Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Lib fact checkers. You just can’t make this crap up.
Comments
-
Houston is still melting down because politifact labeled a false statement by Trump as false? JFC. Pathetic.
-
Did Trump call neo-Nazis fine people Scotty?GDS said:Houston is still melting down because politifact labeled a false statement by Trump as false? JFC. Pathetic.
-
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.HoustonHusky said:
I did.2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.2001400ex said:
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.HoustonHusky said:
Links are hard.2001400ex said:
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?HoustonHusky said:Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
If you are HondoFS.
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.
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. -
Yeah, provide the Kunt who never supports his statements with support for your statement that he won't read.2001400ex said:
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.HoustonHusky said:
I did.2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.2001400ex said:
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.HoustonHusky said:
Links are hard.2001400ex said:
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?HoustonHusky said:Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
If you are HondoFS.
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.
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. -
2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
I did.2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.2001400ex said:
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.HoustonHusky said:
Links are hard.2001400ex said:
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?HoustonHusky said:Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
If you are HondoFS.
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.
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.
-
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.2001400ex said:
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.HoustonHusky said:
I did.2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.2001400ex said:
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.HoustonHusky said:
Links are hard.2001400ex said:
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?HoustonHusky said:Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
If you are HondoFS.
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.
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.
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.
-
They moar or less have a cure for aids If you catch it soon enough. Too bad the onset is past the point of no return here in the Tug
-
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?HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
Support the statement in bold. You've said that twice now but failed to support it.HoustonHusky said:
I did.2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
I pointed you to a website that is entirely composed of articles describing in detail the bias of Politifact.2001400ex said:
So you can't point me to the article that you are referencing. Shocking.HoustonHusky said:
Links are hard.2001400ex said:
The link you listed was a link to a blog. With a bunch of articles. Exactly which article are you referring?HoustonHusky said:Politifact attacks one side a lot more than the other.
As the link I poasted statistically shows.
If you are HondoFS.
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.
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.
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. -
HondoFS...there are rocks with higher IQs.
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?HoustonHusky said:HondoFS...there are rocks with higher IQs.
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.
