A great site to settle political arguments

[andicap]

www.factcheck.org/

Run by a university, it is fiercely non-partisan -- they criticize both sides and document their findings.
Remember documentation? It came before unfounded and unproven allegations, innuendo, smear, and outright lies.

Their only aim is to check into the accuracy of political ads and other allegations (sometimes they tackle cybergossip.)

So rather than listen to you ill-informed people (on the left and right I might add -- no one's got a monopoly on truth or exaggerating to fit your political leanings. Liberalism is a political philoophy, not a religion or way-of-life. Same with conservatisim, Communism, libertarianism, and even centrists.) I will take my questions about the truth of what the candidates allege to factcheck.org.

I urge the lurkers here to do the same.

Light, not heat, is the key to solving our societal problems.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by andicap
[B]www.factcheck.org/

Liberalism is a political philoophy, not a religion or way-of-life. Same with conservatisim, Communism, libertarianism, and even centrists.) B]

You are a joke.

You group liberalism with:
Philosophy
Religion
Way-of-life

Then you group conservatisim with:
Communism
Libertarianism
Centrists

Did they teach you that "mis-direction by grouping" technique in journalism school or do you learn that on the job.

JM

[ElKabong]

Not.

Look at this factcheck.org eff up below Andi and tell me that factcheck did their homework! They ran with Dan Rather's 60 minutes II story and didn't even bother to look into it....Factcheck did retract a day or 2 later (after bloggers tore the Rathergate story to pieces).

Factcheck is either an org that is too lazy to look into facts, or they accept cBS and the OLD media at their words...Either way, they're not credible. See below for proof.


http://www.dmtc.com/phorum/read.php?f=13&i=45013&t=45013

Update on Bush's Guard Sevice: New Evidence of Preferential Treatment


09.09.2004

We have updated our Feb. 8 article on the "Texans for Truth" ad to include new evidence that Bush received preferential treatment while serving in the Texas Air National Guard.

In documents released after our original article was posted, Bush's squadron commander Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian describes pressure from his superiors to give Bush a satisfactory performance rating despite Bush's failure to attend drills and failure to take a flight physical "as ordered."

Killian died in 1984. His memos were first obtained by CBS News and afterward also released by the White House.

We have posted copies of all four memos in the "supporting documents" section of our article. The article now includes the following new section:

The Squadron Commander: Bush's "failure to perform"

New evidence emerged Feb. 8 that Bush had received favored treatment during this period. In four memos obtained by CBS News, Bush's former squadron commander in Houston describes Bush's desire to "get out of coming to drill," Bush's refusal to take a flight physical "as ordered," and subsequent pressure from an Air National Guard official to give Bush favorable performance ratings despite his leaving the squadron with a "critical" pilot vacancy and failing to perform to standards required of pilots.

The author of the memos was then-Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, who died in 1984. CBS didn't say how it had obtained the documents. The White House later released copies of the same memos.

The Killian memos:

May 4, 1972: In a memo addressed to Bush, Killian says "you are ordered to report" by May 14 "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)" in accordance with regulations. Bush never showed up for that exam.

May 19, 1972: Five days after failing to report for the physical, Killian wrote a memo regarding a telephone call Bush made to him. "Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November. . . . We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in flight status. . . . I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment" (This is an apparent reference to the Guard's investment in Bush's flight training, and Bush's signed commitment to attend drills and to serve a full six years in the Guard). Killian said he told Bush he would need a written document accepting Bush into an Alabama unit before he would approve a transfer, and added, "think he's also talking to someone upstairs." (emphasis added).

August 1, 1972: "On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to the USAF/TexANG (US Air Force/Texas Air National Guard) standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as required. . . Officer (Bush) has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical. . . . I also suggested that we fill this critical billet with a more seasoned pilot from the list of Vietnam pilots that have rotated." (emphasis added).

August 18, 1973: (a year later) Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard and a supporter of the Bush family, is applying pressure to "sugar coat" the annual evaluation of Bush. "Staudt has obviously pressured (Bobby) Hodges (Killian's immediate superior in the Houston Guard unit) more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. (Lt. Col. William D.) Harris (another of Bush's supervisors) gave me a message today (regarding Bush's annual evaluation) Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it: Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. . . . I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees." Bush's annual evaluation, signed by Harris and Killian, says "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. " It is dated May 2, though this new memo suggests that it was actually written later and the date was falsified to dress up Bush's file as he was preparing to leave the Guard to attend graduate school. Killian was clearly not happy with the situation: he wrote the subject of the memo was "CYA," military slang for "cover your ass." (emphasis added).
The White House response to these memos came from White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, as quoted by CBS:

Bartlett: At every step of the way, President Bush was meeting his requirement. Granted permission to meet his requirement. And that's why President Bush was honorably discharged.

[Secretariat]

Andicap,

Can't win, huh? I think some here are nuts.

Guess JM missed the word SAME in your post comparing liberals to conservatives..

[ElKabong]

Sec and Andicap.

Any comments on factcheck org's screw up here? They took Rather at his word (mistake) and ran the story as gospel. Even if they retracted it in the next day or two, the FACT is they didn't bother to look into it....They waited for talk radio and bloggers to do the investigative work.

"Ill informed". Good phrase, andicap. Anyone depending on factcheck.org is exactly that.

