Do Snopes and other "fact checkers" blatantly lie and fabricate their sources...

(((Snopes)))

...

They don't call them "right wing retards" for nothing...

human bean juice

They shift the goalposts when it suits them

Easy to make something "true" or "false" when you look for it outside of the real claim

Nah, California is Mexico.

>unemployment's drops a third in a year or blacks

>Sanders says it's 51
>not quite, it's probably higher
>Trump says it's 59
>OMG so wrong it's only 18
And you think it fell from over half to under a fifth in a year. KYS

>tfw Snopes used to be a good website to find information on viral internet shit before pushing a political agenda

Politifact is a joke. They need to change their name to politaopinion. It is sad so many people consider them a reliable source

ha ha where did you find this one?

^^This.

JOURNALISM IS SCIENTIFIC.

>100% sequential dubs reply rate

>77
Not gonna lie, I don't get it
>88
Bing images, which is apparently Kek's preferred engine

Yeah, "facts and evidence". Which includes spinning what is said, omitting evidence that contradicts the opinion of the writer, et cetera.

Kim LaCapria is one of their primary correspondents, wears her politics on her sleeve, and posts "I Bathe in Male Tears" when people correct her posts.

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4c4flr/ethics_socjus_snopescom_reports_bad_info_on_emory/

>Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.

This is exactly the sort of person that strikes me as who will do her job properly and isn't pushing an agenda.

How does it feel to be both wrong and gullible, libtard? Even GamerGate can discover shit better than you.

>snopes.com/three-syrian-refugees-assault-5-year-old-girl-at-knifepoint/
>breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/04/exclusive-5-year-old-victims-father-saw-video-of-twin-falls-refugee-rape/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Seriously... read the Snopes and then read the interview with the father. Snopes just pretends that nothing exists if it doesn't push their liberal agenda.

mind if i save your .gif?

Can we fact check this fact check checker?

They cherrypick the version of the story in circulation and look for a discreditable statement. Ta-Dah! Story is Snopes-verified bullshit!
They have a leftist agenda which is obvious.

Only if you really, really, really like it. :)

facts are relative. they are never truth.

libtards everyone. just point and laugh

thanks linda

Lol all your shitty lib cities are going into debt and failing.

I'm saving these because i still get into arguments with people about Snopes' credibility.

Try jumping in front of a speeding train while Meming that it's not actually there. Reality matters, and one of the great things about an Internet with free speech is that people can point out flaws with a false narrative and present evidence as to why it's false.

The only source I trust is wickedweaselfag.

snopes.com/2016/06/19/failed-daily-caller-writer-throws-temper-tantrum-about-being-debunked-by-snopes-com/

I just lost a bit of respect for them for getting baited so hard

>They know

Who watches the watchmen?

Kind of like our politicians.

This one gets me.
>She wasn't raped by Syrian refugees!
>She was raped by Muslims from other sandnigger countries
>FALSE!

Kill yourselves snopes.

>The only source I trust is shaved vulva.
ftfy!

Snopes is still great for nonpolitical stuff.

Fuck that father. Hes a piece of shit. That's your child. Those fucking mon keys hooting your porch after assaulting your child and you hid inside and called the cops? That's an instant baseball bat assault on all the kids and their parents in reach. Instant. No fucking jury would convict you and even if they did, a year in jail is WELL worth it in that case. I wouldn't count out shooting either. That's your fucking kid you coward. Even a mangy dog will defend it's pups to the death. Hell, fucking rats or mice will defend their young to the death.

Facts are malleable and circumstantial. Everything is very complex, if you ignore a certain variable then you end up with different observable facts than if you included that variable. Essentially, a fact relies on a foundation of assumption. So, with the right foundation of assumption, anything can be a fact and can be proven. This is one of the fundamental roles of the media: set the bounds of discussion, so all discussion comes from the same assumption.

most ppl make up their minds based on immediate emotions

>>>>>>evidence
>>>>>>solid arguments

You're supposed to check them yourself if you care about believing the truth

The question was rhetorical.

That's what I thought. That father isn't a man. He just watched a video of Ay-rabs fucking his 5 year old in the mouth while pissing on her and shoving things in her ass.

He should have called his best 5 friends and they should have come over with ARs to mow down the entire Muslim family.

How else can you raise a daughter if you aren't ready and willing to kill any shitskin that treats her wrong?

if they have video why were they not charged and how can the local police deny it?

