Posted on Jan 28, 2024
Snopes admits Biden wore construction hard hat backwards in 'fact check' reversal
406
14
11
2
2
0
Snopes has been liberal bias and can't be trusted. This further proves it. They will do anything to make Biden look good.
Snopes admits Biden wore construction hard hat backwards in 'fact check' reversal
Posted from foxnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Joe Biden
Office of the President (POTUS)
Joe Biden Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 4 mo ago
Responses: 2
I have to admit..."a guy wore a hat backwards and a website denied it" doesn't seem like anything I'd lose any sleep over.
(2)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SFC Casey O'Mally - I find it rather comical that you have to assign me to a political group so that you can more easily feed your own preferred talking points. That's a debating fallacy. Speak for yourself; I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC Kevin B. Sir, you have repeatedly demonstrated your liberal bias on this site. You have repeatedly demonstrated your liberal views on this site. I have not assigned you to a political group, your words and actions have.
But if you really want to go there, I find it hilariously comical - and hypocritical - that you have assigned to me actions which I did not take whilst (falsely) accusing me and bemoaning that I assigned to you words which you did not speak.
I did not assign any "political group" to you. I stated what *I BELIEVED* your MOTIVATION to be in denying the importance of the article - and that motivation was about narrative, not about political group.
But the whole POINT of my reply was that you missed the point. And then I gave you the point because you missed it.
And then you again deliberately missed MY point, because my point may hurt your internal narrative, and instead focus on an aside, and assign to me actions I never took, so that you can more easily feed your own preferred talking points. To quote, well.... you... "That's a debating fallacy. Speak for yourself; I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself."
But if you really want to go there, I find it hilariously comical - and hypocritical - that you have assigned to me actions which I did not take whilst (falsely) accusing me and bemoaning that I assigned to you words which you did not speak.
I did not assign any "political group" to you. I stated what *I BELIEVED* your MOTIVATION to be in denying the importance of the article - and that motivation was about narrative, not about political group.
But the whole POINT of my reply was that you missed the point. And then I gave you the point because you missed it.
And then you again deliberately missed MY point, because my point may hurt your internal narrative, and instead focus on an aside, and assign to me actions I never took, so that you can more easily feed your own preferred talking points. To quote, well.... you... "That's a debating fallacy. Speak for yourself; I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself."
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SFC Casey O'Mally - Assign me to whatever group feeds your preferred talking points. I know what my voter registration says and what my voting patterns show. You are just speculating. Have fun with that. And, my initial reply was based on my viewpoint about this article. If you want to try to divert it into another direction, that's your call. However, I'm under no obligation to take your bait.
(1)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Fox News (foxnews.com) - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
How you wear a hard hat has nada to do with nada. I have 2 one has the bill forward the other the bill is to the back. The situation I'm going into determines which one I wear. Do i want facial protection or to keep hot things from going down the back of my coat or shirt. That Snopes got involved is ludicrous. to begin with, and Fox running with it is more so.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google