quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The radicals on the left that I knew quite well in the 1960's and 1970's also disagree with Palin and feel that this country doesn't need another Republican administration. But, those of us that have watched that wave of radical left philosophy take over the democrat party, and distort classic liberalism, realize that NOTHING is more important than having another Republican administration.

AND... this is important for the democrat party....

An Obama loss would be the BEST thing that could ever happen for the democrat party. For, it would completely repudiate the current domination of the party by the socialists and maoists that hijacked it. It would allow those in the TRUE middle to purge the party of those radical elements and get it on back track for a moderate-left future.

This, to me, is probably the last election to be dominated by the hopes and frustrations of the 1968 riot crowd. Let them ride off over the hill and we can return to civility in government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

If true, that's because they were from the infamous Beltway Insiders that you guys have been railing about for the past 20 years!

We FINALLY have a real person not from the elitist class and you guys are appalled. And, that is EXACTLY as I would expect it to be. Democrats love the 'common people'... until they get too big for their britches. THEN they want to crush them.

Obama's spouse is a $200K+ lawyer and SHE'S the 'common people' you guys actually like. You elitists simply cannot abide the idea of a VP's spouse being a working class fisherman. What will the French think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

There may have been some vice presidents who had never previously met a head of state, but ABC News reports that it’s not true of any living vice president.

Actually, over the past 32 years every VP candidate who went onto win office met a head of state at least once.

quote:

Factcheck.org includes sources from our own government

quote:

FastCheck is just another left wing idealog lite, a little more writing, more spin talent, and hides is somewhat better than most; but a left wingnut site all the same.

quote:

All you right wingers....would you please give us lefties some "approved" sites that you MIGHT, MIGHT consider as "acceptable" sources without calling them left wing rags or what have you? I mean, we would really like to be able to support our arguments with truly unbiased sources. I seriously don't think there are any, so why are we all wasting our precious time out here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Seems like we've been taken over by FactCheck.Org.

Why don't the moderators ask the owners of these forums to simply automatically post every new FactCheck.Org page over here automatically so that the liberals won't have to work so hard at cutting and pasting.

Oh! But, make sure you only post those FactCheck articles that slam the Republican candidates. We wouldn't want to upset the one-sided flow from FactCheck.Org. It would upset our liberal friends.

Why don't you try to dispute factcheck.org's own, footnoted discrepancies, then, if you think they are wrong?

Peace and God bless,

I'm beginning to wonder just how "unbiased" factcheck is. If you look at their site right now the only thing you see are articles relating to McCain and Palin.

If you read their FactCheck Wire it's all about Palin. And some things are incorrect.

The FactCheck Wire criticizes Palin for not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. But as has been shown on this board in various threads, the term Bush Doctrine is a label that the liberals invented back in 2002.

Factcheck says that McCain's ad about NObama's support for the Sex Education bill is incorrect but when you read the actual bill that NObama co-sponsored it shows that McCain is correct.

On several of their "fact checks" they claim Palin is wrong and base there claim on mere technicalities. For example:

As long as we’re talking about Sarah Palin’s first v.p. interview, it’s worth noting that she may have stretched the facts a bit when Gibson asked whether she had ever met a foreign head of state.

Gibson: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

Palin: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.

There may have been some vice presidents who had never previously met a head of state, but ABC News reports that it’s not true of any living vice president.

I have yet to see them get this picky with statements of NObama.

I saw a clip today of NObama on the campaign trail where he is now stating that under his tax plan every American will pay less in taxes. He said every American twice to give emphasis to it. Yet I see nothing on factcheck about this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Lizhana,

I come here to get your opinion. I don't come here to simply have someone plop down some text from another site without any real discussion. It doesn't matter where it comes from, any material that is brought into here deserves some analysis by the member that brings it.

We most often see this in the creation forums... by both sides. Read the article, cite the article, and then discuss your viewpoint about the implications of the article. But, don't just cut & paste the article as if it were the gospel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

I don't understand. When I post from there, I purposely do not want to comment myself, because I do not want to sway antyone into thinking like I do - I want them to make up their own mind.

Factcheck.org includes sources from our own government - I don't know how you can discount this?

So, what is the problem here?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Because there is usually not the point of cutting and pasting from FactCheck.org. It's usually just slammed down on the table without any thought at all as if it were a slam dunk. I prefer discussion with some depth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Seems like we've been taken over by FactCheck.Org.

