I agree. I dont feel it was a lie but I do wish presidents would quit making 'promises' to a general public which doesnt understand the presidents actual capabilities within a democracy. He should have just said he intends or words of that nature so people wouldnt be able to be quite so nit picky.

In any case, he does have broken 'promises' at this point like EVERY other president we ever had(a fact which I attribute , again, to the presidents limited authority to actually "do' anything definitive by themself) and some of those promises will be issues that are of great importance to some and for others just a reason to gripe. I still support him because his accomplishments so far are FAR exceeding his failures in terms of what he ran on and what I expected.

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

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.

wow,, that was alot to say very little,,,,

,unless you now want to discard the legitimacy of ANY newspaper or publication with subscribers and advertisers .

unless your stance is that if ANY information is published that disagrees with your personal belief(without anymore personal knowledge of the people or issues in question than the rest of us), that information is false, fixed, or bought off

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.

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 .

" ... 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.

exactly my point,, the papers dont report truth(unless they agree with your opinion) because they are funded by advertisers and subscribers

Prizes for reporting dont matter because you feel too many are given

and I have given a NICE TRY whereas Im sure you have just been right on point all along,,,,

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

i apologize to the mods that this turned personal,, its not my thing so I will temporarily remove myself from this particular chain of posts until they are back on point,,,,

And there is the flaw in your logic.

He said " ANY " taxes. Period. Again, the definition of ' any ' in the dictionary is pretty clear.

He said it to make for one more " hope and change " talking point and get elected.

He lied. Plain and simple.

IF he was telling the truth, then when the Dems send the Value Added ( what a freaking oxymoron THAT is ) Tax across his desk, he will NOT SIGN IT.

But, of course, we ALL know that isn't going to happen. Now don't we?

Apologize for him all you want.

The fact is that he is not what he portrayed himself to be.

" No one making under 250K will see ANY raise in their taxes " and " The Health Care Debate will be carried on CSpan ".

Those were a couple of doozies.

Meanwhile, the Health Care bill gets passed using a series of " backroom " deals, and nothing was carried on CSpan.

That just OOZES " change " in Washington, doesn't it???

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

Who are they to judge what the truth is??

Obama already levied a 10% tax on tanning salons for this health care bill.

Just remember folks.He will not raise your taxes one penny!He will raise it by thousands of dollars.

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.

So you " discern " what is " truthful " according to the slant you want to see. Just like every other person in this country.

By the way...I have YET to see you post something from that site that actually shows a " negative " about Obama.

Until I see something from that site that is truly critical of something he has done, I will consider it to be along the lines of MSNBC....CNN...CBS...and any number of other media outlets that are run by a bunch of Obamabots.

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.

This, I completely agree with.

But, take a look around. Take a good look at how many people here completely dismiss ANY source of information. No matter how valid the point of view might be, they dismiss it because it doesn't fit into their little world view.

Refusal to accept that their view isn't the ONLY view is, to me, the ultimate in stupidity. It shows a closed mindedness that is the very root of the problems this country is facing.

Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying you are either conservative, or you are a democrat. There is no such thing as a " moderate ". If you are " moderate " you are a Democrat.

Well..I don't buy that at all. I think there is a lot of room for people on either side to actually meet in the middle because it's been proven MULTIPLE times that one extreme or the other NEVER works.

But....too many on the Left just LOVE to hate Limbaugh, no matter how valid a point he may make among all the drivel he spouts at times.

" ... Well..I don't buy that at all. I think there is a lot of room for people on either side to actually meet in the middle because it's been proven MULTIPLE times that one extreme or the other NEVER works. ... "

Exactly right. Extremes foster only extremism, which eliminates the possiblity of any common ground. Defending an indefensible position is, however, its own form of extremism, and deserves nothing but contempt and condescension when it's played. Extremism, tho', WILL 'work' until it's overturned by common sense ... as 'Example A', I give you 'The ONE' and his policies ...

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.

Yes, I DO rail against the way 'The ONE' and his sycophantic suckup minions rammed an unpopular Communist / Sovietesque 'death care' system (or Cuban-eseque) down our collective national throat. I do NOT dispute the clear fact that there are areas that need attention. Tort reform comes to mind, as does increased competition by allowing insurers to sell across state lines for starters. There are others, but those will do for now. The fact that 'The ONE' and his peeps DID NOT ALLOW competing ideas to be introduced and actually physically LOCKED THE DOOR on Republicans to prevent them from being in the room is NOT my idea of legitimate 'government'. Had the debate been open, honest, and legitimate, I'd have no problem with it. THIS fraudulent, Communist imposition of the dead hand of government on the best medical care in the world will ALWAYS be unacceptable to me. And no, I will NEVER have respect for 'The ONE' or any of his cohorts who are actively enabling him to tear down the country I love.

The descriptive term of 'The ONE' comes from HIS OWN description of HIMSELF in a speech he gave during the campaign: "We are 'the one' we have been waiting for" ... note the use of the IMPERIAL 'WE'. That term is HIS term for HIMSELF ... like he's 'Neo' from 'The Matrix' ... ha.

I hope the mods dont shut us down, but I have to say,, your CONSTANT style of using personal attacks to debate topics is a cross of tiresome and comical..


my words are my own, I dont 'toe' anything and I absolutely accept other sources,,,,,,when they are given,,,, if you have proof otherwise please feel free to call me on it,, I have no need to put on an act for strangers in a forum,,,but Im almost sure you will call on me to prove YOUR accusation myself as usual

Now THAT might be interesting to see....lmao

Someone should write Harvard and ask if their MAGNA CUM LAUDE grads are graded on curves,,, most likely they SET the curves if any exist