A completely different take...That's a powerful video Brother, Thanks!
I refuse to believe that the two phone calls were that much different. Originally Posted by gfejunkie
Who gives a fuck what Manassmuncher thinks?
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-27-2017, 07:02 PM
Who gives a fuck what Manassmuncher thinks?
- lustylad
- 10-28-2017, 01:24 AM
Life isn't binary... If you weren't such a lazy motherfucker and you actually...do I dare say it, actually read the links then you wouldn't be asking stupid questions or demanding binary solutions which you never supply yourself.That's right, you dickmunching fool - much of the time, life isn't binary. But I'm not the one demanding "binary solutions" here. You're the one insisting it's a "fact" that "Trump lies at a 70% rate." Which would mean he tells the truth 30% of the time. So according to you, every statement that comes out of Trump's mouth is either true or false - oh wait, that's binary, isn't it? And you just said life doesn't work that way!
And until you can prove them wrong, which to date you haven't, then I'll keep using them. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
So you don’t like my pesky questions about Politifact’s methodology? Too bad! I get why you don’t want to talk about it. You would much rather just steam-roll into the room, point to the sheer number of Politifact ratings, cherry-pick a handful of the least questionable ones and suggest they’re representative of the entire batch, pretend everything is objectively provable, and then say either we review each individual fact-check, one by one, and prove them all wrong - or else we’re just “lazy fuckers” who need to STFU.
Politifact arbitrarily decides A is more worthy of fact-checking than B, and you don’t think that involves a subjective judgment call? They label something mostly true instead of half-true or mostly false, and you regard it as rock-solid truth? The whole exercise lends itself to partisan bias! But that’s fine with you, as long as you share the same bias as the fact-checkers. You treat subjective answers that involve degrees of confidence as absolute truth. Yes, Donald Trump lies. So does Hillary Clinton. But only a dickmunching moron like you would call it a "fact" that either one of them “lies at a 70% rate.”
- lustylad
- 10-28-2017, 01:38 AM
THE FACTLESS FACT-CHECKERS
How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is?
November 3, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.
But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.
The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.
Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.
Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.
“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.
Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”
There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.
The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.
In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.
The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.
This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.
Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.
Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.
It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.
This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.
Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.
The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.
This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.
It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.
The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.
At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.
CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.
The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.
Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.
Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.
And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield
How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is?
November 3, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.
But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.
The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.
Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.
Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.
“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.
Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”
There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.
The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.
In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.
The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.
This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.
Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.
Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.
It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.
This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.
Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.
The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.
This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.
It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.
The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.
At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.
CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.
The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.
Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.
Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.
And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield
- I B Hankering
- 10-28-2017, 05:51 AM
That's right, you dickmunching fool - much of the time, life isn't binary. But I'm not the one demanding "binary solutions" here. You're the one insisting it's a "fact" that "Trump lies at a 70% rate." Which would mean he tells the truth 30% of the time. So according to you, every statement that comes out of Trump's mouth is either true or false - oh wait, that's binary, isn't it? And you just said life doesn't work that way!+1
So you don’t like my pesky questions about Politifact’s methodology? Too bad! I get why you don’t want to talk about it. You would much rather just steam-roll into the room, point to the sheer number of Politifact ratings, cherry-pick a handful of the least questionable ones and suggest they’re representative of the entire batch, pretend everything is objectively provable, and then say either we review each individual fact-check, one by one, and prove them all wrong - or else we’re just “lazy fuckers” who need to STFU.
Politifact arbitrarily decides A is more worthy of fact-checking than B, and you don’t think that involves a subjective judgment call? They label something mostly true instead of half-true or mostly false, and you regard it as rock-solid truth? The whole exercise lends itself to partisan bias! But that’s fine with you, as long as you share the same bias as the fact-checkers. You treat subjective answers that involve degrees of confidence as absolute truth. Yes, Donald Trump lies. So does Hillary Clinton. But only a dickmunching moron like you would call it a "fact" that either one of them “lies at a 70% rate.” Originally Posted by lustylad
Especially when Politifact refuses to evaluate and make a call ruling a demonstrable hildebeest lie a lie. Or, as the case of Gen. Kelly, these so-called "fact-checkers" ignore the fact that Kelly's point centered on how the empty barrel politico engaged in self-congratulatory rhetoric, and, instead, these so-called "fact-checkers" focus on an erroneous detail to call Kelly a liar.