Why don't the moderators ask the owners of these forums to simply automatically post every new FactCheck.Org page over here automatically so that the liberals won't have to work so hard at cutting and pasting.

Oh! But, make sure you only post those FactCheck articles that slam the Republican candidates. We wouldn't want to upset the one-sided flow from FactCheck.Org. It would upset our liberal friends.

Why don't you try to dispute factcheck.org's own, footnoted discrepancies, then, if you think they are wrong?

Peace and God bless,

quote:


1) there are fact checks on Obama - look for them.

2) You do know that there are footnotes at the bottom of factcheck.orgs own fact checks, correct? You know, from sources like our own government...

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady
FACTCHECK has been recommended by Dick Cheney. I guess he's a left winger now? Factcheck is NOT left or right.

quote:

I have not seen any reports on several things I have heard Obama state that weren't true.

quote:

Like I've said, I've seen several statements made by Obama that are not listed on factcheck.org.

quote:

And yet they use him to reccomend a site.

I guess maybe they do respect his point of view afterall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Seems like we've been taken over by FactCheck.Org.

Why don't the moderators ask the owners of these forums to simply automatically post every new FactCheck.Org page over here automatically so that the liberals won't have to work so hard at cutting and pasting.

Oh! But, make sure you only post those FactCheck articles that slam the Republican candidates. We wouldn't want to upset the one-sided flow from FactCheck.Org. It would upset our liberal friends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:


1) there are fact checks on Obama - look for them.

2) You do know that there are footnotes at the bottom of factcheck.orgs own fact checks, correct? You know, from sources like our own government...

Lizahana;

While yes there are footnotes for their fact checks and even some from the government, not all are from the government.

But even on one where they did cite a government document, that being the bill that Obama sponsored on sex education for children, they got it wrong, even though they gave a link to the actual bill they still got it wrong.

Read their fact check on that and then read the bill in it's entirety, you will see for yourself.

And while yes there are some articles on Obama the one's on McCain outnumber him over 2 to 1. And don't tell me it's because McCain lies twice as much. Like I've said, I've seen several statements made by Obama that are not listed on factcheck.org.

But here's the litmus test. Like I said earlier, let's see how they handle the edited interview of Palin. My thoughts are they will completely ignore it except for to point out what they will claim are lies or deceptions on Palin's part. I seriously doubt they will point out how the interview was edited to make Gibson look dominant and to make Palin look like an idiot and a war monger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Seems like we've been taken over by FactCheck.Org.

Why don't the moderators ask the owners of these forums to simply automatically post every new FactCheck.Org page over here automatically so that the liberals won't have to work so hard at cutting and pasting.

Oh! But, make sure you only post those FactCheck articles that slam the Republican candidates. We wouldn't want to upset the one-sided flow from FactCheck.Org. It would upset our liberal friends.

if anyone needed any more proof that McCainophyles feel threatened by facts, this thread pretty well provides it.

quote:

Not all government sites are un-bias ... eg. whitehouse.gov is written by a writer (writer is from an outside source) who is given the information by the administration that is leaving office ... you'll notice on the blurb for Bill Clinton there is no mention of his impeachment .... it also states "he proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus." It leaves out that he actually submitted five proposals because the first four could not get past the congress who was insisting that the budget be balanced ... He was asking to spend too much to accomplish a balanced budget.

There are bias narratives in most sites ... factcheck included. The only way to dig deep enough to get to the whole truth is to examine the actual numbers. Unfortunately, most Americans have no idea how to locate the numbers ... or how to interpret them, so they rely on others for that interpretation, which generally includes a narrative that is slanted towards the narrator's belief system ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psalms274

As to the comments about footnotes being from the government ... I will quote an earlier post ...

quote:

Not all government sites are un-bias ... eg. whitehouse.gov is written by a writer (writer is from an outside source) who is given the information by the administration that is leaving office ... you'll notice on the blurb for Bill Clinton there is no mention of his impeachment .... it also states "he proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus." It leaves out that he actually submitted five proposals because the first four could not get past the congress who was insisting that the budget be balanced ... He was asking to spend too much to accomplish a balanced budget.

There are bias narratives in most sites ... factcheck included. The only way to dig deep enough to get to the whole truth is to examine the actual numbers. Unfortunately, most Americans have no idea how to locate the numbers ... or how to interpret them, so they rely on others for that interpretation, which generally includes a narrative that is slanted towards the narrator's belief system ...