I don't feel that Obama lied about the tax situation. He talked about income taxes, etc. and not sales tax. I didn't expect the healthcare plan to be free either.

lol, very funny,, so I say all other presidents have had to submit a piss test , and you say its ridiculous so you have to somehow prove that presidents HAVENT submitted something

one point of logic, its much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive,,,,,which is why all these NEGATIVE accusations continue to be allowed to fly because with logic like you are asserting noone has to PROVE them....

but if you insist,,,

on his birth certificate
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/

On dreams of my father(Which I own and have read,, have you?)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/10/chain-email/obama-didnt-write-that/

,,the book is WELL within his literary and educational capabilities

On medical history,, the same amount of information is on the net about OBAma as is any other president ,, here is one site for comparison

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g43.htm


..anyway, Ive spent enough of my time backing up how certain ASSERTIONS in this thread are just blatantly false,,,but now that I know how the game is played,,,(no proof required for negative rhetoric),, I will just laugh to my self in the future when I read such silliness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am SO happy to hear that, 'cuz y' know what THAT means, right ... ? It means I don't have to worry about rebutting baseless 'support data' that you supply. What do I mean by that, you ask? Happy to answer (I live to serve, y' know) ... now it's YOUR turn to wade thru the lengthy response (I hate taking up this much space, but I gotta do what I gotta do) ... Oh: Ask me why I'm not surprised your 'support data' is from an organization with such a distinct BIAS (since it's funded by the known liberal rag, the St. Petersburg Times) ... and don't get me started on your other 'support data' - 'Doctor Zebra' ... riiiiiiiiiight ... you're so funny ... I loved checking out HIS 'credentials' ... You're SO busted ...

http://www.doctorzebra.com/ ...

Once again, it is to laff ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/polifacts-fixers/print

PolitiFact's Fixers

By Matthew Vadum on 5.28.09 @ 6:07AM

Journalistic bias is one thing, but journalistic arrogance is quite another.

When reporters claiming to be neutral political fact-checkers go beyond mere reporting to state with absolute certainty things they cannot possibly know, they run the risk of churning out political opinion masquerading as high-minded investigative journalism.

This is exactly what the reporters at the fact-checking operation PolitiFact.com sometimes do. A project of the St. Petersburg Times, the website's "Truth-O-Meter" purports to check and rate "the accuracy of statements by candidates, elected officials, political parties, interest groups, pundits, talk show hosts."

After PolitiFact writers research a statement, it then receives one of six ratings on a continuum of truthfulness: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire.

It sounds very Woodward and Bernstein with some hip Internet-savvy irreverence thrown in, doesn't it?
That's what I thought before I looked into the matter.

It turns out that those who serve the Truth-O-Meter often have strange ideas about what constitutes truth.

< snip >

On Sept. 14, an editorial attacked Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak," it said.

A left-wing slant seems embedded in the paper's DNA.

Former St. Petersburg Times associate editor Martin Dyckman recalled what it was like being in the newsroom in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Dyckman, who retired as associate editor in 2006, reminisced that on that terrible day he "was standing at the teletype when the first flash came in that a suspected Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald, was being held in connection with the shooting."

He recalled that the paper's publisher, Nelson Poynter, was dejected when Dyckman relayed the report. "'Oh, no,'" Dyckman quoted the publisher saying. "'I was hoping it would be a right-winger.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2009/sep/01/who-pays-for-politifact/

Who is PolitiFact? Who pays for Politifact?

Posted by Angie Drobnic Holan :: Published on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 at 05:23 p.m.

As we've gained new readers since the election, every now and then we get e-mails that ask, "Who's paying for this Web site? Who's putting out this information?" 