- flghtr65
- 10-29-2017, 04:10 PM
You guillibly believed Odumbo when he said, "If you like your doctor ... ," flighty. You guillibly believed hildebeest when she said, "It was a video," flighty. Now, you guillibly believe -- and regurgitate -- the partisan mantra of an empty barrel, flighty. Originally Posted by I B HankeringYour dumbass doesn't know anything about health insurance. If you did, you would know that the Health Insurance Companies decide which doctors are in their networks, not the government.
Susan Rice pushed the video based on information they had at the time. There were demonstrations in the area around the time of the attack. How many investigations did Congress have on Benghazi ? What did they find? Answer nothing. The CIA handled security for that building and they established a relationship with the local militia for protection. Sour grapes by you because Obama beat Mitt by 5 million votes.
Retired General Kelly was sent before the press to clean up the controversy with the call to the Gold Star Johnson family. He made the issue worse by lying and lost his credibility. He should have done his homework before making his attempt at character assignation of a former school teacher and principal.
Talk about buying into bullshit, you still believe that Mexico is going to pay for that Wall?
First Trump said USA will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. Six months later Trump said the USA will build the wall and pay for the wall, then Mexico will pay us back.
You're just a partisan clown that resorts to dodge, evade and deflect when you get beat at debate, which is often.
- LexusLover
- 10-29-2017, 04:31 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-29-2017, 04:32 PM
Your dumbass doesn't know anything about health insurance. If you did, you would know that the Health Insurance Companies decide which doctors are in their networks, not the government.
Susan Rice pushed the video based on information they had at the time. There were demonstrations in the area around the time of the attack. How many investigations did Congress have on Benghazi ? What did they find? Answer nothing. The CIA handled security for that building and they established a relationship with the local militia for protection. Sour grapes by you because Obama beat Mitt by 5 million votes.
Retired General Kelly was sent before the press to clean up the controversy with the call to the Gold Star Johnson family. He made the issue worse by lying and lost his credibility. He should have done his homework before making his attempt at character assignation of a former school teacher and principal.
Talk about buying into bullshit, you still believe that Mexico is going to pay for that Wall?
First Trump said USA will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. Six months later Trump said the USA will build the wall and pay for the wall, then Mexico will pay us back.
You're just a partisan clown that resorts to dodge, evade and deflect when you get beat at debate, which is often.
frghtr65 must be a Rodeo Clown groupie...
What Does Maxine Waters Actually Do In Congress?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timoth...&newsletterad=
Maxine Waters (D-CA) has rebranded herself in the Trump Era as a strong public servant standing up to the corrupt, demagogic president. Repeatedly, she has harangued the president during speeches that range from AIDS fundraisers to LGBT Gala award dinners.
Today in Michigan, Waters led a raucous chorus at a women’s rally, chanting “Impeach 45! Impeach 45!” But, people would be wise to remember that her career is one of corruption and failure.
Rep. Waters has passed just three bills in her 27 years in Congress. That means on average, Waters produces something noteworthy for constituents every 9 years. One of the bills was renaming a Post Office. Impressive stuff.
- I B Hankering
- 10-29-2017, 05:44 PM
Your dumbass doesn't know anything about health insurance. If you did, you would know that the Health Insurance Companies decide which doctors are in their networks, not the government.Gruber made it clear that Odumbo lied, flighty. hildebeest's emails made it clear that she, Susan Rice and Odumbo lied, flighty. Kelly said an empty barrel stood up at a dedication and bragged about her contributions, flighty, and the evidence you cite demonstrates that Kelly wasn't lying, flighty.
Susan Rice pushed the video based on information they had at the time. There were demonstrations in the area around the time of the attack. How many investigations did Congress have on Benghazi ? What did they find? Answer nothing. The CIA handled security for that building and they established a relationship with the local militia for protection. Sour grapes by you because Obama beat Mitt by 5 million votes.
Retired General Kelly was sent before the press to clean up the controversy with the call to the Gold Star Johnson family. He made the issue worse by lying and lost his credibility. He should have done his homework before making his attempt at character assignation of a former school teacher and principal.
Talk about buying into bullshit, you still believe that Mexico is going to pay for that Wall?
First Trump said USA will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. Six months later Trump said the USA will build the wall and pay for the wall, then Mexico will pay us back.
You're just a partisan clown that resorts to dodge, evade and deflect when you get beat at debate, which is often.
