I hope the "fact checkers" are getting geared up to scrutinize every
word Obama or Biden speaks between now and November 6th.Given their
past records for saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, or making no
sense at all, respectively, the fact checkers will indeed be working overtime to
bring their prevarications and malapropisms to the public's attention via
the ever vigilant news media.Yeah, right. The liberal bias in most
of the media is blindingly obvious to those who pay attention, but sadly remains
undetected by millions of voters who pay scant attention to politics or
politicians. They will continue to proclaim as false much of what Romney or
Ryan say, regardless of the truth.
So, the premise is that the definition of "apology" is subjective,
suggesting that the Fact checker sites may be biased, and then you cite 4 pages
of Karl Rove's opinion as a rebuttal? How about doing some
real fact checking of your own instead of playing the exact same game you
criticize in your article.
And, facts do have degrees of truth or require context to be fully
understood.Facts. Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28%.Today's tax rate is 35% for the top earners.Reagan's tax
rates are lower than today's.All factually correct
statements.However, Reagan's top rate kicked in at earnings of
$30,000.Today's rate of 35% starts on earnings well over
$350,000.So, the rate is only one piece of pertinent information.In reality, going back to Reagan's Tax rate, with associated Tax
brackets would be a HUGE tax increase.Fact. Today's EFFECTIVE
Federal Income Tax rates are lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. (and
quite a bit lower, at that)While we are at it, Today's
EFFECTIVE Corporate tax rate is also much lower than it was under Reagan.Fact check THAT!!
Oh, so the standard bearer of truth is none other than one of the most crooked
political hacks in the history of America --- Karl Rove?Yeah.Sheeeesh!
I'm glad to have seen this article appear. Last night, I read the piece in
the NYT about Ryan "throwing the facts out the window" in which they
broke down his lies one by one. But, "fact" after fact, they failed to
actually address any facts. It was an obvious attack on opinion and character
more than anything. In some instances, they claimed Ryan was outright lying
when, in their own analysis, he was telling the truth. What they really should
have said was that, though truthful, Ryan was disingenuous in criticizing Obama
for allowing a committee to fail when Ryan was part of the committee and that
his actions allowed it to fail. Nothing he stated was false, though it was
certainly a bit disingenuous. Funny thing is, by referring to opinion and
grandstanding as facts, the NYT writer committed the very act he was really
I'm disappointed because when I first discovered Politifact, I thought,
"This is a great idea. Now I'll know what's true and what's
not." But then I discovered that they weren't checking "facts,"
but rather "opinions." Romney's opinion is that Obama embarked on
an apology tour, and he bases that opinion on Obama's own actions and
words. The only way you can assign a "true" or "false" rating to
his opinion is by looking at what it's based on, and whether it's
reasonable for the average person to conclude the same. I think there are more
than enough people who look at what Obama said and did and consider him to be
"apologizing," whether he actually used the word "apologize" or
not. So how can you say Romney's claim deserves a "false," much
less "pants on fire" rating. All you're saying is that you disagree
with how he has come to his opinion, but that's not being a "fact"
staypuffinpc, far more than just NYT called Ryan's speech full of
falsehoods, including Fox News.
It's not a lie, if you believe it (George Costanza)...easily
morphs into...romney campaign vowing...we're not
going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.
Paul Ryan got a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact for claiming that
Obama promised that government intervention would keep open the GM plant in
Janesville, WI. His claim was deemed False because Politifact found that Obama
pledged to keep the plant "viable," not "open."This
clearly show the bias of Politifact, and the insanely idiotic logic used to
label Republicans as liars. It renders Politifact entirely intellectually
unreliable as a resource for a rational debate. The "Pants on Fire"
rating over the Apology Tour is another excellent example of their obvious
agenda and lack of credibility. Seems we need a fact checker for
the fact checkers.I'm still waiting for an explanation of how
the GM plant in Janesville could be shut down, and still "viable."
@DanO, it wasn't "Fox News", it was a commentator, a liberal
commentator who labeled the speech "full of lies". The fact that she
contributes to the Fox News Channel is relevant only in that she voiced her
opinion there, it doesn't constitute an indictment of Ryan by Fox News.
With this article, the Deseret News obsession with Romney has become laughable.
I take from this article so0called that there are no facts just opinions. I
also take from this piece that we must accept whatever the USA does as
necessary, so it does not apologize. If I were to take those positions with my
relatives, they would dismiss me as hogwash.
The biggest value I find with fact-checkers is the research and information they
provide on the topics/subjects they are fact-checking, including links to the
information. They take the time to dig up the Bureau of Labor statistics or the
text of the entire speech that newspapers are too lazy to report. Deseret News mentions Robert Rector as a "welfare expert" but
doesn't identify that he is a research fellow at the conservative Heritage
Foundation. This is what passes as "fact-checking" by Rector:Rector: "Moreover, HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers
for new conservative policies. The agency’s guidance states that it will
not approve policy initiatives that are “likely to reduce access to
aid.” Translation: HHS will oppose any policy that reduces welfare
caseloads. “This is what the HHS policy actually
states:“The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative
that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment
for needy families.” Obama's remarks at various stops
around the world could just as easily be framed as "criticizing" the
countries he visits.
George W. Bush didn't know the first thing about diplomacy. He seemed not
to realize that the United States had ever had allies, or that we needed any
(other than Israel, of course). Barack Obama has had to clean up the mess Bush
made, and he has done a pretty good job. Romney's repeated criticism of
Obama's efforts to restore goodwill toward the US, together with
Romney's own comments and actions during his recent tour abroad, strongly
suggest he hails from the Bush school of foreign policy and that he would undo a
lot of the good that Obama has been able to accomplish with our foreign allies.
DSB - he couldn't keep the plant viable because it closed before he came
into office. The transition between the Bush and Obama ears were actually quit
presidential, and actually Bush still has maintained a good sense of dignity
here and refused to be pulled into the ugliness game going on. But
bottom line, once a plant is closed, it is pretty hard to keep it viable. What
Obama did do was keep the plants at both GM and Chrysler open while Romney
preferred to have the companies offered up to investment bankers (the very same
ones we tax payers were feed tax dollars to to keep themselves above water) to
be bought, sliced up, and dissected. Oh, and did Ryan also let
everyone know that while he claims he was against TARP, he himself put in
request for TARP funds for companies in his own district. Worked really good...
you can complain all you want and yet still take advantage of the program....
Sounds like another group I know.
@UtahBlueDevil - you can read it yourself at Politifact: "...the article reported that Obama, who later provided an $80 billion
auto bailout, had pledged to help keep the Janesville plant and others like it
"viable." That's not quite the same thing as pledging keep the
Janesville plant open. We find nothing in the article that he explicitly
promised to keep it open."Ridiculously illogical by any
standard, exposing Politifact's bias and agenda. I will admit my mistake,
however, as they rated Ryan's comments "False," and not "Pants
on Fire."Obama assured the people of Janesville that the
bailouts would keep them "viable," but apparently not "open."
Sounds like Obama making promises, or pledges, that he couldn't necessarily
keep even if he wanted to. And, that his hope for Janesville, as with
unemployment numbers, green industries, and bailout results, have no basis in
reality. With Obama as President, coal mining area and towns that
relied on NASA also found out how Obama keeps his promises. He doesn't.
When he's campaigning, he'll say anything with no thought of ability
or intention to follow through.
DSBFrom Politifact..."and more importantly, the
Janesville plant shut down before he took office."in case you
missed it..."and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut
down before he took office."The plant was closed before Obama
even had a chance to do anything to prevent it's closing. Perhaps Ryan
should take that up with former President Bush?
