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?