He can't win by addressing content or topic.

If we discussed raping children and said it was a good thing. He'd be extremely happy and not even both posting. Hoever, if we posted that raping kids was bad, he'd be in here within 2 seconds trying to derail the discussion.

You are dumb, aren't you? You need to learn how to read.

Only in the absolute most extreme cases do they list te extreme far left as far left. DUH!!!

The fact checkers are the IFCN. Your beloved Media Bias uses the IFCN as their fact checkers.

"They" are Facebook.

I mention Candice Owens and then later in the same bit I mentioned her as CO.

You know, with each post, you prove you are nothing but a troll.

Facebook used the company Science Feedback to fact check their posts. That company has nothing to do with mediabiasfactcheck.com

WRONG

Facebook//META's own page on fact checking clearly says it uses the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). This is the same "fact checker" group that Media Bias uses.

Science Feedback may be one of the 125+ members of the IFCN.

Science Feedback is related to Climate Feedback and Health Feedback.

They claim that "scientists" have proven that modern climate change is solely by humans. They don't show any proof of their "fact checking", so we only have their word for it.

I mean, the earth has had climate change for the 4 Billion years the planet has had an environment, but we have to believe these people based solely on their say-so.

10,000 climate scientists have shown that tliberals molest children. You have to believe me because I claim to be a fact checker.

Far left sites are shifted to the right to make them appear less extreme, while conservative sites are shifted to the right

If these far left sides are "shifted to the right" then how come they're still called "far left?"

Once again, they are part of the leftist bias OPINION spewers. They do not state any facts, per Facebook in 2 lawsuits.

Who's "they"? and what do "they" have to do with Facebook?

We know the org of leftist "fact checkers" have no issue with allowing direct competitors from "fact-checking" someone they admit to wanting to drive out of business

How do "we" know this?

IF they tried claiming they were stating facts, CO would have won the case.

Who's "they"? And what do "they" have to do with Colorado?

When you first used that shit site, we discussed their bias.

Everything is shifted to the right.

Far left sites are shifted to the right to make them appear less extreme, while conservative sites are shifted to the right to make them appear more extreme. We went through this before.

We also see that they fail to cite as many failed "fact checks" for leftist sites as they do for conservative sites

Once again, they are part of the leftist bias OPINION spewers. They do not state any facts, per Facebook in 2 lawsuits.

We know the org of leftist "fact checkers" have no issue with allowing direct competitors from "fact-checking" someone they admit to wanting to drive out of business, as we saw in the Candice Owens case. In the CO case, the courts agreed that the "fact checkers" were merely spewing opinions and therefor it was protected under the 1st Amendment. IF they tried claiming they were stating facts, CO would have won the case.

So, which the fuck is it? You losers want it both ways. You want to claim they got "fact checked", while they claim they only stated opinion. Talk about some leftist fuckery.

Is that all they said about CNN?

Clearly, they weren't even trying.

CNN has been discussed here many, many times and I don't see you leftist "bias checker" mentioning any of the lies posted here.

I mean, they staged a fake protest in London, using actors and were outed by the local shopkeepers and workers.

They lied about Trump's taxes.

They lied about Russian collusion.

They have lied non-stop about countless things.

Your beloved leftist "bias checkers" keep proving their leftist bias by not fully reporting on leftist bias in leftist media.

And yet again, you refuse to discuss the actual topics of any threads, because you know you and your side are shit.

I'd say media bias fact checker is an equal opportunity abuser, handing out poor ratings wherever they're deserved.

Ah, so that means that you get to use a leftist site to derail every topic you don't like?

Hmmm. If they're so left biased, then how can they rate CNN like this:

CNN is rated moderately left-biased based on editorial positions by TV hosts that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them as "Mostly Factual" in reporting rather than "high" due to two failed fact checks in the last five years.

Failed Fact Checks on CNN:

"If President Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be “mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.” – False

"Greenland’s ice sheet has melted to a point of no return, according to new study” – Low Scientific Credibility

Ah, so that means that you get to use a leftist site to derail every topic you don't like?