@silo - in case you missed it, from Politifact, candidate Obama made "a
statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could
remain open." Also, in case you missed it from my prior post:"Obama assured the people of Janesville that the bailouts would keep
them 'viable,' but apparently not 'open.'" To make it simpler for you to understand, Obama made assurances to people that
proved to be wrong. The bailouts from Bush, that Obama said would keep the
plant open or viable, and then implemented as President, neither kept the
Janesville plant open, nor did they cause the plant to re-open, or become viable
or any other terminology that means "we're employing people," when
he became President.False assurances based on unfounded hope, just
like most of Obama's promises.
Who wants facts anyway, right? "The truth" is too complicated while
opinions, strong assertions, confident proclamations, and "being right"
is really -- winning at any cost -- is what matters most, especially in
politics. So this is what politicians give us -- neat, tidy, easily digestible
bits of info with an emotional center. Soundbites. Even if we could -- or would
-- search for "political truth", if it rocked our boat too much, where
would that leave us???Probably looking for the next soundbite to
make it all good again.
All I can say is that I remember Obama going on his apology tour. If
liberals want to call it something else; well, that is their prerogative.
Calling it an apology tour is my prerogative.Most so called
"Fact Checking" organizations lean to the left. They are part of the
propaganda machine.BTW: I am so sorry that liberals don't like
Karl Rove. Bet the feeling is mutual.
President Obama's statements were more than apologetic, they were
contradictory and weak. How many "buts" were in those examples. he was
doing too much addressing what he felt were imperfections of America's
policies and decisions and instilled less confidence in America than anything.
Stop focusing on the past and show what the future will bring. typical Obama:
Blame past presidencts, the other party, Congress, etc. we've heard it for
four years. Contrast that with Romney's message. We gave Obama a
chance, he didn't deliver. let's move forward.
FactCheck.org is made up mostly of Journalists. What proof do we have of these
Journalists that they are in fact nonpartisan since this organization is local
at University of Pennsylvania?I no longer take information just from
Journalists. I read and listen to more than one source.
Karl Rove - font of truth - I don't think so.Americans need to stop
relying on one side or the other and start to take the time to make choices
based on the best information they can discern, but then that world actually
mean turning off talk radio (or TV) and actually doing some research before
going into the voting booth (and that’s work not entertainment).
I read your article with a great deal of interest and was nodding my head in
agreement with much of what you wrote until I came to the term "mainstream
media". At that point, I discounted much of what you had written because
you clearly laid your bias out for all to see. The term mainstream media seems
to be a flag to show that the writer is a conservative and that she believes all
professional recognized media is unfair to conservatives. The term is
ridiculous and those who believe in a vast left-wing conspiracy on the part of
the media are being deliberately mislead by a faux or false media which is in
reality a propaganda arm of the Republican party. I just wish more people would
recognize the difference between propaganda and news and not discount all news
that they don't like.
Fact checkers these days need to be fact checked themselves. A fact checker
accused Paul Ryan of lying in his speech. When I fact checked the AP Fact
Checker, it turned out that its evidence was false information from a White
House spokesperson (Stephanie Cutter). Did she lie? If I were a White House
flack, I might say so, but let us be charitable and simply say she got it wrong.
The Left's general m.o. is to sneer and condescend to its opposition with
the predictable result that it infuriates them. The Right is little better.
can't wait to see the fact checker results after the DNC. Yikes!!! Hard
pressed to find ANY legit facts after this liberal love fest of lies. What a
line up they have for the DNC with such soaring statesman and deep thinkers as
Sandra Fluke and Eva Longoria!! Wow - top notch intellectual talent there!! How
you can watch the DNC on a full stomach is beyond me.
Facts have never been a issue for Mitt, he makes up his own as he goes along,
nothing new there. Now citing Karl Rove as a reputable source now that's
new...it brings journalism to a new low.
