Jobs? Did you say 'jobs'?

[Moonglow]

where I live as in many placd in the USA, UE is 6% and lower. I have all the work I can handle, which was not the case in 2008-9. So there are jobs, but getting people to those jobs is harder than polichics head.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That makes her a practitioner of con dogma.

if our Founder's con dogma is mistaken why be so afraid to identify the best example for us? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character??

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. "Wow, and here we have quotes from Breitbart.com. Can you find more partisan sites than this, oh great con liar."

To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?


Perusal of my post will reveal a number of sources all of which add the same perspective.


Based on same, your use of so-called fact checkers falls to the complaint you've made about Breitbart, i.e., they are partisan.

BTW....I never lie.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

There is one other aspect that doesn't have a forum about the jobs under Obama: while gas prices go through the ceiling and grocery store juices go from gallons to three quarts to mask Obama's heinous double-digit inflation, something sinister is going on among middle class Jobs: they've been reduced in size under Obama, and people are beside themselves in trying to pay higher local taxes raised to reflect payments of street equipment fuel costs and other accelerations municipalities and counties buy to provide services for community or county residents.

Here's the graphic version of the Negative $4,019 in salary people are getting when job paydays roll around:

Just my two cents for the day. Or would that be $.018 cents considering the cut in the national paycheck?
​

​

 

[Rshermr]

Sorry, Politicalchic. Breitbart.com compared to the fact check orgs does not pass the giggle test. And, no, so far I see no non partisan conservative sites on your list. So, yes indeed, it does fully suggest that you have an agenda. And someone pursuing an agenda is trying to push whatever is being said by proponents of that agenda. That is what you do, PoliticalChic. No problem for anyone to see that. And you do not spend any time trying to find truth. You simply try to find sources that back up your agenda.
PoliticalChic says: To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity.Nonsence, which I am sure you fully know. How about I get you some quotes from MoveOn, my poor ignorant con. Again, does not pass the giggle test. I do not want to take the time to disprove the statements of some con web site. And I would not ask you to do the same useing a liberal source. So, please do not try the integrity word with me. I have it, you do not. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?So let me get this straight. You are changing the issue to nationality. Will you be trying race next. Or, how about specie. Cmon, my poor ignorant con tool. Try a little rationality.

PoliticalChic says: Perusal of my post will reveal a number of sources all of which add the same perspective. And if they are like these, would have the same lack of truth. What is your point here. I have seen your many threads, and numerous posts. What they display, plainly, is that you post dogma, simple plain con dogma. So, yes, I understand your agenda, and the dishonesty of it.

PoliticalChic says: Based on same, your use of so-called fact checkers falls to the complaint you've made about Breitbart, i.e., they are partisan. And you prove your status again. A total con tool, PoliticalChic. You actually have the unmitigated gall to say the fact check orgs are biased, just like Brietbart is. Sorry, that is about the biggest con lie I have run into. By the way, PoliticalChic, you should be aware that Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policies Center. The Annenberg were close friends of Ronald Reagan when he was alive, and the Annenbergs were registered republicans, last time I knew. So, trying to make them left wing orgs is rediculous, and dishonest. Which is why I say you lie. Because you can not be that ignorant.

BTW....I never lie. Ah, but you do, continually.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, Politicalchic. Breitbart.com compared to the fact check orgs does not pass the giggle test. And, no, so far I see no non partisan conservative sites on your list. So, yes indeed, it does fully suggest that you have an agenda. And someone pursuing an agenda is trying to push whatever is being said by proponents of that agenda. That is what you do, PoliticalChic. No problem for anyone to see that. And you do not spend any time trying to find truth. You simply try to find sources that back up your agenda.
PoliticalChic says: To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity.Nonsence, which I am sure you fully know. How about I get you some quotes from MoveOn, my poor ignorant con. Again, does not pass the giggle test. I do not want to take the time to disprove the statements of some con web site. And I would not ask you to do the same useing a liberal source. So, please do not try the integrity word with me. I have it, you do not. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?So let me get this straight. You are changing the issue to nationality. Will you be trying race next. Or, how about specie. Cmon, my poor ignorant con tool. Try a little rationality.

PoliticalChic says: Perusal of my post will reveal a number of sources all of which add the same perspective. And if they are like these, would have the same lack of truth. What is your point here. I have seen your many threads, and numerous posts. What they display, plainly, is that you post dogma, simple plain con dogma. So, yes, I understand your agenda, and the dishonesty of it.

