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

[Full-Auto]

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.

Dont sweat it. I am currently sandbagging, waiting for him to run his mouth.

 

[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.

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.

No. Folks who offer evidence need to demonstrate its veracity. It is the standard for all discourse, whether on a informal forum or down at the corner bar. You bring these folks up, you need to show who they are. So far as I know they are minons of the DNC until you show that they are something else.

Setting up a web page costs $10 for the name and $72 for hosting. That is all the credibility you get from a web page.

You insist I prove bias. Since bias is normal to the human condition, I think that is exactly backward. Since you bring them to the table you need to demonstrate something a great deal more difficult: Credibility.

According the whois, Politifact is owned by the Times Publishing company of St Petersburg Florida. According to Wiki, Times Publishing is owned by the Pointer Institute.

Wiki has the following to say about Poltifact.

The newspaper operates PolitiFact.com, a project in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...."[8] They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The site also includes an "Obameter", tracking U.S. President Barack Obama's performance with regard to his campaign promises.
PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters.

That is pretty much all I am asking you to do. It is pretty much all that is required of you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Dont sweat it. I am currently sandbagging, waiting for him to run his mouth.

I actually have the link, I just like rubbing it in when he is being stupid.

 

[Listening]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ONE Obama lie?

1. Americans want higher taxes: During the debate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said that 80% of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the deal. But a Rasmussen poll taken the same week showed that only 34% believe a tax hike should be included in a debt-ceiling agreement.

2. Mother denied health insurance: During his presidential campaign, Obama said that his mother died of cancer after being denied coverage for a preexisting condition. He used her image in a campaign ad, repeated the claim in debates, and used the same rhetoric as President when he tried to sell ObamaCare to the American people. But a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott says that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

3. Tax restraint for middle and lower class: Obama pledged during his campaign and throughout his presidency not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But ObamaCare’s individual mandate will hit many under the $250,000 mark. (Obama’s own Justice Department said the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, when it argued its constitutionality.) Not to mention a higher federal cigarette tax and countless other “fees” in the health care law that hit the middle and lower class.

4. Shovel-ready jobs: When Obama was selling his $787 billion stimulus package, he consistently bragged about how shovel-ready construction jobs would be funded across the nation. Even the President later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times: “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

5. Keep your doctor: President Obama repeatedly pledged that under his health care measure, Americans would be able to keep their doctors. However, with rising costs, many employers will dump their health care plans and force workers into the state health care exchanges (unless you belong to one of the unions getting ObamaCare waivers.) A survey by McKinsey & Company found that more than 30% of companies will discontinue coverage for their workers.

6. No lobbyists: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “We have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. … I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.” At least a dozen former lobbyists got top jobs in his administration at the beginning of his presidency, according to Politico, and National Public Radio reported the Obama administration was granting waivers to lobbyists to circumvent the ban.

7. Foreign money in campaigns: During his 2010 State of the Union address, and again during the 2010 midterm elections, Obama railed against foreign money influencing U.S. elections. The only problem was that there was no evidence to support the charge or, as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in the State of the Union audience, silently mouthed, “Not true.”

8. Arizona immigration law: During the battle over Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama said: “Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.” Uh, actually, Mr. President, it couldn’t. The law would allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status only when there is suspicion of a crime being committed.

9. Transparency: Obama pledged that transparency would be a top priority, but his administration refused to grant one-third of the Freedom of Information Act requests, according to an Associated Press analysis. He also was dishonest about transparency when he said that health-care negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and that he would wait five days to sign a bill so people would have a chance to read it online.

10. Constitutional oath: During his January 2009 inauguration, Barack Obama pledged to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” yet he has consistently ignored the 10th Amendment giving powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. Exhibit No. 1: ObamaCare.

All fact, dittohead. Idiot. Stopped by Pubs at least. Pub dupes.....

As usual, your post makes no sense. Did anyone ever warn you about the dangers of crack cocain ?

You asked for one, I cited 10.

Now, are you going to stop acting like you survived a gunshot wound to the head and say something rational ?

 

[Billy000]

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.

No. Folks who offer evidence need to demonstrate its veracity. It is the standard for all discourse, whether on a informal forum or down at the corner bar. You bring these folks up, you need to show who they are. So far as I know they are minons of the DNC until you show that they are something else.

