According to PolitiFact, the RNC has lied more than the DNC has

[mudwhistle]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

I wonder if you know that they found at least 74 mostly true statements, 79 half true statements, 42 mostly false statements, 51 false statements, and 4 pants on fire statements by Obama.

They only found 80 true statements of any import by Obama.....which even if you support Politifact you must admit that Obama is dishonest most of the time.

Okay, give me a politician on that webiste that has lied more than Obama. I will be shocked if you found one. Obama has told the truth more than he has lied.

Politifact says otherwise.

Personally I think you're a bit retarded.

You asked me to give you a politician that has lied more than Obama.....and you say you'd be shocked if I found one.

This means you think Obama lies a lot.

 

[ba1614]

lol, even giving that the numbers are right, it's funny as hell seeing someone tout that the "rnc lies more than the dnc" by one fucking lie! lol must be so proud of his dnc that they lie less.

When has any politician not been a liar?

Poor America

You're distorting it. The DNC had more "Trues" "Mostly Trues" and less "mostly lies" and "lies" than the RNC.

The DNC even had 0 "pants on fire" while the RNC had 2.

Distorting what? YOU posted "The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26." in your op, I merely addressed your post.

 

[Billy000]

lol, even giving that the numbers are right, it's funny as hell seeing someone tout that the "rnc lies more than the dnc" by one fucking lie! lol must be so proud of his dnc that they lie less.

When has any politician not been a liar?

Poor America

You're distorting it. The DNC had more "Trues" "Mostly Trues" and less "mostly lies" and "lies" than the RNC.

The DNC even had 0 "pants on fire" while the RNC had 2.

Distorting what? YOU posted "The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26." in your op, I merely addressed your post.

But by doing that you are distorting it. Those numbers are not all equal in value.

 

[Billy000]

I wonder if you know that they found at least 74 mostly true statements, 79 half true statements, 42 mostly false statements, 51 false statements, and 4 pants on fire statements by Obama.

They only found 80 true statements of any import by Obama.....which even if you support Politifact you must admit that Obama is dishonest most of the time.

Okay, give me a politician on that webiste that has lied more than Obama. I will be shocked if you found one. Obama has told the truth more than he has lied.

Politifact says otherwise.

No it doesn't! How do you argue with facts exactly?

 

[ba1614]

You're distorting it. The DNC had more "Trues" "Mostly Trues" and less "mostly lies" and "lies" than the RNC.

The DNC even had 0 "pants on fire" while the RNC had 2.

Distorting what? YOU posted "The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26." in your op, I merely addressed your post.

But by doing that you are distorting it. Those numbers are not all equal in value.

By responding to exactly the words you used in a direct quote I'm distorting your words? really?

 

[Billy000]

Distorting what? YOU posted "The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26." in your op, I merely addressed your post.

But by doing that you are distorting it. Those numbers are not all equal in value.

By responding to exactly the words you used in a direct quote I'm distorting your words? really?

You're oversimplifying the results and you know it. I already explained it to Intense.

 

[Oldstyle]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

The very fact that you're so aware that people perceive PolitiFact as biased pretty much proves that it is, Billy.

Both parties spin the truth to suit their purposes so much that sites were created to sort through the bullshit. Now both parties have their favorite "non-partisan" sites to be partisan on their behalf.

Do yourself a favor and start to rely on your own common sense to determine what is BS and what isn't. PolitiFact or any other site like it has an agenda. It's just the nature of the beast. People like Rdean and TruthMatters cite statistics and poll results from sites like those because they're too unintelligent to form an intelligent point of view of their own. It's why the two of them start up so many utterly stupid strings here. You've got a brain...use it.

What is it with cons that can't support what they say with facts? If you actually explored that website, you'd come to the same conclusion I have.

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find most amusing about your "tally" of lies, Billy...is that a lie about something important seems to count as much to PolitiFact as one about an obscure issue that nobody cares about. There are lies and then there are lies about things that are important.

 

[Billy000]

The very fact that you're so aware that people perceive PolitiFact as biased pretty much proves that it is, Billy.

Both parties spin the truth to suit their purposes so much that sites were created to sort through the bullshit. Now both parties have their favorite "non-partisan" sites to be partisan on their behalf.

Do yourself a favor and start to rely on your own common sense to determine what is BS and what isn't. PolitiFact or any other site like it has an agenda. It's just the nature of the beast. People like Rdean and TruthMatters cite statistics and poll results from sites like those because they're too unintelligent to form an intelligent point of view of their own. It's why the two of them start up so many utterly stupid strings here. You've got a brain...use it.