PoliticalChic says: Based on same, your use of so-called fact checkers falls to the complaint you've made about Breitbart, i.e., they are partisan. And you prove your status again. A total con tool, PoliticalChic. You actually have the unmitigated gall to say the fact check orgs are biased, just like Brietbart is. Sorry, that is about the biggest con lie I have run into. By the way, PoliticalChic, you should be aware that Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policies Center. The Annenberg were close friends of Ronald Reagan when he was alive, and the Annenbergs were registered republicans, last time I knew. So, trying to make them left wing orgs is rediculous, and dishonest. Which is why I say you lie. Because you can not be that ignorant.

BTW....I never lie. Ah, but you do, continually.

Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

"PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
By: barrypopik (Diary) | May 13th at 04:43 AM | 0

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/...beral-bias-yet-again-arizona-law-climategate/

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.'
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/...p-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

They're biased.


As are you.

Step off.



I never lie.



See if you can wipe that egg off your face.....

....in fact, off both of your faces.

 

[Rshermr]

PoliticalChic says: Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times And your point is?? The newspaper started it, they are not IT.

"PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
By: barrypopik (Diary) | May 13th at 04:43 AM | 0 ??? I hate it when people waste my time. What the hell is this supposed to mean?????

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2...w-climategate/ And we should be surprised that redstate.com does not like fact check orgs. I am shocked!!!

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberalsCould it be that they ARE???. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.' Could it be that they did????
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/3...n-left-really/ Another far right wing con web site, who's byline is "Powerful Conservative Voices". Are you trying to say that all con web sites are attacking fact check orgs??? No news there, cons do not like discussion, much less checking out, their contentions.

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And???

They're biased. No, you are biased. And you are a con tool who attacks any person or organization who disagrees with your dogma. Just the way you work.


As are you. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

Step off. I don't think so, oh ignorant con.



I never lie. And that is another lie.



See if you can wipe that egg off your face.....

....in fact, off both of your faces. How clever. Saying I have two faces and egg on both. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

I would encourage anyone who has questions about Politifact to check out their site for themselves. Five minutes on their site makes everything you just said pitifully obviously wrong. And you get an idea of what makes Cons like you function. You use dogma creating, dogma posting right wing web sites to denegrate a good organization, and one that has earned a Pulitzer Prize. I am sure you would not denegrate the organizations that you use as source info, and have Pulitzer's. Oh, thats right, non have pulitzers, or were EVER considered for one.

By the way, getting back to the topic of your thread, I asked a couple pertinent questions of you, on two occasions. You seem to not want to address them. Here they are 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]

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

after seeing the housing stimulus and the depression it cause it makes perfect sense not to do it again!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic says: Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times And your point is?? The newspaper started it, they are not IT.

"PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
By: barrypopik (Diary) | May 13th at 04:43 AM | 0 ??? I hate it when people waste my time. What the hell is this supposed to mean?????

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2...w-climategate/ And we should be surprised that redstate.com does not like fact check orgs. I am shocked!!!

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberalsCould it be that they ARE???. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.' Could it be that they did????
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/3...n-left-really/ Another far right wing con web site, who's byline is "Powerful Conservative Voices". Are you trying to say that all con web sites are attacking fact check orgs??? No news there, cons do not like discussion, much less checking out, their contentions.

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And???

They're biased. No, you are biased. And you are a con tool who attacks any person or organization who disagrees with your dogma. Just the way you work.


As are you. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

Step off. I don't think so, oh ignorant con.



I never lie. And that is another lie.



See if you can wipe that egg off your face.....

....in fact, off both of your faces. How clever. Saying I have two faces and egg on both. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

I would encourage anyone who has questions about Politifact to check out their site for themselves. Five minutes on their site makes everything you just said pitifully obviously wrong. And you get an idea of what makes Cons like you function. You use dogma creating, dogma posting right wing web sites to denegrate a good organization, and one that has earned a Pulitzer Prize. I am sure you would not denegrate the organizations that you use as source info, and have Pulitzer's. Oh, thats right, non have pulitzers, or were EVER considered for one.

By the way, getting back to the topic of your thread, I asked a couple pertinent questions of you, on two occasions. You seem to not want to address them. Here they are 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????

