Supreme Court of the United States

[onejayhawk]

Much better. It would be nice if we had an unbiased fact checker, but this will have to do. There is a great illustration of the basic problem

RUSH LIMBAUGH
Says "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land" in the United States "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument."

Pants on Fire! Can't blow away climate change

The only datum present is, "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land." This 100% factual. However, the checker refers to the conclusion, "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument." as if it were presented as fact. There are five Rush cites and every one of them is an opinion. Yet, they are all marked as half-truth to pants-on-fire.

The information was factual and the checker could not get it any more wrong. The one quoted is particularly bad because it does not even check the one thing presented as a fact.

J

[Teenwolf]

Much better. It would be nice if we had an unbiased fact checker, but this will have to do. There is a great illustration of the basic problem

RUSH LIMBAUGH
Says "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land" in the United States "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument."

Pants on Fire! Can't blow away climate change

The only datum present is, "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land." This 100% factual. However, the checker refers to the conclusion, "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument." as if it were presented as fact.

The information was factual and the checker could not get it any more wrong.

J

This is highly illustrative of why you post the way you do. Cheers.

[onejayhawk]

This is highly illustrative of why you post the way you do. Cheers.

I am glad to have done my part toward greater human understanding.

J

[gcstomp]

1j, the problem is your reading comprehension. The Rush file covered 32 statements being false with 10 being pants on fire, such as the one you highlighted.some 85% of time he speaks in varying degrees of falsehood, with zero being flat out true, yet you think he is the truthful and D are full of lies. How did we get to this starting place?

This is your hand picked example, The sentence you picked out is absolutely a way out there false statement. You are reading it as if your hand selected sentence is comprised of a fact portion of a show, and then a fluff portion. You should read it as a sentence with a presentation and a conclusion, and it is clearly to most anyone above 3rd grade or so a factually false statement. Here is a similar sentence. :"Hi, my name is (insert your name), and I save planets from being eaten by unicorns on rainy days." You somehow are reading this as, yep 1st part is correct, thats my name, see partisan hacks blew it, while somehow missing the point, sentence is a false statement, a LIE.

This is common with your posts, of entirely missing point of what is being said.

[Teenwolf]

1j, the problem is your reading comprehension. The Rush file covered 32 statements being false with 10 being pants on fire, such as the one you highlighted.some 85% of time he speaks in varying degrees of falsehood, with zero being flat out true, yet you think he is the truthful and D are full of lies. How did we get to this starting place?

This is your hand picked example, The sentence you picked out is absolutely a way out there false statement. You are reading it as if your hand selected sentence is comprised of a fact portion of a show, and then a fluff portion. You should read it as a sentence with a presentation and a conclusion, and it is clearly to most anyone above 3rd grade or so a factually false statement. Here is a similar sentence. :"Hi, my name is (insert your name), and I save planets from being eaten by unicorns on rainy days." You somehow are reading this as, yep 1st part is correct, thats my name, see partisan hacks blew it, while somehow missing the point, sentence is a false statement, a LIE.

This is common with your posts, of entirely missing point of what is being said.

Bravo. The fact that the conclusion of a statement is the least important part to 1J is pretty telling. Right wing talk radio.... LOL. What a cesspool of conspiracy theory nonsense.

[onejayhawk]

1j, the problem is your reading comprehension. The Rush file covered 32 statements being false with 10 being pants on fire, such as the one you highlighted.some 85% of time he speaks in varying degrees of falsehood, with zero being flat out true, yet you think he is the truthful and D are full of lies. How did we get to this starting place?

This is your hand picked example, The sentence you picked out is absolutely a way out there false statement. You are reading it as if your hand selected sentence is comprised of a fact portion of a show, and then a fluff portion. You should read it as a sentence with a presentation and a conclusion, and it is clearly to most anyone above 3rd grade or so a factually false statement. Here is a similar sentence. :"Hi, my name is (insert your name), and I save planets from being eaten by unicorns on rainy days." You somehow are reading this as, yep 1st part is correct, thats my name, see partisan hacks blew it, while somehow missing the point, sentence is a false statement, a LIE.