DSB... let me follow your logic here. You are more upset at the
person who said he would take care of the patient, but the patient didn't
make it until the doctor could get there, than you are at the one who created
the environment where the patient got ill in the first place.Your
solution is, turn control back over to the people who crated the circumstances
where the plant closed, because in this case, Obama wasn't able to save a
patient who was already dead by the time he got there.Do you not see
how just illogical that is? And the thing is, the ones who created that caustic
environment aren't saying they will change what cause the problem in the
first place... they not only wanted to patient dead, they wanted to kill the
whole family (GM) by denying them help when they needed it.And here
is the best part. The reason Republicans wanted to kill GM was to kill the UAW,
the theory being that if the UAW was dead, these blue color workers would all of
a sudden vote Republican - despite the fact that their employer was shut down.
Go back and read the first post: DN Subcriber's well-written words and hold
dems' feet to the fire as well after next week. Now, there would be some
real talking points. Such a double standard in the media!
If we could just start with a definition of "the truth" it would help
these discussions. How about R.L. Stevenson's: "to tell the truth is
not merely to state facts, but leave a true impression." It is
not true that work requirements have been removed from welfare. It is not true
that Obama does any more damage to Medicare than Ryan's proposal. Yet we
hear it over and over. Obama's campaign is also playing politics by gaming
ethics - overstating and understating - instead of personal ethics. The difference for me, personally, is that I expect more of Mitt Romney than I
do of Obama when he says "I approve this message."
to On the other hand: Bush had a large coalition of countries with us before we
went into Iraq. And, he had congressional approval. People seems to forget that.
On the other hand, Obama had neither a coalition nor approval when he went into
Libya, but the liberals don't seem to complain about that!
Here is how liberals define truth: ”it depends on what is, is”. If
you understand liberals, that makes perfect sense.
It will be interesting to see what Democrats do in their convention. I hope
they aren't afraid to take on Romneys' challenge of "are you
better off than you were four years ago", because the answer for America is
definitely yes. Four years ago we had an economy that was losing gdp growh at a
rate of 9% per quarter, businesses were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a
month, we were engaged in two foreign wars, losing American lives each week.
Since then we've had positive gdp growth, a net gain in jobs, and we are
out of one war. How does that not count for being better off?
Wow, I wonder which candiate Jackie is supporting. Biased, maybe?
I also remember the Apology Tour& of Obama and this author was just using
the report by Karl Rove to show a date and reference point. Why discount this
source when it is legitimate? Just because you don't like Karl Rove does
not give you license to wipe away any of his comments. That is a problem with
many of those on the Liberal and/or Ant-Mormon side of things: they think that
an easy dismissal of anything in any way justifies the refusal to ignore it.
Karl Rove is correct in his reference because it actually happened. I don't
remember Mr. Rove telling me about this incident, I saw it on the CBS Evening
News. I saw Mr. Obama deride and lower America's standing in the world.
Because my memory is the same as referred by Mr. Rove, I now have better regard
for his words and will pay more attention to what he says in many other areas of
Kelly WSmith, It seems some posters are so ignorant of American and World
history that they are shocked at the notion of the ugly American. But other
nations and Americans are not so ignorant of the facts. America has made
mistakes and miscarriage of justice and foreign policy (the same goes for most
other nations also). President Obama did the right thing and a great service to
better international relations by acknowledging past poor performance and
encouraging better future performance. The best road to reform and improvement
starts with honest evaluation of past performance.
@UtahBlueDevil - it's odd for you to question my logic when you seem unable
to follow a simple narrative. Do you think Bush, as the doctor in charge,
personally came to Janesville and closed the plant? Obama, as a Senator, and
President Bush were both responsible for the bailouts, but it was Obama who
assured the people of Janesville that government bailouts would save their
plant, not Bush. My point has nothing to do with Bush or Obama
being responsible for the plant closing. Neither of them were personally
responsible for that. But, Obama is the one who thinks government intervention
and tax dollars are the fix for everything.The point is, and
hopefully I can finally make it simple enough for you, is:1. Obama
assured that stimulus money would save the Janesville plant.2. Stimulus
money did not save the Janesville plant.3. Obama was wrong whether it was
his fault or not, revealing the ignorance of his hope for government
resolutions.4. Paul Ryan's comments don't deserve a False
rating from Politifact.5. Giving a False rating because Obama pledged to
keep the plant "viable," but not "open" is absurd and exposes
the bias of Politifact.
