Lol!!!!!! Libs keep on losing.
Attachments:

Facts are liberal? Thank you.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are liberal? Thank you.




"Accused of fraud". Your welcome :-)

Fucking sad that trumptardz prefer to remain ignorant at all cost.

My signature: Remember the last time Trumptards tried to give us advice about politics then ended up storming the capitol and tried to overthrow our government? Yeah, no thanks morons.

covfefe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking sad that trumptardz prefer to remain
> ignorant at all cost.

^^^^^^^^
Thinks Snopes was the truth.

You can't make this stuff up!

Libtardz!

Lolz!

Don't forget the part about how he dumped his first wife and hooked up with an "escort" who now works there and he was bleeding the company dry by paying himself ($720,000/year) and her fat salaries and spending the money on trips and personal expenses outside of the business.

Meanwhile, Trump has been married a bazillion times, is a pedophile, and fucked prostitutes in 6 continents.

But desperate times calls for desperate measures eh Trumpies? LOL

My signature: Remember the last time Trumptards tried to give us advice about politics then ended up storming the capitol and tried to overthrow our government? Yeah, no thanks morons.

Dumbass shitlibs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> covfefe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking sad that trumptardz prefer to remain
> > ignorant at all cost.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> Thinks Snopes was the truth.
>
> You can't make this stuff up!
>
> Libtardz!
>
> Lolz!

What wasn't the truth from Snopes? Put up your shut your alternative reality rightard cult member mindset dirty mouth.

Rightards consider facts the enemy. Dumb asses.

.
Attachments:

What? Your meme's are incoherent. That's when you know you've lost your minds. Not even your memes are coherent anymore. We know most of you are not capable of discourse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2017 11:17PM by Gerrymanderer2.

covfefe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking sad that trumplibtardz prefer to remain
> ignorant at all cost.


FIFY

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Righlibtards consider facts the enemy. Dumb asses.


FIFY

covfefe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile, Trump Gerry has never been married cuz he's a bazillion
> times too ugly and smelly, is a gaypedophile, and fucked prostitutes goats and sheep in 6
> continents.
>
> But desperate times calls for desperate measures
> eh Trumplibbies? LOL


FIFY

Dumbshit Libs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Facts are liberal? Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> "Accused of fraud". Your welcome :-)

No...we insist...YOU'RE welcome.

Some other company will buy it before it goes away.

KKHMF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some other company will buy it before it goes
> away.

No, it's got a tarnished reputation. They have been biased with their so-called "facts" for a while now. Better to start over.

KKHMF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some other company will buy it before it goes
> away.


Some other company already bought it. Or half of it at least. That's who's suing them now.

What are legitimate sources rightards? They can't tell you.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are legitimate sources rightards? They can't
> tell you.

What are sources we should trust rightard? Name your fact checker. Fact checking and rightards is an contradiction in terms.

Leftist.Gorilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbshit Libs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Facts are liberal? Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Accused of fraud". Your welcome :-)
>
> No...we insist...YOU'RE welcome.


Interesting user name you have there. Why are libtards so angry and violent?
Attachments:

You filthy dogs don't like fact checking do you? You don't like people pointing out the inconsistencies in all of your barking and growling. Well we're civilized people that enjoy reality and the truth. You enjoy your alternative bubble all you want but leave us normal people out of it.

You're a tard, Gerry.

You can't even talk without posting pictures and drawings like cavemen. Why would you care about facts.

WHy so mad gerry?

Not mad, just the facts. They just come across as offensive to you.

You are extraordinarily faggy, Gerry.

Everyone is laughing at Gerry and Tim Kaine.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are legitimate sources rightards? They can't
> tell you.


Lots of various outlets are 'legitimate sources' depending on the subject and the particular point. Most all have points of view when it comes to political aspects of stories, what they choose to cover, to what extent, and how they frame things. In order to get an objective view of pretty much anything these days you need to look at a variety of sources.

Snopes in particular tends to do what a lot of left-leaning 'fact checking' sources do. They'll take a point and extract some literal element, or only address one aspect ignoring various others, or twist the primary point examined slightly off from what is implied and then disprove something that wasn't really the main point to begin with. Or they'll give the benefit of doubt to one side and not at all to the other. e.g., Often when examining something that say Obama said, they'll go through a long explanation of what he really meant to say and then declare why it's mostly true on that basis. In say Trump's case, they'll do it absolutely literally and declare it to be absolutely false.

Tim Kaine! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are extraordinarily faggy, Gerry.


That's just your dream
You want gerry so bad

Objective Observerer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What are legitimate sources rightards? They
> can't
> > tell you.
>
>
> Lots of various outlets are 'legitimate sources'
> depending on the subject and the particular point.
> Most all have points of view when it comes to
> political aspects of stories, what they choose to
> cover, to what extent, and how they frame things.
> In order to get an objective view of pretty much
> anything these days you need to look at a variety
> of sources.
>
> Snopes in particular tends to do what a lot of
> left-leaning 'fact checking' sources do. They'll
> take a point and extract some literal element, or
> only address one aspect ignoring various others,
> or twist the primary point examined slightly off
> from what is implied and then disprove something
> that wasn't really the main point to begin with.
> Or they'll give the benefit of doubt to one side
> and not at all to the other. e.g., Often when
> examining something that say Obama said, they'll
> go through a long explanation of what he really
> meant to say and then declare why it's mostly true
> on that basis. In say Trump's case, they'll do it
> absolutely literally and declare it to be
> absolutely false.

You know why they do that? Because its factual. Those are the facts. And what your understanding of it was a false narrative. Trump is a God damn liar, the only time Trump tells the truth is when he thought he was lying. Don't try to compare him to any president for that matter.

But your logic was very troubling, either you're just full of shit and you're not in touch with reality. Spin and actual intent with a factual basis are not equal. One is a false narrative usually for political purposes, and one is actual intent.

Here's a good example: The "You didn't build that" talking point for dummies on the right against Obama.

Of course Obama didn't just say you didn't build that white people!!! It was the government that built that. Of course he didn't say or mean it like that.

So fact checking sites post the context for people that want to check exactly what his or her president said and may have meant for themselves.

You don't like people having that ability online with fact check sites. You call that partisan. Facts are not partisan just because they undermine your false narrative. They remain facts. They're healthy and critical for people to have an accurate understanding of the intentions of their leaders.

Now, if Trump was a decent person being attacked by the media, fact checking sites would be his saving grace. That's how important they are. But instead, fact checking sites are his worst nightmare, because he's a liar, he's crook, and his politics represent many other unsavory things. And those are the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2017 09:11PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerry's leftist utopia is crumbling all around him and he doesn't know what to do.

Gerry is panicking lately, you can see it. It's just a matter of time before he snaps and takes somebody out like his comrade tried to do in Alexandria.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Objective Observerer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What are legitimate sources rightards? They
> > can't
> > > tell you.
> >
> >
> > Lots of various outlets are 'legitimate
> sources'
> > depending on the subject and the particular
> point.
> > Most all have points of view when it comes to
> > political aspects of stories, what they choose
> to
> > cover, to what extent, and how they frame
> things.
> > In order to get an objective view of pretty
> much
> > anything these days you need to look at a
> variety
> > of sources.
> >
> > Snopes in particular tends to do what a lot of
> > left-leaning 'fact checking' sources do.
> They'll
> > take a point and extract some literal element,
> or
> > only address one aspect ignoring various
> others,
> > or twist the primary point examined slightly
> off
> > from what is implied and then disprove
> something
> > that wasn't really the main point to begin with.
>
> > Or they'll give the benefit of doubt to one
> side
> > and not at all to the other. e.g., Often when
> > examining something that say Obama said,
> they'll
> > go through a long explanation of what he really
> > meant to say and then declare why it's mostly
> true
> > on that basis. In say Trump's case, they'll do
> it
> > absolutely literally and declare it to be
> > absolutely false.
>
> You know why they do that? Because its factual.
> Those are the facts. And what your understanding
> of it was a false narrative. Trump is a God damn
> liar, the only time Trump tells the truth is when
> he thought he was lying. Don't try to compare him
> to any president for that matter.
>
> But your logic was very troubling, either you're
> just full of shit and you're not in touch with
> reality. Spin and actual intent with a factual
> basis are not equal. One is a false narrative
> usually for political purposes, and one is actual
> intent.
>
> Here's a good example: The "You didn't build
> that" talking point for dummies on the right
> against Obama.
>
> Of course Obama didn't just say you didn't build
> that white people!!! It was the government that
> built that. Of course he didn't say or mean it
> like that.
>
> So fact checking sites post the context for people
> that want to check exactly what his or her
> president said and may have meant for themselves.
>
> You don't like people having that ability online
> with fact check sites. You call that partisan.
> Facts are not partisan just because they undermine
> your false narrative. They remain facts. They're
> healthy and critical for people to have an
> accurate understanding of the intentions of their
> leaders.
>
> Now, if Trump was a decent person being attacked
> by the media, fact checking sites would be his
> saving grace. That's how important they are. But
> instead, fact checking sites are his worst
> nightmare, because he's a liar, he's crook, and
> his politics represent many other unsavory things.
> And those are the facts.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-t
> hat-uncut-and-unedited/

