Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 92gator, Aug 30, 2014.
DHS has purchased BILLIONS of bullets during Obama's time in office
you really going to haul out stuff that's been factchecked for several years, ever since conservatives started misrepresenting that, too? you going for the birth certificate next?
btw, factchecking the 'civilian army' claims by conservatives:
I could bust this myth with a variety of sources, but I thought it would be humorous to bust it with Breitbart, home of just about every other anti-Obama thing you could find.
I would also point out the article written by the Military Times, which points out with pretty good specificity how you have been mislead.
Not sure why Brietbart is amusing to you as the source cited being that I have a problem with the DHS whether it's Bush or Obama (something I have stated a few times)
I don't disagree with their assessment but factcheck.org is a joke
Well regardless of that, you are still falling for a basic misunderstanding of the federal procurement procedures.
There isn't an objective enough organization out there to run any ultimate "fact check"-website in this day & age. There is no one-stop resource for fact checking.
Here's a little story NPR did on the bias of "fact checking" websites:
CONAN: Mark Hemingway, in a piece titled "Lies, Damned Lies and Fact Checking," you concluded that the fact-checker is less often a referee than a fan with a rooting interest. How did you arrive at that?
HEMINGWAY: Well, there's a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.
And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn't. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there's all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you're mentioned, they're often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.
CONAN: All right, let's bring Glenn Kessler into the conversation. You did an annual review after your first year as a column, and it turned out - you can't speak for PolitiFact, I don't think, but Fact Checker for the Washington Post, I think the number of comments were just about even.
KESSLER: That's right. We - while I do this, I don't really focus on whether they're Republican or Democrat or what have you. I simply look at the statements. But at the end of the year, I did add it all up, and it was about - exactly half were Republican that - statements I vetted, half were Democratic statements.
So basically you wind up with a guy saying they are biased and another saying they were not. Isn't that what your link says?
Are you naive enough to believe there is a one stop resource of objectivity, especially within the realm of american society and politics?
It takes multiple sources and outlets from a variety of perspectives to get the whole picture.
But hey, I understand, it makes some people feel really good to think their side is better than the other, or that they know the truth and others don't. I get that, I just don't care to be one of those people.
As far as the article is concerned, I believe the one guy is simply defending himself and his own ratings for the Washington Times, saying that he tries to be unbiased, which I applaud him for. But he's one guy.
yep, the guy from the conservative publication says factchecking sites are unfair to conservatives. shocker, that is.
Refute his numbers then.
so you've got a speech that's all about education, health care, jobs, voluntarism ... not a single mention of a armed civilian. and you guys claim that is was all about an armed civilian force.
Obama has not done a single thing to create this mythical force, but you claim that's what he wants to do.
By the way, none of this has stopped conservatives from claiming that the ACA created an armed force, that FEMA is creating an armed force ...
I don't know about overall numbers, but if Too Hot is any indication of the broader world, catching more Republicans in falsehoods is hardly surprising.
but looking at Factcheck right now, the most recent item says a Democratic ad against a Republican is false. The next ad says both Democrats and Republicans are throwing falsehoods in another race. The next criticizes a GOP ad. The next points out the facts about presidential vacations. The next criticizes a Democratic ad ....
This could be a repeat of Obama's 2010 coup d'etat.
If the fact checker's methods were applied fairly and consistently and the numbers shook out the way they did, then the difference would be real even if severely disproportionate. If it's not applied fairly or consistently then there would be bias.
Nothing Hemingway stated in the NPR piece actually showed bias, only his concern about it b/c of the disproportion. Then again, the bigger issue of determining "truth" isn't so inclined to statistical measurement so eliminating all subjectivity is an impossibility.
"Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side"
There isn't a one stop resource for objectivity in regards to american politics that exists, and in all probability never will. My point was simply to point out that others have called into question the accuracy of these websites to begin with, to the extent that NPR themselves have addressed on more than on one occasion.
If you choose to believe that there are sources like this that exist, that's your choice, but I personally refuse to dabble in naiveté to that extreme.
Agree with your first point. Not sure what you mean by your second. These sources exist. They probably have some bias as true/complete objectivity does not exist (imo). It's not wrong to use them, but like news reporting itself, or claims from pols or govt officials (or anyone), it would help to look at multiple sources that might differ in determining truth. Pascal was largely right (my earlier quote), on some levels, anyway.
yeah, let's don't forget his FEMA army or how he's taken over all the local SWAT teams.