PolitiFact?

How reliable is this source? http://www.politifact.com...

Tampa Bay Times

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

Seems pretty legit.

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.

Politifact tends to have a liberal bias.

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."

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.

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'.

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

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.

I look at it all the time. I think it's fairly reliable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.