GOOGLE MOVING TO RANKING SITES ON “FACTS” RATHER THAN POPULARITY VIA SNOPES

[The2ndAmendment]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

 

[Nutz]

Don't use google. There are plenty of search engines out there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

 

[Nutz]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

 

[Pogo]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

OK wait --
from a cursory read I infer that (1) Google is proposing to rank sites higher if they're factual, and (2) Alex Jones has a problem with that.

Leaving aside the advisability of the Google move, what does that tell you about Alex Jones?

 

[Pogo]

I can't vote in the poll. It's a bullshit mischaracterization of the OP story.

 

[Ragnar]

Well finally, the interwebs can fulfill it's promise and end that divisive debate about what color that damn dress was once and for all.

Also, yeah Alex Jones is a loon. However, if it was true, it would be a great time to invest in Bing LOL

 

[OKTexas]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Gee, seems like only yesterday you were leading the charge to let sites on the internet do as they pleased.

lol

 

[Nutz]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shouldn't you just be able to buy your way to the top listings on a google search?

I mean, that's the free market that conservatives worship....

 

[OKTexas]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:

The trustworthiness of a web page might help it rise up Google's rankings if the search giant starts to measure quality by facts, not just links

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. "A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy," says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

 

[Nutz]

Just in time for the FCC ruling:
Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links - 28 February 2015 - New Scientist

Google Moving To Shut Down Alternative Media By Ranking Sites On Facts Rather Than Popularity Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

 

[OKTexas]

It's clear why you and other conservatives would be worried about this, considering rightwing sites are devoid of facts.

Otherwise, you once again exhibit your ignorance, as this has nothing to do with the FCC ruling.

And as already noted you're at liberty to not use it.

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

 

[Nutz]

It is shameful how some are devoid of truth because it doesn't play into their narrative. They would rather embrace misinformation if it adds to their circle jerk of similar thought.

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess that's why you folks are always citing those unbiased sites like the huffy puffy post, salon, media don't matter and politico. LMAO

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll convince one person. Just because you changed your avatar to a murderous bitch doesn't mean you changed your stripes.

 

[Nutz]

Show me where I have cited anyone of those sites and maintained the story is credible. HuffPo, Breitbart and all of the other biased sites are exactly that...biased. The only difference, I recognize the bias on both sides and you are a lemming that thinks that anything a conservative leaning rag says is gospel truth while dismissing any story on an opposing site as false. Idiot lemmings, YOU are hilarious. They would believe the sky is purple if Breitbart, HuffPo or Alex Jones told them so.

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll convince one person. Just because you changed your avatar to a murderous bitch doesn't mean you changed your stripes.

Again...show me where I have espoused any liberal views. Just because I don't embrace the birther, Obama is a Muslim manchurian candidate nonsense - that doesn't make me liberal. I believe in facts and truth - not hyperbole and opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

Just look at page 1 of this board, 3 of the 4 sites I mentioned are being quoted by your side right now. Personally I could give a shit what google does, I haven't used them for years.

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll convince one person. Just because you changed your avatar to a murderous bitch doesn't mean you changed your stripes.

Again...show me where I have espoused any liberal views. Just because I don't embrace the birther, Obama is a Muslim manchurian candidate nonsense - that doesn't make me liberal. I believe in facts and truth - not hyperbole and opinion.

Well since you're only interested in facts, I'm sure you were up in arms when your dear leader made recess appointments to the NLRB when the senate was in session. The supreme court ruled against him 9-0 on that one. Or when he delayed or ignored hard deadlines in the ACA for political expedience, Or when he abused prosecutorial desecration by delaying the deportation of 8 million criminal aliens, granting work permits, social security numbers and other benefits in violation of immigrations and other laws. I could list more but why waste my time. Come on there conservative, what do you think about those actions.

 

[Nutz]

My side? What is my side? Just because I think teapers are idiots, it does not mean I am a liberal. I recognize hyperbole and hysteria...you don't. That is the difference...I am rational and a true conservative that doesn't confuse the issue with race and hate like your ilk.

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll convince one person. Just because you changed your avatar to a murderous bitch doesn't mean you changed your stripes.

Again...show me where I have espoused any liberal views. Just because I don't embrace the birther, Obama is a Muslim manchurian candidate nonsense - that doesn't make me liberal. I believe in facts and truth - not hyperbole and opinion.

Well since you're only interested in facts, I'm sure you were up in arms when your dear leader made recess appointments to the NLRB when the senate was in session. The supreme court ruled against him 9-0 on that one. Or when he delayed or ignored hard deadlines in the ACA for political expedience, Or when he abused prosecutorial desecration by delaying the deportation of 8 million criminal aliens, granting work permits, social security numbers and other benefits in violation of immigrations and other laws. I could list more but why waste my time. Come on there conservative, what do you think about those actions.

All you have to do is put down the kool-aid andpay attention...you might learn something.

 

[OKTexas]

Really? You spend just as much time supporting lawlessness and unconstitutional actions by this regime as any liberal on the boards, that's not being a conservative.

Not at all. Show me where I have. What I do is spend time defending and cleaning my house of idiotic logic, hyperbole, hate and vitriol spewed by pseudo-conservatives like yourself. You people are an embarrassment.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll convince one person. Just because you changed your avatar to a murderous bitch doesn't mean you changed your stripes.

Again...show me where I have espoused any liberal views. Just because I don't embrace the birther, Obama is a Muslim manchurian candidate nonsense - that doesn't make me liberal. I believe in facts and truth - not hyperbole and opinion.

Well since you're only interested in facts, I'm sure you were up in arms when your dear leader made recess appointments to the NLRB when the senate was in session. The supreme court ruled against him 9-0 on that one. Or when he delayed or ignored hard deadlines in the ACA for political expedience, Or when he abused prosecutorial desecration by delaying the deportation of 8 million criminal aliens, granting work permits, social security numbers and other benefits in violation of immigrations and other laws. I could list more but why waste my time. Come on there conservative, what do you think about those actions.

All you have to do is put down the kool-aid andpay attention...you might learn something.

Here I gave you a chance to prove your conservative claim and all you got is deflection. Too freaking funny.