Fact-checkers give up 48 hours after the debates

Approximately 48 hours after the first pair of Republican presidential primary debates, fact-checkers nationwide decided to call it quits on fact-checking the three hours worth of debates from Thursday night. Many called fact-checking the three hours worth of debates between the 17 candidates "the hardest, most migraine-inducing work we'd ever done." The fact-checkers guess at least 35% of them contemplated suicide and another 45% suffered alcohol poisoning before being rushed to the hospital over the past couple days. One fact-checker, who shall remain unnamed, allegedly reached a point where he started ripping off his clothes, running in circles, and repeatedly yelling, "Idiocracy!" When interviewing several of these very fact-checkers, here's what else they had to say about their experience:

- "I only got through half of the first debate, because after almost every candidate's response, I had to ask myself, 'Wait, did they really just say what I think they said?' I'd then have to rewind and replay the comment several times just to make certain my ears weren't failing me. How can people be so f**king crazy? Jesus... Where's my Three Wise Men shot?" - Katie Sanders (PunditFact)

- "Did Rick Perry really say Ronald Raven? What other presidents is he going to talk about during his campaign? Freddy Roosevelt and Babe Lincoln? Maybe if he wins the nomination, he'll choose Ohio Governor John CrossStitch to be his running mate!" - Angie Drobnic Holan (PolitiFact)

- "My grading system, as most people know, goes from one to four Pinocchios. Having said that, I'm giving these two debates eight Pinocchios. If Pinocchio were the one uttering such nonsense all night, his nose would likely be able to stretch from Kentucky to Kathmandu!" - Glenn Kessler (Washington Post)

- "Even after smoking a bowl before the debates, I was fricking miserable throughout - wound up face-palming myself a half dozen times, crumpling up and throwing pieces of paper all over the room, and screaming obscenities after almost every response! Why'd I ever take this job?!?" - Eugene Kiely (FactCheck.org)

- "The numbers are actually pretty incredible. There was just a 0.0000003% chance that the GOP debaters would be as inaccurate as they were. This could very well go down in the Guinness Book of World Records. So, congratulations, I guess." - Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight)

Recently retired Daily Show host Jon Stewart also weighed in, saying, "Thank Judas I don't have to do this sh*t anymore!"

Fox News President Roger Ailes responded to the reports by releasing a short statement, which said, "What good is fact-checking? Facts are biased. When you want the truth, don't listen to facts, watch Fox! We're the only factless fair and balanced news network in the history of television! You're welcome, America!"

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog