WND, Breitbart, TownHall, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Faux, Daily Caller, InfoWars, you are on notice.

That wasn't the point English your second language?

 

You obviously don't even know what it means.

Steve

 

Why should I? You proved my point perfectly..

 

But.......not really. The Con Man-in-Chief is demonstrably more erratic, less knowledgeable, far less moral, and while presidents like Nixon have exhibited signs of instability (only in the days before he finally resigned) no prez has ever possessed all those negative characteristics until the Groper-in-Chief came along.

 

No, I used sarcasm to show how insipid your posts are

 

And you prove my point YET again

Thanks!

 

Because folks that read WND, Breitbart, Infowars, etc gaf what 'factcheckers' say?

Folks r gonna stick to their echo chambers on both sides of the political aisle. The partisan bias game played its hand too hard. Who's checking the fact checkers? Partisan funding, thats who.

 

(sigh) You know......for all the talk about "critical thinking" and how you think you're being clever with your non answers the fact remains that:
Leah pointed out that fact checkers are good to have
Your answer: you can't tell how their partisanship effects their fact checking. That has nothing to do with anything so no "critical thinking" shown there
Lee had to explain to you that despite that fact that in 2016 Trumps lies were pointed out constantly and yet he was still elected
Your answer: So how will one more make a difference Answers nothing, brings nothing to the table other to prove how gullible people are (and since you voted for Trump, that would be you) so, no "critical thinking" there.
So the question remains.............WTF are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?

 

So, you're right, we have come full circle
Not sure if I understand your complaint

 

When the fact checkers can back up their claims with actual facts (and with fake news that is NOT a matter of opinion...either something happened or it didn't) then funding doesn't matter

 

So, here's a fact. Hillary is not the president of the US. Have fun fact checking this.

 

I honestly don't believe you believe that We have a entire news industry that solely operated on false information for money! The reason it works so well is we have huge groups of partisan watchers and believers that are so agenda driven that they would RATHER hear and read misinformation then process the actual facts! Not only does our media take advantage of this cash cow are Government also takes FULL advantage of this denial!

As long as people chose to orbit what makes them feel good and are willing to pay/support these types of "So Called" fact checker, those financed fact checkers will cater to the coin! And the greater the sum involved the greater the spin

 

Good point.

 

The problem is that when fact checkers are trusted, no one checks them. They're no more or less susceptible to partisan bias 'drift' than the sources they fact-check.

There is simply no substitute for doing your own research, and the left is just as lazy as the right. Everyone wants to believe their favorite 'news' site or fact 'checker'... and so they do.

 

Can either one of you give an example of this biased fact checking you're talking about? Please show one of these facts that are wrong and you're proof of how they are wrong. Please share with the Forum you're incredible knowledge and "critical thinking" that brings you into the enlightened world you live in. Please show us the error of our ways. I don't want to be lazy, I need you to show me how to get to the real bare bones of true knowledge. What is your "research" method? Are there "dark web" sites that have the "real story"?

 

I'm comfortable allowing you to do it! It's not like you haven't "YOUR" choice of fact checker sites and your opinion of all others you believe are biased against your opinion and not a match for your particular set of values..

To be honest, it was a silly thing to even ask really!

 

It might have been silly to ask YOU because (as usual) you can't back up you claims. Not surprised. To be clear, you make/made the claim that fact checkers are biased. I asked for an example and you gave lip service.

 

Don't be ridiculous, you prove bias all day everyday on this site alone, and you want me to give YOU an example. Seriously brah, you can't possible be that disassociated with your own partisan genre and musing here? LMFAO

 

I see that one a lot from The Following. It's as though they're proud of taking a dump in their pants.

 

Yep, yep, just as I thought. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

heres a few

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/21/4-recent-examples-show-why-no-one-trusts-media-fact-checks/

 

Nicely done.......but
The article uses semantics to "prove" it's point and a numbers game to try to prove another. What it really says is "yeah, they're right, but if they looked at it like this they are wrong". It's really a weak attempt to prove it's own biased outlook but hey, if that's what you like...enjoy.

 

The partisanship comes in with how the facts are pieced together and interpreted

 

I would agree with statistics but on other items I'm pretty sceptical.