This is the new Republican party. You can anything you like, whether it's
fact or fiction, and then just claim the independent fact checkers are wrong.
Win at any cost.The party of suposed superior morals at
I don't know what the Deseret News is these days, but it sure isn't a
newspaper any more. This is pathetic.
@williaryThis is the new Democratic party. You can stack the
fact-checking outfits with people of a leftist worldview, and then just claim
they are independent.Keep yourself blinded from your own bias at any
cost.The party of supposed enlightenment at work!
Admitting a mistake and then pointing out my spouse's mistakes has never
served as an apology in my house.From Dale Carnegie's book
“How to Win Friends and Influence People”Be a Leader: How to
Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment1.Begin with
praise and honest appreciation. 2.Call attention to people's mistakes
indirectly. 3.Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other
person. 4.Ask questions instead of giving direct orders. 5.Let the
other person save face. A communications professor at the University
of Illinois, studies presidential rhetoric/political language, said Obama used
conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes, not apologizing. Lauren
Bloom, business consultant, wrote “The Art of the Apology,” advising
on when to apologize and how to do it, said Obama's didn't use the
words "sorry" or "regret." "I think to make an effective
apology, the words 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry'
always have to be there.” “Obama's remarks were really
non-apologies, and they're not good in business or personal
relationships,” Bloom said. “The one area where they can be useful:
I love the way liberals believe they have won an argument just by spewing the
name Karl Rove. Much easier than addressing any of the substance of what he
says. Like him or not he is intelligent and does his homework. The
examples Rove cites are verifiable and most of us remember them well. Describe
them however you like. I consider them apologizes, and yes
"fact-checkers" are mostly political hacks.
I don't always agree with the ratings fact-checkers give, but almost always
I learn valuable information. I find it very disturbing that the
LDS church-owned newspaper would write this type of article. One would think
Deseret News, above all other papers, would be supportive of efforts to sort
fiction/truth from fact/lies. Nowhere in the article does it point out the
benefits and value of fact-checkers. The article points out the Investors
Business Daily claims that fact checkers don't provide balance which is not
true. Most fact-check both sides, using conservative and liberal sources. Deseret News is just following the Fox strategy of discrediting anything
that doesn't support/promote the conservative/GOP agenda. Many Republicans
get most of their news/information from one source. Is this healthy for the
future of our country and the LDS church? The LDS church sends missionaries out
all over the world in hopes that people will have open, questioning
minds/hearts, yet their newspaper has a narrow, one-sided message/focus.
@DanO, I said nothing of whether or not Ryan was right. In fact, I called him
outright disingenuous. He criticized Obama for the same thing of which he was
guilty. There is no lie in that, but there is deception. My criticism was of
the NYT article, which, as I mentioned, I had read right when it came out. Read
the article. The title and writing suggest blatant, outright, made-up lies.
Point for point, they go through Ryan's falsehoods, but none of the things
they criticize as being infactual are actually infactual. They're opinion,
and they're passing off their opinion a factual rebuttal, which it is
not.I regularly read fact-checks because I don't believe most
politicians. There's a reason, though, that the fact-checkers are getting
criticized on this one. There is a clear bias in the media, which in itself is
ok if one is clear about it being bias and opinion. What's not OK is to
pass bias as "fact." That is disingenuous.
The Janesville plant closed during the Bush administration, before President
Obama took office. That's a fact. What else needs to be said?
Articles like this are what lead many to believe statements of political
neutrality by this paper's owners are merely lip service. When the "
letter" is read to congregations in the next few months, half will roll
their eyes and half will wink at each other. There are
"facts" and there is "the truth." it is a that each of has lied.
It leaves a false impression to call each other admitted liars. Political
ads/speeches are intended to leave impressions. I expect Mitt's integrity
to elevate him above the fray, otherwise his election will have been in vain.
