Fun with Fact-checkers...
But on top of that, it reinforced the notion of how enamored with one's own false intellect these people have to be to think that they should be considered the online "factchecker" to begin with, whether it be FactCheck.org, Punditfact, or even the nutjobs at Media Matters. Case in point is the latest between the Federalist and "PunditFact", on how sheer statement of facts that the writer of Punditfact admits are "clearly accurate and "technically true" still get a rating from them of "Mostly False" because, well, the factchecker didn't want to admit the truth.
Funny read...
PunditFact: A Case Study In Fact-Free Hackery
Comments
-
I like to call fact check.org into question because one person doesn't like punditfact.org. cause that's what I like to do.
-
Says the guy so FS he can't understand a simple timeline...
-
Says the guy so FS he can't understand charity.
-
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: -
Please...............explain2001400ex said:Says the guy so FS he can't understand charity.
-
Please.............explain
-
Look. We all know the foundation's primary purpose is to siphon funds to the Clintons. But you have to be fucking stupid if you think the only charity work they do is grants to other organizations.
-
If true, why don't they report it that way on their federal tax returns?
-
Cause they don't have the power to change the reporting requirements on the 990, that's kinda the responsibility of the IRS. And I'm the one with the 8th grade education.sarktastic said:If true, why don't they report it that way on their federal tax returns?
-
Drunk.posting.rulesHoustonHusky said:I laughed when someone here used an online "factcheck" to "prove" something, only to read the actual fact-checking and discover all their actual proof was before the incident in question thereby reinforcing the idea of fraud...
But on top of that, it reinforced the notion of how enamored with one's own false intellect these people have to be to think that they should be considered the online "factchecker" to begin with, whether it be FactCheck.org, Punditfact, or even the nutjobs at Media Matters. Case in point is the latest between the Federalist and "PunditFact", on how sheer statement of facts that the writer of Punditfact admits are "clearly accurate and "technically true" still get a rating from them of "Mostly False" because, well, the factchecker didn't want to admit the truth.
Funny read...
PunditFact: A Case Study In Fact-Free Hackery -
FixedCaptainPJ said:
Scotch.rulesHoustonHusky said:I laughed when someone here used an online "factcheck" to "prove" something, only to read the actual fact-checking and discover all their actual proof was before the incident in question thereby reinforcing the idea of fraud...
But on top of that, it reinforced the notion of how enamored with one's own false intellect these people have to be to think that they should be considered the online "factchecker" to begin with, whether it be FactCheck.org, Punditfact, or even the nutjobs at Media Matters. Case in point is the latest between the Federalist and "PunditFact", on how sheer statement of facts that the writer of Punditfact admits are "clearly accurate and "technically true" still get a rating from them of "Mostly False" because, well, the factchecker didn't want to admit the truth.
Funny read...
PunditFact: A Case Study In Fact-Free Hackery -
8th grade education is starting to sound like Owen12....
Christ.