You really are a sniveling little leftist bitch.

BTW, John Durham says that all your beloved leftist sourced are lying partisan cunts. Many of them are extremely anti-white racist as well. Oh and lets not forget that some of them are extremely homophobic, too.

Kyle Rittenhouse never shot or killed any black men, despite what your leftis bullshit artists love to claim.

OH, and every site you and Media Bias like have been proven to spew blatant lies and bullshit.

So suck it.

All you have is derailing conversation by spewing your leftist bullshit.

Try staying on topic for once, you sniveling little leftist bitch.

The Epoch Times is rated Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Failed Fact Checks from theepochtimes.com:

"Jack Andraka, 15, came up with a “100 percent accurate” cancer-detection method: “168 times faster, 26,000 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive” than current methods." – False

"Dubious Posts Tie Political Families to Ukraine Work" – False

"Concerned artificial intelligence researchers hurriedly abandoned an experimental chatbot program after realizing that the bots were inventing their own language." – False

"President Donald Trump has 232 electoral votes; Joe Biden has 212, 226, or 227." – False

COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is converted to DNA and enters the cell’s nucleus, so the vaccines can potentially change our DNA – Inaccurate

“COVID Deaths Have Been Vastly Overcounted” – Inaccurate

“Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression”; “Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID” – Inaccurate

You just proved that the legal system is worthless and some people are too powerful to be touched.

As Richard Prior said; the justice system is just us.

It's hard to get an Attorney General for criminal contempt of Congress, because the mechanism is that Congress votes to hold the AG in criminal contempt, which is then transferred to the DOJ and the 90+ US Attorneys...however, all those US Attorneys work for the AG. None of them are going to prosecute their boss. Not saying what Holder or Barr did was right...just pointing out it's hard for Congress to pin down an AG.

If an AG refuses to prosecute himself, then Congress has to pursue civil contempt in court. And that's usually a pointless activity because it takes too long and the politics of Washington will have changed by the time it's resolved. For example, it took 7 years for the case against Holder to resolve, and it was settled for nothing in the end right as Steve Bannon was in the news for being held in contempt for ignoring a Congressional subpoena.

The most senior US official to be in contempt of Congress was Eric Holder.

Congress subpoenaed him to testify and he refused. Congress took him to court and he was ordered to testify, but he refused to show up.

Obama's DOJ never prosecuted him for any of this, because Congress wanted him to testify, under oath, about Operation Fast & Furious.

Jim Jordan and the rest that you whine about never went through the 2nd part of the process; ie taken to court over the matter and the court ordering them to testify.

Now, tell me you're not an attorney without telling me you're not an attorney.

@blablarg18 said in Former Prosecutor Against Trump Takes the Fifth in Deposition Before GOP Committee:

USA "5th Amendment" only lets you refuse questions WHEN. ANSWERS. WOULD. INCRIMINATE. YOU.

Nope.

@blablarg18 said in Former Prosecutor Against Trump Takes the Fifth in Deposition Before GOP Committee:

USA 5th does NOT allow refuse questions because you feel like it.

I'll give you this one.

@blablarg18 said in Former Prosecutor Against Trump Takes the Fifth in Deposition Before GOP Committee:

Only because your target of a criminal case - which Pomerantz isn't yet

This hasn't been true since the 1800's.

@blablarg18 said in Former Prosecutor Against Trump Takes the Fifth in Deposition Before GOP Committee:

and answes would incriminate u more, like making u testify against urself.

Nope.

"Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who led an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s finances" & pushed hard for unprecedented Bragg indictments.

Pomerantz makes theatrical statements about how he thinks House committee is theater.

BUT - and Pomerantz would know this -

USA "5th Amendment" only lets you refuse questions WHEN. ANSWERS. WOULD. INCRIMINATE. YOU.

USA 5th does NOT allow refuse questions because you feel like it.

Only because your target of a criminal case - which Pomerantz isn't yet - and answes would incriminate u more, like making u testify against urself.