Snopes on USAID

[ll74]

1174 and MR often use the psychological sleight of hand we see above, where one's own fears, desires, or insecurities are cloaked in the form of another, allowing themselves to escape the "mirror" of introspection. They see in others what they fear to admit in themselves, using the Forum as a canvas upon which they paint their own shortcomings, each projection a desperate act to avoid the mirror of self-reflection. Yet in their attempts to demean, they only expose the hollow echo of themselves, like children throwing stones at reflections they don't want to face.

You're not a good narrator.

Your bigotry is demonstrated multiple.times in this forum.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

1174 and MR often use the psychological sleight of hand we see above, where one's own fears, desires, or insecurities are cloaked in the form of another, allowing themselves to escape the "mirror" of introspection. They see in others what they fear to admit in themselves, using the Forum as a canvas upon which they paint their own shortcomings, each projection a desperate act to avoid the mirror of self-reflection. Yet in their attempts to demean, they only expose the hollow echo of themselves, like children throwing stones at reflections they don't want to face.

Their fear is palpable….

 

[ll74]

Their fear is palpable….

I don't fear bigotry. I point out bigotry.

The people who refuse to acknowledge their bigoted behavior are the ones afraid.

 

[Rightguide]

You're not a good narrator.

Your bigotry is demonstrated multiple.times in this forum.

 

[Politruk]

left-leaning sources, NPR and NYT

You are an idiot.

 

[PaxNurgle]

On other words, you believe everything that’s already in you head and accept it as fact if it came from a source sympathetic to your political ideology.

Big problem with ALL of these fucking incels. This is typically how their little, childlike brains work:

1. The have formulate an opinion or idea, typically a sociopathic, anti-social, selfish, or outright bigoted opinion. And often one not supported by facts or logic.

2. They will then seek extremist and non-credible sources posing as media to validate their toxic opinions.

3. A credible source will investigate and debunk their ideas.

4. Here is where a logical, mature person will start to think, "Wow, gee, Maybe I was wrong." But not these overgrown children. Oh no. They are not emotionally pr mentally capable of accepting the truth, so what do they do? Claim "Oh, well the debunkers were wrong," "They are BIASED." "The ones who thoroughly investigated, fact-checked, through multiple independant sources and found the actual truth and PROVED their warped ideas were nothing more than that- THEY are the ones who are lying. They can't possibly be right."

So they will continue to believe that all Democrats sacrifice children in a pizza parlor and that Haitians eat cats and that Trump won not only 2016, but 2020, 2014, 2012, 2008, and every election since before he was actually even born- because they WANT so desparately to believe these things and refuse to accept the hardened concrete evidence that proves otherwise.

It's how immature and childish minds work. You cannot have a valid discussion with children. And watch, I guarantee that one of the Hisarpy screen names is going to respond with the usual blathering "well but blah de blah de blah...." nonsense because he has nothing- no logical positiion to stand on. "A credible independant fact checker is biased and spreading misinformation." Does he even realize how fucking droolingly STUPID he sounds here? Well, worry not- because we all do.

 

[Politruk]

Leftwing Marxist outfit

You are an idiot.

 

[Rightguide]

You're not a good narrator.

Your bigotry is demonstrated multiple.times in this forum.

I believe I’ve offer a clear and precise narrative depicting your growing misunderstanding and limited grasp of vocabulary, highlighting the dissonance that arises when you employ words and phrases that, though emotionally charged, are factually inaccurate. These missteps not only reveal the depth of your emotional distress but also underscore the constraints of your education, creating a narrative that is both misleading and telling of the disconnect between intent and comprehension.

 

[ll74]

I believe I’ve offer a clear and precise narrative depicting your growing misunderstanding and limited grasp of vocabulary, highlighting the dissonance that arises when you employ words and phrases that, though emotionally charged, are factually inaccurate. These missteps not only reveal the depth of your emotional distress but also underscore the constraints of your education, creating a narrative that is both misleading and telling of the disconnect between intent and comprehension.

Lol

Ok bigot.

Fyi - a long soliloquy doesn't negate your posts in this forum

 

[Rightguide]

You are an idiot.

You really must increase that four word vocabulary of yours.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol

Ok bigot.

It appears you're going to have at attend Summer School this year or remedial English. See me at the bell so I can pin a note to your mom on your sweater.

 

[ll74]

It appears you're going to have at attend Summer School this year or remedial English. See me at the bell so I can pin a note to your mom on your sweater.