Saged and hidden.
And, if you really are as confused as the first post implies, knowledge doesn't come from one web site, our worldview is not a fluke or a phase, Snopes' idea of disproving something is gratuitous lying, and everything you are claiming to be "disproven" was already both "disproven" and forbidden to discuss but it came back from the informational dead because it is self-evidently true.

Case sealed, no info for the public.

Who knows if the video was not deleted.

Also, that whole town/city administration is on using refugees as cheap labor for a Muslim owned Plant nearby.

breitbart.com/tag/twin-falls-idaho/

There is a lot of terrifying info here that will depress the shit out of you.

I don't get it. The boys were charged and they're giving out quite a lot of information for a juvenile case. I'd say it's pretty reasonable for a police department to not want to broadcast a video of a 7 year old trying to stick his dick in a 5 year old.

idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article85786952.html

>snopes.com/three-syrian-refugees-assault-5-year-old-girl-at-knifepoint/

"WHAT'S FALSE: The incident was not a rape, the girl was not murdered, the boys involved were not Syrian, a knife was not used, and no "language barrier" prevented police from investigating or detaining two boys involved."

This is why nobody ever takes Cred Forums seriously

>The incident was not a rape
TOP

>This is exactly the sort of person that strikes me as who will do her job properly and isn't pushing an agenda.

I'm guessing there is absolutely nothing she could have possibly said about herself that you wouldn't be pretend-outraged by it.

>Can we fact check this fact check checker?
Call the Sheriff get the court transcripts

Or make shit up, which ever you think is easier..

Snopes is full of shit.

KEK

They don't lie or fabricate, it's just that they are biased when the "fact" being checked is up for interpretation, and their sources are more likely to be liberal, because academic sources are more likely to be liberal

The fact is that almost everything hardcore conservatives say has something definitely false about it, so even if they are largely right in some way there is always room for somebody to come in and nitpick with contradictory sources

>Snopes is full of shit.

Maybe blaming the murder of a 5-year old girl on Syrian refugee men is fuller of shit.

snopes was good in the 90s

Perhaps you should believe the people that saw the video instead of a jewish website.

Bitch, are you retarded? Let's do this again.

>The incident was not a rape
It was a rape.
> the girl was not murdered
Congrats on disproving a claim only Snopes made.
>the boys involved were not Syrian
Oh noes, they were Iraqis and Eritreans, you got me Snopes!
>a knife was not used,
A knife was used.
>no "language barrier" prevented police from investigating or detaining two boys involved
Yea, I'm sure the sandniggers speak perfect English.

BONUS STAGE
>The local news media attempted to cover it
>City Councilman smeared the family
>The Judge threatened to jail people just for talking about

No go fuck yourself and contemplate why the fuck you are defending sandnigger child rapists.

They're a bullshit site. Look up their story about BLM chanting for dead cops - they spun it to look like it didn't happen, when it only "didn't" happen in 2016. (It happened in 2014.)

Also, republicans are more informed on current events.
people-press.org/2014/10/02/from-isis-to-unemployment-what-do-americans-know/

As was his answer, in a way.

Guys did you know that Hillary didn't laugh about getting a rapist off lightly in one of her only criminal case hearings as a lawyer?
They proved it!
snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

lol Colorado deserves to be part of America for fucks sake

>saved

Michigan here, we're more like the fucking Leafs than Commiefornia and NE.

>Perhaps you should believe the people that saw the video instead of a jewish website.

Perhaps that's why I asked for the court transcripts
>the court transcripts

I don't trust any web sites. I'm a skeptic.

If I saw the video myself, I ouwld sconsider that a first-hand original source. But hearing about third hand from a site that got all the details wrong in the first place justifies a little skepticism.

Look here:
"Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs argued the rape allegations were misreported by social media and other news outlets"
kivitv.com/news/twin-falls-pd-alleged-rape-committed-by-boys-of-iraqisudanese-descent

Snopes is not a good primary source in itself, but they do usually include links to primary sources.

The problem is that most of Cred Forumss 5th grade level anons will take away from this that *all fact-checkers can't be trusted* with excuses like "liberal/communist/marxist/socialism/Jewish bias" rather than be responsible for the shit that goes into their brains and actually learn the critical thinking skills they need to research this shit themselves.

>Snopes
It's 2006 again?

man hands/10. would still accept blowjob...

The simple fact of the matter is that Cred Forums is consistently wrong, and that is why fact checkers trigger them so much. In order to not admit that they are wrong, they cling to logical fallacies and fake "infographics" that feed them only the information they want to hear.