[chickenhead]

Elk -- I think you need to relax. ALL organizations screw up once in awhile, Factcheck recanted. This does not discredit everything Factcheck has ever reported, in the same way that our intelligence failure in Iraq does not discredit every piece of intelligence the CIA has ever produced. No one person or organization is omniscient, and being wrong about something once in awhile is fairly normal for us mere mortals.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by chickenhead
Elk -- I think you need to relax. ALL organizations screw up once in awhile, Factcheck recanted. This does not discredit everything Factcheck has ever reported, in the same way that our intelligence failure in Iraq does not discredit every piece of intelligence the CIA has ever produced. No one person or organization is omniscient, and being wrong about something once in awhile is fairly normal for us mere mortals.

Chick,

Good point, but my point was that factcheck.org is not even as credible as talk radio or some blogs. In fact in that thread, the factcheck.org people listed the Kerry Edwards website as a source on swiftvet assertions...as I recall, the issue turned out to be true to what the swifts claimed and not what factcheck reported.

I don't trust factcheck.org b/c of their track record on things I've personally looked into. Simple as that.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ElKabong
Chick,

Good point, but my point was that factcheck.org is not even as credible as talk radio...

I rest my case.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by JustMissed
You are a joke.

You group liberalism with:
Philosophy
Religion
Way-of-life

Then you group conservatisim with:
Communism
Libertarianism
Centrists

Did they teach you that "mis-direction by grouping" technique in journalism school or do you learn that on the job. Seems to me that lsbets would be a good source for accurate info on Iraq....but hey what do I know.

JM


JM,

I guess it pays to know who andicap relies on for reliable info. Here's his comments below on where to get news on Iraq. Seems to me that lsbets is the best source many can get, but what do I know eh?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=85948#post85948

Want to get news from Iraq?
1. Watch Lehrer Report on PBS
2. Listen to NPR (OK, I know most of you think its left-leaning.)
3. Watch BBC World News (Ditto from NPR)
4. Read the newspaper or news magazines or websites
5. The evening newscasts on the broadcast networks do NOT contrary to popular belief run many stories on entertainers (with the exception of Michael Jackson or Kobe Bryant WHEN there is news.) They do not do Brittney, JLo, etc.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I rest my case.

The fact that 'factcheck.org' retracted their "check" only after the blogs and talk radio outed Rather as showing fraudulent doc's proves my point.

They acted upon the efforts of bloggers and radio shows...

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by ElKabong
Chick,

Good point, but my point was that factcheck.org is not even as credible as talk radio or some blogs. In fact in that thread, the factcheck.org people listed the Kerry Edwards website as a source on swiftvet assertions...as I recall, the issue turned out to be true to what the swifts claimed and not what factcheck reported.

I don't trust factcheck.org b/c of their track record on things I've personally looked into. Simple as that.

Understand what you're saying...Factcheck does appear, at least to me to be non-partisan, which is worth something. Even if they foul up once in awhile.

As for talk radio, you must have better programs than I have available, two programs I get to listen to are Glen Beck and Michael Savage, I would not stand up for either their accuracy or non-partisanship, in fact I would say they do not even attempt to be accurate or non-partisan. They are entertainers, not newsman.

[ElKabong]

Chick,

The best I've heard are (in no particular order) are Dennis Prager, Charlie Jones and Mark Davis. I'm not all that familiar with Beck but I know he's on the air in my area. I don't care for Savage too much.....Jmho.

I do listen to the "partisan types" also, but one happens to be Colmes (left).

[ljb]

This site must have truth in it, the rightys hate the truth!

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by JustMissed
You are a joke.

You group liberalism with:
Philosophy
Religion
Way-of-life

Then you group conservatisim with:
Communism
Libertarianism
Centrists

Did they teach you that "mis-direction by grouping" technique in journalism school or do you learn that on the job.

JM

Andi makes a perfectly reasonable post, and you jump his case about.......his sentence structure?

I think some people have gone over the edge with this board...it's like Lord of the Flies meets Animal Farm in here sometimes.....

[andicap]

I dont care what the lunatic fringe here thinks.

I post for the lurkers who refuse to take part in this circus and anyone else here with an open mind. People are guilty of dogmatism and arrogance on both sides.

I will not argue the points.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by andicap
I dont care what the lunatic fringe here thinks.

.


Recent Al Gore and Howard Dean speeches represent the epitome of the Lunatic Fringe. Ditto for Rather, lately.

As for factcheckorg, I can only offer real- life examples. They seem rather lazy to catch onto, & look into, some info that should be checked.

[JustRalph]

I suggest you do a check on the holders of the domain name

factcheck.org


Interesting. The Annenberg society is the sponsor of the site.

They have their own history..........if anybody is interested.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I suggest you do a check on the holders of the domain name

factcheck.org


Interesting. The Annenberg society is the sponsor of the site.

They have their own history..........if anybody is interested.


Now that you memtion.......?????

[doophus]

Brooks Jackson is the head-knocker of the factual side of factcheck.

Not mentioned anywhere in Brooks Jackson's bio is the fact that he was an investigative reporter for one of Baton Rouge's TV stations prior to his employment by CNN. Jackson appears to be the "kingpin" of the "factual" part of the factcheck operation. The new job in Atlanta had to be considered a promotion; however, he could have left Baton Rouge due to the influence of Edwards, a Democrat and Govenor, you know the one who's now in the fed'l pen for several years and whose very young (30ish) wife has decided to divorce him.

Walter Annenberg was the Ambassador to the Court of St. James during the (I think) Nixon admin. Other than that, I only recall him as being a very wealthy man due to his pubs. Wasn't "TV Guide" the linchpin?

JR, I'm anxiously awaiting your usual factual and trustworthy comments.

FWIW, I have held Dr. Jamison is rather high regards. Also, I will be surprised when someone convinces me that she is a liberal or even left of center type; however, this "factcheck" thingee makes that argument much easier.