God you're a loony bird. Shut the fuck up, OK?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Objective Observerer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What are legitimate sources rightards? They
> > can't
> > > tell you.
> >
> >
> > Lots of various outlets are 'legitimate
> sources'
> > depending on the subject and the particular
> point.
> > Most all have points of view when it comes to
> > political aspects of stories, what they choose
> to
> > cover, to what extent, and how they frame
> things.
> > In order to get an objective view of pretty
> much
> > anything these days you need to look at a
> variety
> > of sources.
> >
> > Snopes in particular tends to do what a lot of
> > left-leaning 'fact checking' sources do.
> They'll
> > take a point and extract some literal element,
> or
> > only address one aspect ignoring various
> others,
> > or twist the primary point examined slightly
> off
> > from what is implied and then disprove
> something
> > that wasn't really the main point to begin with.
>
> > Or they'll give the benefit of doubt to one
> side
> > and not at all to the other. e.g., Often when
> > examining something that say Obama said,
> they'll
> > go through a long explanation of what he really
> > meant to say and then declare why it's mostly
> true
> > on that basis. In say Trump's case, they'll do
> it
> > absolutely literally and declare it to be
> > absolutely false.
>
> You know why they do that? Because its factual.
> Those are the facts. And what your understanding
> of it was a false narrative. Trump is a God damn
> liar, the only time Trump tells the truth is when
> he thought he was lying. Don't try to compare him
> to any president for that matter.
>
> But your logic was very troubling, either you're
> just full of shit and you're not in touch with
> reality. Spin and actual intent with a factual
> basis are not equal. One is a false narrative
> usually for political purposes, and one is actual
> intent.
>
> Here's a good example: The "You didn't build
> that" talking point for dummies on the right
> against Obama.
>
> Of course Obama didn't just say you didn't build
> that white people!!! It was the government that
> built that. Of course he didn't say or mean it
> like that.
>
> So fact checking sites post the context for people
> that want to check exactly what his or her
> president said and may have meant for themselves.
>
> You don't like people having that ability online
> with fact check sites. You call that partisan.
> Facts are not partisan just because they undermine
> your false narrative. They remain facts. They're
> healthy and critical for people to have an
> accurate understanding of the intentions of their
> leaders.
>
> Now, if Trump was a decent person being attacked
> by the media, fact checking sites would be his
> saving grace. That's how important they are. But
> instead, fact checking sites are his worst
> nightmare, because he's a liar, he's crook, and
> his politics represent many other unsavory things.
> And those are the facts.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-t
> hat-uncut-and-unedited/


You prove my point for me. lol

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Objective Observerer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What are legitimate sources rightards? They
> > can't
> > > tell you.
> >
> >
> > Lots of various outlets are 'legitimate
> sources'
> > depending on the subject and the particular
> point.
> > Most all have points of view when it comes to
> > political aspects of stories, what they choose
> to
> > cover, to what extent, and how they frame
> things.
> > In order to get an objective view of pretty
> much
> > anything these days you need to look at a
> variety
> > of sources.
> >
> > Snopes in particular tends to do what a lot of
> > left-leaning 'fact checking' sources do.
> They'll
> > take a point and extract some literal element,
> or
> > only address one aspect ignoring various
> others,
> > or twist the primary point examined slightly
> off
> > from what is implied and then disprove
> something
> > that wasn't really the main point to begin with.
>
> > Or they'll give the benefit of doubt to one
> side
> > and not at all to the other. e.g., Often when
> > examining something that say Obama said,
> they'll
> > go through a long explanation of what he really
> > meant to say and then declare why it's mostly
> true
> > on that basis. In say Trump's case, they'll do
> it
> > absolutely literally and declare it to be
> > absolutely false.
>
> You know why they do that? Because its factual.
> Those are the facts. And what your understanding
> of it was a false narrative. Trump is a God damn
> liar, the only time Trump tells the truth is when
> he thought he was lying. Don't try to compare him
> to any president for that matter.
>
> But your logic was very troubling, either you're
> just full of shit and you're not in touch with
> reality. Spin and actual intent with a factual
> basis are not equal. One is a false narrative
> usually for political purposes, and one is actual
> intent.
>
> Here's a good example: The "You didn't build
> that" talking point for dummies on the right
> against Obama.
>
> Of course Obama didn't just say you didn't build
> that white people!!! It was the government that
> built that. Of course he didn't say or mean it
> like that.
>
> So fact checking sites post the context for people
> that want to check exactly what his or her
> president said and may have meant for themselves.
>
> You don't like people having that ability online
> with fact check sites. You call that partisan.
> Facts are not partisan just because they undermine
> your false narrative. They remain facts. They're
> healthy and critical for people to have an
> accurate understanding of the intentions of their
> leaders.
>
> Now, if Trump was a decent person being attacked
> by the media, fact checking sites would be his
> saving grace. That's how important they are. But
> instead, fact checking sites are his worst
> nightmare, because he's a liar, he's crook, and
> his politics represent many other unsavory things.
> And those are the facts.
> 7
> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-t
> hat-uncut-and-unedited

LOL lib.