What is it with cons that can't support what they say with facts? If you actually explored that website, you'd come to the same conclusion I have.

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

 

[Full-Auto]

What is it with cons that can't support what they say with facts? If you actually explored that website, you'd come to the same conclusion I have.

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

Accuracy is not a separate issue. It is the issue.

 

[Billy000]

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

Accuracy is not a separate issue. It is the issue.

No, statements based upon facts can either be biased or unbiased.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

The way to introduce information into discourse is to demonstrate its veracity. First, you need to explain who the hell PolitiFact is. There are millions of web pages. I can set up a web page in minutes that makes all kinds of claims. Then you need to demonstrate its bona fides. The fact you vouch for them is not a point in their favor. Quite the reverse.

It is not for me to demonstrate bias. Every person and organization has bias. It is up to you to demonstrate credibility.

 

[Billy000]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

The way to introduce information into discourse is to demonstrate its veracity. First, you need to explain who the hell PolitiFact is. There are millions of web pages. I can set up a web page in minutes that makes all kinds of claims. Then you need to demonstrate its bona fides. The fact you vouch for them is not a point in their favor. Quite the reverse.

It is not for me to demonstrate bias. Every person and organization has bias. It is up to you to demonstrate credibility.

I'm not writing some peer-reviewed research; I'm on an internet forum. I can be as informal as I want. No one else has those kinds of standards on here, I can assure you. Either way, they know what PolitiFact is. People can make their own assumptions about them. PolitiFact is intended to be unbaised and if some people don't agree that they are, they better be able to back it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

I wonder if you know that they found at least 74 mostly true statements, 79 half true statements, 42 mostly false statements, 51 false statements, and 4 pants on fire statements by Obama.

They only found 80 true statements of any import by Obama.....which even if you support Politifact you must admit that Obama is dishonest most of the time.

Okay, give me a politician on that webiste that has lied more than Obama. I will be shocked if you found one. Obama has told the truth more than he has lied.

I already proved that wrong when you tried to use Polificat to prove Obama is not a liar, anything less than complete truth is a lie, and Obama only told the complete truth less than 80 times out of more than 300 statements rated.

 

[Full-Auto]

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

Accuracy is not a separate issue. It is the issue.

No, statements based upon facts can either be biased or unbiased.

Politifact is biased. easily proven to boot.

Run along junior you dont have any game.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol, even giving that the numbers are right, it's funny as hell seeing someone tout that the "rnc lies more than the dnc" by one fucking lie! lol must be so proud of his dnc that they lie less.

When has any politician not been a liar?

Poor America

You're distorting it. The DNC had more "Trues" "Mostly Trues" and less "mostly lies" and "lies" than the RNC.

The DNC even had 0 "pants on fire" while the RNC had 2.

In court you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anything less that is subject to prosecution for perjury because you lied. You are the one trying to distort the numbers, and no one is buying your logic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is it with cons that can't support what they say with facts? If you actually explored that website, you'd come to the same conclusion I have.

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

One of the things you asked for was evidence of their bias, I provided it. Have you even looked at that?

 

[Billy000]

I "explored" it, Billy...I'm sorry but I didn't take away from it, the same conclusion you did.

Look, one of the first things you learn studying history is that it's crucial to know both who it is that's written the account of an event you are reading and their motivations for writing it. I've read PolitFact's "take" on things. I simply don't agree with a lot of their analysis. Do you not understand that they are giving an opinion? An opinion that may or may not be valid?

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

One of the things you asked for was evidence of their bias, I provided it. Have you even looked at that?

Where?

 

[Billy000]

I wonder if you know that they found at least 74 mostly true statements, 79 half true statements, 42 mostly false statements, 51 false statements, and 4 pants on fire statements by Obama.

They only found 80 true statements of any import by Obama.....which even if you support Politifact you must admit that Obama is dishonest most of the time.

Okay, give me a politician on that webiste that has lied more than Obama. I will be shocked if you found one. Obama has told the truth more than he has lied.

I already proved that wrong when you tried to use Polificat to prove Obama is not a liar, anything less than complete truth is a lie, and Obama only told the complete truth less than 80 times out of more than 300 statements rated.

You didn't prove anything. You are a joke. I mean that sincerely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

One of the things you asked for was evidence of their bias, I provided it. Have you even looked at that?

Where?

In my first post in this thread, go back and look. Either that or admit you are an idiot because you can't use the search function, or read, and I will dig it up for you.