Snopes is like two old hippies that use google. How they got credibility as some sort of research site is beyond me.

Hell on the chans you will have people scouring social media, archiving every contentious item as well as people searching tor and every possible outlet. That blows most media companies let alone "fact checkers" out of the water, the only problem is finding something to trigger the autism. /sg/ allegedly geolocated some terrorist camp in Syria then forwarded their compiled info to some reporter and the Russians I think.

The former. "Fact checking" is literally only a euphemism for propaganda.

Facts are facts are facts. "Fact checkers" like to subjectively apply a value of "truthiness" to facts, to decide how factual the fact really is.

It's utter nonsense. See pic related.

>POSTED: 6:20 PM, Jun 20, 2016
>UPDATED:8:52 AM, Jun 21, 2016

What were you saying about reading comprehension?

No.

>/sg/ allegedly geolocated some terrorist camp in Syria then forwarded their compiled info to some reporter and the Russians I think.
>allegedly

If snopes said that you could piss up a rope would that make it true? There's your "(((fact checking)))"

>those butthurt turks
Every time.

Dumping a few more examples. This one is more blatant. They basically just toss out data they don't like when it doesn't fit the narrative. Politifact is an exercise in confirmation bias, for both it's viewers and the people who come up with this shit.

...

>allegedly

...

Forced oral sex is considered rape.

Penetration was attempted too, though it sounds like it failed from the description

It's not so much that right wing people lie more, it's just that:

1) Fact checkers often fail to give right wing politicians the benefit of the doubt, taking the most extreme version of their argument, and often marking it as false, when similar statements by leftists get a half true or greater.

2) left wing politicians like Hillay Clinton often don't make their arguments directly, relying on surrogates to lie and make the points in the most left wing way, and then they agree with them. For example, Obama never said that Trayvon Martin was holding skittles when he was shot, or even that the shooting was unjust. But he lets BLM make that argument to his base, then agrees with BLM. He never tells an untruth, but supports movements and causes that do.

3) a lot of times they just don't fact check things the left says. A lot of their more outlandish arguments are never checked.

Great example: the "77 cents" myth. 77% wages for the same work is an outright lie. Have you ever seen a politician fact checked on it? Or, they'll say 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, which is true, but obviously implies something that's not factual.

This happens to everything that develops any influence over people. ie FB, media, et al

>1) Fact checkers often fail to give right wing politicians the benefit of the doubt, taking the most extreme version of their argument, and often marking it as false, when similar statements by leftists get a half true or greater.
Or they just outright lie, knowing full well what they are doing.

BLM is not an Obama surrogate, nor does he "let them" do anything. He has no control over them at all. Try again.

>It was a rape.
"Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs argued the *rape allegations* were misreported by social media and other news outlets"
kivitv.com/news/twin-falls-pd-alleged-rape-committed-by-boys-of-iraqisudanese-descent
The prosecutor says it was not rape. I'm guessing he's seen the video and you have not.

>a knife was not used,
A knife was used to *not murder* the girl or a knife was not used to *not rape* the girl?

>Yea, I'm sure the sandniggers speak perfect English.
96% of immigrant children and 2nd generation immigrants speak English with fluency.

>No go fuck yourself and contemplate why the fuck you are defending sandnigger child rapists.
I have a Masters degree in Social Work and I work for an agency that provides services for children. No one is defending the horrific abuse the little girl must have suffered.

But telling and repeating lies for your liberal-hate, immigrant-hate and refugee-hate agenda makes you the idiot victim of other perpetrators. I'm just sorry you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by your raw stupidity in a public forum.

i bet obama himself hates niggers

Exactly.
>Let's ignore the whole context of what a Muslim invasion of the West actually causes.

it sure is..... there was no "BLM" movement during any other presidents term other than obummer.

>muh conspiracy theory is reality
nope. try again

blm are cucks compared to whats happened before

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

Then you're a fool if you can't see how it's reasonable to discourse on the nature of truth seeking.

Fuck off, you clown.

>The prosecutor says it was not rape. I'm guessing he's seen the video and you have not.
No, he ARGUED, it was not a rape due to the age of the people involved.

The sandnigger forced oral on a 5 year old, peed on her, and attempted fuck her from behind.

lol, not rape

>A knife was used to *not murder*
Cool goal post move.

>96% of immigrant children and 2nd generation immigrants speak English with fluency.
Refugees
>Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”.

>I have a Masters degree in Social Work
Top kek, are you a woman too? That at least would give you an excuse for studying something so retarded.

