WWTBAM Bored

Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

Facts have a well known liberal bias. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

Facts have a well known liberal bias. --Bob

Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

You do realize that at least some of the WikiLeaks e-mails have been debunked as fakes. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

Facts have a well known liberal bias. --Bob

Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

Because Sanders showed where his numbers came from, allowing the factcheckers to check his work. He also used the number in a different context than Trump did. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

You do realize that at least some of the WikiLeaks e-mails have been debunked as fakes. --Bob

Ironically. "left-leaning" (according to flock) snopes.com has debunked the debunking.

http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-t ... on-emails/

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

You do realize that at least some of the WikiLeaks e-mails have been debunked as fakes. --Bob

Really? Who says so? The same people who have lied about everything else? The same people who came up with the phrase "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky"? The same people who defended Slick Willy until a blue dress was found?

How many times does the same pattern have to occur before you recognise it?

Wasn't it an unfortunate accident that NBC discovered those Trump tapes that they had for 11 years just 4 weeks before the election? I wish they had found them in March. We might have had a non-psychopath to vote for. Also, don't you think it's rather convenient that all these women are now coming out to accuse Trump of everything under the sun AT THIS DATE? What a coincidence!

The next 4 years are going to be difficult for everyone.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob, have you even read the links? Neither candidate even came close to the number that Politifart came up with. Why is Bernie mostly true and Trump mostly false? IMO it is another blatant example of bias in the media, if you really need one. Anyone watching the main stream media with an open mind, or paying any attention to the leaked emails from wikileaks, really does not need any more examples. The MSM has degenerated into a not even subtle arm of the democrat party. I deplore both of the choices in this election, but it is disgusting to see how the MSM is slanted to Clinton.

You do realize that at least some of the WikiLeaks e-mails have been debunked as fakes. --Bob

Ironically. "left-leaning" (according to flock) snopes.com has debunked the debunking.

http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-t ... on-emails/

Wow, that was a confusing mess of a report. We certainly haven't heard the end of this.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Also, don't you think it's rather convenient that all these women are now coming out to accuse Trump of everything under the sun AT THIS DATE? What a coincidence!

Not at all. A woman I've known well for more than 30 years just told me for the first time about her first sexual assault. And her second. And her third. And her fourth. The first was by her chiropractor when she was 12 or 13. Trump has brought this issue to the fore in a way I've never seen before. And then, of course, there's the Kelly Oxford Twitter thread where (I believe) more than a million women have shared the story of their first sexual assault.

It doesn't surprise me at all that women directly affected by Trump's depredations would finally decide (a) they are now safe enough to tell their stories, and/or (b) they're pissed off enough by his words and actions to strike back. And I can't blame them for being scared earlier. Look at how many people didn't believe Anita. --Bob

From Facebook:

Jim Wright wrote:GOP: If these women now making accusations against Trump are legit, why didn't they come forward earlier?
Women:
GOP: Well?
Women: Wait for it.
GOP: No, really? Why didn't these women come forward?
Women: Wait for it. Waaaait for it...
<Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs deliberately doxxes Trump accuser's name, personal information, phone number, and address to the public>
Women: Any other stupid questions?

--Bob

Bob78164 wrote: Look at how many people didn't believe Anita. --Bob

Or Paula.
Or Juanita.
Or Kathleen.
I wonder how many haven't told their stories.

And I know Bill isn't running. But the reason these women are still relevant to the election is the left's false indignation about the Trump tapes. The left says "It matters!", but they've said "It doesn't matter." before.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Look at how many people didn't believe Anita. --Bob

Or Paula.
Or Juanita.
Or Kathleen.
I wonder how many haven't told their stories.

And I know Bill isn't running. But the reason these women are still relevant to the election is the left's false indignation about the Trump tapes. The left says "It matters!", but they've said "It doesn't matter." before.

Of course, the converse could also be said of the right. Not that I disagree with your point.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Also, don't you think it's rather convenient that all these women are now coming out to accuse Trump of everything under the sun AT THIS DATE? What a coincidence!

Not at all. A woman I've known well for more than 30 years just told me for the first time about her first sexual assault. And her second. And her third. And her fourth. The first was by her chiropractor when she was 12 or 13. Trump has brought this issue to the fore in a way I've never seen before. And then, of course, there's the Kelly Oxford Twitter thread where (I believe) more than a million women have shared the story of their first sexual assault.

It doesn't surprise me at all that women directly affected by Trump's depredations would finally decide (a) they are now safe enough to tell their stories, and/or (b) they're pissed off enough by his words and actions to strike back. And I can't blame them for being scared earlier. Look at how many people didn't believe Anita. --Bob

I never have and do not now believe Anita Hill.

