Fact check.org is fraudulent

How does that make him wrong? I think you're reading too much into the statement, and even if he is wrong, that does not prove fact check.org to be fraudulent.

 

The rule that everyone should understand that information they read, the author has an agenda and most often it is to attempt to brainwash people into believing the content to be factual. Especially in today's society where lying is the norm not the exception.

 

If the choice is this or what I gave as an example.....the correct answer is......it doesn't matter. Either way you are getting biased information from a fact checker, so since this guy has the job I see no point in firing him and hiring the opposite.

Ultimately it would be great to hire the person that doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) either way, but this topic is a polarizing topic and would be hard to find that person.

 

I check all I can and read read read!

 

No kidding. That's what Freeper Central thinks?

 

You were just corrected on the meaning of cult. It would be wise to stop using it when you clearly do not understand its meaning.

 

"Clinton Still Spinning Emails
Hillary Clinton once again made the claim that using a private email account and server while secretary of state was “absolutely permitted.” That’s pure spin. "
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/clinton-still-spinning-emails/

Doesn't sound like a particularly liberal bias to me.

But we can assume, based on your statement, that you will also refrain citing Factcheck for pieces that favor conservative positions, right?

 

What do bars typically broadcast?

 

I've only explained this about 2-3 times a year since I've been a member at PF.

 

Conservative positions are solid as a rock.Like Grandma's apple pie.

 

So you back up your claim that factcheck.org is liberal biased by posting a claim from the conservative freerepublic?

Good one. You're arguing against yourself.

btw, facts don't have bias, and facts remain facts no matter what their source. If the Devil himself tells you 2 plus 2 equals 4, do you stop believing it because of the source?

 

Just backing up the OP here. Of course facts have no bias. But the question is whether they are truly "facts." Facts can also be presented in a biased manner. Other important facts can also be left out, which happens more often than not today.

When did people start BELIEVING everything they read? is a BETTER question.

Try reading George Orwell's 1984 and then tell me that "facts" ARE "facts."

Steve

 

Donald is the biggest flip flopper since the invention of windshield wiper blades.

 

politifact named hillary the most trustworthy candidate out of everyone running in the 2016 election

 

It makes him too bias to do an honest fact check

 

This particular person admits he has an agenda to promote the AGW hypothesis and that makes him a very poor choice to fact check the subject and proves the organization he works for has the same agenda. Factcheck.org is now exposed as just another leftist bunch promoting leftist ideas

 

Fact check has to print some stuff like this to give people like you a hook to hang their hat on. This particular story is out there and undeniable so it is the perfect bone to throw.

 

Feel free to disregard that opinion piece but I notice you ignored who the so called fact checker was on the AGW story. That tends to back up the position of free republic. Not only that but you have to go to a group like them to hear these things because the left wing-main stream media sure won't go there

 

LOL

......