Politifact gets a pants on fire

[BluesLegend]

Too bad Politifact will learn nothing from this experience, and go on to keep lying on behalf of the DemoKKKrats.

When the left get caught lying and they can't spin it, they just move on to pushing the next lie.

 

[BackAgain]

PolitiFact is fake nooz.

It always has had a biased politically motivated agenda. It’s own “fact” checking must be checking with the orthodox progressive big book of permitted speech and tolerated beliefs.

wait. Let me fact check that.

Yup. I just confirmed it.

 

[struth]

I never argued that a judge shouldn't rule on the actual wording. A judge has to rule on the law as written, poorly or not. You all make this assumption I am condemning the judge. I am not. I am condemning the illiterate law makers.

No, I am not....you claimed the law was poorly worded. I am asking you why you think that? What was so hard to understand for you about the law?

 

[pknopp]

No, I am not....you claimed the law was poorly worded. I am asking you why you think that? What was so hard to understand for you about the law?

I posted the link to your question that shouldn't even need to be asked.

 

[marvin martian]

I never argued that a judge shouldn't rule on the actual wording. A judge has to rule on the law as written, poorly or not. You all make this assumption I am condemning the judge. I am not. I am condemning the illiterate law makers.

What was wrong with the law in your opinion, counselor?

 

[pknopp]

What was wrong with the law in your opinion, counselor?

It was poorly worded. That's been covered.

 

[struth]

I posted the link to your question that shouldn't even need to be asked.

and i read it and quoted right from it

but it still doesn’t answer my question…what about the law did you find to be poorly written and what did you not understand???

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted the link to your question that shouldn't even need to be asked.

you posted a link to opinions not proof,, other experts claim its worded just fine and means what it was intended to mean,,

 

[pknopp]

and i read it and quoted right from it

but it still doesn’t answer my question…what about the law did you find to be poorly written and what did you not understand???

I have no obligation to understand it. I posted what experts said.

 

[pknopp]

you posted a link to opinions not proof,, other experts claim its worded just fine and means what it was intended to mean,,

I posted something to back up what I said.....you not so much.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted something to back up what I said.....you not so much.

you posted opinions,, other opinions say different,,

it would help if you explained how its worded wrong,,

 

[struth]

I have no obligation to understand it. I posted what experts said.

then why did you make the claim that it was dismissed for that reason?

your link, as i quoted, has someone saying the ruling was perfectly reasonable given the language of the stat. Really didn’t support your assertion.

so are you now saying you understood the law?

 

[marvin martian]

It was poorly worded. That's been covered.

How so? All you did was post someone's opinion (probably your own).

What's legally wrong with the wording of the law?

 

[pknopp]

you posted opinions,, other opinions say different,,

it would help if you explained how its worded wrong,,

I posted a link......you not so much.

 

[pknopp]

then why did you make the claim that it was dismissed for that reason?

your link, as i quoted, has someone saying the ruling was perfectly reasonable given the language of the stat. Really didn’t support your assertion.

so are you now saying you understood the law?

Criminy. I said the ruling was a legit ruling........it's like discussing things with a brick wall.

 

[pknopp]

How so? All you did was post someone's opinion (probably your own).

What's legally wrong with the wording of the law?

If you disagree with the noted experts I am surely wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted a link......you not so much.

so youre limited to what other people tell you to think,,

I think thats called a useful idiot,,

 

[pknopp]

so youre limited to what other people tell you to think,,

I think thats called a useful idiot,,

I told you what I thought. I was then asked to back that up and I did. You not so much.

 

[progressive hunter]

I told you what I thought. I was then asked to back that up and I did. You not so much.

you didnt back it up,, you posted someone elses opinion,,

 

[struth]

Criminy. I said the ruling was a legit ruling........it's like discussing things with a brick wall.

you said he ruled that way because the law was poorly written .

i’m asking you repeatedly what you didn’t understand about the law

anyway, glad to see you have come around and understand the law now