No matter the evidence, your posts continue to be, in essence, 'is not, is not.'

What??? You are not convinced by sites that give alternative views to yours?
Clause-Rains-shocking.

Help me with this: so that I may be better able to categorize you, are you a larva or an imago?

Which is it, gnat?


Further...would you be willing to submit to irradiation, so as to aid the world in avoiding a mild irritant?
Consider others in your response.

 

[Rshermr]

PoliticalChic says: Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times And your point is?? The newspaper started it, they are not IT.

"PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
By: barrypopik (Diary) | May 13th at 04:43 AM | 0 ??? I hate it when people waste my time. What the hell is this supposed to mean?????

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2...w-climategate/ And we should be surprised that redstate.com does not like fact check orgs. I am shocked!!!

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberalsCould it be that they ARE???. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.' Could it be that they did????
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/3...n-left-really/ Another far right wing con web site, who's byline is "Powerful Conservative Voices". Are you trying to say that all con web sites are attacking fact check orgs??? No news there, cons do not like discussion, much less checking out, their contentions.

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And???

They're biased. No, you are biased. And you are a con tool who attacks any person or organization who disagrees with your dogma. Just the way you work.


As are you. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

Step off. I don't think so, oh ignorant con.



I never lie. And that is another lie.



See if you can wipe that egg off your face.....

....in fact, off both of your faces. How clever. Saying I have two faces and egg on both. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

I would encourage anyone who has questions about Politifact to check out their site for themselves. Five minutes on their site makes everything you just said pitifully obviously wrong. And you get an idea of what makes Cons like you function. You use dogma creating, dogma posting right wing web sites to denegrate a good organization, and one that has earned a Pulitzer Prize. I am sure you would not denegrate the organizations that you use as source info, and have Pulitzer's. Oh, thats right, non have pulitzers, or were EVER considered for one.

By the way, getting back to the topic of your thread, I asked a couple pertinent questions of you, on two occasions. You seem to not want to address them. Here they are 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????

No matter the evidence, your posts continue to be, in essence, 'is not, is not.'

What??? You are not convinced by sites that give alternative views to yours?
Clause-Rains-shocking.

Help me with this: so that I may be better able to categorize you, are you a larva or an imago?

Which is it, gnat?


Further...would you be willing to submit to irradiation, so as to aid the world in avoiding a mild irritant?
Consider others in your response.

And all you do, oh con, is paste links and statements by far right wing sites. Simple con dogma. No evidence at all. Stupid waste of time.


Politicalchic, you are easy to catagorize. You are like a number on this site - Cons posting dogma. Why I do not take to your drivel is simple. Con sites are all saying the same thing. They are mindless in terms of the subject matter, simply making all efforts that they can to get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country. And they did such a great job last time. So, you ask why I do not consider the crap that you post when it is backed by right wing con machines, that is simple. It is because it does not stand up to the light of day. It is dogma, statements based on twisted logic that take time to unravel. The very crap you are posting. So, no, I do not take it as anything like evidence, and I do not care to read the efforts to rewrite history. Takes to much time. I am having enough troubled getting back the wasted minutes spent responding to you. You are worthless, dishonest, and anti-american. As is anyone who has an agenda that is based on untrue dogma.
I know that you know this, but I am interested in alternate views that have actual facts to back them up. I am not interested in reading drivel from any of thousands of sites that I can not vet easily. So, again, you did not respond to my questions of you. Which tells me all I need to know. You know the answer, and you do not want to respond because you can not win the debate. Typical con, no substance, just visiting far right sites and reposting their dogma. No ability to discuss something real, like the actual economy.

So, no, I need not respond to your childish attempts to catagorize me. You know how much I value your opinion. But you are easy. Just a poor simple con dogma pusher. How sad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic says: Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.
'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times And your point is?? The newspaper started it, they are not IT.

"PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
By: barrypopik (Diary) | May 13th at 04:43 AM | 0 ??? I hate it when people waste my time. What the hell is this supposed to mean?????

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a winner!
http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2...w-climategate/ And we should be surprised that redstate.com does not like fact check orgs. I am shocked!!!

'PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. And these aren’t isolated cases. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberalsCould it be that they ARE???. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat out lied nine times more often than liberals.' Could it be that they did????
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/3...n-left-really/ Another far right wing con web site, who's byline is "Powerful Conservative Voices". Are you trying to say that all con web sites are attacking fact check orgs??? No news there, cons do not like discussion, much less checking out, their contentions.