Kill yourself and rethink your life choices.

It's all a joke

Snopes is a biased government controlled site. Be careful what you believe from there. Some stuff is true while other stuff is false.

Of course, you remember when Hillary was caught on audio laughing at getting a man who raped a 12 year old off scot free? They labeled that a "False" even though she's on fucking audio.

God fucking damnit. Either you are a faggot or a female.

ForF. So go fuck yourself with a spoon since you love shoving shit inside of yourself.

>1) Fact checkers often fail to give right wing politicians the benefit of the doubt,
Like Trumps repeated recorded on Twitter saying climate change was a Chinese hoax, then denying it at a debate? I thought he was given a lot of latitude on that one.

>taking the most extreme version of their argument,
That's called the Reductio ad Absurdum fallacy. People who know what that is, like fact-checkers for example, are generally careful to avoid it.

>and often marking it as false, when similar statements by leftists get a half true or greater.
You fell for that meme, didn't you.
Please, go back and research any one of those listed and lets pick it apart together.

Maybe something can be learned here after all.

>You fell for that meme, didn't you.
>meme

...

>often avoid that fallacy
Then what's going on with snopes here?

...

It's really easy to skew when you have a bias. Not only do they run more right wing looking stuff, they ignore or lie about the left wing stuff.

Bingo, a false examines both sides narrative plus a slanted impression is made.

It's like going to the creationist wiki and expecting balance. But the difference is most media slants left.

I don't know, women are not very quick to justify child rape of young girl.

It's probably a sandnigger

...

...

Global warming is a hoax. Period

>

Even within the early days of the site, they'd get a lot of questions from things like e-mail chains where the source is virtually impossible to track down. They'd often confirm those ones to be false on the grounds that they were unlikely, rather than having any real evidence.

It's run a couple who live out in the middle of nowhere

Literally no one cares you are a disgusting animal for defending these types of outlet

>

I love watching liberals call the rape of a 5 year old "not rape", because "it's just oral".

Same people who want to jail professors fucking legal age students because "power differential is basically coersion and therefore rape".

Unbelievable.

>what a meme guiz

How do people look at these and go "duh tha repubikins are liars"
This is some of the most biased shit out there

...

Unbelievably I seen that last night and thought it was a joke.

they don't look
they do everything in their power to ignore all evidence that their worldview isn't functional, and live entirely off of what makes them feel good

Same people who believe in positive consent laws as well.

It's just selective destruction. They are entirely just useful idiots for destroying a nation. Oh how I'd love to see them be removed...

Member when Snopes at least tried to hide their far-left bias and had ear-raping MIDI music in most pages? I 'member.

...

>Victim’s Father:
As told to us by an obsessed Breitbart hypergraphic sensationalist:
breitbart.com/author/lee-stranahan/

>Top kek, are you a woman too?
Nope

>That at least would give you an excuse for studying something so retarded.
I make just over 6 figures but it's a rigorous work schedule and I see reports of unimaginable grief.

>Kill yourself and rethink your life choices.
In that order?

>God fucking damnit. Either you are a faggot or a female.
Male. Married to a former model. 4 weeks of vacation a year. Drive a older BMW. Home is worth $500k and I've paid half of it already. It's a great life actually. I'll retire in 15 years at 50.

But don't let me interrupt your stream of *being wrong*.

Reductio ad Absurdum is not a fallacy. It is an argumentation tactic to expose fallacy.

Slippery slope is the fallacious form of Reductio ad Absurdum where the "logical conclusion" is not one that necessarily follows. The easiest way to avoid making Reductio ad Absurdum without being fallacious is to use it on arguments that rely on all-encompassing terms.

They really don't. They then stomp around convincing themselves and everyone around them that they are right.

I need to get back to posting cameltoes.

The Comedian was right.

Rorschach is the equivalent of lolbertarians.

>all of these pathetic things that aren't true

Kek

Great. I'm a math major with a 10 inch dick I'm 6'4" and make 1,000,000 starting.

>I love watching liberals call the rape of a 5 year old "not rape", because "it's just oral".
The prosecutor said the rape allegations were misreported. Is he a liar?

Jesus Christ

>4 weeks of vacation a year.

Less than any entry level job in Sweden. This is what you brag about.

Notice this faggot, instead of going after all the Politifact posts he asked us for, instead shoved some giant black did up his ass while pivoting away.

...

Did you narrow it down to one or are we still (photo)shopping for that perfect meme magic?