Setting up a web page costs $10 for the name and $72 for hosting. That is all the credibility you get from a web page.

You insist I prove bias. Since bias is normal to the human condition, I think that is exactly backward. Since you bring them to the table you need to demonstrate something a great deal more difficult: Credibility.

According the whois, Politifact is owned by the Times Publishing company of St Petersburg Florida. According to Wiki, Times Publishing is owned by the Pointer Institute.

Wiki has the following to say about Poltifact.

The newspaper operates PolitiFact.com, a project in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...."[8] They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The site also includes an "Obameter", tracking U.S. President Barack Obama's performance with regard to his campaign promises.
PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters.

That is pretty much all I am asking you to do. It is pretty much all that is required of you.

Your ignorance of PolitiFact is not my problem. The majority of the people on this site know what it is. I don't need to explain it to them. The fact that you continue to harp on it is puzzling. Wasn't it just as easy for you to look it up as it would be for me?

The site is under the pretense that it is unbiased. If someone thinks otherwise, they can support their claim.

 

[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.

Aren't you the guy that tried to prove Obama is not a liar by pointing out that Politifact said he lies?

As for Politifact bias, try this.

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics

I guess I've gotten used to ignoring your drivel. But....

The article makes a legitimate point about the disproportion of lies between the GOP and the Dems. However, it fails to mention that the Dems and the GOP are relatively equal on the average amount of truths told. I'd say the verdict is out on that one.

It's a start, but I am not convinced.

 

[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.

Aren't you the guy that tried to prove Obama is not a liar by pointing out that Politifact said he lies?

As for Politifact bias, try this.

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics

I guess I've gotten used to ignoring your drivel. But....

The article makes a legitimate point about the disproportion of lies between the GOP and the Dems. However, it fails to mention that the Dems and the GOP are relatively equal on the average amount of truths told. I'd say the verdict is out on that one.

It's a start, but I am not convinced.

Of course you are, because to be convinced of anything takes a mind that is open to the possibility that it is wrong.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

No. Folks who offer evidence need to demonstrate its veracity. It is the standard for all discourse, whether on a informal forum or down at the corner bar. You bring these folks up, you need to show who they are. So far as I know they are minons of the DNC until you show that they are something else.

Setting up a web page costs $10 for the name and $72 for hosting. That is all the credibility you get from a web page.

You insist I prove bias. Since bias is normal to the human condition, I think that is exactly backward. Since you bring them to the table you need to demonstrate something a great deal more difficult: Credibility.

According the whois, Politifact is owned by the Times Publishing company of St Petersburg Florida. According to Wiki, Times Publishing is owned by the Pointer Institute.

Wiki has the following to say about Poltifact.

The newspaper operates PolitiFact.com, a project in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...."[8] They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The site also includes an "Obameter", tracking U.S. President Barack Obama's performance with regard to his campaign promises.
PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters.

That is pretty much all I am asking you to do. It is pretty much all that is required of you.

Your ignorance of PolitiFact is not my problem. The majority of the people on this site know what it is. I don't need to explain it to them. The fact that you continue to harp on it is puzzling. Wasn't it just as easy for you to look it up as it would be for me?

The site is under the pretense that it is unbiased. If someone thinks otherwise, they can support their claim.

I was demonstrating how easy it is to establish credibility. You are the one who brought up bias. It is never the responsibility of the listener to establish bias. It is always the responsibility of the person who brings in a witness to show that the witness is credible.

You said some folks might have an issue with believing them. In other words, there is reason to doubt. It is then up to you to show that they are indeed credible. That there is no reason to doubt.

What you gave us is "here is an assertion from some strange website. If you find them incredible that is your problem" That effectively says "I don't believe them either, but you better."

 

[Billy000]

No. Folks who offer evidence need to demonstrate its veracity. It is the standard for all discourse, whether on a informal forum or down at the corner bar. You bring these folks up, you need to show who they are. So far as I know they are minons of the DNC until you show that they are something else.

Setting up a web page costs $10 for the name and $72 for hosting. That is all the credibility you get from a web page.

You insist I prove bias. Since bias is normal to the human condition, I think that is exactly backward. Since you bring them to the table you need to demonstrate something a great deal more difficult: Credibility.

