Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
Linking to CNN is not meaningful.
When did I link to CNN? And also how can you prejudge that without seeing any specifics. You seem to make most your arguments on emotion over information. That’s ignorant
$1 in my PayPal for every fact check linking to CNN?
what are you talking about weirdo? I’ve posted two links both from factcheck.org
With extremely biased and deceptive headlines. You made my case for me.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
Linking to CNN is not meaningful.
When did I link to CNN? And also how can you prejudge that without seeing any specifics. You seem to make most your arguments on emotion over information. That’s ignorant
$1 in my PayPal for every fact check linking to CNN?
what are you talking about weirdo? I’ve posted two links both from factcheck.org
With extremely biased and deceptive headlines. You made my case for me.
The headline was true and then backed up in the text.

what did you think of the second headline regarding the white supremacy point you brought up?? You didn’t address that. Care to do it now?

 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
Of course you think ‘Obama separated families at the border’ is misleading. You’re a pathological liar like all Leftists.
655AC0B0-12D8-460B-B263-3667422319B7.jpeg
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
Of course you think ‘Obama separated families at the border’ is misleading. You’re a pathological liar like all Leftists.
View attachment 465449
look at you just bouncing around topics accusing me of things I've never said. Wow thats pathetic. Just learn to concede and move on with your life. These little games don't work and are just a waste of time.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
Of course you think ‘Obama separated families at the border’ is misleading. You’re a pathological liar like all Leftists.
View attachment 465449
look at you just bouncing around topics accusing me of things I've never said. Wow thats pathetic. Just learn to concede and move on with your life. These little games don't work and are just a waste of time.
Nobody is dancing but you. You picked two from your website, one had a very biased and deceptive headline, I picked one from your website and it was an outright lie.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
Of course you think ‘Obama separated families at the border’ is misleading. You’re a pathological liar like all Leftists.
View attachment 465449
look at you just bouncing around topics accusing me of things I've never said. Wow thats pathetic. Just learn to concede and move on with your life. These little games don't work and are just a waste of time.
Nobody is dancing but you. You picked two from your website, one had a very biased and deceptive headline, I picked one from your website and it was an outright lie.
The headline was not deceptive. It showed exactly how the White House spun that narrative which they did. They said trump was being sarcastic, he clearly wasn’t but they also laid out all the facts and told readers to make up their own mind. It’s in the first paragraph that you probably didn’t even read. They also said that Trump did not tell people to drink bleach. They provided the exact quote and and context for his statement which you claimed they didn’t do.

address that and then I’ll move on to debunk your other claims.
 
Fact checking sites can be used in the search for the truth, but one should be aware that "fact checking" is a dishonest euphemism for fact spinning, and that it is lefty biased. There is nothing wrong with using biased media from either side, but one should understand what they are looking at. Facts can easily be assembled into false narratives that can be "fact checked", and this is why there is such a large "fact checking" industry.
Which is why I mentioned the fact the most fact checkers lay out their sources and that’s why they are useful. You don’t need to trust their conclusions or commentary, but they are useful for finding source material
I agree that fact checking sites can be a useful resource, but I strongly disagree with calling them "fact checking" sites. Every one that I visit needs to be vetted without using the sources that they cite. Assembling facts into politically motivated narratives is cheating, scamming, and dishonest when it is called "fact checking".
Go to factcheck.org and poke around, I posted two links already. Their sourced material is often quotes or videos or direct references to the issues at hand.
Like fact checking the Babylon Bee?
Sure. What issue to you have with that fact check?
You owe me $2 from your links. I’m not going to include the Time, Politico, WaPo, Yahoo, and Hill biased sources to obtain their ‘facts’, just CNN. You’d owe me close to $12 then.
Haha, look at you reading past the headline! Gold star for that. Too bad you don’t know how to address the content, you need to play games about links. Black star for that. You’re a pretty piss poor debater.
Top notch fact checking you have there catching the Babylon Bee like that.
Yes apparently so, you have yet to prove your point or prove mine wrong. You’re just trying to change the subject of your own thread now. That’s pathetic.
I picked one at random. The answer is a simple yes. But your ‘fact’ check babbles, spins, dodges, weaves, and says ‘misleading’.
How so? It lays out quotes and sites all of its sources, which is my point.
Of course you think ‘Obama separated families at the border’ is misleading. You’re a pathological liar like all Leftists.
View attachment 465449
look at you just bouncing around topics accusing me of things I've never said. Wow thats pathetic. Just learn to concede and move on with your life. These little games don't work and are just a waste of time.
Nobody is dancing but you. You picked two from your website, one had a very biased and deceptive headline, I picked one from your website and it was an outright lie.
The headline was not deceptive. It showed exactly how the White House spun that narrative which they did. They said trump was being sarcastic, he clearly wasn’t but they also laid out all the facts and told readers to make up their own mind. It’s in the first paragraph that you probably didn’t even read. They also said that Trump did not tell people to drink bleach. They provided the exact quote and and context for his statement which you claimed they didn’t do.

address that and then I’ll move on to debunk your other claims.
“There’s no clear indication in his remarks that Trump was joking, either in his initial comment or when he returned to the topic later in the briefing. But we’ll leave it for readers to judge.”
Because Leftards have zero sense of humor.
And you avoid the LIE of your biased website about Obama separation of families.
 
