...labeling something (as they have numerous times detailed in many of those links) as "technically true" but still "mostly false" is not fact-checking. Its opinion-writing.
I, you, Politifact, and everyone is biased...its (Hondo)FS to pretend otherwise. You are just FS to go with it, which is a really bad combination for somebody to have to go through life with. Which is why you run behind morons like these guys because you are too dumb to support your own opinions.
And nice straw-man comparison...I never said "delete". I said "censor". Go look at the definition. It means to suppress. Which is what Facebook does to stories flagged by the morons at Politifact.
Keep lying though.
HondoFS.
And you are fucking stupid on the technically true and mostly false thing. You see idiot. Hillary's foundation does charitable work themselves. So they only give 10% or whatever to other charities, and simple minds like you think they only spend 10% in charitable activities. When they do in house charitable activities. So it's technically true that they only donate 10% for charitable activities but it false in the fact that way more than 10% go for charity do to their in house charitable work.
Are you seriously that dumb and biased? Your articles talk about that example and only give part of the story. So simple minds like you eat it up and don't think your articles have bias. Where politifact lines the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion.
The Clinton slush fund is not the point. They don't, but who cares with regards to this. The point is if it is opinion-writing or fact-checking. A pundit said the following (of the over $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation, much from foreign governments):
"A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
All true statements. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. In fact, even the Politifact moron literally told the author the statements were “clearly accurate” and “technically true”.
Yet somehow the same moron rated the "fact-check" "Mostly False". Because he's giving his opinion. Not checking facts. Because he's a Liberal Hack. Politifact are not lining "the whole thing out for you to come to your own conclusion." when they issue a label instead of writing a counter opinion piece. And more importantly censor others from seeing the original article because of their label. My entire point, which you are making for me.
Speed limit IQ.
HondoFS.
Its an opinion piece using literal, verifiable facts to back up that opinion. Politifact did not clear up anything...did verify any facts were wrong? Nope. Did they provide a breakdown funds? Nope. Did they explain why the two largest Clinton Foundation Initiatives are the wonderful charties known as the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative (a annual party of celebs and CEOs)? Nope. Did the moron explain why having the CGI give $2MM to a company 29% owned by a lady who visits Bill regularly and is known by the secret service as the "Energizer Bunny" is somehow a charitable cause? Nope.
Did they do anything but say its actual facts are true but its still not fair? Nope.
It is nothing more than an opinion of a Liberal Hack of why literally true statements are not fair because they paint a bad picture of the Clintons. He didn't dispute the actual facts, and he didn't provide any numbers supporting a contrary opinion. He literally just said that's not fair. And because Politifact doesn't think its fair they labeled it as "Mostly False" and more importantly they get to censor people from seeing the opinion.
Its frightening stuff when you think about it...you can have literal morons like HondoFS deciding what news people can and cannot see. That should scare everybody.
Its an epic takedown of the fraud known as Politifact for anyone (I'm sure HondoFS isn't one) actually interested in reading up on it.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/
Secondly, here is one article about the Clinton foundation. Contrary to what you say, they used actual facts.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
Fuck it's like I'm talking to a wall.
They can have an opinion...more power to them. Just realize its a liberal hack opinion.
The problem is by categorizing their opinion as "fact-checking" they get to censor the information others see on social media.
Which is scary.
Which you lied when you said isn't true.
HondoFS. In every thread:
Keep hitting reply speed limit IQ...maybe you'll actually have a point one of these days (years).