>Less than any entry level job in Sweden. This is what you brag about.

In America that's considered an abundance of riches. My barbecue friends grouse about that more than anything else.

You are such a pathetic pussy. Let me show you a picture of a nice pussy while you are busy avoiding things.

facts have a liberal bias

How could that top one be real? How could they possibly say they had experience in something that didn't exist yet?

>they meant the signers later got experience?
>were they referring to civil service jobs prior to?

>Reductio ad Absurdum is not a fallacy. It is an argumentation tactic to expose fallacy.
Thank you. Since I generally avoid fallacies like that, I have little expertise with them.

Snopes is literally CorrectTheRecord™ with a broader mission scope.

>I have a Master's degree in Social Work

I've seen prosecutors and cops drop serious crimes multiple times. All immigrant related, despite evidence.

All politically motivated of course. It's no secret. Nor was the systematic rape gangs in the UK. Nor the assaults in Germany that ended up with no suspects despite video evidence and eyewitnesses in the hundreds.

You think anyone is impressef or fooled by government collusion on behalf of criminals? Wake the fuck up.

The bigger deal is they label it "PANTS ON FIRE RETARDED" for basically being a stupid semantical thing on Sleepy's part.

But that's how Politifuck works. If a Republican says anything, they label it a lie, while if a Democrat says the exact same thing, they label it true.

>As told to us by an obsessed Breitbart hypergraphic sensationalist:
Is that all? You're going to just ignore the facts because you don't like the source? You do realize all your articles were just knee jerk responses to early twitter reporting?

Look, I'm going to be honest with you. You're acting like a terrible human being. You're downplaying the rape of a 5 year old. There is no rational justification for that, and it's clearly an emotional response for you.

I don't know if you are just an zealot ideologue imbecile who is doing this out of need to avoid cognitive dissonance, or an actual sandnigger instinctively defending your own, but you really fucked up. Seriously, do rethink what you are doing.

Also, top kek at your made up life. Perhaps once you get a bit older, or lurk moar, you will understand why making up shit is point less on Cred Forums.

I'm just sorry you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by your raw stupidity in a anonymous forum.

1. They choose which statements to fact check. All the graphs that show tabulations of true and false statements are meaningless. They don't choose statements randomly.

2. They have different standards of evidence for different politicians. See the many examples in this thread.

3. They usually analyze a selective portion of a quote. So, if one fact can be shown to be slightly off, they will say an entire statement is wrong, even when the overall point is right. A good example is the quote from Secretary Clinton's former boss saying that she was horrible, he didn't trust her, and he fired her. Turns out he didn't fire her, so Snopes only focuses on that specific issue in claiming the statement was false.

4. If they like a candidate, they remove context so a false statement becomes a true statement. A good example is Secretary Clinton in the last debate saying that blacks who commit crimes are more likely to be arrested than whites. There is zero data to support this. The theory is unsupported and many smart people would say it is a dumb hypothesis. What did Politifact do? Politifact analyses the statement as if Secretary Clinton said that blacks were arrested more, which is isn't what she sad, but of course blacks are arrested more, so Secretary Clinton got another True rating.

There is more.

Not an argument, so I'll assume you know damn well he is right.

>instead of going after all the Politifact posts he asked us for

I asked you to pick one, remember? I didn't ask for a dump of your idiotic memes.

>Please, go back and research any one of those listed and lets pick it apart together.

So follow the original instructions and just pick one.

>Ignore sources because you don't like them

Sure is liberal faggot in here.

This.
Most people are too stupid to comprehend even basic logic.
This annoys me to no end.

>BLM is not an Obama surrogate

*cringe*

>States number
>WRONG! EVEN THOUGH IT IS CORRECT, YOU DIDN'T PUSH OUR NARRATIVE!

Fucking hell, they are so full of shit.

>Reductio ad Absurdum fallacy

Good thing you know what that means, because if you did, you'd know that the conclusion that follows his premise had to do with the integrity of the fact-checkers themselves, not the extremes to which arguments are made.

But then again, you've probably just graduated college and sifted through your debate class texts and used it to appear (((((((((smart))))))))))).

>You're acting like a terrible human being. You're downplaying the rape of a 5 year old.

and even worse, he's defending Snopes.

...

>Male. Married to a former model. 4 weeks of vacation a year. Drive a older BMW. Home is worth $500k and I've paid half of it already. It's a great life actually. I'll retire in 15 years at 50.

