Good website for impartial facts

[johnsonma]

http://www.politifact.com/

 

[musical marv]

Is this a right wing publication?

 

[Reynod]

Its pretty good and can stay here ... from what I can see from a cursory glance.

It seems fairly impartial.

I'd like to hear OMG's thoughts on this though?

Do we endorse this as a sticky for politics?

 

[amdfangirl]

Perhaps we could drag the American moderators who are interested in politics to take a look at it.

Still annoyed that there's no Australian section.

Would love to talk Aussie politics with Rey .

 

[riser]

It is a left leaning website that puts damage out to both the "left" and the "right" but the "right" always take far more damage than the left.

Citing the always truthful and accurate Wikipedia, it states the same in an disputed claim.

Paul Tash is the CEO of company that also runs Politifact. He was very recently invited, and attended, the 3/12/12 State Dinner with President Obama. Following Tash's educational history, he attended many liberal educational institutions and is heavily involved in liberal causes. Though, he appears to be more center of the road than liberal.

The website generally points out the truth when the Left says something and the non-truths of the right. While technically accurate, the stats and truth-o-meter are manipulated into providing a 'quick glance' false impression.

In fact, I'm waiting to see if President Obama's recent mocking of President Rutherford B. Hayes shows up on the website. Obama stated that Hayes (A Republican) was backwards thinking and said no one would ever use a telephone. In fact, Hayes was very much into Technology and had the first typewriter and first telephone installed in the White House. His phone number was "1" and before his elected time ended he had a phone installed in his house..... in Fremont, Ohio which is not far from where I've spent the majority of my life.

So yeah, let's see if that absolute non-truth shows up on the website. It should since the current sitting president mocked a previous president about things he did not say while the current president was at an Official State Dinner.

 

[musical marv]

It is a left leaning website that puts damage out to both the "left" and the "right" but the "right" always take far more damage than the left.

Citing the always truthful and accurate Wikipedia, it states the same in an disputed claim.

Paul Tash is the CEO of company that also runs Politifact. He was very recently invited, and attended, the 3/12/12 State Dinner with President Obama. Following Tash's educational history, he attended many liberal educational institutions and is heavily involved in liberal causes. Though, he appears to be more center of the road than liberal.

The website generally points out the truth when the Left says something and the non-truths of the right. While technically accurate, the stats and truth-o-meter are manipulated into providing a 'quick glance' false impression.

In fact, I'm waiting to see if President Obama's recent mocking of President Rutherford B. Hayes shows up on the website. Obama stated that Hayes (A Republican) was backwards thinking and said no one would ever use a telephone. In fact, Hayes was very much into Technology and had the first typewriter and first telephone installed in the White House. His phone number was "1" and before his elected time ended he had a phone installed in his house..... in Fremont, Ohio which is not far from where I've spent the majority of my life.

So yeah, let's see if that absolute non-truth shows up on the website. It should since the current sitting president mocked a previous president about things he did not say while the current president was at an Official State Dinner.

Thanks I will look more closely into this publication. Obama is two sided when he speaks half of the time.No one can be trusted any longer to run this country.Pretty pathetic I must say.

 

[Reynod]

Marv I thought you lived in Malaysia (or close by) though ... an expat US citizen?

 

[Reynod]

I consider him comic relief" when reading serious political articles.

Didn't take him long to start talking about communists and facists in your link eh?

He is a paranoid schitzophrenic ... entertaining as he is.

Sadly people listen to the guy.

Your average 5th grader has a better understanding of world history.

Beck took way too many drugs when he went on that bender a few years back and ditched his wife and kids ... then went christian fundamentalist.

Thats like closing the gate after the horse has bolted ... they haven't had much to work with.

Obviously fried the few beans he had.

Nice guy ... love him.

wonder if his shoes are slip on or have laces?

My bet is they are slip on ...

 

[riser]

The last time I watched Beck he had on an author. The book was titled something about the collapse of the dollar. 2 weeks after the collapse of the dollar we'll finally realize it. It was really interesting because most of the stuff the author mentioned could be true.. and the amount of time he had spent researching it. That was well over a year ago.

Fast forward to Sunday morning. I was reading an article that was talking about the collapse of the dollar. It was referencing chronologically from the late 1890s through the 2000s. Based on government actions we're in the same boat to see a repeat. All of the indicators are present. Inflation goes from 1-2% to 5-7%, then hyperinflation kicks in and jumps to 15-17% and there isn't much to do to stop it.

Question being, what is inflation right now? It is fairly high. My grocery bill has gone up significantly in the last year, that I know for a fact.

 

[Reynod]

If I pat my white Shitzu he starts licking the black Shitzu's ear and then she starts licking my toes ... I keep patting the white shitzu ... and so on.

Once the black shitzu sees me patting the white one she goes ballistic and hites the white dog ,,,, then refuses to lick my toes until the white dog resumes licking her ear AND I pat her as well ... and so on.

That ... is hyperinflation !!

 

[riser]

So I'm out perusing the website when I come across the Half-Truth of 7 out of 10 republican states have the lowest unemployment. Intesestingly enough the article went into detail of which party held office prior the last employment info. Then, they turned around and looked at the highest unemployment to list that the republican controlled states had the highest. They did not go into the same level of detail to see who had previously controlled the state. I knew immediately that 2-3 of those states were heavily democratic. Michigan for example now has a republican government from a previous democratic government. That information was not cited, though I think the format should have followed. A quick glance, half truth. Read the article you would think it a lie/false. If you knew better, you would realize they left pertinent information out that would be key to really providing accurate information.

 

[wanamingo]

Which of Obama's cabinet did the communist party fully endorse and applaud?

 

[riser]

I can't access any politcal links at work (or many other various non-work related sites) but a quick google will show you plenty of info.

 

[wanamingo]

But did these people ask for the support? I dont remember Obama calling out to the communist party for help. Or anyone in his administration. It would be like slamming a political candidate for an endorsement by a serial killer. Im sure no controversial groups have endorsed republican candidates before. I would have to disagree with OMG opinion of Fully endorsed. They do state several times that the arent happy with the Dem party or the Obama administration but when the choice was that or McCain Palin what else could they do?


Now has anyone read why the communist party endorsed Obama? It sounds very coherent and thought out. I feel like some people just use certain talking points without looking any deeper.

One of the big reasons is health care reform.

Continued Webb: “We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.”

“We want no part of that,” wrote Webb. “We don’t have any illusions about the Democratic Party, but we don’t have any illusions about the Republican Party either.”

Webb concluded: “Furthermore, we are also aware of the undeniable fact that no other party besides the Democratic Party stands a chance of beating the GOP next year.”

It sounds like they chose (In their minds) the lesser of two evils.

And remember these are people too so lets be kind in a rebuttal gentlemen.

 

[riser]

While they may not have asked for the support, you have to wonder, as OMG points out, that they are being endorsed by these people. If a serial killer came out to endorse me, for example, I would quickly put out a statement against their support. But still, you must be doing something that they agree with.. something that fits into their movement, right? Otherwise, why would you endorse someone?

 

[johnsonma]

I am a communist and I support the Republican party!

*This message has been approved by the cpusa*

There, now we are all communists.

On a serious note, if someone you don't care about openly supports your position it could mean they are choosing the lesser of two evils. They would rather have communism but of the two choices they are presented, they choose the left because at least it makes sense.

 

[riser]

Uh, ok. Commies are Lefties are for move government. The 'Right' is for less government. That doesn't make sense.

I always laughed at the Nazi/Republican thing because they're both on the other end of the spectrum. The Right wants less government, more personal freedom and responsibility. The Left wants big government and all the stuff that comes with that.

 

[johnsonma]

Uh, ok. Commies are Lefties are for move government. The 'Right' is for less government. That doesn't make sense.

I always laughed at the Nazi/Republican thing because they're both on the other end of the spectrum. The Right wants less government, more personal freedom and responsibility. The Left wants big government and all the stuff that comes with that.

You kind of missed the point, but I will admit communism is the far left of the political spectrum.

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=6113

Fascism is far right of the spectrum. Just figured I would point that out since a few people on this forum have tried calling the left both communists and fascists, which is wrong. Also the right is far more open to a theocracy than the left is, so in a sense there is more to lose going to the right, in my opinion anyways.

 

[riser]

I could argue that the left has their hand equally in facism by demanding a change to the natural culture to become what they want it to be, as opposed to what it currently is. Would that not be the same thing?

I also caught you point but I wanted to point out the major difference. You caught that and realized your statement really didn't make the point you intended.

I would think we would have more to lose going from the right to the left, than the left to the right? The right actually stands for something people believe in: Morals, personal responsibility, etc, whereas the Left is more open to having government control and mandate things, which while it appearance may "give" more, takes away far more freedoms.

Let me understand: You think that by moving to the Right, there is more to lose? Moving to the left there would be less to lose?

How does providing more personal freedom, personal responisbility and indepedence from the government create a "losing" effect on the people?

I can easily arguing moving to the left would take away my personal freedoms, forcing healthcare on me, taking away my right to own firearms, taking away from freedom of speech, taking away a larger portion of my livelyhood (higher taxes/spread the wealth), lack of believing in something bigger than yourself (spirituality/morals), among a few.

In fact, I have more to lose if we transistion to the left than to the right. I want the freedom and indepedence from the government. I want to make my own choices, good or bad, and not have them dictated to me by an over reaching government system. I want free enterprise.
I do not want the continued loss of morals, higher taxes, spreading the wealth, a forced healthcare system, loss of individuality, and other areas where things "are not fair" when I've worked harder to get ahead. I work hard to do better for myself, not so someone else can sit back saying I have it easy.

I had neighbors who saw how I lived. We lived in the same neighborhood. They could barely pay their rent while I had bought my house. Every night they sat out in their garage drinking beer and having little parties.
Most nights I was in my garage redoing the molding in my house, painting stuff out in my garage. Other nights I was working out, or working on my motorcycle.

It wasn't fair to them that I had all that 'stuff' and I could afford to do stuff. They were over one day and saw my bookshelf full of books. The one looked at me, only 2 years younger, "You read all those books?" "Yep." I educated myself, I worked to get ahead. Yet they thought I had it easy and didn't have to do anything.

Here I am busting my butt while they're drinking beer and not going anywhere. I was their problem because I had it too easy. I was supposed to help them, buy them beer, because I had money and they were working hard as waiters and a waitress and barely making anything.

Eventually, the non-producers are going to expect more than the producers can create and the return will diminish as less producers will be available. This is where we are today. Too many non-producers are present and the producers are diminishing.

 

[johnsonma]

I could argue that the left has their hand equally in facism by demanding a change to the natural culture to become what they want it to be, as opposed to what it currently is. Would that not be the same thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Sounds like centrism combined with far right to me, especially the cleansing of mexicans from our country. Not to mention those damn arabics.

I also caught you point but I wanted to point out the major difference. You caught that and realized your statement really didn't make the point you intended.

Well fine, if your going to be such a stickler,
I am a fascist and I support the republican party!
There, now your all fascists, good luck with that!

I would think we would have more to lose going from the right to the left, than the left to the right? The right actually stands for something people believe in: Morals, personal responsibility, etc, whereas the Left is more open to having government control and mandate things, which while it appearance may "give" more, takes away far more freedoms.

Let me understand: You think that by moving to the Right, there is more to lose? Moving to the left there would be less to lose?

How does providing more personal freedom, personal responisbility and indepedence from the government create a "losing" effect on the people?

I can easily arguing moving to the left would take away my personal freedoms, forcing healthcare on me, taking away my right to own firearms, taking away from freedom of speech, taking away a larger portion of my livelyhood (higher taxes/spread the wealth), lack of believing in something bigger than yourself (spirituality/morals), among a few.

In fact, I have more to lose if we transistion to the left than to the right. I want the freedom and indepedence from the government. I want to make my own choices, good or bad, and not have them dictated to me by an over reaching government system. I want free enterprise.
I do not want the continued loss of morals, higher taxes, spreading the wealth, a forced healthcare system, loss of individuality, and other areas where things "are not fair" when I've worked harder to get ahead. I work hard to do better for myself, not so someone else can sit back saying I have it easy.

If you valued things in terms of freedoms and equality, then you would view things differently

I had neighbors who saw how I lived. We lived in the same neighborhood. They could barely pay their rent while I had bought my house. Every night they sat out in their garage drinking beer and having little parties.
Most nights I was in my garage redoing the molding in my house, painting stuff out in my garage. Other nights I was working out, or working on my motorcycle.

It wasn't fair to them that I had all that 'stuff' and I could afford to do stuff. They were over one day and saw my bookshelf full of books. The one looked at me, only 2 years younger, "You read all those books?" "Yep." I educated myself, I worked to get ahead. Yet they thought I had it easy and didn't have to do anything.

Here I am busting my butt while they're drinking beer and not going anywhere. I was their problem because I had it too easy. I was supposed to help them, buy them beer, because I had money and they were working hard as waiters and a waitress and barely making anything.

Eventually, the non-producers are going to expect more than the producers can create and the return will diminish as less producers will be available. This is where we are today. Too many non-producers are present and the producers are diminishing.

Tell me this, what happens when some guy gets laid off from work because the corporations can make more money without him. Then after this he gets diagnosed with cancer, and on top of that his wife has type 1 diabetes. Also his child has down syndrome and needs help as well. **** them right? Who needs them, let just have total anarchy, every man for himself. This is primitive thinking, and I know you can realize that, while its good to guard your freedoms, its also shameful to value them over your fellow man's livelihood. I make enough to give a little bit here and there, I'm sure you do too.

 

[riser]

You are taking a worst case scenario. That's fine.

He was laid off because the company can make more money without him. This is speculative. Let's assume his job was phased out or replaced by a computer. I firmly believe it is on each individual to keep their skillset up. He can retrain and find a new job, or find another job that his skillset fits. Now, his lifetyle will dramatically change. That has to be accepted. Do not leave out that this person has the opportunity to find a new job. This is always an option.
He has cancer. Ok, does it need to be treated? Is he 40 with cancer and raising a child, or is he 70 with grandkids? Does the government, or the people of the government, all need to pay for his treatment? Sure, we can provide basic medical treatment. I'm for that. But fighting for chemo, extending his life with low hopes. Buy additional coverage, cash in your retirement, etc. I mean, we can't try to keep everyone alive at the cost of burdening future generations. At some point we need to accept mortality.
Wife has diabetes. She is still able to work. She can work, he can stay home. Again, they will not have the same lifestyle, but they can continue to life. Getting a job with benefits is not as difficult as people make it out to be. Go work at a department store for $13/hour and you get nice benefits.
Child has Downs. Ok. One of the two should get benefits, if not, the local community or their church (if they are active) could help. Or they could tap into their savings to provide for their child. There are other services outside of the government that provide assistance.

There are many options available. A wise man once said that a man without anything to lose is no longer blind.

For every failure story we hear, we hear an equal success story. The difference being what the person does when it comes down to them to act.

 

[riser]

SCHIP.. Blah. the thing that Pelosi pushed that put like $0.63 on a pack of cigarettes.. while states were pushing for smoking bans.