Here's substance for you:Obama visited the Janesville GM plant
as a presidential candidate in February of 2008 where he told the workers that
hybrid vehicles were America's future. Obama said:"The
question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it's where
it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America;
right here in Wisconsin; and that's the future I'll fight for as your
President."The plant was idled in April of 2008, laying off some
750 employees by July of 2008. The last vehicle rolled off the line in December
2008, before Obama took office. Source: Wisconsin State Journal How a candidate's campaign trail encouragement translates into
broken-promise causation before he was even sworn in is some
"truthiness" that Romney and Ryan will have to explain. Or maybe the DN
can do that for them.I expected more from good, Christian
candidates. Certainly there are enough real issues to address. I did not
expect the Deseret News to be so engaged in helping to deceive the electorate.
@Truthseeker, have you read the articles the DNews is criticizing? If
you're going to call it one way, call it both ways. The fact-checking that
is being criticized is nothing of the sort. For the record, I'm
neither a Repub. nor a Demo., I'm an independent calling it how I see it.
For all those claiming Obama's words are not apologies b/c he didn't
use synonyms of such, consider how we would perceive it if Ahmadinejad, Putin or
Chavez toured the world and used those same words to discuss their
countries' past policies.
I was glad to read the words of our President in this piece. It makes me proud
to be an American again and I do not see his words as apologies. You might, and
that is fine, in America; we can agree to disagree.
@bullet56 - although I disgree with your interpretation of Obama's
comments, I respect that your opinion is reasonable. If you meant what you
said, then you should agree with the message of the article. Politifact
apparently does not believe "we can agree to disagree." Although many
reasonable people interpret Obama's comments as an "Apology Tour,"
Politifact arbiters think everyone who believes that is basically believing
outright lies, and denying indisputable facts, even thought we're dealing
with opinions. As the article suggests, that demonstrates a bias with the fact
checkers, and reduces their credibility.
There were far more serious untruths and misrepresentations in Mitt
Romney's speech than what he said about Pres. Obama's apologies, and I
expect this newspaper to report such matters, just as I expect that you will do
so for Pres. Obama's speech next week. And there may, indeed, be a story
that needs to be reported about fact checking the fact-checkers. But in that
case, I expect this newspaper to assess the performance of the fact-checkers
across the board--the fact-checkers in the Washington Post and elsewhere have
been quite persuasive about a host of Romney's deceptive statements in the
convention speech. Falsities perpetrated by both parties, including the
candidates, is one of the most urgent news items of this campaign, and the press
needs to be the truth-tellers about, rather than the apologists for, what the
e:StaypuffinpcI read the politifact articles, the Karl Rove article, the
Robert Rector article, the Clive Crook article. As I said before, I don't
always agree with politifact ratings but they do provide valuable information.
Politifact in their critique of Romney's statement consulted communication
experts, not political pundits and although I agree with their conclusion that
Obama's speeches don't qualify as apologies perhaps I wouldn't
have given it the rating--pants on fire that they do, because there is an
element of subjectivity. I think Factcheck's approach is better in that
they discuss/examine the facts/data and come to a conclusion but they don't
have a particular rating system like politifact and the Washington Post do. If Chavez etc said the same things as Obama I would imagine the press
would highlight Chavez's criticisms of the U.S., downplay his
acknowledgment of mistakes, and most certainly the press(and Republicans)
wouldn't characterize his remarks as an apology. btw, I was a
registered Independent for over 30 yrs, at times voting on both sides of the
aisle and have only been a registered Democrat the past 6 yrs.
Has anyone of the people claiming a double standard here actually visited any of
these fact check sites? They tear apart statements by the "liberals"
equally, and yes, they will have plenty of fodder to work with this week as
well. Stop playing the victimized here. Here is a novel thought.