Trump has been running for President for more than a year now. Are you naive enough not to understand this is orchestrated to explode NOW?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Also, don't you think it's rather convenient that all these women are now coming out to accuse Trump of everything under the sun AT THIS DATE? What a coincidence!

Not at all. A woman I've known well for more than 30 years just told me for the first time about her first sexual assault. And her second. And her third. And her fourth. The first was by her chiropractor when she was 12 or 13. Trump has brought this issue to the fore in a way I've never seen before. And then, of course, there's the Kelly Oxford Twitter thread where (I believe) more than a million women have shared the story of their first sexual assault.

It doesn't surprise me at all that women directly affected by Trump's depredations would finally decide (a) they are now safe enough to tell their stories, and/or (b) they're pissed off enough by his words and actions to strike back. And I can't blame them for being scared earlier. Look at how many people didn't believe Anita. --Bob

I never have and do not now believe Anita Hill.

Trump has been running for President for more than a year now. Are you naive enough not to understand this is orchestrated to explode NOW?

I'm sure it was. I'm also sure the claims are true.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13269448/ ... llegations

Bob Juch wrote:I'm also sure the claims are true.

Because?????

Are you also sure about the claims made against Bill Clinton during his run for office?

Bob Juch wrote: I'm sure it was. I'm also sure the claims are true.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13269448/ ... llegations

Trump set himself up when he repeatedly and categorically denied during the debate that he had done anything besides engage in "locker room talk."

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

And why is it, Flock, that every time I have the misfortune to be listening to right wing talk radio and Sean Hannity or one of his ilk brings up one of his talking points of the day that you invariably post it over here a couple of hours later. Don't you have any original ideas about Hillary or the vast left-wing conspiracy or do you require Rush and Sean to spoon feed you all your outrage?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I'm also sure the claims are true.

Because?????

Are you also sure about the claims made against Bill Clinton during his run for office?

Because Trump has been consistent for over 20 years.

I believe some things about Bill are true.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who checks the fact checkers?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-african/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... loyment-r/

I would say there's some bias in there. But that's just me.

And why is it, Flock, that every time I have the misfortune to be listening to right wing talk radio and Sean Hannity or one of his ilk brings up one of his talking points of the day that you invariably post it over here a couple of hours later. Don't you have any original ideas about Hillary or the vast left-wing conspiracy or do you require Rush and Sean to spoon feed you all your outrage?

Just FYI I do not ever listen or watch Hannity's show, and rarely get a chance to hear Limbaugh. I did hear of this on a local show and checked it out.
Of course all your rants, and especially BJ's, originate out of thin air.

http://projectveritas.com/2016/10/11/hi ... d-to-vote/

Why isn't this all over the news? Is this faked? Tell me how it's fake.... Oh, the NYC Election Commissioner is a sexual predator. Or maybe he's a racist. Maybe he said something controversial 25 years ago. What else can they pin on him so what he says is discounted? Oh, it came from James O'Keefe, and it's been proven he's not a real journalist, right? So anything from him can be ignored.
Which one(s) you gonna use?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://projectveritas.com/2016/10/11/hi ... d-to-vote/

Why isn't this all over the news? Is this faked? Tell me how it's fake.... Oh, the NYC Election Commissioner is a sexual predator. Or maybe he's a racist. Maybe he said something controversial 25 years ago. What else can they pin on him so what he says is discounted?

Because it was just one guy's drunken rant with absolutely no evidence.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://projectveritas.com/2016/10/11/hi ... d-to-vote/

Why isn't this all over the news? Is this faked? Tell me how it's fake.... Oh, the NYC Election Commissioner is a sexual predator. Or maybe he's a racist. Maybe he said something controversial 25 years ago. What else can they pin on him so what he says is discounted?

Because it was just one guy's drunken rant with absolutely no evidence.

Good one! That one wasn't on the list. I think because he's the Election Commissioner he would have had some credibility, but he's obviously a drunken slimeball, so, we can just discount what he says.

How about this one? Nobody looks drunk here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

Bob Juch wrote: evidence.

There's that word again.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: evidence.

There's that word again.

What evidence do any of the Trump accusers have? Is there a blue dress I haven't heard about?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://projectveritas.com/2016/10/11/hi ... d-to-vote/

Why isn't this all over the news? Is this faked? Tell me how it's fake.... Oh, the NYC Election Commissioner is a sexual predator. Or maybe he's a racist. Maybe he said something controversial 25 years ago. What else can they pin on him so what he says is discounted? Oh, it came from James O'Keefe, and it's been proven he's not a real journalist, right? So anything from him can be ignored.
Which one(s) you gonna use?

It came from James O'Keefe, and it's been proven that he distributes videos deceptively edited to make people appear to have positions precisely opposite from their real positions. It's not just me saying that. It's the six-figure settlement he paid for doing precisely that. --Bob