Trump promised that if he was elected he would keep hildebeest out of the White House, flighty. Trump kept his promise, flighty.
Trump promised not to appoint a lib-retarded judicial activist to the Supreme Court, flighty. Trump kept his promise, flighty.
Odumbo lied about al Qaeda "being defeated and being on the run", flighty, and the lame-stream media -- e.g., Candy Crowley -- lied for Odumbo, flighty. And the IRS cheated and abused those who would assemble and speak against Odumbo, flighty.
hildebeest claimed that anybody that didn't accept the outcome of the election would be a danger to democracy, flighty. But there you and hildbeest are with your heads up your asses, flighty.
- garhkal
- 10-30-2017, 02:45 PM
- dilbert firestorm
- 10-30-2017, 08:56 PM
- Munchmasterman
- 11-01-2017, 08:51 AM
You're too fucking stupid to understand that moneyI didn't mention money, asshole. Kelly did and he was wrong about it. It was one of the central themes along with taking credit for everything. He was wrong about claiming she "talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building." when the funding was completed before she was elected. was an incidental detail??? Total bullshit. in Kelly's address, masterdickmuncher. Kelly was talking about a blowhard politico stoking her own fucking ego, and YOUR fucking video PROVES IT, masterdickmuncher.The only self-stroking was about pushing the name through. Pushing the name through at the FBI's request. She shared credit with repub leadership and Obama.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
+1"An" erroneous detail?
Especially when Politifact refuses to evaluate and make a call ruling a demonstrable hildebeest lie a lie. Or, as the case of Gen. Kelly, these so-called "fact-checkers" ignore the fact that Kelly's point centered on how the empty barrel politicoYou ignore the fact he called her an empty barrel because she "listened in on the conversation", a conversation on speaker phone in the car they were riding in to receive her husband's remains. And because of a totally mischaracterized appearance at the FBI building dedication. His take refuted by a video. engaged in self-congratulatory rhetoric, and, instead, these so-called "fact-checkers" focus on an erroneous detail to call Kelly a liar. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Bullshit.
At a 2015 dedication of an FBI building in Florida, Rep. Frederica Wilson "stood up there ... and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down."
—John Kellyon Thursday, October 19th, 2017 in a White House briefing
The White House continues to criticize U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., for publicizing a private phone call by President Donald Trump to the family of a slain servicemember.
Wilson, a family friend, had been listening to the call from Trump in which he allegedly said Sgt. La David Johnson "knew what he signed up for … but when it happens it hurts anyway."
Johnson was killed in an Oct. 4 ambush in the west African nation of Niger. After the call, Wilson told theMiami Herald, "I think it’s so insensitive. It’s crazy. Why do you need to say that? You don’t say that to someone who lost family, the father, the breadwinner. You can say, ‘I’m so sorry for your loss. He’s a hero.’ "
A few days later, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly appeared behind the press room podium on Oct. 19 to offer the White House’s perspective on the call. In closing, he zeroed in on Wilson for criticism, citing the 2015 dedication of an FBI building in South Florida.
Here are his comments in full, the emphasis is ours:
"I was still on active duty, and I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986. … Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well, and law enforcement so well. There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there, and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.
"And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned. But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, okay, fine."
Wilson responded by saying Kelly wasn’t telling the truth.
"That’s a lie. How dare he,"Wilson saidon CNN.
Luckily, a video can help settle this specific back-and-forth
Avideounearthed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel of the April 10, 2015, event preserved Wilson’s speech. While it does portray Wilson speaking animatedly and indulging in some braggadocio -- she is known as a colorful, outspoken politician with a soft spot for fashionable hats -- Kelly mischaracterized her remarks in significant ways.
The effort she bragged about was initially requested by the FBI itself, and her actions were made in service of honoring the memory of the two slain agents. She also shared the credit, saying it could not have been accomplished without the help of her Republican colleagues, including then-House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Perhaps most notable, the video doesn’t show Wilson boasting about securing money for the building, which had been obtained before she was even in Congress.
The video shows Wilson telling the audience that shortly before the dedication of a new FBI building in Miramar, Fla., the FBI approached her to see whether she could help name the building afterFBI agentsBenjamin Grogan and Jerry Dove, who were killed during a 1986 shootout with bank robbers south of Miami. Naming federal buildings is typically a responsibility of Congress.
