Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16

PolitiFact?

|
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:53:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How reliable is this source? http://www.politifact.com...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 12:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 12:23:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Tampa Bay Times

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

Seems pretty legit.

Thanks. They seem impartial to the political views of the person in question.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
lewis20
Posts: 4,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner
"War is a Racket, It always has been"
Smedley Butler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 1:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

Perhaps not 100% impartial, but they do expose some democrats for lies and having their "pants on fire."
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:00:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 1:04:59 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

Perhaps not 100% impartial, but they do expose some democrats for lies and having their "pants on fire."

They've got a liberal bias because the conservative people tend to lie more. Which is the equivalent to saying historians have an egalitarian bias due to them stating the racism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
Contra
Posts: 3,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:04:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 2:00:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:04:59 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

Perhaps not 100% impartial, but they do expose some democrats for lies and having their "pants on fire."

They've got a liberal bias because the conservative people tend to lie more. Which is the equivalent to saying historians have an egalitarian bias due to them stating the racism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

I agree. However, they rated Obama's statement that "we created over 3 million jobs in the past 22 months" as false, even though the statement WAS true. Their reason why? That said that Obama made the statement to benefit himself. They later switched their rating as 'true'.
"If you live long enough, you make mistakes. But if you learn from those mistakes, you'll be a better person." - Bill Clinton

"A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." - Milton Friedman

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency." - Paul Ryan
jat93
Posts: 1,412
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:00:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 4:04:56 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/10/2012 2:00:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:04:59 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

Perhaps not 100% impartial, but they do expose some democrats for lies and having their "pants on fire."

They've got a liberal bias because the conservative people tend to lie more. Which is the equivalent to saying historians have an egalitarian bias due to them stating the racism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

I agree. However, they rated Obama's statement that "we created over 3 million jobs in the past 22 months" as false, even though the statement WAS true. Their reason why? That said that Obama made the statement to benefit himself. They later switched their rating as 'true'.

Not sure about that particular statistic but this is the reason I don't trust them, it's not even so much that their facts are off, it's just that the reasons and justifications for their conclusions are often awful and make no sense
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 5:00:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 4:04:56 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/10/2012 2:00:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:04:59 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/10/2012 1:03:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

Perhaps not 100% impartial, but they do expose some democrats for lies and having their "pants on fire."

They've got a liberal bias because the conservative people tend to lie more. Which is the equivalent to saying historians have an egalitarian bias due to them stating the racism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

I agree. However, they rated Obama's statement that "we created over 3 million jobs in the past 22 months" as false, even though the statement WAS true. Their reason why? That said that Obama made the statement to benefit himself. They later switched their rating as 'true'.

Not sure about that particular statistic but this is the reason I don't trust them, it's not even so much that their facts are off, it's just that the reasons and justifications for their conclusions are often awful and make no sense

Link to one, I'll try and explain it.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:17:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I look at it all the time. I think it's fairly reliable.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 11:07:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2012 11:53:55 AM, Microsuck wrote:
How reliable is this source? http://www.politifact.com...

Really, it's silly to engage in the campaign. Campaigns distort facts and put the focus on what people say rather than what they did. You ge so caught up in what a person says or doesn't say rather than their history. We focus on flip flopping based on what was said in an interview rather than what was said in a congressional hearing or how they voted on a particular bill.

It takes the focus away from what matters and puts the spotlight on just two people, which is I guess what they want in order to drown out the voices of the independents.

But, I just started looking at this when I read this thread.

Interesting. It seems to have a slight liberal bias and sympathy toward Obama to sway ratings (e.g. "Mostly True" or "Half True" because "Obama not to blame" even when the statement didn't blame Obama directly).

They also rely on a lot of other sources in their determination, and media sources themselves tend to be bias.

It's a good place to check simple facts.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
imabench
Posts: 10,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 8:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I kind of like it, ive noticed though that Rachel Maddow sh*ts on it all the time so i dunno if its biased or not.

It seems trustworthy to me.
First Ima Revolution = 4/28/11
Second Ima Revolution = 10/31/11
Avatar week pick = 11/14/11

WARNING: Do not take anything I say seriously, I am insane unless proven otherwise just like everyone else on DDO. If though you use this quote in my sig to try to discredit my arguments over something, then im probably right and youre probably an idiot

The Godfather of the DDO mafia that controls the site, but done tell anyone ;D
Lordknukle
Posts: 11,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 8:58:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Criticism of Obama's policies are very rarely "Completely false," unlike criticism of Mitt Romney's policies.

Also, criticisms that Romney posed against Obama are "red herrings." WTF?! Need I define words for them? Red herrings don't exist when you are checking the truth of one phrase.
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"
- Jean Jacques Rousseau
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 9:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Criticism of Obama's policies are very rarely "Completely false," unlike criticism of Mitt Romney's policies.
1) They don't criticize policy, they verify veracity.
2) I'm glad to see you never even considered the likelier possibility: Romney lies more than Obama. Of course....it just HAS to be a bias. Just like I supposes IQ's tests are biased because liberals have higher average intelligence. Or colleges must breed liberals, because liberals are more educated.


Also, criticisms that Romney posed against Obama are "red herrings." WTF?! Need I define words for them? Red herrings don't exist when you are checking the truth of one phrase.
Sapere Aude!
Lordknukle
Posts: 11,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:11:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2012 9:37:07 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/12/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Criticism of Obama's policies are very rarely "Completely false," unlike criticism of Mitt Romney's policies.
1) They don't criticize policy, they verify veracity.

It's what I meant. The fact that you have to resort to these criticisms is astounding.

2) I'm glad to see you never even considered the likelier possibility: Romney lies more than Obama. Of course....it just HAS to be a bias. Just like I supposes IQ's tests are biased because liberals have higher average intelligence. Or colleges must breed liberals, because liberals are more educated.

Straw mann.

You never addressed the real question of putting statements as "Red Herrings."

6th statements down (http://www.politifact.com...).

"Argument is a red herring."

There are no red herrings when it comes to specific statements.


Also, criticisms that Romney posed against Obama are "red herrings." WTF?! Need I define words for them? Red herrings don't exist when you are checking the truth of one phrase.
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"
- Jean Jacques Rousseau
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:34:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2012 11:11:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/12/2012 9:37:07 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/12/2012 8:58:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Criticism of Obama's policies are very rarely "Completely false," unlike criticism of Mitt Romney's policies.
1) They don't criticize policy, they verify veracity.

It's what I meant. The fact that you have to resort to these criticisms is astounding.
I guess the words "policy" and "statement" can be easily confused by someone who has no knowledge of either.

2) I'm glad to see you never even considered the likelier possibility: Romney lies more than Obama. Of course....it just HAS to be a bias. Just like I supposes IQ's tests are biased because liberals have higher average intelligence. Or colleges must breed liberals, because liberals are more educated.

Straw mann.
?
But please. Use an irrelevant logical fallacy to justify you ignoring all of my arguments.

You never addressed the real question of putting statements as "Red Herrings."
That's not what a straw man is. *facepalm*

6th statements down (http://www.politifact.com...).

"Argument is a red herring."

There are no red herrings when it comes to specific statements.
The actually went into great detail about how it was misleading.
And if you had actually read it at all, you would have known they didn't rule it as a red herring. They ruled it as "Mostly False." But I can understand how you can't be bothered to actually know what you're talking about.

http://www.politifact.com...


Also, criticisms that Romney posed against Obama are "red herrings." WTF?! Need I define words for them? Red herrings don't exist when you are checking the truth of one phrase.
Sapere Aude!
www.GlobalTestMarket.com