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times,...also known as the St. Petersburg Times,
"The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times,..."
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And???

They're biased. No, you are biased. And you are a con tool who attacks any person or organization who disagrees with your dogma. Just the way you work.


As are you. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

Step off. I don't think so, oh ignorant con.



I never lie. And that is another lie.



See if you can wipe that egg off your face.....

....in fact, off both of your faces. How clever. Saying I have two faces and egg on both. Your opinion. I will keep it in mind. You know how much I value your opinion!!!

I would encourage anyone who has questions about Politifact to check out their site for themselves. Five minutes on their site makes everything you just said pitifully obviously wrong. And you get an idea of what makes Cons like you function. You use dogma creating, dogma posting right wing web sites to denegrate a good organization, and one that has earned a Pulitzer Prize. I am sure you would not denegrate the organizations that you use as source info, and have Pulitzer's. Oh, thats right, non have pulitzers, or were EVER considered for one.

By the way, getting back to the topic of your thread, I asked a couple pertinent questions of you, on two occasions. You seem to not want to address them. Here they are 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????

No matter the evidence, your posts continue to be, in essence, 'is not, is not.'

What??? You are not convinced by sites that give alternative views to yours?
Clause-Rains-shocking.

Help me with this: so that I may be better able to categorize you, are you a larva or an imago?

Which is it, gnat?


Further...would you be willing to submit to irradiation, so as to aid the world in avoiding a mild irritant?
Consider others in your response.

Politicalchic, you are easy to catagorize. You are like a number on this site - Cons posting dogma. Why I do not take to your drivel is simple. Con sites are all saying the same thing. They are mindless in terms of the subject matter, simply making all efforts that they can to get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country. And they did such a great job last time. So, you ask why I do not consider the crap that you post when it is backed by right wing con machines, that is simple. It is because it does not stand up to the light of day. It is dogma, statements based on twisted logic that take time to unravel. The very crap you are posting. So, no, I do not take it as anything like evidence, and I do not care to read the efforts to rewrite history. Takes to much time. I am having enough troubled getting back the wasted minutes spent responding to you. You are worthless, dishonest, and anti-american. As is anyone who has an agenda that is based on untrue dogma.
I know that you know this, but I am interested in alternate views that have actual facts to back them up. I am not interested in reading drivel from any of thousands of sites that I can not vet easily. So, again, you did not respond to my questions of you. Which tells me all I need to know. You know the answer, and you do not want to respond because you can not win the debate. Typical con, no substance, just visiting far right sites and reposting their dogma. No ability to discuss something real, like the actual economy.

So, no, I need not respond to your attempts to catagorize me. You know how much I value your opinion. But you are easy. Just a poor simple con dogma pusher. How sad.

Yet I post documentation.....

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.”

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

 

[Rshermr]

No matter the evidence, your posts continue to be, in essence, 'is not, is not.'

What??? You are not convinced by sites that give alternative views to yours?
Clause-Rains-shocking.

Help me with this: so that I may be better able to categorize you, are you a larva or an imago?

Which is it, gnat?


Further...would you be willing to submit to irradiation, so as to aid the world in avoiding a mild irritant?
Consider others in your response.

Politicalchic, you are easy to catagorize. You are like a number on this site - Cons posting dogma. Why I do not take to your drivel is simple. Con sites are all saying the same thing. They are mindless in terms of the subject matter, simply making all efforts that they can to get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country. And they did such a great job last time. So, you ask why I do not consider the crap that you post when it is backed by right wing con machines, that is simple. It is because it does not stand up to the light of day. It is dogma, statements based on twisted logic that take time to unravel. The very crap you are posting. So, no, I do not take it as anything like evidence, and I do not care to read the efforts to rewrite history. Takes to much time. I am having enough troubled getting back the wasted minutes spent responding to you. You are worthless, dishonest, and anti-american. As is anyone who has an agenda that is based on untrue dogma.
I know that you know this, but I am interested in alternate views that have actual facts to back them up. I am not interested in reading drivel from any of thousands of sites that I can not vet easily. So, again, you did not respond to my questions of you. Which tells me all I need to know. You know the answer, and you do not want to respond because you can not win the debate. Typical con, no substance, just visiting far right sites and reposting their dogma. No ability to discuss something real, like the actual economy.