"The ribbon-cutting has been scheduled in four short weeks," Wilson recalled being told. "The dedication is on the government’s calendar and cannot be changed. One problem: The FBI wants to name this gorgeous edifice at the same time, in four weeks. Everyone said that’s impossible -- it takes at least eight months to a year to complete the process, through the House, the Senate and to the president’s office.
"I said, I’m a school principal and I said, excuse my French, ‘Oh, hell no!’ We’re gonna get this done. Immediately I went to attack mode. I went to the Speaker, Speaker Boehner, and I said, "Mr. Speaker, I need your help. The FBI needs your help, and our country needs your help and we have no time to waste.’ (Boehner) went into attack mode, and in two days pulled it out of committee, brought it to the floor for a vote."
At that point, Wilson said, she "dashed it over to the Senate," where Florida Sens. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio helped get it to the floor in two days. "And guess what? The president signed the bill into law this past Tuesday, April 7, 2015, with a bang, bang, bang."
Wilson did not mention anything about securing funding for the building, nor did she brag about using her influence with Obama.
In an interview with theMiamiHerald, Wilson called "crazy" Kelly’s notion that she claimed she had gotten the money. "That building was funded long before I got to Congress. I didn’t say that. I have staff, people who write the speeches. You can’t say that."
TheHeraldreportedthat the General Services Administration "had already bid out a $144 million construction contract for the project in September 2010, just a few months before Wilson won her congressional seat. The bidding for federal projects takes place after Congress has secured the funding."
TheHeraldalso reported that the 380,000-square-foot pair of glass towers cost $194 million to build, much higher than the $20 million figure Kelly had mentioned.
In reality, most of Wilson’s speech consisted of praise for the FBI and the slain agents.
The quick action on the naming "speaks to the respect that our Congress has for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day," Wilson said. "And today we’re providing a boost to our nation by naming this fantastic building in honor of Special Agent Benjamin Grogan and Jerry Dove, who died valiantly … in what is still considered the bloodiest gun battle in the storied history of the FBI."
She then urged everyone in law enforcement and first responders to stand up so the audience could applaud. "Stand up! We are proud of you," she said.
Wilson then spent several moments specifically praising agents Grogan and Dove and telling their story. She continued, "Today, it is our patriotic duty to lift up Special Agent Benjamin Grogan and Special Agent Jerry Dove from the street in South Florida and place their names and pictures high, where the world will know that we are proud of their sacrifice, their sacrifice for our nation."
Wilson concluded, "It is only fitting that their names should be placed on the same mantle with the letters ‘FBI,’ because special agents Grogan and Dove embody the sacred motto for which the agency has become known. Please repeat it after me: Fidelity, bravery, and integrity. God bless you, God bless the FBI, and God bless America."
Just hours after the Sun-Sentinel posted the video, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the White House was standing by Kelly’s characterization of Wilson’s remarks.
A reporter at the daily White House briefing asked, "Does Gen. Kelly still stand by the statement he made yesterday that he felt (Wilson) was grandstanding and that she was taking credit for funding?"
Huckabee Sanders responded, "Absolutely. Gen Kelly said he was stunned that Rep. Wilson made comments at a building dedication honoring slain FBI agents about her own actions in Congress, including lobbying former President Obama on legislation. As Gen. Kelly pointed out, if you’re able to make a sacred act honoring American heroes all about yourself, you’re an empty barrel."
When asked whether she had seen the Sun-Sentinel video, Huckabee Sanders said she had, and that it didn’t change her view.
Wilson "also had quite a few comments that day that weren’t part of that speech and weren’t part of that video that were witnessed by many people that were there," Huckabee Sanders said.
However, she declined to provide supporting evidence for that claim. When PolitiFact inquired with the White House, they did not provide any additional information.
Our ruling
Kelly said that Wilson "stood up there ... and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down."
However, in her speech, Wilson didn’t mention funding for the building, much less claim credit for it or tell the audience how she leveraged influence with Obama to secure it.
Wilson did describe how she helped secure legislation to name the building for two slain agents, but Kelly’s description leaves out that the FBI pressed her to make that effort and that she shared credit with several other lawmakers, including the Republican House speaker and Florida’s Republican senator. Wilson also spoke at some length about the bravery of the slain agents and the FBI in general.
We rate Kelly’s statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...sons-2015-sp/#
And PS you whiny bitch.