According the whois, Politifact is owned by the Times Publishing company of St Petersburg Florida. According to Wiki, Times Publishing is owned by the Pointer Institute.

Wiki has the following to say about Poltifact.



That is pretty much all I am asking you to do. It is pretty much all that is required of you.

Your ignorance of PolitiFact is not my problem. The majority of the people on this site know what it is. I don't need to explain it to them. The fact that you continue to harp on it is puzzling. Wasn't it just as easy for you to look it up as it would be for me?

The site is under the pretense that it is unbiased. If someone thinks otherwise, they can support their claim.

I was demonstrating how easy it is to establish credibility. You are the one who brought up bias. It is never the responsibility of the listener to establish bias. It is always the responsibility of the person who brings in a witness to show that the witness is credible.

You said some folks might have an issue with believing them. In other words, there is reason to doubt. It is then up to you to show that they are indeed credible. That there is no reason to doubt.

What you gave us is "here is an assertion from some strange website. If you find them incredible that is your problem" That effectively says "I don't believe them either, but you better."

But the reason I said that was because many people have said before I posted this thread that PolitiFact is biased. Why? Because it isn't my first time posting a thread about the website. Every time I do, people call it a "liberal blog" simply because Obama has a strong record on the truth according to the webiste. So anticipating their claim, I told them to prove it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

My feeling is that the, Political Class, has lying down to an art form.

...they need a swift kick to the nether regions...and soon..

 

[Billy000]

Aren't you the guy that tried to prove Obama is not a liar by pointing out that Politifact said he lies?

As for Politifact bias, try this.

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics

I guess I've gotten used to ignoring your drivel. But....

The article makes a legitimate point about the disproportion of lies between the GOP and the Dems. However, it fails to mention that the Dems and the GOP are relatively equal on the average amount of truths told. I'd say the verdict is out on that one.

It's a start, but I am not convinced.

Of course you are, because to be convinced of anything takes a mind that is open to the possibility that it is wrong.

But if I were to just assume the source was totally correct I would have been close-minded as well. If I wasn't open-minded, I wouldn't have given it any credibility whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess I've gotten used to ignoring your drivel. But....

The article makes a legitimate point about the disproportion of lies between the GOP and the Dems. However, it fails to mention that the Dems and the GOP are relatively equal on the average amount of truths told. I'd say the verdict is out on that one.

It's a start, but I am not convinced.

Of course you are, because to be convinced of anything takes a mind that is open to the possibility that it is wrong.

But if I were to just assume the source was totally correct I would have been close-minded as well. If I wasn't open-minded, I wouldn't have given it any credibility whatsoever.

Or you could actually have an open mind and examine the evidence, like ladyliberal.

The statements that Politifact rates are not representative samples and therefore tell us little about how often the DNC and RNC lie. Politifact rates the accuracy of statements; not the overall reliability of the sources of those statements. The analysis linked to by Quantum Windbag convincingly argues that what it demonstrates is either that

1) Politifact is more likely to select a false statement that comes from a Republican elected official than a Democratic elected official

2) Republican elected officials are more likely to make false statements than Democratic elected officials.

3) Politifact is more likely to incorrectly rate a statement as false if it comes from a Republican elected official than if it comes from a Democratic elected official.

I don't think 3 is very, but it would be hard to distinguish between 1 and 2. One would essentially have to fact-check an unbiased, potentially very large random sample of public statements by elected officials. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to do that.

Given the actual data, and the fact that Politifact admits to bias itself, you might want to admit I just might have a point rather than dismiss it simply because you do not like the inevitable conclusion.

 

[Billy000]

Of course you are, because to be convinced of anything takes a mind that is open to the possibility that it is wrong.

But if I were to just assume the source was totally correct I would have been close-minded as well. If I wasn't open-minded, I wouldn't have given it any credibility whatsoever.

Or you could actually have an open mind and examine the evidence, like ladyliberal.

The statements that Politifact rates are not representative samples and therefore tell us little about how often the DNC and RNC lie. Politifact rates the accuracy of statements; not the overall reliability of the sources of those statements. The analysis linked to by Quantum Windbag convincingly argues that what it demonstrates is either that

1) Politifact is more likely to select a false statement that comes from a Republican elected official than a Democratic elected official

2) Republican elected officials are more likely to make false statements than Democratic elected officials.

3) Politifact is more likely to incorrectly rate a statement as false if it comes from a Republican elected official than if it comes from a Democratic elected official.

I don't think 3 is very, but it would be hard to distinguish between 1 and 2. One would essentially have to fact-check an unbiased, potentially very large random sample of public statements by elected officials. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to do that.

Given the actual data, and the fact that Politifact admits to bias itself, you might want to admit I just might have a point rather than dismiss it simply because you do not like the inevitable conclusion.

Ladyliberal has a point, you do not. All you did was link an article you found. I'll defer to her on this one.

 

[Billy000]

The statements that Politifact rates are not representative samples and therefore tell us little about how often the DNC and RNC lie. Politifact rates the accuracy of statements; not the overall reliability of the sources of those statements. The analysis linked to by Quantum Windbag convincingly argues that what it demonstrates is either that

1) Politifact is more likely to select a false statement that comes from a Republican elected official than a Democratic elected official

2) Republican elected officials are more likely to make false statements than Democratic elected officials.

3) Politifact is more likely to incorrectly rate a statement as false if it comes from a Republican elected official than if it comes from a Democratic elected official.

I don't think 3 is very, but it would be hard to distinguish between 1 and 2. One would essentially have to fact-check an unbiased, potentially very large random sample of public statements by elected officials. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to do that.

I missed your post. I think you make a good point. If we are talking scientific methodology, it may not be a reliable source.

 

[FactFinder]

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

Isn't the problem not that one has lied less but they are both F'n liars?

 

[Crackerjack]

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

Isn't the problem not that one has lied less but they are both F'n liars?

They may be liars, but they're our liars.

 

[FactFinder]

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

Isn't the problem not that one has lied less but they are both F'n liars?

They may be liars, but they're our liars.

Maybe yours..I don't claim any of the bastards.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But if I were to just assume the source was totally correct I would have been close-minded as well. If I wasn't open-minded, I wouldn't have given it any credibility whatsoever.

Or you could actually have an open mind and examine the evidence, like ladyliberal.

The statements that Politifact rates are not representative samples and therefore tell us little about how often the DNC and RNC lie. Politifact rates the accuracy of statements; not the overall reliability of the sources of those statements. The analysis linked to by Quantum Windbag convincingly argues that what it demonstrates is either that

1) Politifact is more likely to select a false statement that comes from a Republican elected official than a Democratic elected official

2) Republican elected officials are more likely to make false statements than Democratic elected officials.

3) Politifact is more likely to incorrectly rate a statement as false if it comes from a Republican elected official than if it comes from a Democratic elected official.

I don't think 3 is very, but it would be hard to distinguish between 1 and 2. One would essentially have to fact-check an unbiased, potentially very large random sample of public statements by elected officials. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to do that.

Given the actual data, and the fact that Politifact admits to bias itself, you might want to admit I just might have a point rather than dismiss it simply because you do not like the inevitable conclusion.

Ladyliberal has a point, you do not. All you did was link an article you found. I'll defer to her on this one.

Let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence of bias, I provide, and you reject it because it comes from me. Ladyliberal, who has a real brain, looks at the same evidence I provided, and concludes that the evidence indicates Politifact might have a problem, and you think she has a point. Is it remotely possible that the problem here is you, not me?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

No, their opinions are based upon a judgement whether or not someone has told a lie...not told a lie...or somewhere in between. I'm sorry if you've decided that "their" opinion now constitutes fact, Billy but to me it's still just "their" opinion.

As for the rest? My opinion is based upon analysis of the same circumstances as their's...the difference being...we reach different conclusions. Why does PolitiFact's conclusion count for more than mine...or yours...or any number of other people's?

 

[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.

No, their opinions are based upon a judgement whether or not someone has told a lie...not told a lie...or somewhere in between. I'm sorry if you've decided that "their" opinion now constitutes fact, Billy but to me it's still just "their" opinion.

As for the rest? My opinion is based upon analysis of the same circumstances as their's...the difference being...we reach different conclusions. Why does PolitiFact's conclusion count for more than mine...or yours...or any number of other people's?

Their opinion does not trump anyone else who does balanced, in-depth research.