>so psychologically fragile you actually have to try to advertise your self worth on a goddam anonymous Viet Cong birdwatching enthusiasts image board

No fucking social worker makes that much you lying faggot

Sorry that you are so disgusted by the female form that you are unable to stick to your shtick in here.

Try this one.

Factchecking = Pilpul
Google it

>Is that all? You're going to just ignore the facts because you don't like the source?
The write didn't see the video. He's telling us the information 3rd hand. And he keeps writing about this story over and over like he's got a serious emotional chip on his shoulder.

The father says he saw the video and I generally would take his word over the others, but he also has an interest in the outcome of the case. He wants the worst punishment possible for these boys so that is the story he's telling. People exaggerate.

This is why I like the court transcripts. People often tell a very different story under oath.

>You're acting like a terrible human being. You're downplaying the rape of a 5 year old.
No, I'm not. I'm listening to the exact words of the prosecutor. Maybe there is more to it than he's letting on, but he said the rape allegations were mis-reported. So quite sensibly I'm not going with "rape allegations" just because you feel all weepy and emotional.

>I don't know if you are just an zealot
Nope

>ideologue
Not really

>imbecile
Nope

>who is doing this out of need to avoid cognitive dissonance
Nope.

>or an actual sandnigger instinctively defending your own,
I'm Irish American going back 300 years

>but you really fucked up.
Then present your case. Your previous flurries of accusations were all false.

> just sorry you're not bright enough to be embarrassed by your raw stupidity in a anonymous forum.
I'm glad you liked it an you may quote me.

No kids? Is she frigid?

No she's made up.

>YELLS TO PROVIDE A POLITIFACT BIAS SO HE CAN TELL YOU WHY POLFIRACT IS FAIR AND CORRECT

>Gets handed 50 of them

>INGORES EVERY ONE OF THEM BECAUSE PEEOPLE USED THE WRONG PRONOUNS!!!!

You're still a fucking faggot.

"Real unemployment" is its own term. It includes the unemployed and the underemployed. There is no contradiction here.

>so psychologically fragile you actually have to try to advertise your self worth on a goddam anonymous Viet Cong birdwatching enthusiasts image board

Social work is horribly underpaid at the Associate and Bachelors level, but it is important work and I really recommend it to anyone who has their heart in improving their community

My 4 year degree was psychology and I just didn't like the clinical duty. It's rough and you get little respect from your court-appointeds and little sympathy from your boss.

But I have nothing to hide. I'd invite you over to grill some steaks and drink a few beers, but you seem a little upset.

You are still being a faggot you faggot.

>YELLS TO PROVIDE A POLITIFACT BIAS SO HE CAN TELL YOU WHY POLFIRACT IS FAIR AND CORRECT
Did I ever mention Politifact specifically? But when I said you fell for "memes", you obviously knew you fell for memes and someone was gracious enough to provide those memes you fell for.

>Gets handed 50 of them
50 lies doesn't add up to one fact. I asked for one example. It's OK if you're not up to the task.

>INGORES EVERY ONE OF THEM BECAUSE PEEOPLE USED THE WRONG PRONOUNS!!!!
Well, in all fairness, the math and reading comprehension skills were a lot lower than I anticipated.

>by mid paragraph he's following his "gut feeling"
I find new things to laugh in these every time.

>implying anyone cares about the difference

this is what liberals do when they realize they're wrong

pathetic, just admit it like a man

>the integrity of the fact-checkers themselves,
Fact checkers can be wrong too. They make mistakes like we do. However we can review their sources and analyze their conclusions and make our own judgements.

>you've probably just graduated college and sifted through your debate class texts and used it to appear smart.
I remember the logical fallacies from college classes, but now we have a DSM with a lot more specific diagnoses and terminology. I can probably hold my own in a debate.

Everyone lies. The difference is that one side is better at being biased.

>50 lies doesn't add up to one fact. I asked for one example. It's OK if you're not up to the task.

see or or this one here

i have no idea what you're arguing about, but you sound like a little bitch, which means you're a liberal, which means I hope bad things happen to you

>I can probably hold my own in a debate.
By ignoring anytime anyone makes a point that destroys your premise.

See

Shit I forgot my cameltoe pic. Now that faggot will probably pay attention to it.

>i have no idea what you're arguing about, but you sound like a little bitch, which means you're a liberal, which means I hope bad things happen to you
I don't know whose schadenfreude is worse, yours or mine.

Cred Forums is such a dysfunctional trainwreck, I just can't look away.