So, no, I need not respond to your attempts to catagorize me. You know how much I value your opinion. But you are easy. Just a poor simple con dogma pusher. How sad.

Yet I post documentation.....

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.”

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Yet I post documentation.....Yes, great documentation. Every con web site hates any organization that questions their statements. And is fully willing and able to attack that site. And that includes, of course, fact check organizations. Note the word fact. So, you use as a sourse, the very web sourses that hate the truth, that hate fact checking. And you wonder why anyone would question your integrity. Give me a break. How stiupid are you to actually defend this. I can truthfully say that I have never seen anyone this absolutely dishonest in trying to find the truth, and more intent on posting dogma.

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies Stupider and stupider. You are fully into the area of dipshit, dipshit.

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.” Not at all happy, just hoping that you would develop an ounce of integrity. But then, you have to understand the concept first. Dipshit.

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized. Oh, you just showed yourself to be such an american. Diipshit.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
I suspect that you know better than that. But then, I can not prove it, as you know. But, all anyone has to do is look at what cons want, which is what those with the money tell you that you want, and you understand rather quickly that what cons want is to make the wealthy more so. And to hell with the rest of the population.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicalchic, you are easy to catagorize. You are like a number on this site - Cons posting dogma. Why I do not take to your drivel is simple. Con sites are all saying the same thing. They are mindless in terms of the subject matter, simply making all efforts that they can to get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country. And they did such a great job last time. So, you ask why I do not consider the crap that you post when it is backed by right wing con machines, that is simple. It is because it does not stand up to the light of day. It is dogma, statements based on twisted logic that take time to unravel. The very crap you are posting. So, no, I do not take it as anything like evidence, and I do not care to read the efforts to rewrite history. Takes to much time. I am having enough troubled getting back the wasted minutes spent responding to you. You are worthless, dishonest, and anti-american. As is anyone who has an agenda that is based on untrue dogma.
I know that you know this, but I am interested in alternate views that have actual facts to back them up. I am not interested in reading drivel from any of thousands of sites that I can not vet easily. So, again, you did not respond to my questions of you. Which tells me all I need to know. You know the answer, and you do not want to respond because you can not win the debate. Typical con, no substance, just visiting far right sites and reposting their dogma. No ability to discuss something real, like the actual economy.

So, no, I need not respond to your attempts to catagorize me. You know how much I value your opinion. But you are easy. Just a poor simple con dogma pusher. How sad.

Yet I post documentation.....

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.”

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Yet I post documentation.....Yes, great documentation. Every con web site hates any organization that questions their statements. And is fully willing and able to attack that site. And that includes, of course, fact check organizations. Note the word fact. So, you use as a sourse, the very web sourses that hate the truth, that hate fact checking. And you wonder why anyone would question your integrity. Give me a break. How stiupid are you to actually defend this. I can truthfully say that I have never seen anyone this absolutely dishonest in trying to find the truth, and more intent on posting dogma.

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies Stupider and stupider. You are fully into the area of dipshit, dipshit.

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.” Not at all happy, just hoping that you would develop an ounce of integrity. But then, you have to understand the concept first. Dipshit.

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized. Oh, you just showed yourself to be such an american. Diipshit.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
I suspect that you know better than that. But then, I can not prove it, as you know. But, all anyone has to do is look at what cons want, which is what those with the money tell you that you want, and you understand rather quickly that what cons want is to make the wealthy more so. And to hell with the rest of the population.

I see by your language that I've hit a nerve....

....good.


I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid. I really thought you already knew.

 

[Rshermr]

Yet I post documentation.....

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.”

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Yet I post documentation.....Yes, great documentation. Every con web site hates any organization that questions their statements. And is fully willing and able to attack that site. And that includes, of course, fact check organizations. Note the word fact. So, you use as a sourse, the very web sourses that hate the truth, that hate fact checking. And you wonder why anyone would question your integrity. Give me a break. How stiupid are you to actually defend this. I can truthfully say that I have never seen anyone this absolutely dishonest in trying to find the truth, and more intent on posting dogma.

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies Stupider and stupider. You are fully into the area of dipshit, dipshit.

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.” Not at all happy, just hoping that you would develop an ounce of integrity. But then, you have to understand the concept first. Dipshit.

