FactCheck

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Factcheckers.jpeg
Annenberg's FactCheck.org is another lefty front posing as a non-partisan fact checker. Actually, since they started taking money from Facebook, they should be called Zuckerberg's FactCheck.org: follow the money. And Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that FactCheck.org was partisan and bias, but since their acquisition by Facebook, it seems that they won't have even the false front of being a "J-School", which are all partisan, it's just Zuckerberg's sock-puppet.

Examples

I will collect a few highlights/lowlights of their greatest hits, just to drive the point home, but if you want just wander through another site: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/?s=factcheck.org&submit=Search They seem to enjoy finding and correcting many of FactCheck.org's various errors, omissions, lies and biases.

Of course that doesn't mean I think that everything FactCheck says is wrong. It's just that if you pool a bunch of far left j-students as interns at a partisan location, and ask them to fact check things, what they choose to check, and omit, is unlikely to be completely fair. And when you have an echo-chamber, they seem especially susceptible to not knowing what they don't know. And if you don't have conservatives on staff, no one to sanity check your biases.

FactCheck.jpg

California Assembly Bill 2943 is an intrusion on liberty and free speech. Basically, it says no church or individual can practice "conversion therapy", where pray the gay away, or convince people who are gay, to try hetero-lifestyles. Now in general, I don't think that kind of program is likely to be any more effective that a church trying to preach gay-sex as a way to get closer to God. Sure, there might be a few individuals persuaded, but I think by and large, it's not long-term effective, or a good use of resources. But I don't want to tell other people what they must do or not. But in the end, a poorly written bill that's designed to party/mostly outlaw a behavior, is likely to get some overreach. And in this case, the bill was accused of banning Bibles, or attacking religious freedom, the proponents of the bill say "no" it would never do that. But the fact seem to hint that they're liars or fools:

References