Here is the link to contact them and ask why they haven't fact checked your vital statement.
http://www.politifact.com/contact/
- Munchmasterman
- 11-01-2017, 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Politifact is hardly an unbiased arbiter of “fact”. Its ratings are highly subjective. And it doesn't measure truth or falsity on a binary basis. It uses a so-called Truth-o-Meter with 5 (highly subjective) categories - True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, Pants on Fire. Based on this (highly subjective) methodology, the most anyone can claim is that according to Politifact some politicians move the needle more in one direction or the other.
Nothing better than someone who knows his subject matter, right douche-bag? You're just as right saying "highly subjective" as you are saying there are 5 categories. There are 6, True, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire.
At what point does something go from mostly false to false?
Does it matter that much?
The most they can claim is something is completely true or completely false
Politifact is hardly an unbiased arbiter of “fact”. Its ratings are highly subjective. And it doesn't measure truth or falsity on a binary basis. It uses a so-called Truth-o-Meter with 5 (highly subjective) categories - True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, Pants on Fire. Based on this (highly subjective) methodology, the most anyone can claim is that according to Politifact some politicians move the needle more in one direction or the other.
Nothing better than someone who knows his subject matter, right douche-bag? You're just as right saying "highly subjective" as you are saying there are 5 categories. There are 6, True, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire.
At what point does something go from mostly false to false?
Does it matter that much?
The most they can claim is something is completely true or completely false
That's right, you dickmunching fool - much of the time, life isn't binary. But I'm not the one demanding "binary solutions" here. You're the one insisting it's a "fact" that "Trump lies at a 70% rate." Which would mean he tells the truth 30% of the time.@70 of fact-checked statements are mostly false, false, or pants on fire. Those all fit the definition of a lie. @30% of his checked statements have some degree of truth. So according to you, every statement that comes out of Trump's mouth is either true or false - oh wait, that's binary, isn't it? And you just said life doesn't work that way!
So you don’t like my pesky questions about Politifact’s methodology?I don't like your stupid questions or questions that would be answered if you would read them yourself Too bad! I get why you don’t want to talk about it. You would much rather just steam-roll into the room, point to the sheer number of Politifact ratings, cherry-pick a handful of the least questionable ones and suggest they’re representative of the entire batch, pretend everything is objectively provable, and then say either we review each individual fact-check, one by one, and prove them all wrong - or else we’re just “lazy fuckers” who need to STFU.Wrong. I've never said all of the fact checks on the site are correct. I've never suggested anything other than I personally have not found any that are wrong, pretended everything is objectively provable, or said prove them all wrong or you're "lazy motherfuckers (the actual term I used)" who need to STFU.
You're lazy motherfuckers because you don't try to prove ANY of them wrong. This isn't the only source I use. I look other places to see if there is valid contrary information. You might try it sometime. You base your "position" on absolutes. I don't have time to check every statement. I check the ones I use.
Politifact arbitrarily decides A is more worthy of fact-checking than B, and you don’t think that involves a subjective judgment call?Yes asshole. Choosing the statement is subjective so it's not really arbitrary. The statements chosen are determined by several things. Maybe if you read the site you might find out and not have to make shit up. That doesn't mean the answer is subjective. They label something mostly true instead of half-true or mostly false, and you regard it as rock-solid truth?Wrong douche-bag. They include a detailed description of why they make a call. Again I check other places too. The rock-solid truth here is that you talk a lot of shit about a site you haven't shown any examples of being wrong or even any with partisan bias. The whole exercise lends itself to partisan bias! But that’s fine with you, as long as you share the same bias as the fact-checkers.Here's that stupid...I mean pesky use of absolutes. If I give a thousand examples of fair posts you'll cry I'm trying to steamroll you or your other bullshit reasons why somehow you not posting examples supports your argument.
It's obvious why you won't talk about that. You treat subjective answers that involve degrees of confidence as absolute truth. Now you're lying out your lazy motherfucking ass.