WSJ has a good piece on how ‘fact’ checkers are not concerned about truth, they are just there to spin a narrative.


Not long ago, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which downplayed many of the worst case scenarios for Covid and projected natural herd immunity by April. This article was widely shared via social media like Facebook, who reacted by unleashing the fact checking commissars. This latest WSJ article looks at how leftist social media outlets are doing their best to ensure that debate gives way to dogma.

“…the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.

The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.”

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”


What do Trump Humpers care about the truth.
TDS foaming at the mouth is so typical of the Left.

The WOKE has fallen mostly to this dogma. I think instead of calling them left because they really have gone far beyond left. The WOKE are unawaken fools. That are tools for the Cult.

Wow a Trump Humper accusing a group of folks of being a cult.
I have been accusing Christians of being in a cult long before Trump biatch. You are just slow to catch on. Cause you WOKE! :auiqs.jpg:

Trump Humpin is a cult ass clown.
 
WSJ has a good piece on how ‘fact’ checkers are not concerned about truth, they are just there to spin a narrative.


Not long ago, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which downplayed many of the worst case scenarios for Covid and projected natural herd immunity by April. This article was widely shared via social media like Facebook, who reacted by unleashing the fact checking commissars. This latest WSJ article looks at how leftist social media outlets are doing their best to ensure that debate gives way to dogma.

“…the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.

The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.”

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”


What do Trump Humpers care about the truth.
TDS foaming at the mouth is so typical of the Left.

The WOKE has fallen mostly to this dogma. I think instead of calling them left because they really have gone far beyond left. The WOKE are unawaken fools. That are tools for the Cult.

Wow a Trump Humper accusing a group of folks of being a cult.
The Left has no position on anything until their cult leaders tell them what to think.

Trump Humpers have only ONE position and that is what ever Trump tells you.
 
WSJ has a good piece on how ‘fact’ checkers are not concerned about truth, they are just there to spin a narrative.


Not long ago, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which downplayed many of the worst case scenarios for Covid and projected natural herd immunity by April. This article was widely shared via social media like Facebook, who reacted by unleashing the fact checking commissars. This latest WSJ article looks at how leftist social media outlets are doing their best to ensure that debate gives way to dogma.

“…the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.

The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.”

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”


What do Trump Humpers care about the truth.
TDS foaming at the mouth is so typical of the Left.

The WOKE has fallen mostly to this dogma. I think instead of calling them left because they really have gone far beyond left. The WOKE are unawaken fools. That are tools for the Cult.

Wow a Trump Humper accusing a group of folks of being a cult.
The Left has no position on anything until their cult leaders tell them what to think.

Trump Humpers have only ONE position and that is what ever Trump tells you.
Your TDS is hilarious.
Thread could be about floor cleaners and you’d be babbling about Trump.
 
WSJ has a good piece on how ‘fact’ checkers are not concerned about truth, they are just there to spin a narrative.


Not long ago, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which downplayed many of the worst case scenarios for Covid and projected natural herd immunity by April. This article was widely shared via social media like Facebook, who reacted by unleashing the fact checking commissars. This latest WSJ article looks at how leftist social media outlets are doing their best to ensure that debate gives way to dogma.

“…the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.

The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.”

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”


What do Trump Humpers care about the truth.
TDS foaming at the mouth is so typical of the Left.

The WOKE has fallen mostly to this dogma. I think instead of calling them left because they really have gone far beyond left. The WOKE are unawaken fools. That are tools for the Cult.

Wow a Trump Humper accusing a group of folks of being a cult.
The Left has no position on anything until their cult leaders tell them what to think.

Trump Humpers have only ONE position and that is what ever Trump tells you.
Your TDS is hilarious.
Thread could be about floor cleaners and you’d be babbling about Trump.

What is hilarious is listening to a Trump Humper calling another group of folks a cult.
 
WSJ has a good piece on how ‘fact’ checkers are not concerned about truth, they are just there to spin a narrative.


Not long ago, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which downplayed many of the worst case scenarios for Covid and projected natural herd immunity by April. This article was widely shared via social media like Facebook, who reacted by unleashing the fact checking commissars. This latest WSJ article looks at how leftist social media outlets are doing their best to ensure that debate gives way to dogma.

“…the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.

The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.”

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”


What do Trump Humpers care about the truth.
TDS foaming at the mouth is so typical of the Left.

The WOKE has fallen mostly to this dogma. I think instead of calling them left because they really have gone far beyond left. The WOKE are unawaken fools. That are tools for the Cult.

Wow a Trump Humper accusing a group of folks of being a cult.
The Left has no position on anything until their cult leaders tell them what to think.

Trump Humpers have only ONE position and that is what ever Trump tells you.
Your TDS is hilarious.
Thread could be about floor cleaners and you’d be babbling about Trump.

What is hilarious is listening to a Trump Humper calling another group of folks a cult.
Did you know Obama is the first clean and articulate black man?
Joe said so.
 

Forum List

Back
Top