The short answer is this: PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. (See more about our mission on the " About Us " page.) The Times is the biggest newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and it has the largest circulation of any paper in Florida, so the advertisers and subscribers help foot the bills for PolitiFact.

seriously,, the man graduated MAGNA CUM LAUDE from HARVARD ,,, Im sure he is more than capable of writing his own biography,,

lets not make more empty accusations either

" ... I will take a Pullitzer prize winning publication over the others anyday,,,especially when I see for myself that they do HONESTLY report(without any apparent bias) BOTH sides of the story. ... "

Yeah, like a 'Pulitzer' is worth anything since they give 'em out now with each box of Cracker Jack purchased ... nice try, tho' ... see ya.

I don't feel that Obama lied about the tax situation. He talked about income taxes, etc. and not sales tax. I didn't expect the healthcare plan to be free either.

incredible,,,,must be nice to be the judge of whose facts are adequate and whose are just attempts at the truth,,,,I will leave all the EXPERTS on others peoples educational experiences and intentionts to themselves

But don't you, yourself, rely on Politifact for the " truth "???

Who are they to judge what the truth is??

I am only human. I have to discern for myself what is LIKELY to be truthful amongst all the things that I dont personally see or experience for myself. I check politifact because it gives me the positive and NEGATIVES of every issue and person it covers so I can discern for myself,, as opposed to many others who have the same slants each time they cover a certain issue or person.

We should use judgment, that is not what I am opposed to. What I was opposing was this constant condescending attitude of falseness or inadequacy when it comes to the information some people post( and provide actual SOURCES which have provided the pros and cons),,,,while all the while continuing to post sources(if they post sources at all) that are consistently only giving ONE side,,

I get frustrated by people who seem to not only refuse to accept the possibility of learning new information but also have the ego to condescend to others just for trying to share the information with them.

I am only human. I have to discern for myself what is LIKELY to be truthful amongst all the things that I dont personally see or experience for myself. I check politifact because it gives me the positive and NEGATIVES of every issue and person it covers so I can discern for myself,, as opposed to many others who have the same slants each time they cover a certain issue or person.

We should use judgment, that is not what I am opposed to. What I was opposing was this constant condescending attitude of falseness or inadequacy when it comes to the information some people post( and provide actual SOURCES which have provided the pros and cons),,,,while all the while continuing to post sources(if they post sources at all) that are consistently only giving ONE side,,

I get frustrated by people who seem to not only refuse to accept the possibility of learning new information but also have the ego to condescend to others just for trying to share the information with them.

I get frustrated by people who seem to not only refuse to accept the possibility of learning new information but also have the ego to condescend to others just for trying to share the information with them.

That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

You rail against " the One " ( as you put it ) and his policies, without taking one second to look at the fact that getting more people covered with health insurance is actually a good idea.

The methods and tactics used to get it done may have been unsavory ( putting it mildly ) but the idea itself wasn't a bad one.

The way they did it, the " in your face we'll do it because we CAN and if you don't like it too damn bad " approach, WAS a bad idea. Especially when polls started showing that the majority of Americans ( and I don't care how many polls the Left pulls out to try to show otherwise because I don't use polls which can be manipulated. I use real world experience and of the many people I speak to regularly, NONE of them wanted any part of the bill in the form it was presented ) didn't want it in the way it was being presented.

Heh-heh-heh ... nice try, but no cigar ... you toe the 'company line' almost word-for-word - and you don't accept the sources that refute you, so don't come the 'wronged innocent', okay ... ? It's an act.

but Im almost sure you will call on me to prove YOUR accusation myself as usual

he must of been graded on a curve because I heard him say NO NEW TAXeS ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE LESS THAN 250,000 DOLLARS A YEAR . I heard him say it many times . there was no exceptions to it , plain and simple NO NEW TAXES ON PEOPLE WHO EARN LESS THAN 250,000 DOLLARS A YEAR ..
But with the cost of medical going up , I wonder about the true value of a degree from HARVARD .. actually I don't think much of any of the degrees any more ... I've met to many dumb ***** with degrees ..... The smartest one in the all are the ones who ask the working people how you can do this better ..
and ones who say there are graduates . Its really hard to tell the difference except when there in you local and you hear them say how smart we tis .