Supreme Court of the United States

[DMT]

I will say this much about all of them, they stick to facts. Interpretation is all over the place, but any factual inaccuracy is used against them at great length. In that sense, they are a lot like Republican politicians, except Trump. CNN et. al. are quick to punish them for slips. Democrats, not so much.

This is completely ridiculous.

[Fresno Bob]

Ah, I was afraid it was one of the nationally broadcast nuts like Michael Savage or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity or Alex Jones.

It still amazes me that folks buy into the notion that mainstream media is all liberal when conservatives totally dominate radio. They get millions of listeners. For whatever reason, they just destroy liberals in the medium. And the stuff they get away with saying boggles the mind. I used to hate listen to Savage. He was probably the worst of them. Really a harbinger of Trump, that one. He is filled with the most vitriol of all if them, but gets amazing ratings for it. Even though he used to crap on his callers, even his fans. He makes everyone call him Dr. Savage and spent most of his time talking about how much smarter he was than anyone else. Same sort of NYC arrogance. I guess lots of people eat that personality up.

savage is a bay area new age conservative douchebag

[onejayhawk]

This is completely ridiculous.

Show me.

J

[frae]

Show me.

J

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

[onejayhawk]

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Try harder. MUCH harder.

J

[B-Fly]

Try harder. MUCH harder.

J

LOL. You clearly have no interest in even remotely agreeing on a resource from which to assess whether right-wing or left-wing pundits hew closer to actual facts and truths, so an exchange of goofy gifs and emojis and "your 'fact check' site is biased" with you is utterly pointless.

I get the sense that you basically recognize the foolishness of much of the posting-partisan-opinion-as-provable-truth stuff you subject us to here, but maybe I'm wrong and you're actually being earnest. The world may never know.

[onejayhawk]

LOL. You clearly have no interest in even remotely agreeing on a resource from which to assess whether right-wing or left-wing pundits hew closer to actual facts and truths, so an exchange of goofy gifs and emojis and "your 'fact check' site is biased" with you is utterly pointless.

I get the sense that you basically recognize the foolishness of much of the posting-partisan-opinion-as-provable-truth stuff you subject us to here, but maybe I'm wrong and you're actually being earnest. The world may never know.

Please. Fox News was not even the subject at hand.

Right-wing talk does have a solid factual basis. It's the interpretation of the facts that causes issues. It is also valid to point out the severe double standard on fact-checking. We have only to look at the Kavanaugh hearings to demonstrate that.

J

[B-Fly]

I have a very high tolerance for discussing politics and policy and law and fact with people across the ideological spectrum. You, 1J, unfortunately have proven so intent on debating through absurd declarations of so-called fact or truth, and so intent on playing partisan games around demanding "proof" from every one else and then just rolling your eyes and questioning the sourcing of the evidence, that I honestly just can't with you. It's too frustrating and pointless.

[TranaGreg]

I have a very high tolerance for discussing politics and policy and law and fact with people across the ideological spectrum. You, 1J, unfortunately have proven so intent on debating through absurd declarations of so-called fact or truth, and so intent on playing partisan games around demanding "proof" from every one else and then just rolling your eyes and questioning the sourcing of the evidence, that I honestly just can't with you. It's too frustrating and pointless.

you guys do realize that it's a tactic? to the casual reader, an issue that can't be resolved easily results in both side appearing to be equally valid.

that's why I stopped playing this game.

[B-Fly]

you guys do realize that it's a tactic? to the casual reader, an issue that can't be resolved easily results in both side appearing to be equally valid.

that's why I stopped playing this game.

Yes, I read 1J's participation in "Hot Button Topics" as almost entirely tactical spin, punditry and trolling rather than honest engagement. I don't feel the same way about most of our other center through right-leaning debate participants, though.

[Hornsby]

Yes, I read 1J's participation in "Hot Button Topics" as almost entirely tactical spin, punditry and trolling rather than honest engagement. I don't feel the same way about most of our other center through right-leaning debate participants, though.

Don't give OJ that much credit...I doubt that he has the chops to take a conversation down a path as you posit.

I stopped engaging him a couple of years back, simply because he rarely has any facts at his disposal, but acts as if he's the entire book.

[frae]

Try harder. MUCH harder.

J

You offer no contradiction to any of the points they made about fox. You offer no site you want to use as a fact check source. Show me one fact on that list that they list as False or Pants on Fire that you dispute. Facts are still facts.

[frae]

This one is just for my own entertainment. 44 vs 45 in a truth off...

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ 76% half true - true 26% mostly false to pants on fire

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ 32% half true - true statments 68% mostly false to pants on fire

The site doesn't ignore when either side lies, it just so happens that what I would still call the leaders of each party happen to have a drastic difference in how often they tell the truth.

[onejayhawk]

You offer no contradiction to any of the points they made about fox. You offer no site you want to use as a fact check source. Show me one fact on that list that they list as False or Pants on Fire that you dispute. Facts are still facts.

The subject was right-wing talk-radio, not Fox. If you want a fact, there is a fact

If you want to post something on point, feel free.

J

[frae]

The subject was right-wing talk-radio, not Fox. If you want a fact, there is a fact

If you want to post something on point, feel free.

J

Hannity

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/

Rush

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/

Happy now?

Rush appears unable to locate the truth ever. He actually has 0 statements they defined as True. He had 5% mostly true and 13% half true leaving a Trumpian like 82% mostly false - pants on fire with 26% Pants on Fire level false.

Hannity at least is at 46% True - Half true. His largest single category percent does fall in the False category at 32%

I didn't include Beck because the last fact check they have on him is 2016.