You post shit from slay news and pjmedia regularly..lol

You posting lots of words diminishes the effectiveness of your position, when the same shit could be said in a sentence. Understanding succinctness and extraneousness would to you well.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Your question was about the number of people signing checks, and to that, the answer was relevant. Putin bought off Trump for his first term, Musk bought him for his second.

He's totally transactional; if anyone pays him enough he will deliver to them no matter how treasonous or corrupt.

Jesus, you're dense. How many USAID workers does it take to write a check?

 

[Politruk]

Yeah yeah yeah and when you check their sources, they're other woke media, or they skirt around the truth or they only address half the issue and play deliberately dumb. Nope, Snopes is a waste of space and has an extreme left bias.

See post #22.

And, no, RationalWiki does not have an "extreme left bias." See their page on Communism.

 

[YDB95]

The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

There are a couple of things of note here. They have, as of late, scored rather good with sourcing. Unlike early plagiarism messes. They also source ALL their info from left-leaning sources, NPR and NYT are named, so they will always skew left.

NYT is right leaning if anything. It just doesn't look that way from your extreme right wing perspective.

 

[Bray123]

Jesus, you're dense. How many USAID workers does it take to write a check?

I give in.
How many did it take to give Musk his check?

 

[Politruk]

See also Wikipedia:
In 2009, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes's responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.[48][49] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.[50]

Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but added that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends.[48]

 

[Saint_Ann]

I give in.
How many did it take to give Musk his check?

It only takes one.

 

[UltraChad]

NYT is right leaning if anything.

What the actual commietard fuck.......LOL


The delusional cope in this thread is WILD.

 

[Politruk]

What the actual commietard fuck.......LOL


The delusional cope in this thread is WILD.

New York Times:

In reality[edit]​

While the crazies over at the Media Research Center have accused the Times of having a liberal bias,[3] there have been several instances where the paper has blatantly supported neoconservative policies. For instance, in the wake of Iran-Contra, one editor acknowledged that the Times frequently adhered to the Reagan administration strategy of heavily reporting on human rights abuses in Nicaragua by the leftist Sandinista government as a means to support the right-wing Contras. At the same time, the newspaper usually ignored worse cases by other Central American governments supported by the Reagan administration.[4] More recently, Clark Hoyt, public editor for the Times, steadfastly refused to issue corrections for a discredited story involving the ACORN pimp hoax.[5]

It may be more reasonable to say that if the paper of today has any actual bias, it trends toward American exceptionalism and preserving the establishment status quo, rather than toward any broad political ideology. After all, the same newspaper which once published The Pentagon Papers now sidelines the release of leaked Afghan War documents in favor of personal attacks on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.[6] The Times' coverage of the leaks was strikingly suspect when compared with other media outlets; the paper chose to focus on doing its best to make sure the US didn't look bad, and refused to admit the documents showed that government officials had ever lied about anything.[7] Following the same lines, it also led the charge on not calling waterboarding torture when it was being done by the US,[8] while at the same time not caring to be pedantic when it came to the same abuses done by others.[9] It finally made a rule change in 2014.[10]

 

[YDB95]

Equally important, the people who routinely accuse the Times of leftist bias have never, at any time, pointed to any examples of as much. They base it entirely on the fact that they've been saying so for decades, to the point where people who don't pay attention probably assume it's true. But it isn't.

 

[Bray123]

Equally important, the people who routinely accuse the Times of leftist bias have never, at any time, pointed to any examples of as much. They base it entirely on the fact that they've been saying so for decades, to the point where people who don't pay attention probably assume it's true. But it isn't.

It has the same basis as saying that Trump speaks for 'them', whereas all his actions go to supporting the billionaire class and his language is always variations of 'I don't care about you, I just want your votes.'

It's just hatred and envy which needs to be called out endlessly.

 

[Politruk]

You really must increase that four word vocabulary of yours.

Anyone who calls Snopes a "Leftwing Marxist outfit" is an idiot, and I won't let you get away without being called on it. Likewise with anyone who calls NYT or CNN "left."

 

[UltraChad]

Leftist media outlets shill for lefties.
Lefties media outlets demonize anyone not ultra-Woke.

Lefties: That's right wing media!!

 

[Politruk]

Leftist media outlets shill for lefties.
Lefties media outlets demonize anyone not ultra-Woke.

Lefties: That's right wing media!!

You are an idiot.