Jobs? Did you say 'jobs'?

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Willie Geist, MSNBC: What would you say to that same person that said, 'Well, that hasn't worked for four years. I haven't had the job over time, it's time for a change.'

Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what's happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That's more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there's obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that's the president."
Cutter: Obama Has Created More Jobs Than the Reagan Recovery | RealClearPolitics

And now for the truth:

2. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.
Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.
In terms of employment, the private sector is smaller now than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009


a. Employed, June 2012 142 million
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted


3. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!


BTW....Population growth is about 1% annually.
Population growth (annual %) | Data | Table


Proof that the Obama administration will make up any story....up to you to believe it or not.

So....population has increased.....jobs, not so much.


Another failure by the pretender in the people's house....

 

[Mr. H.]

U.S. Firms Move Abroad - Yahoo! Finance

More big U.S. companies are reincorporating abroad despite a 2004 federal law that sought to curb the practice. One big reason: Taxes.

Companies cite various reasons for moving, including expanding their operations and their geographic reach. But tax bills remain a primary concern. A few cite worries that U.S. taxes will rise in the future, especially if Washington revamps the tax code next year to shrink the federal budget deficit.

 

[expat_panama]

...Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what's happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in...

It's not that Obama was working really fast to be able to destroy a million jobs in a single day. It's that Cutter is able to make up daily labor reports all on his own that can tote the party line, sound impressive to the extreme left, and ignore reality.

...and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs...

That 'Cutter Labor Report' may be somewhat closer to the truth actually. It's just that Cutter doesn't want to talk about all the jobs Obama destroyed during the other year and a half as president.

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

 

[pinqy]

1. "Willie Geist, MSNBC: What would you say to that same person that said, 'Well, that hasn't worked for four years. I haven't had the job over time, it's time for a change.'

Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what's happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That's more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there's obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that's the president."
Cutter: Obama Has Created More Jobs Than the Reagan Recovery | RealClearPolitics

Let's check:
The interview was August 22 2012 and the claim was that in the last 27 months there was a gain of 4.5 million private sector jobs.
The latest data at the time of the interview was for July 2012 and there were 111,317,000 private sector jobs (preliminary seasonally adjusted). 27 months earlier was April 2010 where there were 107,107,000. So "in the last 27 months" there was an increase of 4.21 million private sector jobs. Now, she possibly meant 29 months, as Feb 2010 was the low point in jobs, and it has been an increase of 4.5 million in the last 29 months.
And now for the truth:

2. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.
Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.
In terms of employment, the private sector is smaller now than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009

Whoa! Cutter was talking about April 2010 to July 2012 and you're rebutting that with Jan 2009 to July 2011????? How does that work? And not just that, but you're you've comparing different data sets. You can't compare the household survey with the establishment survey.

3. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

Right...from 2009 to 2011 there was zero net jobs. BUT from Feb 2010 to July 2012 there was a net gain of 4.5 million.


Yes, it can be confusing...2 different surveys for employment and jobs. But if you're going to rebutt a claim you have to look at the same time frame claimed. Now if you want to add on that the 4.5 million gain was right after a 4.2 million LOSS, that would be fine, and would show Obama is being a little disingeuous.

One more time: Jan 2009 there were 110,985,000 non-farm private sector jobs. By Feb 2010 it dropped to 106,773,000 and by July 2012 it was 111,317,000 (pre recession it was 115,647,000)

So....Have 4.5 million private sector jobs been gained in the last 29 months? Yes.
Is that back up to the level when Obama took office? Yes.
Is it back up to pre-recession levels? Hell, No.

Note that Obama is restricting the claims to PRIVATE sector. State and local governments have laid off a lot of people and if we look at Total non-farm jobs, it was 133,561,000 when he took office, dropped to 129,244,000 in Feb 2010 and is now up to 133,245,000, which is a gain of 3.5 million in the last 27 months (gee, wonder why they went with private sector?) and is still not up to the level of when Obama took office.


Note, I have not defended Obama's policies, I have specifically pointed out the misleading parts of the Obama campaign claims, and yet some idiot will still claim my post is biased or defending Obama. i've listed straight facts you can double check at Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is lying about that three letter word: j-o-b-s!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

"...the mindblind liberal ideologues..."


While I certainly agree with the essence of your post, and that the quote above represents the reliable Democrat voter, the Cutter-Obama ploy is to influence the voter not paying close attention.

The details are beyond any except for you, and I, and folks like friend pinqy whose post is above yours. Except for us, the rest is inside baseball.

So...and this is for pinqy, as well,....it is important to confront the generalization, and not just the time frame Cutter demands we use.


In short...Obama has not been a job creator.
The import of her interview is a lie, whether or not the dates are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we've created 4.5 million private sector jobs..

While the population has grown 11 million since Barry took office!!


Perhaps this is one reason why Barry likes to talk about job creation rather than the unemployment rate of 8.2%.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

"...the mindblind liberal ideologues..."


While I certainly agree with the essence of your post, and that the quote above represents the reliable Democrat voter, the Cutter-Obama ploy is to influence the voter not paying close attention.

The details are beyond any except for you, and I, and folks like friend pinqy whose post is above yours. Except for us, the rest is inside baseball.

So...and this is for pinqy, as well,....it is important to confront the generalization, and not just the time frame Cutter demands we use.


In short...Obama has not been a job creator.
The import of her interview is a lie, whether or not the dates are.

Do you suppose, perhaps, that since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation, that the problem just might be that Congress, as in the repubs, have refused to pass ANY stimulus??? Or do you have an actual suggestion as to what SHOULD happen. Repubs say decrease taxes, decrease spending, and decrease regs. Can you point to a time when that has worked??? Just wondering, you know.

And by the way, PoliticalChic, you are trying really hard to prove the pres did not create any jobs. You probably know what the cbo says. So, I can believe you, being the impartial source that you are, or I can believe the cbo. What should I do????

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

"...the mindblind liberal ideologues..."


While I certainly agree with the essence of your post, and that the quote above represents the reliable Democrat voter, the Cutter-Obama ploy is to influence the voter not paying close attention.

The details are beyond any except for you, and I, and folks like friend pinqy whose post is above yours. Except for us, the rest is inside baseball.

So...and this is for pinqy, as well,....it is important to confront the generalization, and not just the time frame Cutter demands we use.


In short...Obama has not been a job creator.
The import of her interview is a lie, whether or not the dates are.

Do you suppose, perhaps, that since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation, that the problem just might be that Congress, as in the repubs, have refused to pass ANY stimulus??? Or do you have an actual suggestion as to what SHOULD happen. Repubs say decrease taxes, decrease spending, and decrease regs. Can you point to a time when that has worked??? Just wondering, you know.

And by the way, PoliticalChic, you are trying really hard to prove the pres did not create any jobs. You probably know what the cbo says. So, I can believe you, being the impartial source that you are, or I can believe the cbo. What should I do????

Well, first....when I observe your name....can I buy a vowel?


Further....try to be a bit more au fait, when it comes to current events....

"since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation,"

That no longer applies since we have a gent named Obama: he changes laws at will, e.g., the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill....

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

There may very well be 4.5 million new hires the problem is that there have been substantially more new layoffs.

 

[Papageorgio]

The truth of the matter is, jobs are important to those who are unemployed, and those that know someone unemployed. If you are either of the two, you cannot help to be unhappy with the programs that Obama has put into place.

 

[Rshermr]

Politichick says: Well, first....when I observe your name....can I buy a vowel?
Sure, send money.

Politichick says: Further....try to be a bit more au fait, when it comes to current events....
Perhaps someone should have actual knowledge. First, you should know what happened. Second, you should know it had little to do overall with employment, which I think is the subject of this thread. You being the person who started it should know. Then, from a factual standpoint,see below.