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized. Oh, you just showed yourself to be such an american. Diipshit.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
I suspect that you know better than that. But then, I can not prove it, as you know. But, all anyone has to do is look at what cons want, which is what those with the money tell you that you want, and you understand rather quickly that what cons want is to make the wealthy more so. And to hell with the rest of the population.

I see by your language that I've hit a nerve....

....good.


I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid. I really thought you already knew.

You have not hit a nerve. You simply have proven what i was pretty sure of prior to trying to discuss the topic of your thread. You have no idea of what you are posting when you open a new thread. You are simply posting dogma, which is your job. You are not capable of arguing the points of the very thread topic that you, yourself, have opened. You are just a ignorant con.
So, relative to your comments about your oopinion of my intelligence, two things:
1. I will consider your statement. OK, done. I do so value your opinion.
2. There are a number of studies out there, of the conservative mind. This one is one of the most carefully done ones. Objective in all ways. Read it, it may help you understand your problem:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet I post documentation.....Yes, great documentation. Every con web site hates any organization that questions their statements. And is fully willing and able to attack that site. And that includes, of course, fact check organizations. Note the word fact. So, you use as a sourse, the very web sourses that hate the truth, that hate fact checking. And you wonder why anyone would question your integrity. Give me a break. How stiupid are you to actually defend this. I can truthfully say that I have never seen anyone this absolutely dishonest in trying to find the truth, and more intent on posting dogma.

...you, Moan of Arc, simply complain about sources.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies Stupider and stupider. You are fully into the area of dipshit, dipshit.

Self-satisfied with your sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts, you're as “Happy as a pig in clover.” Not at all happy, just hoping that you would develop an ounce of integrity. But then, you have to understand the concept first. Dipshit.

Of course, the clover part doesn’t apply to you.


BTW...."anti-american"?

American should be capitalized. Oh, you just showed yourself to be such an american. Diipshit.



And "get what they want, which is control of the gov of this country."
Here, let me help you once more,...
...this is what conservatives want:
individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
I suspect that you know better than that. But then, I can not prove it, as you know. But, all anyone has to do is look at what cons want, which is what those with the money tell you that you want, and you understand rather quickly that what cons want is to make the wealthy more so. And to hell with the rest of the population.

I see by your language that I've hit a nerve....

....good.


I’m sorry I hurt your feeling when I called you stupid. I really thought you already knew.

You have not hit a nerve. You simply have proven what i was pretty sure of prior to trying to discuss the topic of your thread. You have no idea of what you are posting when you open a new thread. You are simply posting dogma, which is your job. You are not capable of arguing the points of the very thread topic that you, yourself, have opened. You are just a ignorant con.
So, relative to your comments about your oopinion of my intelligence, two things:
1. I will consider your statement. OK, done. I do so value your opinion.
2. There are a number of studies out there, of the conservative mind. This one is one of the most carefully done ones. Objective in all ways. Read it, it may help you understand your problem:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

Now....look how your language has improved.
See, you are capable of learning.

Let's review.

Both of your primary sources are the creation of Left-wing entities. That makes it clear that
they are designed to convince simple-minded folks that conservatives lie, are wrong and have all sorts of malevolent desires.

And, in your case....the manipulation worked...for obvious reasons.

But, there are many with whom it has not worked, and the authorship of the 'fact checkers' has been revealed....
...as you will see November 7th.


But look at the bright side: I've weaned you away from using crayons when you post, and corrected your language.

In conclusion, I'll be looking forward to your performance on “Must Bleed TV.”

 

[flacaltenn]

...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.

It's simpler than all that.. It's really demographics.. About 10,000 folks A DAY retiring.. OF COURSE the labor force is SHRINKING.. Can't we get that far without making up partisian crap to cast blame??

The bad news is --- the economy is shrinking ALONG WITH that demographic shift. Because in a HEALTHY economy -- those freely abandoned jobs would have created a labor DEMAND. Thus acting to lower unemployment. Hasn't happened that way. Should have been EASIER for this Admin to make a dent in unemployment because of the KNOWN AND EXPECTED Baby Boomer shift. They haven't.

Our shift to a SERVICE economy has changed the way the economy responds to actions from Washington. Service jobs are MUCH MORE expensive to private business than Manufacturing jobs. Because to double a Service Business you might need 40 new stores, whereas a manufacturer only needs to build one more factory. That switch in risk and scope of capital investments is fooling many economists that rely on 60 yr old analysis. This is NOT the 1930s. Keyesian stuff doesn't give the same results. And America cannot GROW on a Service Economy or just Public Sector investments.....