Me pointing out life isn't binary, you having no examples of me relying upon this as absolute proof (that requires lls mind-reading) and me repeatedly saying I use other sources is proof you're wrong Yes, Donald Trump lies. So does Hillary Clinton. But only a dickmunching moron like you would call it a "fact" that either one of them “lies at a 70% rate.”Only a cocksucking douche-bag like you could base his conclusion on an opinion devoid of facts, reason, or common sense. There are over 400 statements by trump that have been fact-checked. @70% are mostly false, false, or pants on fire. There are @300 for Clinton (makes sense since one is nearing a year as president and the other isn't). She has @26% mostly false, false, and pants on fire. Originally Posted by lustylad
- I B Hankering
- 11-01-2017, 11:42 AM
The only self-stroking was about pushing the name through. Pushing the name through at the FBI's request. She shared credit with repub leadership and Obama. Originally Posted by MunchmastermanSelf-promotion is self-promotion, masterdickmuncher, and the film you cite as evidence shows an empty barrel politico engaged in blatant self-promotion, masterdickmuncher. And as mentioned before, masterdickmuncher, everyone knows why Politifact picks and chooses the way it does ... it's a lib-retarded cesspool you like to drink from.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-01-2017, 12:02 PM
THE FACTLESS FACT-CHECKERSWhat a bunch of tripe.
How do you fact check when you don’t know what a fact is?
November 3, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.
But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.
The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.
Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.
Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.
“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.
Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”
There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.
The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.
In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.
The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.
This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.
Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.
Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.
It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.
This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.
Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.
The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.
This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.
It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.
The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.
At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.
CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.
The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.
Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.
Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.
And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2646...iel-greenfield Originally Posted by lustylad
Blanket condemnation based on bullshit.
How ironic he is factless about factless fact-checking.
Now here is a "real" trump man. This is one of the reasons fake news can happen.
No balls and no clue.
CNN)This is a real exchange that happened on CNN on Tuesday night between Wolf Blitzer and Idaho Republican Sen. Jim Risch about President Donald Trump's casual relationship with the truth:
BLITZER: But when he lies about something and you know it's a lie, shouldn't you speak up?
RISCH: That's your job.
BLITZER: But that's your job. You're a United States senator. You're a co-equal branch of the United States government.
RISCH: Wolf, if I went around criticizing a statement that was made by the President or any one of my fellow senators or any one of the congressmen up here or people in Idaho who hold public office and I stood up and talked every time they talked and said I don't like this, I don't like that, I'm criticizing -- I'd be busy all day long.
Um.....
That is a remarkable statement from an elected official. Truly remarkable.
The whole point of serving in office is that you are the elected representative of your constituents. As such, your job is to represent their values and their interests — in all matters. Lying — or, more accurately, countenancing lying — is not something that is a shared value in our society. That goes double — and more — when the person doing the lying is the President of the United States.
It is, without question, central to the job of every one of the 535 members of Congress to speak as accurately as they can and to make sure the President of the United States does the same. You don't get to foist that responsibility on the media alone — and then, by the way, blast the media for its so-called biases when it comes to fact checking.
The idea forwarded by Risch that he is simply too busy to possibly fact check the President of the United States is equally ridiculous. Imagine if, as a parent, you said something like: "If I spent all of my time making sure my kid didn't cross the street in traffic or swallow some bleach, I'd get nothing done all day!" Or if, as a reporter, you said: "If I spent all of my time getting actual quotes from actual members of Congress, I wouldn't have time to do my job."
The whole damn point of public service is to serve the public. You do a disservice to the public when you abrogate your responsibility to tell the truth and ensure that those around you do the same. Case closed.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-01-2017, 12:22 PM
A trump douche-bag who complains about blatant self-promotion.
She gave ample credit across party lines, helped the FBI honor the namesakes of the building in time for the dedication, and did it with an uncommon degree of cooperation.
The fact trump lives and breathes self-promotion to which you have said nothing about it proves what a low life douche-bag you are.
One of many things that prove you are.
And when you say everyone knows it, it means you'll say something stupid and your hubris is in full bloom.
Check.
She gave ample credit across party lines, helped the FBI honor the namesakes of the building in time for the dedication, and did it with an uncommon degree of cooperation.
The fact trump lives and breathes self-promotion to which you have said nothing about it proves what a low life douche-bag you are.
One of many things that prove you are.
And when you say everyone knows it, it means you'll say something stupid and your hubris is in full bloom.
Check.
Self-promotion is self-promotion, masterdickmuncher, and the film you cite as evidence shows an empty barrel politico engaged in blatant self-promotion, masterdickmuncher. And as mentioned before, masterdickmuncher, everyone knows why Politifact picks and chooses the way it does ... it's a lib-retarded cesspool you like to drink from. Originally Posted by I B Hankering