But, since you clearly have no intent to GET the context of the conversation to which you responded, I will tell you what it was. I used factcheck.org as a source to back up something I had said. Ocean515 rejected factcheck.org as a source because it is part of the Annenberg Institute and by claiming that George Soros supports both financially, which is false.
I tried to explain that simply saying a name, declaring it to be liberal, and using buzznames does NOT make something lacking in credit as as source, and I asked her to provide his evidence that factcheck.org and Annenberg are not reliable sources.
Ocean then put up, as a source, a commentary about "who checks the fact checkers", a broad essay on why not all fact checkers are reliable, and in THAT article, Ocean's own source stated very clearly that "Not all fact checkers are liberal. Factcheck.org...." and went on to explain why factcheck is NOT a liberal organization (in fact, Annenberg was a big donor to Reagan).
so the conversation you joined was specifically about Factcheck.org and specifically about IT not being liberal and THAT being shown by OCEAN'S own source (Ocean has not been seen around here, or at least around me, ever since).
so your coming in and going off about how factcheckers are liberal, so, well, you know..(translation: because they're liberal, they're not reliable, to which I responded that I find it odd you agree that libs are fact checkers and conservatives are not, which IS what you said, and to which you went off on a bizarre hissy fit) had NOTHING to do with the context of the conversation.
See? So context really does matter. It is very important that you know about that of which you are speaking before you speak. But then, someone who doesn't believe in fact checking probably doesn't believe that context matters either, and that does appear to be the case here.
Now, proceed to simply reject what you just read, per usual, and continue commenting from your bubble.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Let me know when you can tell the difference between MOST and all, which per bolded, you can't. Do you always have to distort posts to make your point or can you read just whats there? How many more tangental arguments are you going to shoot down that I didnt make?
I like Warren Buffet's idea a few years back. Any time a sitting Congress fails to balance the budget, immediately every seat is up for election and no incumbent can run.