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Fine, tax their goods, and ONLY their goods, coming into this country to make up for it.

 

[Rshermr]

Now....look how your language has improved.
See, you are capable of learning. Learning, I have learned that you are a con, who can only post con dogma. If you mean not calling you a dipshit, that is temporary, dipshit. Because you earned it.

Let's review. Right. Lets review why it is that you can not respond to my questions of you that are relative to job creation, the subject of YOUR thread. That would be BECAUSE you are a right wing con only capable of posting con dogma. You can not defend it. All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations. Because, they do not like facts that disagree with their dogma.

Both of your primary sources are the creation of Left-wing entities. That makes it clear that
they are designed to convince simple-minded folks that conservatives lie, are wrong and have all sorts of malevolent desires.And, of course, all of your con web sites who attack fact check orgs, now they are the sites we should believe. Really, politicalchic, that just does not pass the giggle test. I notice that you do not want people looking at the fact check sites themselves. Why would that be, oh great dishonest con.

And, in your case....the manipulation worked...for obvious reasons.So, obviously you are saying that normal people, unlike you (by the way are you really a man trying to be a woman, or a woman trying to be a man??), are unable to descern the validity and impartiality of fact check organizatons. I on the other hand, have full confidence that the readers of this post can make up their own mind. So, why not join me in suggesting that people go to these sites and look for themselves?? Whatcha think?? So, here are the sites:
FactCheck.org | A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center Largest with the most resources. Highly respected, they are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Annenbergs were close personal friends with Ronald Reagan, and the annenbergs were republicans last time they were checked out. But their work is scrupulously impartial.
Politifact.com is owned by the Tampa Bay Times. Probably the second largest fact check organization. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize.
The Washington Post's Fact-Checker Column is probably number 3 in size. Famous for the 1 to 4 Pinocchios rating schemes. There are several more, on both the left and right, which are not impartial by any means. But these three are noted for fairness. So, take a look and see what you think.

But, there are many with whom it has not worked, and the authorship of the 'fact checkers' has been revealed....
...as you will see November 7th.


But look at the bright side: I've weaned you away from using crayons when you post, and corrected your language.

In conclusion, I'll be looking forward to your performance on “Must Bleed TV.”
Yes maam, er or Sir. Oh hell, whatever.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....look how your language has improved.
See, you are capable of learning. Learning, I have learned that you are a con, who can only post con dogma. If you mean not calling you a dipshit, that is temporary, dipshit. Because you earned it.

Let's review. Right. Lets review why it is that you can not respond to my questions of you that are relative to job creation, the subject of YOUR thread. That would be BECAUSE you are a right wing con only capable of posting con dogma. You can not defend it. All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations. Because, they do not like facts that disagree with their dogma.

Both of your primary sources are the creation of Left-wing entities. That makes it clear that
they are designed to convince simple-minded folks that conservatives lie, are wrong and have all sorts of malevolent desires.And, of course, all of your con web sites who attack fact check orgs, now they are the sites we should believe. Really, politicalchic, that just does not pass the giggle test. I notice that you do not want people looking at the fact check sites themselves. Why would that be, oh great dishonest con.

And, in your case....the manipulation worked...for obvious reasons.So, obviously you are saying that normal people, unlike you (by the way are you really a man trying to be a woman, or a woman trying to be a man??), are unable to descern the validity and impartiality of fact check organizatons. I on the other hand, have full confidence that the readers of this post can make up their own mind. So, why not join me in suggesting that people go to these sites and look for themselves?? Whatcha think?? So, here are the sites:
FactCheck.org | A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center Largest with the most resources. Highly respected, they are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Annenbergs were close personal friends with Ronald Reagan, and the annenbergs were republicans last time they were checked out. But their work is scrupulously impartial.
Politifact.com is owned by the Tampa Bay Times. Probably the second largest fact check organization. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize.
The Washington Post's Fact-Checker Column is probably number 3 in size. Famous for the 1 to 4 Pinocchios rating schemes. There are several more, on both the left and right, which are not impartial by any means. But these three are noted for fairness. So, take a look and see what you think.

