Drudge Headline: Never Let Them See Your Scalp...Hillary's Many Wigs (Human Or Synthetic?)

[Steve_McGarrett]

As we all know, the devil likes to disguise himself.

MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) | Twitter

MATT DRUDGE on Twitter

 

[Rustic]

....loopy kunt

 

[Arianrhod]

Republicans sure know what's important in a candidate.

 

[The VOR]

Republicans sure know what's important in a candidate.

No doubt about it. They are clueless idiots.

 

[Avorysuds]

It's more important to me that Hillary wants to run deficits and kill people with never ending war while embracing a polarizing divisive character.

 

[BULLDOG]

So after last night's debate Drudge thinks Hillary's wigs are the most important thing to talk about. I guess he saw the clown confab the same way that everybody else did. A bunch of idiots jabbering about things they didn't understand.

 

[Ragnar]

Republicans sure know what's important in a candidate.

No doubt about it. They are clueless idiots.

Democrats would never do such a thing.

Oh wait...

Clinton Jumps in the Game With Trump Hair Joke - NBC News

...heh. All is fair in love and war and politics.

 

[Rustic]

....and she's a loopy kunt

 

[CowboyTed]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

 

[Iceweasel]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Politifact is as reliable as a wikilink. You can deny Hillary's lies but that doesn't make them go away. Fantasizing about lads is really out there too.

 

[CowboyTed]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Politifact is as reliable as a wikilink. You can deny Hillary's lies but that doesn't make them go away. Fantasizing about lads is really out there too.

Have you any proof that Poltifact is unreliable... They spend time being accurate and have criticised both sides and also praised...

Questioning the fact checkers integrity (be it Politifact, Fact Checker or Washington Post) is usually the last resort of a desperate man...

I didn't deny that Hillary has told lies, I have just point out that she has been more truthful than the leading contender in the GOP field...

So you are sitting in a glass house firing rocks...

 

[Rustic]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Politifact is as reliable as a wikilink. You can deny Hillary's lies but that doesn't make them go away. Fantasizing about lads is really out there too.

Have you any proof that Poltifact is unreliable... They spend time being accurate and have criticised both sides and also praised...

Questioning the fact checkers integrity (be it Politifact, Fact Checker or Washington Post) is usually the last resort of a desperate man...

I didn't deny that Hillary has told lies, I have just point out that she has been more truthful than the leading contender in the GOP field...

So you are sitting in a glass house firing rocks...

They are a bunch of progressives, being inaccurate is their job...

 

[Iceweasel]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Politifact is as reliable as a wikilink. You can deny Hillary's lies but that doesn't make them go away. Fantasizing about lads is really out there too.

Have you any proof that Poltifact is unreliable... They spend time being accurate and have criticised both sides and also praised...

Questioning the fact checkers integrity (be it Politifact, Fact Checker or Washington Post) is usually the last resort of a desperate man...

I didn't deny that Hillary has told lies, I have just point out that she has been more truthful than the leading contender in the GOP field...

So you are sitting in a glass house firing rocks...

You make it sound like I need your approval. Why would I be desperate, since I think ALL liberals are insane?



Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.
By Peter Roff May 28, 2013 | 6:05 p.m. EDT + More

"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

[See a collection of editorial Cartoons on Benghazi.]

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Drudge Headline: Never Let Them See Your Scalp...Hillary's Many Wigs (Human Or Synthetic?)"

This fails as an ad hominem fallacy.

It indicates to the voters that republicans have nothing of substance to offer, only personal attacks.

And it results in garnering more support for Clinton.

 

[Ragnar]

I don't care if she wears a wig or not. She can shave her scalp, wear a paper bag on her head or change her gender identity if she wants and she'd still be a better POTUS than Obama. Not as good as a Republican or better yet a Libertarian but still...

It gets better people. Don't give up!

 

[Ragnar]

"Drudge Headline: Never Let Them See Your Scalp...Hillary's Many Wigs (Human Or Synthetic?)"

This fails as an ad hominem fallacy.

It indicates to the voters that republicans have nothing of substance to offer, only personal attacks.

And it results in garnering more support for Clinton.

Oops you did it again. I warned about this before, you gotta watch the double negatives. To claim something "fails as a fallacy" is to claim that something is not a fallacy. It matters. It matters more when you are trying to criticize.

 

[jknowgood]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Her only achievements are cheating, lying, and failing.

 

[Ragnar]

Don't believe a word of it, her hair is real as Trumps. Hillary is in the $600 haircut club and a civilian now, no way she would spend her own money unless her hair was real.

 

[BULLDOG]

So this is the best thing they got on Hillary, well they think they got...

Politifact shows that she tells the truth far more times that the top polling GOP candidates.

She has far more achievements than any of the GOP candidates...

So the are left with attacks a 10 year old would try... Thanks lads...

Politifact is as reliable as a wikilink. You can deny Hillary's lies but that doesn't make them go away. Fantasizing about lads is really out there too.

No, nothing goes away. The GOP just keeps whining, and whining, and whining, because they haven't proven any of their claims about Hillary for the last three decades

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republicans sure know what's important in a candidate.

Agreed. Democrats would never comment on Trump's hair