|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 10:23:49 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
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. 
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 11:06:36 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
FactCheck.org is a great site. But, misusing it to advance one side is disengenuous. People should go there, check out the arguments they make and vet the claims in a rational manor.
They can even come here and start a thread discussing the issues they find there. But, cut & paste is just plain lazy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psalms274
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.
Interesting enough ... when checking what Obama has stated on factcheck.org you will find a plethora of the same type of "amo" that we are seeing with these threads aimed at the republican candidates ... in fact I counted them and he had more ... but I would certainly not start a thread about it. I agree the threads are silly ... and they cause me to question the motives of those who do start them.
Note ... the threads are not new info ... I always go there to check both sides of the issue.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:10:02 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3952
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
FactCheck.org is a great site. But, misusing it to advance one side is disengenuous. People should go there, check out the arguments they make and vet the claims in a rational manor.
They can even come here and start a thread discussing the issues they find there. But, cut & paste is just plain lazy.
I agree that people should always go beyond one source. I trust FactCheck but don't rely soley on it. It amazes me that peopkle will get lit up over something on Huffington or WorldNutdaily without any effort to verify claims made. I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:18:48 PM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10364
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often. Actually, I try to write with a pencil in my nose...
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:31:14 PM
|
|
|
Rockwall
Posts: 465
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
FactCheck.org is a great site. But, misusing it to advance one side is disengenuous. People should go there, check out the arguments they make and vet the claims in a rational manor.
They can even come here and start a thread discussing the issues they find there. But, cut & paste is just plain lazy.
I agree that people should always go beyond one source. I trust FactCheck but don't rely soley on it. It amazes me that peopkle will get lit up over something on Huffington or WorldNutdaily without any effort to verify claims made. I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often.
I like that wide paintbrush you are using there. Would it be fair to say that the lefties do not use http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm to see where candidate actually stands on an issue?
_____________________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:36:01 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3952
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
quote:
I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often. Actually, I try to write with a pencil in my nose...
That explains a lot of things.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:39:01 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2243
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often.
As I stated in post # 2 ... I use it all the time.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
Linus, my dog, little Kaleigh and Sally!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/9/2008 12:52:46 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3952
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rockwall
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
FactCheck.org is a great site. But, misusing it to advance one side is disengenuous. People should go there, check out the arguments they make and vet the claims in a rational manor.
They can even come here and start a thread discussing the issues they find there. But, cut & paste is just plain lazy.
I agree that people should always go beyond one source. I trust FactCheck but don't rely soley on it. It amazes me that peopkle will get lit up over something on Huffington or WorldNutdaily without any effort to verify claims made. I am puzzled that the righties here don't use it more often.
I like that wide paintbrush you are using there. Would it be fair to say that the lefties do not use http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm to see where candidate actually stands on an issue?
It's an IMO about posts here. No reason to be offended unless yopu need to be so today.
ontheissues is an excellent site. But the two do different things. FactCheck pulls together information in a more timely and concise manner. It is not an either/or deal. E.g., one might see FactCheck break down a speech and then cross-check data with sites like ontheissues. FactCheck covers political ads as well as speeches. Ontheissues gives lots of raw material and links to sites if one wants to connect with activism on either end of the spectrum.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 8:19:42 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 1046
Status: offline
|
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,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 8:40:09 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
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,
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 8:46:09 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 1046
Status: offline
|
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,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 8:51:29 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
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,
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 8:54:09 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 9:10:52 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1621
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 10:02:23 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, liberal or conservative, Krauthammer agrees with you.
So, I guess what your saying is, the phrase Bush Doctrine was invented by FoxNew's liberal commentator Krauthammer who has since become an arch-conservative and that's why people have a hard time understanding it?
My point wasn't whether it was a liberal or conservative who came up with the terminology. I was incorrect in my statement about it being a liberal. I was also incorrect in the year as it was 2001 and not 2002.
No what I am saying is that it seems to me that factcheck.org is going to extremes to show that Palin or McCain are wrong in their statements. More so than I see them doing with NObama.
I see NObama make claims that are flat out lies that I don't ever see on factcheck.org. But they chastise Palin's comment about the Bush Doctrine when as you admit, the creator of the terminology agrees that Palin was partly correct and as the Washington Post has show even Charlie Gibson's definition at one time mirrored what Palin said.
So by going to factcheck.org, as seems to be the topic of many threads lately, you would go "Aha! She's wrong again!", when actually she is right and factcheck got it wrong.
So I'm beginning to wonder just how unbiased factcheck.org actually is even though I hear Fox News, and Glenn Beck give them praise.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/12/2008 10:59:55 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/13/2008 12:03:02 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1216
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: online
|
quote:
You elitists simply cannot abide the idea of a VP's spouse being a working class fisherman. I really couldn't care less about what Todd Palin does for a living. I DO care about his wife's position on a number of issues and from what I can tell, I disagree with her on just about every issue. My not wanting to vote for her has NOTHING....NOTHING to do with being elitist or whatever drivel you're peddling today. It has everything to do with the fact that I don't think another Republican administration is what this country needs or wants. If that's "elitist" then I don't know what else to say.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Now we are the FactCheck.Org forums? - 9/13/2008 8:28:14 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
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: relady
quote:
You elitists simply cannot abide the idea of a VP's spouse being a working class fisherman. I really couldn't care less about what Todd Palin does for a living. I DO care about his wife's position on a number of issues and from what I can tell, I disagree with her on just about every issue. My not wanting to vote for her has NOTHING....NOTHING to do with being elitist or whatever drivel you're peddling today. It has everything to do with the fact that I don't think another Republican administration is what this country needs or wants. If that's "elitist" then I don't know what else to say.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
ROFL
