Page 7 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 326
Thanks Tree157Thanks

Thread: Misadventures in Fact Checking

  1. #61
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,453
    Thanks
    1422

    From
    VA
    Any 'fact' that goes against the teaper narrative cannot be a fact.

    LMAO...teapers are hilarious. Truly, the Know-Nothing Party of the 21st Century.

  2. #62
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    49,250
    Thanks
    14701

    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Politifact on Martin O'Malley

    97% of Planned Parenthood's work is mammograms, preventive care, O'Malley says | PolitiFact

    Somehow still rates a Half True despite acknowledging that PP doesn't do mammograms at all. By my math that's 0%.
    Nobody does mammograms other than facilities that have the instrumentation to do so and nobody refers more women to them than places like PP. They never fucking said they explicitly did them they are just responsible for millions of women getting them. Your point is fucking juvenile and stupid, congratulations

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,851
    Thanks
    36368

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    A clearinghouse thread for instances of so called fact checkers engaging in inaccurate and biased reporting. Because let's face it, they aren't neutral judges. They're spin machines.

    First up. Note to AP, an economic goal is not a "fact".

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/802bd...al-unrealistic

    And not only that, it's not like we haven't had stretches of growth like that under Reagan and Clinton.
    Stretches, yes. And stretches where the economy contracted as well. The world economy has changed substantially since then. And it's Bush who made the overreaching, blanket statement. AP just pointed out that there are, in fact, reasons to believe that consistent 4% growth is unsustainable.

    Refuting over-reaching claims isn't hard. Attacking those refutations IS hard because all they need is some reasons for doubt--which they provided.

  4. #64
    Retired Admin Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,212
    Thanks
    24043

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Nobody does mammograms other than facilities that have the instrumentation to do so and nobody refers more women to them than places like PP. They never fucking said they explicitly did them they are just responsible for millions of women getting them. Your point is fucking juvenile and stupid, congratulations
    For the love of God. The statement they were rating did fucking explicitly say they did them. Pay fucking attention when you respond to my posts.

  5. #65
    Retired Admin Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,212
    Thanks
    24043

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Stretches, yes. And stretches where the economy contracted as well. The world economy has changed substantially since then. And it's Bush who made the overreaching, blanket statement. AP just pointed out that there are, in fact, reasons to believe that consistent 4% growth is unsustainable.

    Refuting over-reaching claims isn't hard. Attacking those refutations IS hard because all they need is some reasons for doubt--which they provided.
    This all falls into the realm of opinion. So basically they are basing a fact check on their opinion.
    Thanks from John T Ford

  6. #66
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,851
    Thanks
    36368

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    This all falls into the realm of opinion. So basically they are basing a fact check on their opinion.
    No, Bush's statement was one of fact: "There is no reason to think...."
    Thanks from HadEnough2

  7. #67
    The Republican Agenda HadEnough2's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    15,126
    Thanks
    11369

    From
    Washington State
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    Another flawed comparison. You can eat apple pie without ice cream but you can't get a mammo without a breast exam first. A mammo is almost always done with a Dr. recommendation.
    Hey! I would be glad to give all the women out their a breast exam. I'm not a Doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

  8. #68
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,785
    Thanks
    9578

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    A clearinghouse thread for instances of so called fact checkers engaging in inaccurate and biased reporting. Because let's face it, they aren't neutral judges. They're spin machines.

    First up. Note to AP, an economic goal is not a "fact".

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/802bd...al-unrealistic

    And not only that, it's not like we haven't had stretches of growth like that under Reagan and Clinton.
    The piece is an analysis of the plausibility for 4% economic growth. It presents a lot of evidence and opinion from all over the political spectrum as to the plausibility of 4% growth in GDP. The upshot is that 4% growth isn't likely. But the proposal isn't graded.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,785
    Thanks
    9578

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Politifact on Martin O'Malley

    97% of Planned Parenthood's work is mammograms, preventive care, O'Malley says | PolitiFact

    Somehow still rates a Half True despite acknowledging that PP doesn't do mammograms at all. By my math that's 0%.
    In this example, O'Malley claims that 97% of PP's workload is mammograms and disease prevention. PP offers breast exams but not mammograms. According to PP, 97% of it's effort is directed in areas other than abortion. PolitiFact scored O'Malley's claim as a half truth

  10. #70
    SPOCK! Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,140
    Thanks
    9046

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    More fact checker idiocy. Carly Fiorina started out as a secretary and worked her way up to CEO. That is a fact. And yet the idiot Washington Post fact checker decided that was a 3 Pinocchio lie.
    Carly Fiorina?s bogus ?secretary to CEO? career trajectory (Fact Checker biography) - The Washington Post
    Because apparently not being promoted directly to CEO from secretary makes it a lie. How does anyone take these so called fact checkers seriously anymore?
    "Her father was dean of Duke Law School when she was at Stanford, meaning Duke would have paid for most of her college tuition. She graduated from Stanford, and her elite degree played a role in the stories of her at Marcus & Millichap (she was the “Stanford student”) and her convincing the business school dean to accept her into the MBA program..."

    My problem with her claim is that her rags to riches story is bougus. Her education was enormiusly expensive and that education led her to become CEO, not her "dictation."
    Thanks from Panzareta

Page 7 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama fact checking
    By Isalexi in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 6th August 2015, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 70
    Last Post: 21st July 2014, 04:27 PM
  3. State Of The Union Fact Checking
    By Macduff in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th February 2013, 12:09 PM
  4. Fact checking Mitt Romney
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th June 2011, 03:03 AM
  5. Fact Checking Paul Ryan's Response to the State of the Union
    By TennesseeRain in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26th January 2011, 05:14 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed