| Author |
Message |
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:18:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
Continuing with their belief that facts have a liberal bias, the popular rightwing blog RedState now bans anyone from posting facts on the site:
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/11/quote-a-factchecker-earn-a-ban/
Yep, quote a fact checking source and you'll be banned from the site.
Rightwingers have been living in a fantasy world for years and now they want to enforce their fantasy on others.
|
|
| beenthere |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:50:36 AM | show profile | flag this post
For those of you who have covered politics over the years, have you seen any other elections that have reached this level of outright deceit?
Or is it that technology (24/7 news networks/immediate coverage by Internet) has finally caught up with politicians and they simply cannot tell one crowd one thing, and a separate crowd something different without being caught in a discrepancy?
|
|
| anonymous 1 |
Posted - 9/12/2012 11:00:27 AM | show profile | flag this post
What's outright deceitful is how the media is all in for Obama.
These are the same folks that gave us-
It was a lie, but it was a good lie.
True but false.
Fake but accurate.
This is why libs love them some fact checkers.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 9/12/2012 11:07:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
It's partly the technology...
and partly the rise of fact-checking teams.
It's sad that journalists need a separate fact-checking subset. That used to be part of the job of being a journalist. But as political reporting took on an ESPN-style air, and coverage turned to breathless examination of the horserace, readers and viewers launched a backlash.
That led to the rise of non-partisan fact-checking. The idea was to keep politicians in line by actually examining their claims and comparing what they say to the cold hard facts. Technology made this simple and fast -- so that a politician's claims could be compared to known facts almost immediately.
That hasn't sat well with old time politicians who used to have days or weeks before the facts came to light.
Those politicians are being lazy by sticking to their old modus operandi rather than adapting and sticking to facts (something Bill Clinton showed could be done during his DNC speech).
So, the lazy politicians simply attack the facts -- and the fact-checkers for bringing them up.
Very lazy.
The rightwing backlash to facts is a result of more technology.
Talk radio, FOX News and the righwing blogosphere serve as an echo chamber where people can keep their fact-free world view insulated from reality. Fact-checkers only threaten to pop that bubble and expose them to the real world from which they are trying to escape.
|
|
| cruster |
Posted - 9/12/2012 11:48:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
Libs Love Fact Checkers Because...
..facts are biased! They are left leaning. Truth is all in for Obama. And the media seems to be obsessed with reporting the truth.
Therefore we must reject facts and truth and not pay attention when someone points out what is accurate versus what it is we want to hear.
|
|
| anonymous 1 |
Posted - 9/12/2012 11:51:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
"adapting and sticking to facts (something Bill Clinton showed could be done during his DNC speech)."
Libs are sooooo amazed that a Clinton could tell the truth. Not so fast,
“He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. For every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. … It passes the arithmetic test.”
— Former president Bill Clinton
The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.
By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.
But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.
In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)
Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”
The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.
There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html
|
|
| anonymous 1 |
Posted - 9/12/2012 11:51:57 AM | show profile | flag this post
"adapting and sticking to facts (something Bill Clinton showed could be done during his DNC speech)."
Libs are sooooo amazed that a Clinton could tell the truth. Not so fast,
“He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. For every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. … It passes the arithmetic test.”
— Former president Bill Clinton
The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.
By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.
But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.
In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)
Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”
The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.
There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html
|
|
| beenthere |
Posted - 9/12/2012 12:10:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
ES,
re: That hasn't sat well with old time politicians who used to have days or weeks before the facts came to light.
I saw an interview with Dan Rather where he said that was one of the major issues, that the politicians used to have a buffer of time before the truth became known. They could cherry pick crowds and ideals as they campaigned.
thanks for the response.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 9/12/2012 1:10:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Watch out, any1...
your reliance on fact-checkers could cause the Republican Party to yank your membership!
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 9/12/2012 3:34:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
"By the administration’s math..."
The Obama administration...and all Democrat administrations...count heavily on the fact that their constituents are neither very educated nor very sophisticated. They don't understand government budgets...and have even less interest.
But they will pick up on the Democrat talking points and dutifully parrot them as theyve been taught by union and protest rallies.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 9/12/2012 3:38:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once again, cruzo...
attacks the left using rightwing buzzwords he learned through FOX News and the rightwing blogosphere. He's a talking point machine!
CRUZO IS A PRETTY BIRD! SQUAWK!! CRUZO WANT A CRACKER!
And he's in good standing with the rightwing since he is 100% fact-free.
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 9/12/2012 4:09:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** The Obama administration...and all Democrat administrations...count heavily on the fact that their constituents are neither very educated nor very sophisticated. They don't understand government budgets...and have even less interest. ***
What a curious statement, given that redneck districts and states vote Republican.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 9/12/2012 4:15:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
It just show that
those you pejoratively label "rednecks" are much more educated and sophisticated than the Democrat constituencies who suck up and parrot such bullsh*t.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 9/12/2012 4:19:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
What it additionally shows is that
many of the Democrat constituents are more interested in that 550 series they rolled last Thursday or the score of the Packers-Bears game than they are in how Obama's government is wasting their tax money.
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:36:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
What a clown you are! Never let facts get in the way, do you?
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:38:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Now come post something right after me, so you're the last one on the thread. Make it really personal, small-minded and nasty, OK?
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:41:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
C'mon, now. You've got an audience waiting for it ... expecting it ... looking at you, you, you ... waiting ... waiting ...
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 9/12/2012 10:58:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
OF COURSE the "lady" won't
address the topic now...it's apparent that the left has nothing germane to add. True to form, she shifts her focus to ad hominem attacks on me.
Pitiful.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 9/13/2012 8:34:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
Once again, cruzo...
show us how he can avoid the facts by making a thread about himself.
He's hell-bent on keeping his 100% fact-free rating in the Post-Truth Republican Party!
|
|
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