But, there are many with whom it has not worked, and the authorship of the 'fact checkers' has been revealed....
...as you will see November 7th.


But look at the bright side: I've weaned you away from using crayons when you post, and corrected your language.

In conclusion, I'll be looking forward to your performance on “Must Bleed TV.”
Yes maam, er or Sir. Oh hell, whatever.

Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!

Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart:

1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?



2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.


a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you!



3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??

a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers

b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.

The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.

The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN

Could you possibly be dumber????
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!



4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online


Get it?

You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....

...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.



So....can you find a single error in the above?
No??

What does that tell you?

 

[Rshermr]

Politicalchic says:
Well, well,...look what's back!
The perfect example of the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity!

Enough chit-chat....let's get down to ripping you apart: Uh oh. I am worried. When do you start, oh delusional one? Do you have more of those great far right wing quotes full of great far right wing dogma?
1. Poor, sad thing. I never heard that language growing up, and was never referred to as such...you, well, vulgarity is associated you for obvious reasons....
...at what age did folks begin referring to you in that manner?
And what does your psychologist suggest you do to get over it?



2. "All you can do is spend your time posting links and quotes to right wing web sites that attack fact check organizations.:
Since I have exposed the provenance of both 'fact checkers' as Left wing....well, your line above is a winner in the category of unintentional humor.No, you have not. The concept is incredibly stupid. Again, posting dogma from far right wing sites, all of which hate any one truth checking their dogma, is really stupid. You are delusional.


a. You've been played by the Left...and up to this very moment you don't realize what a dunce you are!!
Bet even Leftists who understand the ploy are laughing at you! Hearing things in your head again, dipshit. Seems that it is you that only posts far right wing dogma. I try to stay in the area of truth. You could care less about truth. Again, you are delusional. And, when was it that you were going to begin tearing me appart?? I am feeling less scared, dipshit.


3. You've quoted this several times: "A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center"
You buffoon....don't you know how Leftist that organization is??

a. "They are employees of FactCheck.org, an organization that bills itself as "non-partisan," but is part of the Annenberg network of liberal-left causes and organizations -- just like Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- Annenberg, and its causes, are way left of center."
Barack Obama -- Annenberg Fact Checkers Can you believe it. Another far right wing web site. I am so shocked. When was it that I was to be torn appart?

b. "A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.

The Annenberg Foundation gave the project a $50 million grant to match local private funds to improve schools, and Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, according to participants and project records.

The project's organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995."
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN Too bad that you are so much of a con that you have not read the veting of this line. Crossing paths does not make them conspiritors, associates, or friends. And did not. Or you would have THAT all over this post. Who was it again who was being led around by the nose???

Could you possibly be dumber???? Obviously. I could be you.
On the bright side, you are exactly what the Democrats seek in their voters!!



4. Here is a rule to remember:
O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. Great. George will, quoting O'Sullivan. The originator of Manifest Destiny. Yep, only a con would see value from that crackpot. So, what is it you are trying to prove, dipshit??? How stupid are you. I am amazed that even YOU could be that dumb.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. John O'Sullivan on O'Sullivan's First Law on National Review Online
Wow, the National Review. Not just a far right con web site, but a batshit crazy one. Do you EVER use a non partial site? Do you know what one looks like? Again, when are you going to rip me appart. Looks to me as though you have no game.

Get it?

You've been played.
Led by that ring through your nose....

...and the reason? Because you're too ignorant to think for yourself.
Said by the con tool that can not post from ANYTHING but far right con sites, and who just posts con dogma. Do you see the humor, dipshit.


So....can you find a single error in the above? I see not a single bit of information. Just more dogma. So, was there some proveable point above? No, of course not. Just dogma. And you do not get it. And when was it that you were going to tear me appart. You just spent a bunch of my time posting from far right sites crap that you want to believe.

No??

What does that tell you? It tells me that you are what I have said you are. A simple poster of con dogma, with no ability to discuss issues. You just attack, useing dogma. And apparently that impresses you. But not anyone with an open mind. Which you know nothing of.
Are you done. Again, you are unable to discuss the subject of your own thread. Really, really sad.
And, by saying that you were going to rip me appart with the drivel that you just posted, you proved yourself to be: Delusional. And, by the way, maybe you forgot to comment on suggesting that people visit the fact check sites. Appears to me that you do not want anyone to see them. Cause, if they did, they would know that you are a pathological liar.