This is common with your posts, of entirely missing point of what is being said.

I went with the five on the link since it was more than enough. Not one of them did the job that was advertised, ie check the facts. All five rendered opinion on an opinion. Even when something was identified by "seems" or "as if" the opinion was treated a statement of fact. If I wanted a left leaning comment on something Limbaugh said, I could check CNN or go next door. The one about Climate Change is so bad because the facts are correct but they were not even addressed.

This is common with your posts, of entirely missing point of what is being said.

The point of a fact checker is to check the facts, not render opinions.

J

[chancellor]

Much better. It would be nice if we had an unbiased fact checker, but this will have to do. There is a great illustration of the basic problem

RUSH LIMBAUGH
Says "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land" in the United States "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument."

Pants on Fire! Can't blow away climate change

The only datum present is, "11 straight years of no major hurricanes striking land." This 100% factual. However, the checker refers to the conclusion, "bores a hole right through the whole climate change argument." as if it were presented as fact. There are five Rush cites and every one of them is an opinion. Yet, they are all marked as half-truth to pants-on-fire.

The information was factual and the checker could not get it any more wrong. The one quoted is particularly bad because it does not even check the one thing presented as a fact.

J

No kidding. This one’s a classic “let’s take a quote out of context, hack-edit it, and then do our fact-check!”

Rush’s point relative to the “climate change argument” was the left-wing talking points that Katrina was a harbinger of soon to be many Katrinas in the near future. Rush’s point, which was that the claim that climate change was going to lead to an imminent series of catastrophic hurricanes was false, as shown by the aforementioned 11 quiet years, was entirely correct.

That doesn’t mean all the others are good, but it does indicate that Politi”fact” is more than willing to conveniently edit and pull out of context to make their base readers happy.

[Teenwolf]

No kidding. This one’s a classic “let’s take a quote out of context, hack-edit it, and then do our fact-check!”

Rush’s point relative to the “climate change argument” was the left-wing talking points that Katrina was a harbinger of soon to be many Katrinas in the near future. Rush’s point, which was that the claim that climate change was going to lead to an imminent series of catastrophic hurricanes was false, as shown by the aforementioned 11 quiet years, was entirely correct.

That doesn’t mean all the others are good, but it does indicate that Politi”fact” is more than willing to conveniently edit and pull out of context to make their base readers happy.

Right wingers sure hate fact checking these days. Predictable, given their leader is a pathological liar.

[onejayhawk]

Right wingers sure hate fact checking these days. Predictable, given their leader is a pathological liar.

If you had actual fact checkers it would be fine. Facts are stubborn and sometimes don't fit the narrative. Someone that point such things out would be helpful. These guys, not so much.

You keep calling Trump a liar, but I bet you could accurately give his position on any of a dozen topics. That was never true of Obama, nor is it true of Pelosi and Schumer.

J

[Teenwolf]

If you had actual fact checkers it would be fine. Facts are stubborn and sometimes don't fit the narrative. Someone that point such things out would be helpful. These guys, not so much.

You keep calling Trump a liar, but I bet you could accurately give his position on any of a dozen topics. That was never true of Obama, nor is it true of Pelosi and Schumer.

J

You mean like when Rush Limbaugh uses the fact that there haven't been hurricanes for 11 years to make an idiotic blanket denial of climate change? That kinda BS narrative?

Or how about Trump's narrative about immigrant crime that's 100% bullshit? You must know the rates of criminality for both legal and illegal immigrants are far lower than US born citizens. Why do you think he tells such blatant lies? Is it because his base is stupid enough to believe those lies, or do they just like Trump's dragon energy?

[Sour Masher]

You mean like when Rush Limbaugh uses the fact that there haven't been hurricanes for 11 years to make an idiotic blanket denial of climate change? That kinda BS narrative?

