You people are overreaching. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThe thread headline is "overreaching" ....
Pointing out the substantive bias of your source isn't being hypocritical. Originally Posted by I B HankeringI didn't say pointing out the bias of politico was hypocritical. What I said was supporting Trump because "Hillary is a liar" is hypocritical.
Politico has chosen not to evaluate many of Hildabeast's lies; hence, those lies don't figure into the statistics you're using to support your POV.I understand your point and already admitted that they are likely biased. It's human nature and virtually impossible for any of us to completely avoid. However, we aren't talking about some no-name blog in the corner of the internet. We are talking about a well respected, well known Pulitzer prize winning journalistic endeavor. Their bias isn't going to account for such a huge disparity because they have a very public image and have a serious amount of accountability.
those lies don't figure into the statistics you're using to support your POV.And you've got no statistics to support your point of view. Well, I am sure you could dig up someone from the underbelly of the internet who wrote up something you can agree with. But they have next to no accountability. If politifact was truly, ridiculously biased, it would be under constant attack. It isn't under attack all that much because it is, more or less, pretty fair.
You'd be the hypocrite trying to use data you know to be false, biased and inaccurate to support your POV.Again, this is besides the crux of my point. I'll ask again, although I don't expect you to answer this time any more than I expected you to answer before, is there any complaint about a specific thing under Trump that is labeled "mostly false" or worse? If not, my point stands, it is clear Trump spews BS. Criticizing Clinton for doing so, but not Trump, is hypocritical.
I didn't say pointing out the bias of politico was hypocritical. What I said was supporting Trump because "Hillary is a liar" is hypocritical. Yes, you did, because my whole observation was to point out the bias in the source you're citing to support your POV..
I understand your point and already admitted that they are likely biased. It's human nature and virtually impossible for any of us to completely avoid. However, we aren't talking about some no-name blog in the corner of the internet. We are talking about a well respected, well known Pulitzer prize winning journalistic endeavor. Their bias isn't going to account for such a huge disparity because they have a very public image and have a serious amount of accountability. You live in a lib-retard fantasy bubble. How many times did Hildabeast lead the American people and the families of the killed to believe that a video was the source cause of Benghazi? 6? 12? 20? Each and every time she did so was an individuated lie that Politifact didn't analysis and doesn't factor into their percentages regarding their "Truthmeter"; because, Politifact doesn't deem any of those instances as a lie.
And you've got no statistics to support your point of view. Well, I am sure you could dig up someone from the underbelly of the internet who wrote up something you can agree with. But they have next to no accountability. If politifact was truly, ridiculously biased, it would be under constant attack. It isn't under attack all that much because it is, more or less, pretty fair.
One need only pick an obvious Hildabeast lie and check to see if Politifact did an analysis. First and foremost is Hildabeast's lie to Scott Pelley that she never lied to the American people: a notion that has already been refuted by Politifact because Politifact cites instances where Hildabeast, in fact, has lied. Yet, Politifact has NOT analyzed Hildabeast's lie that she has never lied. To validate your use of Politico's percentages as meaningful and correct, you need to cite where Politico did an analysis and ruled on that Hildabeast statement so that it factors into her percentages that you are so anxious to cite as supporting your POV.
Again, this is besides the crux of my point. I'll ask again, although I don't expect you to answer this time any more than I expected you to answer before, is there any complaint about a specific thing under Trump that is labeled "mostly false" or worse? If not, my point stands, it is clear Trump spews BS. Criticizing Clinton for doing so, but not Trump, is hypocritical. Again, your whole position, as you've stated in this thread, is based on the biased and incomplete data analysis presented by Politifact. Originally Posted by eatfibo
Are you REALLY trying to make sense in a debate with IBIdiot, eatfibo?The jackass is your party symbol, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Hence, you'd be the braying jackass, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
It's easy to make him look like a braying ass, but the problem is that most of the shitheels in the forum condone his outrageously tedious behavior. The ones who don't aren't able to keep up with it...
Pity. But he's a "generic" pain in the ass. He'll keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over until you can't stand it anymore. Then he'll do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
Word to the wise. Don't engage the original Dipshit of ECCIE! But I guess you've probably figured that out by now, eatfibo. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Yes, you did, because my whole observation was to point out the bias in the source you're citing to support your POV. Originally Posted by I B HankeringPlease don't tell me what I said. You'll just be wrong. But, even if I did say it, who cares? I've explicitly laid out my actual point to you multiple times since this misunderstanding, so why harp on this? Continually misrepresenting my position does not give your position any merit.
You live in a lib-retard fantasy bubble.If you lived in a bubble, how would you know? Really, you couldn't. So how sure are you that this isn't a projection?
How many times did Hildabeast lead the American people and the families of the killed to believe that a video was the source cause of Benghazi? 6? 12? 20? Each and every time she did so was an individuated lie that Politico didn't analysis and doesn't factor into their percentages regarding their "Truthmeter"; because, Politico doesn't deem any of those instances as a lie.Anecdotal evidence, at best. The reality is that most people recognize Politifact is a reasonably fair website. Is it perfect? Nope. But plenty complaints about bias have come from both Dems and Reps about the site. It's a pretty good indication that they are generally fair.