More ignoring and diversion.

Keep going you self-rectal inserter.

ITT

Hol' up

Your argument for why it was not rape is that a lawyer played semantic games? Well a lawyer said that forcing oral on a 5 year, peeing in her mouth, and attempting to penetrate her, is not rape. So I guess I see your point.

The author of the article is wrong because he does not share your political beliefs?

And the dad is lying, because the judge might read the article, right, in a sealed case?

I get that you are role playing, but man, you would make the worse social worker ever, if you were to ever become one. The girl has already been scarred for life.

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/05/exclusive-twin-falls-refugee-rape/

Oh wait, I bet the mom is lying too.

The extent to which you will go in order to avoid cognitive dissonance is terrifying.

Yea, you're a sandnigger. Who else could defend child rape but someone comes from a culture where pedophilia is widespread and socially acceptable? And that's why everyone hates your kind.

Or at least I hope you're a sandnigger, then at least then you could use the excuse of being raised in an abhorrent and vile culture that accepts pedophilia and rape as an excuse for your behavior.

Like an hour later and you're still diverting.

I'm going to go play some Senran Kagura with the nude patch so I can get off to some anime honey's before my super-model girlfriend wakes up and demands that I buttfuck her freshly waxed anus while holding on to her D titties and size 0 waist.

And no, that isn't made up at all (other than I may have to buttfuck her in the morning instead of tonight).

stay awhile, soon you'll stop trying to sound like some reddit "intellectual" and won't set off as many faggot alerts

>I've seen prosecutors and cops drop serious crimes multiple times. All immigrant related, despite evidence.
I hope that's not the case. But the prosecutor felt it was necessary to set the record straight in the media, which sounds like rumor-control.

I'm not pro- or anti-immigrant, but they seem to be the favored targets of criminal because the victims are afraid to come forward and say anything.

>Nor was the systematic rape gangs in the UK.
That was probably the most heartbreaking thing I had ever read. So many child routinely victimized.

>You think anyone is impressef or fooled by government collusion on behalf of criminals? Wake the fuck up.
Some of my work involves the privately run state prisons where judges and prosecutors are given campaign donations by the same companies that depend on railroaded convictions to fill private prison cells. Corporations like can break the law, no one is prosecuted.

It makes no sense that the government would offer blanket immunity from criminal to immigrants. If anything I would expect the government is protecting immigrant families from public overreaction and mob rule in these extreme cases.

>so heartbreaking

do you ever not sound like a pussy?

They aren't using legitimate facts or evidence.
The left virtually never does. They rely on hard-to-falsify claims about reality which "seem correct" but are not logically consistent when deeply examined.

>you seem a little upset
I'm laughing at you

If you were too read the reasoning for the scores, even if there was a difference, they aren't recognizing it.

>Your argument for why it was not rape is that a lawyer played semantic games?
He's the prosecutor. A very specific kind of lawyer who goes after criminals.

>The author of the article is wrong because he does not share your political beliefs?
No, but he's clearly got a hard-on for this case and repeating it like someone whose medications may need adjustment.

>And the dad is lying,
No, the dad just want's justice and he's willing to say anything to get it.

> because the judge might read the article, right, in a sealed case?
Most of the family court judges I deal with are not swayed by the media. Criminal court is a different matter. I was stunned by the poor job the prosecution did in the Caylee Anthony case.

>I get that you are role playing, but man, you would make the worse social worker ever, if you were to ever become one.
I'm not a case worker, if that's what you mean. I don't knock on doors and evaluate home life. I manage programs mostly but sometimes I sit in on case interviews. If your family is at risk, I make sure you have access to the right programs.

>The girl has already been scarred for life.
I have sympathy for her and I hope she gets the care and counseling she needs. But I also know millions of poor are victimized every day. It's an epidemic in America. Did you read about the 10-year old girl that was set on fire by her meth-smoking mother?
abc-7.com/story/32846993/police-mom-2-others-arrested-after-brutal-killing-rape-of-10-year-old-girl

>The extent to which you will go in order to avoid cognitive dissonance is terrifying.
What cognitive dissonance? Please be specific.

>Yea, you're a sandnigger. Who else could defend child rape
You've got no argument besides ridiculous ad hominems?

You're slipping with the b8 too much, it's no fun now.

This commitment to larp is unreal.

