No, WTF tiny tool chest has expanded into TRYING to get the political forum shut down. Originally Posted by gnadflyThat has a familiar "ring" to it ...
No, WTF tiny tool chest has expanded into TRYING to get the political forum shut down. Which is weird because WTF gets slammed across multiple forums.Fixed it. You're welcome.
WTF is correct in that TDL is a witty guy. WTF is absolutely right about himself being a twit..or is it a TWAT Originally Posted by gnadfly
It's entertaining to see a Liberal-Nazis-Homophobic like WTF marginalize and trash gays in the name of civility while professing to be above the "fray."Did WackTheFuckstick really out SissyChaps as a faggot? Maybe those two girls should have a powder puff BBall game..... with 30 round clips.
The only "fray" he's managed to get "above" is his buttbuddy's frayed elastic underway band while he's trying to slide them down to expose WTF's idea of paradise. Ridiculing gives him power, he "thinks"!
WTF:
SissyLips is not going to be happy you called her a faggot VV
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Another homophobic post by WTF.Protest? I love you like a sister , how is that protesting?
Me thinks you protest too much. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
WTF was right. You're a funny guy. Originally Posted by bambinoI told you he was gay.
Our people need to go thru this thread again, and give the proper likes...Oh yea , like that is not gay. Somebody forgot to 'like' your post! Gather the troops and round up you some 'likes'!
Can't be much of a discussion when anything negative posted about trump is called fake news.Go fuck yourself, masterdickmuncher. Wikileaks demonstrated to one that the lame-stream media -- your *fact checkers* -- are the bag for lib-retards, masterdickmuncher. There are multiple times your lib-retarded Politifact equivocates and doesn't call hildebeest a liar even after Comey called hildebeest a liar, masterdickmuncher. So, take your Politifact, and go screw yourself, masterdickmuncher.
A perfect example is the ongoing Russia investigation. Numerous people claim it's fake or a witch hunt because the gathered information isn't being released yet. And won't be until the investigation is complete.
How do you discuss something with someone who labels many things fake news when they don't show any proof to back up their claim? Just that they "know" it's fake.
Continuously claiming the entire investigation is nothing when you don't know any facts pretty much taints the rest of the things you're "sure" of. Not exactly critical thinking in use to assume there is nothing to be found
The fact remains trump lies at @ a 70% rate. He makes a statement and its accuracy is checked. Pretty easy to check even if you use something other than Politifact. People claim they're (Politifact) biased and never look any further to see if the statement is true or not.
Again, how do you have a discussion with someone who claims you're wrong and offers no proof to show you are wrong?
Anybody who has a set of talking points they think covers all somewhat similar situations is intellectually lazy, regardless of how much bs or how many posts they make. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.
By Peter Roff, Contributing Editor for Opinion |May 28, 2013, at 6:05 p.m.
"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.
According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."
As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.
Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."
According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.
(U.S. News)
Fixed it. You're welcome. Originally Posted by TryWeaklyThe implication is that WTF is a half-wit.
Can't be much of a discussion when anything negative posted about trump is called fake news.So where's the proof? Don't hide behind "the investigation isn't complete" bullshit. Even Democratic leaders have said that it is going nowhere. Even in the 6 months leading up to the investigation all "evidence" was discredited or justifiably marginalized.
A perfect example is the ongoing Russia investigation. Numerous people claim it's fake or a witch hunt because the gathered information isn't being released yet. And won't be until the investigation is complete.
How do you discuss something with someone who labels many things fake news when they don't show any proof to back up their claim? Just that they "know" it's fake.
Again, how do you have a discussion with someone who claims you're wrong and offers no proof to show you are wrong?
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Go fuck yourself, masterdickmuncher. Wikileaks demonstrated to one that the lame-stream media -- your *fact checkers* -- are the bag for lib-retards, masterdickmuncher. There are multiple times your lib-retarded Politifact equivocates and doesn't call hildebeest a liar even after Comey called hildebeest a liar, masterdickmuncher. So, take your Politifact, and go screw yourself, masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B HankeringAnd this is why you are on ignore and forever will remain on ignore. To better put this in perspective, I don't even have barleycorn on ignore.
Thanks for posting this opinion piece. And like you, they ignore some important things.It was your fucking flame threadS that CC removed from the forum, you lying SOB; hence, you are not the fucking innocent you're fucking pretending to be, you lying SOB. And your over reliance on jackasses in the lame-stream media who think and regurgitate the same shit you believe is meaningless in a substantive argument, you lying cock-sucker.
Like the truth. Your opinion piece has an outright lie in it. At least one, probably more. It says "any American" in the tax "fact" provided. You don't need Politifact to see your op-ed guy is as biased.....and wrong as you
If you could read asshole, you would see I said even if you don't believe Politifact, statements are easy to check.
And by pointing this out, you proved my post.
How can there be a discussion when you can't understand the point of the post? When you seize on something out of context or irrelevant to the body of the post to make your "point"? When you defend opinion as fact until your dying day, never admitting you are wrong?
You found an opinion piece you agreed with and present it as fact.
I said;
The fact remains trump lies at @ a 70% rate. He makes a statement and its accuracy is checked. Pretty easy to check even if you use something other than Politifact. People claim they're (Politifact) biased and never look any further to see if the statement is true or not. That last sentence is completely true.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. Politifact reported this as being a false statement by Obama.It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.Every single one of these has been addressed by Politifact. Of course, you're afraid to actually check the web site
Because you also are a lazy fuck, I'll do a couple of these for you.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-class-famil/
And this is why you are on ignore and forever will remain on ignore. To better put this in perspective, I don't even have barleycorn on ignore.
Just you and your sister. Gayray.
You can't admit or acknowledge (or at least just STFU) or correct it when you're wrong. You'll argue the least significant "fact" or change the subject until no one responds.
If there are 5 people that have trashed this forum, you are one of them.
A bitter ugly toad. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
"[F]act checkers have simply asserted authority over truth by referring to themselves as “fact checkers.” They have single-handedly assumed the role of umpire without the qualifications to do so.
[W]ithout explicit selection criteria, fact checkers' own biases would invariably affect their choice of which actors and which statements to check. The end result of this would be to make political actors look much more truthful or dishonest than they might actually be."
(THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF FACT CHECKING)
The implication is that WTF is a half-wit.A goal for you to aspire to.
So where's the proof? Don't hide behind "the investigation isn't complete" bullshit. Even Democratic leaders have said that it is going nowhere. Even in the 6 months leading up to the investigation all "evidence" was discredited or justifiably marginalized.
Better yet, do ever post without drink thinking? Originally Posted by gnadfly