We don't the members of each party hold their own accountable for their
honesty and integrity. Lying is lying. It is party independent. Stop giving
people a pass to these people just because they are of the same party as you, on
either side. Lying is. A bad trite in any leader.I get differences
in opinion. I get differences in perspective. But there are clearly things
said by both sides that are lies, and the acceptance of such behavior is most
Did the Deseret News really just print an article basically saying that there is
no such thing as facts, only opinions? Yes, yes they did. Unbelievable. By the way, there is not one apology in all the examples given. Words
really do have meanings. And apology does have a definition, no matter that the
D-News, for some reason, wants you to think otherwise. You would
think that people that actually use words for a living would be a bit more aware
Does it bother any members out there just a little bit that one of the two
political parties playing so fast and loose with the truth is now headed by a
Mormon? When this is all over I wonder how we'll be viewed by the average
Fact: The far right hates Obama. If you don't agree just listen to the
rhetoric on talk radio. The day Obama took office Mitch McConne openly vowed
to destroy his presidency. My opinion is the far right is terrified of Obama
because he is a minority, perceived as being muslim and that means
non-christian. Politics is about power and being in control. America's
demographics are changing. Minorities are gaining poliitical power and that
terrifies the far right. How many times have you heard the tea party followers
attack the values of the poor, minorities and immigrants. America is changing
and if the Republicans don't do more to reach out to women and minorities
they are going to regret it. I am not an Obama apoligist. I am a conservative
who is tired of the mean spirited and hateful rhetoric coming from the
extremists in my party. Despite my dissapointment I am still voting Romney. I
had expectations that Romney would run a more positive and honest campaign.
@NeilT - thanks for the biggest pile of baloney on the entire thread - baloney
being altogether too mild a description, yet probably the most severe name the
DN monitors would probably accept. Minority Republicans are treated like rock
stars in the party. People hate Obama's efforts to "fundamentally
transform" our country, which needs tweaking once in awhile but does not
need to be fundamentally transformed. One individual, Mitch
McConell, made one stupid comment, and partisan hacks have been beating half the
country with it for 3 years as though he speaks for us all. Seriously, way past
time for a new false outrage to beat the Republicans with. I, like Mitt Romney
said, wanted Obama to succeed because I want America to succeed. I don't
think I'm unique among Republicans.What are the values of the
poor, minorities, and immigrants? I've never heard Tea Party members
denigrate the poor, minorities, or legal immigrants, or their values. Seems to
me you're swallowing a lot of swill from those with a vested interest in
making sure Republicans are despised. A whole lot of baloney.
Talk about baloney. "One individual, Mitch McConell, made one stupid
comment, and partisan hacks have been beating half the country with it for 3
years as though he speaks for us all." just Google post inauguration
republican meeting to see the list of 15 powerful legislators and others who
vowed to sink this president during his inaugural ball. " We've got to
challenge every single bill."
It is unfortunate that individuals have to politicize fact checker commentary.
It really should boil down to this. Is what the politician saying a fair and
accurate representation of the facts?If the answer is "NO" then we
as citizens should demand ethical commentary from our elected officials. Instead
what we do is say, "well, the other side does it" or "just another
attempt by the liberal media to denigrate a conservative". I know both sides
do it but this article is in response to Ryan's speech and it is worthy of
derision. At least, it is misleading and intellectually dishonest. At worst, it
is outright lying. We ALL should demand more from our politicians and, until we
do, they will continue to pander to the zealots in our country that love nothing
better than a good sounds bite regardless of merit.
@Owen - are you saying that Republicans plotted to regain political power after
losing the White House to someone who promised to "fundamentally
transform" our country? Wow - really big revelation there. Maybe they have
to challenge every single bill because they don't want our nation to be
fundamentally transformed. I say thank goodness they challenged every single
bill.I know Democrats don't play any political games, and
don't challenge every single idea from Republicans. Oh wait, there were
those George Bush years, and Harry Reid will never bring a bill to the floor
that has been sent from the Republican-led Congress.Baloney indeed.