Or how about Trump's narrative about immigrant crime that's 100% bullshit? You must know the rates of criminality for both legal and illegal immigrants are far lower than US born citizens. Why do you think he tells such blatant lies? Is it because his base is stupid enough to believe those lies, or do they just like Trump's dragon energy?

I hope all can admit, that bolded bit is a damn funny line.

[onejayhawk]

You mean like when Rush Limbaugh uses the fact that there haven't been hurricanes for 11 years to make an idiotic blanket denial of climate change? That kinda BS narrative?

Or how about Trump's narrative about immigrant crime that's 100% bullshit? You must know the rates of criminality for both legal and illegal immigrants are far lower than US born citizens. Why do you think he tells such blatant lies? Is it because his base is stupid enough to believe those lies, or do they just like Trump's dragon energy?

There is quite a bit of evidence to support him. Just one example of a several times deported criminal committing a violent crime is enough to show it isn't BS. There are hundreds of such examples. It isn't BS which means it isn't a lie. Since he isn't lying, what does that make you?

I was not a Trump fan in 2016. Two years later, I am impressed with what he has accomplished. It is even more impressive because he has faced obstruction that makes McConnell seem like an open door, hordes of mind numbed robots chanting Trump is evil, and people like you. Forget the superficial and look at the substance. What you call lying is the superficial, because his positions are crystal clear.

What you call dragon energy is valid enough. You see it and recognize it, but you don't understand it. I cannot help you with that.

I hope all can admit, that bolded bit is a damn funny line.

Unintentional compliments are usually funny.

J

[Sour Masher]

I was not a Trump fan in 2016. Two years later, I am impressed with what he has accomplished. It is even more impressive because he has faced obstruction that makes McConnell seem like an open door

I can only deduce that this is blatant trolling, since I'm sure you understand how government works, and thus understand the difference between the opposition Trump faces among the general population, and how different that is than what Obama faced. How exactly has people calling Trump on his vileness obstructed him at all? Really, you can do better than this. It stretches credulity too much to think you don't know the difference between a president having Congress on his side and a president not having it in terms of what they can accomplish. To suggest that Trump's accomplishments are more impressive, because he faced more obstructionism than Obama is so laughable, it isn't even good trolling.

Also, you keep harping on the fact that Trump is an open book in terms of his positions. That is not the same thing as saying he is honest. One can be very clear about one's desires, and lie to achieve them. That is what Trump does, constantly. That isn't an admirable trait, though you seem to think it is.

[frae]

There is quite a bit of evidence to support him. Just one example of a several times deported criminal committing a violent crime is enough to show it isn't BS. There are hundreds of such examples. It isn't BS which means it isn't a lie. Since he isn't lying, what does that make you?

I was not a Trump fan in 2016. Two years later, I am impressed with what he has accomplished. It is even more impressive because he has faced obstruction that makes McConnell seem like an open door, hordes of mind numbed robots chanting Trump is evil, and people like you. Forget the superficial and look at the substance. What you call lying is the superficial, because his positions are crystal clear.

What you call dragon energy is valid enough. You see it and recognize it, but you don't understand it. I cannot help you with that.


Unintentional compliments are usually funny.

J

You mean the fear-mongering ad Trump tweeted about. Interesting Trump didn't point out some details about the star of his ad...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-trump-campaign-video-luis-bracamontes-ad-cop-killer-immigration-fact-check-trump-tweeted/

[Teenwolf]

There is quite a bit of evidence to support him. Just one example of a several times deported criminal committing a violent crime is enough to show it isn't BS. There are hundreds of such examples. It isn't BS which means it isn't a lie. Since he isn't lying, what does that make you?



J

The fact that you believe one example of anything is enough to prove anything about such a broad topic as immigration is staggeringly simplistic thinking.

If you were a US senator, you'd be the guy holding up a snowball in Congress.

I bring up statistics of ALL immigrants. You bring up 1 highly flawed example. This isn't a debate. Anecdotes are garbage. Bring stats that can disprove my point! I say this because you can't do it!