>GIMME SOME PROOF THAT POLIFUCK IS WRONG SO I CAN DEBATE YOU AND SHOW YOU ARE WRONG!
>gives 50 sources

>GIVE ONLY 1 I DON'T WANT TO DOG THROUGH ALL THAT BULLSHIT JUST GIBE ME ONE OF THEM JUST ONE
>gives one

>FUCK I'M GOING TO DIERT AND LIE AND BULLSHIT AND GO OFF ABOUT HOW I'M NOT A FAGGOT EVEN THOUGH I LIKE MAN DICK IN MY RECATAL CAVIDY!!!!
>gives one case to look at again

>STOOP IT I NEED MAN DICK I CAN'T HANDLE THIS>

Why don't you try to look at just the one case given as to why Politifact is bullshit and a biased Liberal source?

He's only invited to them to the White House dozens of times and had his Attorney General meet with them several times.

Not to mention lent false credibility to the original story which the entire mythos of BLM is built upon, Michael Brown and "hands up don't shoot".

Nice dodge attempt.

Snopes are spin doctors disguised as fact checkers.

^True

>Did you read about the 10-year old girl that was set on fire by her meth-smoking mother?

Yeah, and they got arrested, unlike whomever you are deflecting from.

>danglin

Both sides lie all the time. What matters is how good your speech writers and legal team are at sugarcoating whatever it is that politicians say. Trump doesn't speak legalese and prefers to talk in a manner that he thinks will reach the largest amount of people.

>Snopes are spin doctors disguised as fact checkers.

No different than their fan here:
A faggot who dodges fact since he is too used to making sure that nigger dicks plunge into his anal cavity.

>Trump doesn't speak legalese and prefers to talk in a manner that he thinks will reach the largest amount of people.
Trump speaks at the 4th grade level. He makes up words randomly. He said "bigly" at the debate.

He's going to be very easy to trigger and manipulate if he is elected.

"Hey guys I may have found one where the footage wasn't real"

"This totally means they never lie ever"

...

You are a fucking faggot pussy. And as this thread has proven, Politifact and Snopes have a Liberal bias and will give the exact same statements/stories from liberals a positive review, while they give conservatives a massive negative for the exact same thing.

Have fun sleeping with a black dick shifting through your ass you faggot.

No, he said "big league"

>(((editor-in-chief))) of snopes detected
what's your argument, love.

Buddy, go home. You have tried, I'll take over from here.

MARXISTS, WE HAVE FREE RIDES OFFERED HERE, SEE THE SCENERY FROM ABOVE AND DISCUSS PAPA CHE IN OUR HELICOPTERS, NOW BOARDING.

clicked for sara.

seriously mate, I walk up to you and pistol-whip you to rape your anus, but I get off because I didn't use the weapon to murder you? Does this make sense to you, is this a rational stance? The weapon was used to force the crime, argue out of that. Use reason and logic to deny this statement, which you, yourself, cede as being truthful (just that the knife was used for "raping purposes", so no murder).

>Iraqi, not Syrian
Same geographic location. My rapist was Moroccan, not Tunisian!! Big difference, same religious territory, same trash. Not an argument worth considering.

Also, rape is defined as the forceful penetration of the anus or vagina. A more broad and accurate definition straight from Wikipedia: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.[1][2][3] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[4]
Defend your stance. Oral rape is not rape? Defend this stance or else you're a pathetic shill talking about how you own BMWs and date models, six figures, etc.
Prosecutors are supposed to make the case for their client, this one is purposefully rephrasing statements or downplaying crimes to paint his client in a brighter light. Is the prosecutor your dad or something, otherwise appeal to authority (It's right because he said it is!!!). His job is to protect, from the video evidence, it suggests otherwise. Reports suggest otherwise, your sources bend the truth (as if Iraqi vs Syrian is a legitimate argument, only MENTIONED because of the refugee crisis, use to paint them in a bright light as opposed to coming from shit locations with shit culture).

I don't care anymore. Dilbertman is right, facts mostly don't matter if you can control the noosphere.

Good posts.

I was going to say, the fact check sites snopes and Politifact show a pretty obvious party bias for democrats even on the same claims. It's total bullshit and cannot be trusted. This is Soviet tier news and I honestly never thought I'd see the day where this sort of shit was common in the US. It's tragic.

Why is it that barely anyone talks about factcheck.org?

Hey kike, are you gonna reply to this: Obvious shill is obvious. Fuck this gay shit, 8/pol/ is leagues ahead, actually moderates shills.

Good thread OP, everybody save these images and post them in other threads when some kike opens his mouth linking fuckin Snopes.

>My 4 year degree was psychology