I hate lying and propaganda in politics and I see it on both sides - vastly more
of it on the left. There is a big difference between lying and expressing an
opinion.In this entire thread I don't think I've read a
suggestion of a better way to characterize Obama's statements around the
world during his first few months as president, in which he pointed out what he
considered shortcomings of the US. In context they sure seemed like apologies
to me. Should it have been called "the United States has made mistakes in
the past tour"? It's disingenuous to say he was not apologizing in my
Gee, for a minute there I thought that the Deseret News was suggesting that
people should check the facts against claims by the GOP. I had a momentary flare
of hope, but it was doused when I understood what they were really saying:
Fact-checkers are not to be trusted.
Anyone who believes that America is perfect and has always behaved perfectly out
there in the world is pretty unrealistic. Americans and America have done some
pretty great things, aiding other countries in many ways. But America and
Americans have also made a lot of mistakes, some of them terrible and far
reaching. Some of them accidental and some because of some very self-serving
motives, not caring about the consequences as long as they get what they want.
Other countries have done the same. Why be enraged and offended
because Obama acknowledged that America hasn't always been perfect?
It's the truth. He also pointed out that other countries are not
perfect.It takes strength to tell the truth. If Bush had made these
same statements, the people who are enraged now would have interpreted them
differently.It's only because Obama said them that people are angry
The term fact-checkers may appear to have some truth to it but it is actually a
form that is similar to statistics. Those people, especially in the Internet
days have the ability to pull data from a variety of sources to show that the
information is valid. The fact that that term exists is there for a specific
reason, to allure people that don't do their own research to pull data to
prove what they want to prove, whether it is valid or not. When
politicians these days decide to be politicians, a lot of them believe they can
do anything, whether it is truth or not, to get elected by people. In a time
when very few go to the polls to vote, those type of politicians don't have
to prove anything to those voters as those voters don't study and learn
about people or issues. Others, who don't want the untruthful
words to influence what people really value, integrity, honesty and character,
then they dig into those statements or facts to study for others that don't
do it. As my friend said 48 years ago, "Truth is truth, only the facts
@silo"From Politifact..."and more importantly, the
Janesville plant shut down before he took office."in case you
missed it..."the plant closed in April 2009 - after Obama took
office isn't it interesting the politicifact is actually
It's not just that the term "apology tour" is part of the big lie
as there were no apologies. The other problem here is that if you look at what
Obama said, it was all quite admirable. America has made mistakes and has been
arrogant and he was trying to turn things around and be a better partner on the
world stage. There should have been bi-partisan cheering. Instead, the attitude
seems to be "never admit a mistake." That is stupid and dangerous.
It's interesting to me that the DesNews (which has a policy of not
criticizing Pres Obama) has never--and will never--publish any fact check of
anything Obama says. Nor will they ask the paramount question of its readers,
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" As a news
organization the DesNews, along with all other MSM, is absurd. This one-sided
reporting and shaping of public opinion is offensive to any thinking person.
Good Grief DN, you have to jump through so many hoops to punch up your boy. You
and your minions are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The
factual truth is that Romney and the Republicans have deliberately created a
fictional Obama, a straw man to strike down with multiple lies. Most of the
responsible press has reported that reprehensible attack. But, your obvious
bias will not let you do objective journalism How sad, how unprofessional.
I've lived in Washington DC most of my adult life. My wife was the
secretary to a former cabinet member. I've been to way too many political
functions in my life. I have news for you. I've tried red Kool-Aid.
I've tried blue Kool-Aid. They're both Kool-Aid. They both pretty
much taste the same. And they're both bad for you. Drink up.
Debunking the fact checkers. So basically the DN is saying "don't
believe anyone anymore".Here is an idea, why don't the
candidates focus more on what they can and will do (or intend to do), rather
than spending 90 percent of their calories on trying to explain the
opposition.Worf actually had a good comment a while ago. Lets treat
this as a job hire excursive. Now those of you who have actually done
hiring... how many people have you brought on board that spend 80 percent of
their interview trash talking their other applicants. Anyone? So
why do we tolerate it from these men? Can anyone explain that to me?