One need only pick an obvious Hildabeast lie and check to see if Politico did an analysis. First and foremost is Hildabeast's lie to Scott Pelley that she never lied to the American people: a notion that has already been refuted by Politico because Politico cites instances where Hildabeast, in fact, has lied. Yet, Politico has NOT analyzed Hildabeast's lie that she has never lied. To validate your use of Politico's percentages as meaningful and correct, you need to cite where Politico did an analysis and ruled on that Hildabeast statement so that it factors into her percentages that you are so anxious to cite as supporting your POV.I get it, you can find examples that you think prove that politifact is protecting Hillary. I'm not going to get into a debate about particulars of a single situation. I could get into their whole philosophy of trying to only fact check things that can be fact checked, it is hard to say what is and what is not a lie because lies require intentionally misleading.
Again, your whole position, as you've stated in this thread, is based on the biased and incomplete data analysis presented by Politico.Amazing. Again, you avoided answering a very straight-forward question. Do you realize how obvious this makes it that the question puts a dagger right through the heart of your own argument?
Are you REALLY trying to make sense in a debate with IBIdiot, eatfibo?Don't worry about me. I can see what I am up against and I know when to, for my own sanity, abandon the debate. But, for the most part, I rather enjoy poking holes in weak arguments like this.
It's easy to make him look like a braying ass, but the problem is that most of the shitheels in the forum condone his outrageously tedious behavior. The ones who don't aren't able to keep up with it...
Word to the wise. Don't engage the original Dipshit of ECCIE! But I guess you've probably figured that out by now, eatfibo. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Please don't tell me what I said. You'll just be wrong. But, even if I did say it, who cares? I've explicitly laid out my actual point to you multiple times since this misunderstanding, so why harp on this? Continually misrepresenting my position does not give your position any merit. You said it. You own it. Despite your feeble attempt at deflection, you used biased statistics from Politifact to support your asinine opinion..
If you lived in a bubble, how would you know? Really, you couldn't. So how sure are you that this isn't a projection? You'd be the own trying to support your POV with biased and incomplete statistics from Politifact to support your asinine opinion.FTR, almost 78% of Trump's claims have been rated as "Mostly False" "False" or "Pants on fire." While Clinton has almost 72% of her claims as "Half true" "Mostly True" or "True." (FTR, Obama is at 75% "Half true" and up)
Anecdotal evidence, at best. The reality is that most people recognize Politifact is a reasonably fair website. Is it perfect? Nope. But plenty complaints about bias have come from both Dems and Reps about the site. It's a pretty good indication that they are generally fair. Only someone who lives in a lib-retard bubble would refer to Politifact's failure to analyze at least twenty instances of Hildabeast lying as "anecdotal evidence."
I get it, you can find examples that you think prove that politifact is protecting Hillary. I'm not going to get into a debate about particulars of a single situation. I could get into their whole philosophy of trying to only fact check things that can be fact checked, it is hard to say what is and what is not a lie because lies require intentionally misleading. The evidence demonstrably shows Hildabeast simultaneously telling two different stories about what happened in Benhazi, and the story Hildabeast was telling the American people was the lie.
Amazing. Again, you avoided answering a very straight-forward question. Do you realize how obvious this makes it that the question puts a dagger right through the heart of your own argument? You would be the one using meaningless percentages from Politifact to support your asinine POV.
But let's try one more time. Let's remove any mention of politifact's impartiality. It is inconsequential because even you admit that it is biased via omissions, not through fairness of the ratings. Trump has 79 statements rated "Mostly False," "False" and "Pants on fire." Do any believe any of these 79 statements to be true? If not, don't you have to agree that supporting Trump because "Hillary is a liar" is hypocritical? Those Politifact percentages are as meaningless as your POV since your POV is based on Politifact's biased, inaccurate and incomplete analyses.
Don't worry about me. I can see what I am up against and I know when to, for my own sanity, abandon the debate. But, for the most part, I rather enjoy poking holes in weak arguments like this. Your POV is a monstrous sieve leaking at every point. You pretend that your POV is valid and meaningful even after you've admitted that your evidence you use to support your POV is faulty. Hence, by definition, your POV is "weak" because it has not substantive foundation.
However, word to the wise, sitting around throwing out school yard insults is "engaging" posters like this as well. However, it makes you look like them, not unlike them. You're a supercilious dim-retard that lives in a la-la-land bubble. Originally Posted by eatfibo
Are you REALLY trying to make sense in a debate with IBIdiot, eatfibo?So the 3TIME WINNER of the DOTY poll and current Vice-Doty comes and WK's for a fellow lying lib by accusing someone else of being a DOTY winner ? 'bout time for you and the Austin reach-around crew to have your weekly bukakke session, isn't it ! ? !!! Are YOU or Lil Cotex this week's pivot man there assup ?
It's easy to make him look like a braying ass, but the problem is that most of the shitheels in the forum condone his outrageously tedious behavior. The ones who don't aren't able to keep up with it...
Pity. But he's a "generic" pain in the ass. He'll keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over until you can't stand it anymore. Then he'll do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
Word to the wise. Don't engage the original Dipshit of ECCIE! But I guess you've probably figured that out by now, eatfibo. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
You'd be the braying jackass that likes taking things in your ass, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; since, you are conspicuously one of the lib-retarded faggots supporting the LBGT agenda with your every vote. Originally Posted by I B Hankeringcongrats on your and woomby's new enterprise, only you two faggots would think of a traveling glory hole.
