Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimnos
So The Leader cant use FactCheck.org but you can use the World Net Daily?! FactCheck at least claims to be non-partisan. WND is openly conservative. I have read over many things at FactCheck and they have never shown themselves to favor one side. WND generally and openly favors the right. You then give The Leader shit for distrusting O'Reilly when you yourself said...
|
TheLeader can use whatever information he pleases, all I did was give an indepth history of who FactCheck is, which foundation they are tied too, and who worked for them in the past (OBAMA).
Even if WND says they are "conservative" that's completely irrelevant because it's the information in the article I was speaking about not the altruistic nature of World net Daily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimnos
So why isnt it ok for him to be distrustful?
|
God help us.....
TheLeader has every right to be distrustful of whomever he pleases BUT he used a discredited talking head teleprompter reader from the "right" persuasion in a ham fisted attempt to discredit my article. You can't just say a person's name who is a villian and attach them to anything you want to attack on the basis of nothing.
The article I posted was about the Obama health care monstrosity. NOT ABOUT BILL O'REILLY. They have nothing to do with each other.
See? get it?
Quote:
|
Not to mention in the past WND has said FactCheck is correct and agreed with them on at least one occasion on the subject of Obamas birth certificate.
|
Drew Zahn agreed with Factcheck.....Not WND......WND is a news website.....Drew Zahn is a writer. She doesn't speak for her entire paper.
Quote:
|
But Im getting away from my original point. You said you cant trust organizations because they lie .
|
No, what I said is that people can absorb any information they wish but one must come to an independent conclusion on them.
Example:
Quote:
|
However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.
|
Quote:
|
A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
|
^ This quote is all fine and dandy BUT they don't mention that Obama has spent over 2 MILLION dollars fighting legal battles concealing his birth certificate.
That's 2 MILLION dollars of legal costs to hide something and who are those "experts" they are talking about and wouldn't those bloggers who added text be in jail for falsifing a legal document? Who are these experts? Why haven't they talked about the 2 million in legal fees paid to lawyers to fight cases that want to see his documentation?
See?
AND!!!!!
Did you even read the editors notes?
Quote:
|
(Editor's note: WND's investigation into the certification of live birth did not include inspecting the actual document, but only asking experts to evaluate the online image. Those experts, therefore, could not "prove" the document's authenticity. The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image's authenticity.)
|
Go screw yourself is probably the nicest thing I can really respond to that with.
Hybrid Mode
