>> ^TangledThorns:

especially if you work in the private sector which isn't doing fine by the way.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/02/877235/-Accelerating-the-recovery

Look again! Job growth has been slow because of a loss of public sector jobs, not a lack of recovery in private sector jobs.

Hey, did you notice that the article that you linked has nothing to do with Voter ID? Fuckit, reading is hard, right?

Aw look, here's an anecdotal case that embodies how Voter ID disenfranchises people: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121432/-I-was-denied-free-voter-ID-today-Pennsylvania.
>> ^Mashiki:
No pretty sure I'm not. Pretty sure I remember the last 10 years pretty well, especially the previous election minus Obama pretty good too.
Hey did you catch this, looks like those voter ID laws might just be a good idea after all.
http://ohio.mediatrackers.org/201
2/08/17/voters-first-canvasser-arrested-for-submitting-fraudulent-petitions/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/04/1104739/-Higgs-Boson-Announcement-v5-0-DISCOVERY

I had to go read something in depth. This isn't too long and it is very informative.

>> ^NetRunner:

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Fox Propaganda machine, their website announces this with the headline "Obama Flip Flops, Declares War on Marriage"
Keep it classy, Fox.


If it's a war they want, it's a war they're get. LOAD UP THE CANONS! We'll give those boys at Fox a Buttload of Homosexuality!

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Fox Propaganda machine, their website announces this with the headline "Obama Flip Flops, Declares War on Marriage"

Keep it classy, Fox.

Heh, got a kick out of this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1062904/-Dr-Ron-Paul-s-newsletter-of-medicine

@MilkmanDan I'm just gonna outsource this to a post that I think nails the point I'm making home rather solidly.

The key graf is this:

Got it?
- So the statement they checked is factual.
- Politifact can't find a statement where the President takes credit, which is what they really want to fact check.
- So instead of fact-checking the fact, they instead fact check what they think the fact was meant to suggest.
- And for good measure, their argument is oil dependence went down because of the economic recovery and it would be unfair for Obama to claim any credit for the recovery.

Politifact's insane new standard seems to be:

There are no facts that a Democratic President can cite about the economy if they are good news. Once the President cites a fact, it ceases to be a fact... because facts might lead people to give the President credit, even if he didn't claim credit, and we can't have that.

Therefore, whether something is a fact or not a fact depends entirely on who says it, not on whether it's, you know, true.

Nothing you've said even seems to address this line of reasoning. The closest you come to it is by saying that you don't think there is really any difference between "half-true", "mostly true", and "true". Keep in mind that the other three ratings on their "meter" are "mostly false", "false", and "pants on fire". Clearly this is a spectrum that goes from truthfulness towards telling a lie that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I'd be okay with a full truth rating that in the fuller text points out that Obama was implying some causation between his policies and the recovery, and try to weigh in on the state of expert opinion on whether his policies have helped or harmed the economy. But I think if their goal is to be fact checkers who rate statements with hard & fast true/false ratings, then they should stick to the clear cut and verifiable, rather than try to answer questions for which there are no objectively right or wrong answers.

There are two major logical flaws in this guys logic.

1. At the end of a rant against republicans and democrats, he endorses a republican.
2. He gives a list of politicians who have failed to live up to their campaign promises, and then endorses Ron Paul, without considering that he too would also fail to live up to his campaign promises, because he would be subject to the same political realities (congress, the media, big money, etc. all have power to subvert the president) that all of the previous presidents had to face.

I don't believe Ron Paul to be the saint he's made out to be. He's another rich, conservative, white career politician pushing his own questionable agenda on a whole lot of unsuspecting citizens.

More reading:

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

http://videosift.com/video/Why-so-many-people-are-endorsing-Ron-Paul-for-President?loadcomm=1#comment-1380333

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054389/-Of-Broken-Clocks,-Presidential-Candidates-and-the-Confusion-of-Certain-White-Liberals

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

Sorry, totally late response here Need to check comments more often!

Thanks though, and yes there should be such a club, though I imagine Dr Drew would ridicule that too.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
better said than I could say.
is there a club for sifters with angry cartoon avatars?

In reply to this comment by BoneyD:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde" title="member since April 8th, 2009" class="profilelink">longde His first question to her after asking why she didn't have faith in the government's version of events over Bin Laden was, "are you an anarchist? Are you a socialist?". She explained her position logically and sited examples as to why she might be right, yet by her questioning of official accounts, Cindy's political views are called in to question?

I for one think they did kill Bin Laden, since for him to show up alive later would be very embarrassing. But questioning that doesn't mean someone's character should be assassinated. These questions about her marriage break-up and how her cause has kept her from her children were hardly genuine inquiries after her health. Drew was impugning her abilities as a responsible parent and 'dutiful wife', just like they did with the Occupy mother.

Know a hit-job when you see one.

Link to Tom Tomorrow cartoon with Newt Fun Facts.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/12/1044218/-Fun-facts-about-Newt

better said than I could say.
is there a club for sifters with angry cartoon avatars?

In reply to this comment by BoneyD:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde" title="member since April 8th, 2009" class="profilelink">longde His first question to her after asking why she didn't have faith in the government's version of events over Bin Laden was, "are you an anarchist? Are you a socialist?". She explained her position logically and sited examples as to why she might be right, yet by her questioning of official accounts, Cindy's political views are called in to question?

I for one think they did kill Bin Laden, since for him to show up alive later would be very embarrassing. But questioning that doesn't mean someone's character should be assassinated. These questions about her marriage break-up and how her cause has kept her from her children were hardly genuine inquiries after her health. Drew was impugning her abilities as a responsible parent and 'dutiful wife', just like they did with the Occupy mother.

Know a hit-job when you see one.

@longde His first question to her after asking why she didn't have faith in the government's version of events over Bin Laden was, "are you an anarchist? Are you a socialist?". She explained her position logically and sited examples as to why she might be right, yet by her questioning of official accounts, Cindy's political views are called in to question?

I for one think they did kill Bin Laden, since for him to show up alive later would be very embarrassing. But questioning that doesn't mean someone's character should be assassinated. These questions about her marriage break-up and how her cause has kept her from her children were hardly genuine inquiries after her health. Drew was impugning her abilities as a responsible parent and 'dutiful wife', just like they did with the Occupy mother.

Know a hit-job when you see one.

DailyKos blogger

That's all anyone needs to know about him, and it should disqualify him from holding public office, being in the media, going out in public, and procreating. KOS is a hotbed of hate, ignorance, and bigotry.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

I find this Jesse LaGreca guy to be very well spoken, quite intelligent and speaks more sense than most politicians. I look forward to hearing more from him


He's a DailyKos blogger -- he goes by MinistryOfTruth there. And yeah, I hope we get to hear more of him in the MSM in the future.

I read it and all I saw was...



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't get this hub-bub. What are people doing? They're mad, yes, but what's their focus? Some seem mad that they went to college and they can't get a job. Some are mad at the banks (the bailouts, maybe?). There just seems to be a general consensus of anger at how life isn't fair. What exactly do you do when your problem isn't focused (ie, no dictator to overthrow)? Why did you go peggedpea???

I agree, it's really hard to figure out what they want.