Fact-Checking Has Become Opinion Journalism

As in Obama's F.B.I.
The F.B.I. is equal but some F.B.I. are More equal because Obama is
a black and when a black says so ... it is Racist to even doubt.
Which is precisely why Obama was Installed as President.
So he could run roughshod over We the People.Which is exactly what
he's done.F.B.I. Comey is the perfect example.He was given marching orders
on high from Obama to make sure Not to hold Clinton or any of her aides
responsible for dime one and that's is Precisely what went down.
Same with the IRS Scandal,The VA Scandal,The NSA Spying Scandal.
Fast & Furious.The Debt ceiling where Obama ran out to the Podium to backstab
the deal he cut with Speaker Boehner.The Flaks used to craft his ObamaCare.
The thinking was ... We the People are just plain " stupid ".
Somehow getting Justice Roberts to rule in favor of Obamacare in the
11th hour.And on and on and on till even the Cows lost track of how to
fart.
Things are Equal only when Obama the Meek deems them so.
We have been Played.

 

Laugh at them when they say they are a news source. Tell them Comic Books can do a better job at reporting the news than they can. What the Repubs need to start doing is.....take no questions from those at the NY Times. Force them to the back of the Bus. Without a seat.

Btw SP.....you are overseas correct? Start getting word to your Leaders over there as to how can Hillary be trusted? Ask them how can they believe anything she says. Then show them some of the stuff from over here that they aren't getting.

Also tell the BBC to do a story on the NY times attacking their so called credibility.

 

How many times did Trump ask her questions that needed to be fact checked?

I will start with two questions:

1. Under the Constitution of the United States, do I have a right to denigrate the religious beliefs of others?

Reasons for asking:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

Possible follow-up question:

If so why did your official statecraft say otherwise, was it cowardice in the face of the enemy or a deliberate act of betrayal of your oath of office?

2. Under the Constitution of the United States, do I have a right to slander the prophet of Islam?

Reason for asking:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)

Possible follow-up question:

If we the people have the right to slander the prophet of Islam, are you going to commit genocide, or amend the Constitution to remove the First Amendment, to stop us from having a future?

She was playing offense, and it worked.

 

Um ... Maybe they too were raised on being taught the Roman alphabet
as a first language.I had to learnt me Latin to be an Altar Boy.

 

We have all the same fascist media you do, but with none of the word of mouth or balance. So on American issues, Australians unwaveringly side with whatever your media says. ie: we side with the Democrats on pretty much everything. No, literally everything. I cannot think of an issue where we don't simply spout DNC talking points.

Basically, our view of America is the same as yours would be if you left America and watched CNN/MSNBC/etc 24/7.

I am Australian, the flag in my avatar was the flag of my state's secession movement back in the 1930s. They wanted to abandon the rest of the nation and hold close ties to the UK. They won the referendum resoundingly, but the King told us to (*)(*)(*)(*) off and so here we are - hopelessly shackled to the rest of the public health pricks over East.

I would ask the ABC to do a story on the NYT attacking their lack of credibility, but the ABC is like the NYT on crack cocaine. If you think the Times takes sides, wait until you get over here.

 

How about Real Facts.What right did Obama have to demand compliance
for the Little Sisters of Charity over their accepted practice concerning
Contraception.The Little Sisters had to Sue the Obama Adm to get
an answer.
The Real answer don't need knowed lawsuit or fleet of lawyers.
Obama did it because he's a Bully and a Tyrant.Plus he does not GO to
Church.If so ... Name The Church.

 

Will they like being compromised by Hillary and the Democrats , and placing your people at greater risk of harm than the norm as is? Wont they care about your people over Hillary and the Democrats?

 

Trump is 70 and has been running a big corporation for decades. He has run things. Hillary has not run anything either. All she does is make money with her mouth. All her experience says is she is a loser

 

I love Orwell. He was my favorite socialist. It seems he is yours too...Comrade.

 

yeah, Trump ran how many into BK, how did he treat his employees, contracots, how many jobs did he send overseas, ect.... he was a bully for sport... we do not want a man like that as President

.

 

I don't read it that way when people say we are a democracy. Maybe it's cynic in me.

 

Not sure why you think it's cynical. It's simply a matter of understanding arguments. Republics are representative governments. Representatives can be chosen democratically by a voting process or appointed by elites. We use the democratic process in choosing our representatives. That's what people mean by "our democracy." They're talking about the principles and process involved in creating the government, not its form. It's very basic.

When I see someone respond with, " we're not a democracy," it usually means the person has no response. It's a canned and tired old way of deflecting the point.

 

No, it means the person disagrees with someone calling our form of government a democracy. You personally could be one of the few that understands the nuance, but I doubt the majority who call it as much, do.

 

Now I see the cynicism. I'm sure many do not understand, but I think most people realize we are a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. It's fairly easy to tell by the context of a post whether someone understands this. If they're talking about majority rule specifically, they may not get it. If they're talking about the process or principle, they probably do.

A pertinent example would be the statement, "voter id laws threaten our democracy." Whether you agree or disagree with the statement, it Is clear the person is referring to the democratic process.