Politichick says: "since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation,"

That no longer applies since we have a gent named Obama: he changes laws at will, e.g., the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill....
Perhaps it is you, oh conservative tool, who needs more knowledge. This is relatively new, while cons are jumping on it like fleas on a dead cat, maybe we should look to a more impartial source than you:
But the directive's aim is to improve welfare-to-work, not gut it. Major fact-checking organizations tend to agree. PolitiFact.com gave the ad a "Pants on Fire!" rating, calling it a "drastic distortion." FactCheck.org gave a similarly low rating. The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler gave "four Pinocchios" to Romney...
Romney's welfare queen - chicagotribune.com

But, what the hell, PoliticalChick, I know you prefer to spend your time with conservative sites. So, you can quote lies and try to make people think you actually know something.

So, getting back to the subject of this (your) thread, you did not respond to the questions I asked. Being the originator of this thread, you should find this easy. So I ask again:

Do you suppose, perhaps, that since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation, that the problem just might be that Congress, as in the repubs, have refused to pass ANY stimulus??? Or do you have an actual suggestion as to what SHOULD happen. Repubs say decrease taxes, decrease spending, and decrease regs. Can you point to a time when that has worked??? Just wondering, you know.

And by the way, PoliticalChic, you are trying really hard to prove the pres did not create any jobs. You probably know what the cbo says. So, I can believe you, being the impartial source that you are, or I can believe the cbo. What should I do????


__________________

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

as in the repubs, have refused to pass ANY stimulus???

a government stimulus is just a bubble, like the housing bubble, that will burst and make this depression worse. Now even you know why they refuse!!

Once a liberal stimulus bubble has burst you must let the free market work to re-allocate resources back to their proper free market places.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't think anybody believes that 4.5 million jobs created number except for the mindblind liberal ideologues who lost touch with reality a long time ago. But maybe if you tell a big enough lie enough times maybe some people will think it must be true.

There may very well be 4.5 million new hires the problem is that there have been substantially more new layoffs.

and a population that grew by 10 million!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politichick says: Well, first....when I observe your name....can I buy a vowel?
Sure, send money.

Politichick says: Further....try to be a bit more au fait, when it comes to current events....
Perhaps someone should have actual knowledge. First, you should know what happened. Second, you should know it had little to do overall with employment, which I think is the subject of this thread. You being the person who started it should know. Then, from a factual standpoint,see below.

Politichick says: "since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation,"

That no longer applies since we have a gent named Obama: he changes laws at will, e.g., the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill....
Perhaps it is you, oh conservative tool, who needs more knowledge. This is relatively new, while cons are jumping on it like fleas on a dead cat, maybe we should look to a more impartial source than you:
But the directive's aim is to improve welfare-to-work, not gut it. Major fact-checking organizations tend to agree. PolitiFact.com gave the ad a "Pants on Fire!" rating, calling it a "drastic distortion." FactCheck.org gave a similarly low rating. The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler gave "four Pinocchios" to Romney...
Romney's welfare queen - chicagotribune.com

But, what the hell, PoliticalChick, I know you prefer to spend your time with conservative sites. So, you can quote lies and try to make people think you actually know something.

So, getting back to the subject of this (your) thread, you did not respond to the questions I asked. Being the originator of this thread, you should find this easy. So I ask again:

Do you suppose, perhaps, that since the pres can not make law, or pass legislation, that the problem just might be that Congress, as in the repubs, have refused to pass ANY stimulus??? Or do you have an actual suggestion as to what SHOULD happen. Repubs say decrease taxes, decrease spending, and decrease regs. Can you point to a time when that has worked??? Just wondering, you know.

And by the way, PoliticalChic, you are trying really hard to prove the pres did not create any jobs. You probably know what the cbo says. So, I can believe you, being the impartial source that you are, or I can believe the cbo. What should I do????


__________________

If you'd learn how to use the quote function, you wouldn't have to go to the childish red crayon.



1. On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.

VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way


2. PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.
Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com

3. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics.
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.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire : NPR


4. “It is yet another action of executive arrogance by this president,” Cruz added. “President Obama, if he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or to seek work, he could have gone to Congress, he could have proposed new legislation, he could have tried to make the case to the American people.” Instead of pursuing such a course, Cruz continued, Obama “simply decreed it by executive order,” an action that he called a “pattern” of this administration.

“President Obama apparently believes that Bill Clinton was way too conservative,” Cruz said, “and that the Obama administration is and should be far, far to the left of the Clinton administration.”
Romney Camp: Obama Has ‘Gutted’ Welfare Reform - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online

a. Rector has already debunked the Administration’s claims that it did not gut welfare reform and that Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Now, he is taking apart the Administration’s defense of its new waiver policy piece-by-piece in a new series of papers. "This standard is vague, first of all, since states do not actually need to fulfill it but merely “demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year” after they are exempted from the old TANF work standards. Nonetheless, at first glance, this goal looks fairly impressive.

President Obama’s HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.” There are four reasons why a 20 percent increase in the number of employment exits, although it sounds impressive, is a very weak or counterproductive measure of success in welfare reform."
Morning Bell: Media "Fact Checkers" Promote Obama's Gutting of Welfare Reform


Now, don't you appreciate that I've saved you from embarrassing yourself further!

You're welcome.


And stop living on those Liberal sites....see how deleterious they are to your intellectual health?



And, since you haven't found any oh-so-Liberal "lies,"....the term turns back on you, doesn't it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Guys...guys...guys...c'mon.
You obviously have not been reading TdM's and Chris's posts have you?
If you did - you would know this is one of the greatest economic periods in American history.

 

[Rshermr]

1. On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.

VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way
Wow, and here we have quotes from Breitbart.com. Can you find more partisan sites than this, oh great con liar.


2. PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.
Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com
So, again attacking a fact checking organization. This time useing an op ed by the Wall Street Journal, which is run and owned by the same person who owns and runs FOX.

3. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics.
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.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire : NPR
Wow. You toss in NPR. Except, of course, it is a reprint of a debate about fact check orgs, with Mark Hemmingway, in the WEEKLY STANDARD. Wow, you can find more partisan sites. Lets see if you ever actually use a non partisan site, shall we, oh lying con.

4. “It is yet another action of executive arrogance by this president,” Cruz added. “President Obama, if he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or to seek work, he could have gone to Congress, he could have proposed new legislation, he could have tried to make the case to the American people.” Instead of pursuing such a course, Cruz continued, Obama “simply decreed it by executive order,” an action that he called a “pattern” of this administration.

“President Obama apparently believes that Bill Clinton was way too conservative,” Cruz said, “and that the Obama administration is and should be far, far to the left of the Clinton administration.”
Romney Camp: Obama Has ‘Gutted’ Welfare Reform - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online OOPS. National Review AGAIN. Can you believe it. So, lets keep looking.

a. Rector has already debunked the Administration’s claims that it did not gut welfare reform and that Republican governors. tried to do the same thing in 2005. Now, he is taking apart the Administration’s defense of its new waiver policy piece-by-piece in a new series of papers. "This standard is vague, first of all, since states do not actually need to fulfill it but merely “demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year” after they are exempted from the old TANF work standards. Nonetheless, at first glance, this goal looks fairly impressive.

President Obama’s HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.” There are four reasons why a 20 percent increase in the number of employment exits, although it sounds impressive, is a very weak or counterproductive measure of success in welfare reform."
Morning Bell: Media "Fact Checkers" Promote Obama's Gutting of Welfare Reform
And here we have, Morning Bell, in THE FOUNDRY, part of the Heritage network. About as far right as you can get. Great non partisan sourse, oh con liar.


Now, don't you appreciate that I've saved you from embarrassing yourself further! Embarassed? Actually, I am not at all. And I am sure you are not either. Because you are a con tool. Simply doing what con tools do. Posting con dogma. From con sites. So, what is new.
What is really interesting is that famous communist era tactic of attacking any organization that clears up the lies you tell. Attacking fact check orgs is a rediculous tactic. And really juvinile to those interested in truth, which you have amply proven, YOU ARE NOT.

You're welcome.


And stop living on those Liberal sites....see how deleterious they are to your intellectual health?
I just pointed out your con sites. I do not use partisan sites. Find it is hard on my integrity. But, You DO. Your entire post is based on statements from partisan sites. Where is your integrity???



And, since you haven't found any oh-so-Liberal "lies,"....the term turns back on you, doesn't it. Not at all, oh con liar. Only a partisan person who intends to lie, uses totally partisan sites. All con sites. To normal people you are a joke. You do all you can to tear down organizations that question the statements your sites make. Maybe soon, all sites will follow the con dogma, and there will be no impartial sites. Your attempts to denegrate the fact check orgs is a total sad joke.

 

[Papageorgio]

1. On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.

VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way
Wow, and here we have quotes from Breitbart.com. Can you find more partisan sites than this, oh great con liar.


2. PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.
Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com
So, again attacking a fact checking organization. This time useing an op ed by the Wall Street Journal, which is run and owned by the same person who owns and runs FOX.

3. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics.
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.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire : NPR Wow. You toss in NPR. Except, of course, it is a repreat of a debate about fact check orgs, with Mark Hemmingway, in the WEEKLY STANDARD. Wow, you can find more partisan sites. Lets see if you ever actually use a non partisan site, shall we, oh lying con.

4. “It is yet another action of executive arrogance by this president,” Cruz added. “President Obama, if he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or to seek work, he could have gone to Congress, he could have proposed new legislation, he could have tried to make the case to the American people.” Instead of pursuing such a course, Cruz continued, Obama “simply decreed it by executive order,” an action that he called a “pattern” of this administration.

“President Obama apparently believes that Bill Clinton was way too conservative,” Cruz said, “and that the Obama administration is and should be far, far to the left of the Clinton administration.”
Romney Camp: Obama Has ‘Gutted’ Welfare Reform - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online OOPS. National Review AGAIN. Can you believe it. So, lets keep looking.

a. Rector has already debunked the Administration’s claims that it did not gut welfare reform and that Republican governors. tried to do the same thing in 2005. Now, he is taking apart the Administration’s defense of its new waiver policy piece-by-piece in a new series of papers. "This standard is vague, first of all, since states do not actually need to fulfill it but merely “demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year” after they are exempted from the old TANF work standards. Nonetheless, at first glance, this goal looks fairly impressive.

President Obama’s HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.” There are four reasons why a 20 percent increase in the number of employment exits, although it sounds impressive, is a very weak or counterproductive measure of success in welfare reform."
Morning Bell: Media "Fact Checkers" Promote Obama's Gutting of Welfare Reform
And here we have, Morning Bell, in THE FOUNDRY, part of the Heritage network. About as far right as you can get. Great non partisan sourse, oh con liar.


Now, don't you appreciate that I've saved you from embarrassing yourself further! Embarassed? Actually, I am not at all. And I am sure you are not either. Because you are a con tool. Simply doing what con tools do. Posting con dogma. From con sites. So, what is new.
What is really interesting is that famous communist era tactic of attacking any organization that clears up the lies you tell. Attacking fact check orgs is a rediculous tactic. And really juvinile to those interested in truth, which you have amply proven, YOU ARE NOT.

You're welcome.


And stop living on those Liberal sites....see how deleterious they are to your intellectual health?
I just pointed out your con sites. I do not use partisan sites. Find it is hard on my integrity. But, You DO. Your entire post is based on statements from partisan sites. Where is your integrity???



And, since you haven't found any oh-so-Liberal "lies,"....the term turns back on you, doesn't it. Not at all, oh con liar. Only a partisan person who intends to lie, uses totally partisan sites. All con sites. To normal people you are a joke. You do all you can to tear down organizations that question the statements your sites make. Maybe soon, all sites will follow the con dogma, and there will be no impartial sites. Your attempts to denegrate the fact check orgs is a total sad joke.

Hard on your integrity? Don't worry you have no integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

1. On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.

VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way
Wow, and here we have quotes from Breitbart.com. Can you find more partisan sites than this, oh great con liar.


2. PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.
Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com
So, again attacking a fact checking organization. This time useing an op ed by the Wall Street Journal, which is run and owned by the same person who owns and runs FOX.

3. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics.
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.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire : NPR Wow. You toss in NPR. Except, of course, it is a repreat of a debate about fact check orgs, with Mark Hemmingway, in the WEEKLY STANDARD. Wow, you can find more partisan sites. Lets see if you ever actually use a non partisan site, shall we, oh lying con.

4. “It is yet another action of executive arrogance by this president,” Cruz added. “President Obama, if he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or to seek work, he could have gone to Congress, he could have proposed new legislation, he could have tried to make the case to the American people.” Instead of pursuing such a course, Cruz continued, Obama “simply decreed it by executive order,” an action that he called a “pattern” of this administration.

“President Obama apparently believes that Bill Clinton was way too conservative,” Cruz said, “and that the Obama administration is and should be far, far to the left of the Clinton administration.”
Romney Camp: Obama Has ‘Gutted’ Welfare Reform - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online OOPS. National Review AGAIN. Can you believe it. So, lets keep looking.

a. Rector has already debunked the Administration’s claims that it did not gut welfare reform and that Republican governors. tried to do the same thing in 2005. Now, he is taking apart the Administration’s defense of its new waiver policy piece-by-piece in a new series of papers. "This standard is vague, first of all, since states do not actually need to fulfill it but merely “demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year” after they are exempted from the old TANF work standards. Nonetheless, at first glance, this goal looks fairly impressive.

President Obama’s HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.” There are four reasons why a 20 percent increase in the number of employment exits, although it sounds impressive, is a very weak or counterproductive measure of success in welfare reform."
Morning Bell: Media "Fact Checkers" Promote Obama's Gutting of Welfare Reform
And here we have, Morning Bell, in THE FOUNDRY, part of the Heritage network. About as far right as you can get. Great non partisan sourse, oh con liar.


Now, don't you appreciate that I've saved you from embarrassing yourself further! Embarassed? Actually, I am not at all. And I am sure you are not either. Because you are a con tool. Simply doing what con tools do. Posting con dogma. From con sites. So, what is new.
What is really interesting is that famous communist era tactic of attacking any organization that clears up the lies you tell. Attacking fact check orgs is a rediculous tactic. And really juvinile to those interested in truth, which you have amply proven, YOU ARE NOT.

You're welcome.


And stop living on those Liberal sites....see how deleterious they are to your intellectual health?
I just pointed out your con sites. I do not use partisan sites. Find it is hard on my integrity. But, You DO. Your entire post is based on statements from partisan sites. Where is your integrity???



And, since you haven't found any oh-so-Liberal "lies,"....the term turns back on you, doesn't it. Not at all, oh con liar. Only a partisan person who intends to lie, uses totally partisan sites. All con sites. To normal people you are a joke. You do all you can to tear down organizations that question the statements your sites make. Maybe soon, all sites will follow the con dogma, and there will be no impartial sites. Your attempts to denegrate the fact check orgs is a total sad joke.

Hard on your integrity? Don't worry you have no integrity.

Ah, but I do, me poor ignorant con. I do not use partisan sites. I do not use, for instance, move on.org. You would find it stupid and offensive. You would say it is a totally prejudiced site. And could not be taken seriously in a debate. AND. you would be CORRECT. So I do not use such sites. BUT, cons like PoliticalChic have no trouble at all with useing multiple, and entirely, partisan sites in their arguments. That makes her a practitioner of con dogma. And your response proves you to be completely ignorant. Here, this may help:

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice - Yahoo! News