Truth-O-Meter Romney vs. Obama

reply to post by Indigo5


I have read the link and I will stick to what I said. This proves they are both dishonest way too much. If you want to compare the candidates, go ahead, or I will.
Example:
Imagine a dog comes and does his business in both our yards and we are neighbors. The newer business smells worse. That is what is going on here so is a good comparison.

reply to post by Indigo5


Not only from Politifact, but they seem to forget to include the polling method, people that participated and if this was just an online poll conducted on THEIR site.

Yeah, really honest and truthful

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I have read the link and I will stick to what I said. This proves they are both dishonest way too much. If you want to compare the candidates, go ahead, or I will.
Example:
Imagine a dog comes and does his business in both our yards and we are neighbors. The newer business smells worse. That is what is going on here so is a good comparison.

Your analogy is based on who lied most recently...

The politifact analysis is based on who lied most often and to what extent.

In your analogy...one lawn would be covered with both larger "deposits" and a greater number.

And not for nothing...but the number of recent dishonest statements also skews heavily toward Romney.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Not only from Politifact, but they seem to forget to include the polling method, people that participated and if this was just an online poll conducted on THEIR site.

Yeah, really honest and truthful

You need to visit Politifact...You seem grossly ignorant of how fact-checking works..

They don't poll anyone....It is NOT Opinion based and that is the whole point. Facts are not opinions.

We are each entitled to our opinions until we become aware of the facts, at which point people of integrity are committed to the facts.

Opinion as facts is antithetical to what Fact Checkers do. It is also why many news outlets are confused with actual "Journalism".

reply to post by Indigo5


So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

That's it !

"the word is out" everything is mostly true when it comes to the Republicans.

"the word is out" everything is hard to say about the liberals.

Politifact has numerous - unknown - sources for everything . That means they just

pretty much make it up as they go along and make quick calls to Harry Reid.

-------------

I prefer the - pinocchios - handed out by the Washington Post.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

Not sure if you are ignorant or deliberately dishonest?

This is not a Poll.

The information is "gathered" from the mouths of politicians.

And they provide (often several pages) of exhaustive evidence to support or disprove each claim along with multiple sources.

Not sure why you at the same time admit utter ignorance as to how Fact-Checking works while making false claims about how it works?

Oddly dishonest...

I like mitt Romney because he's not the antichrist because the antichrist numbers six six six which is the mark of the beast which is Satan. Osama i mean Obama (because they are the same person secretly but with time travel because they are the antichrist because Nostrodamas whose in the bible wrote about pictures of the antichrist AND IT SAYS HIS NAME IS OBAMUS WHICH IS REALLY OBAMA. And it was on the History channle which is by the illuminati anyway so they are really out to help us.

the good doctor

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

It's not that hard to figure out how they fact check something.

Person A says Person B said X.

Person C goes to check if Person B actually did say X...if they didn't...then Person A is lying.


Is this what it has come to though...denying that Romney is lying more because you claim you don't understand how fact checking works...and you think somehow it has a liberal bias???

reply to post by gooddoctorred


Lmao, your posts are funny

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

Not sure if you are ignorant or deliberately dishonest?

This is not a Poll.

The information is "gathered" from the mouths of politicians.

And they provide (often several pages) of exhaustive evidence to support or disprove each claim along with multiple sources.

Not sure why you at the same time admit utter ignorance as to how Fact-Checking works while making false claims about how it works?

Oddly dishonest...

edit on 8-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Again......What is their evidence in the information collected?
I can go to a number of different sources that show just the opposite.
Good hell, this is not that difficult.

You go ahead and place your trust in Politifact.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, there is still no method shown for how this is gathered.
Poll or not, they display no evidence to support the statement.

I know, they must get their info from Harry Reid.

It's not that hard to figure out how they fact check something.

Person A says Person B said X.

Person C goes to check if Person B actually did say X...if they didn't...then Person A is lying.


Is this what it has come to though...denying that Romney is lying more because you claim you don't understand how fact checking works...and you think somehow it has a liberal bias???

Your BS again, huh?

Word mashing and semantics as usual.

You and Indigo5 want others to take Politifact at their word.
They did not show where they got the stats from. The OP listed that 0bama is truthful such and such a time. Compared to what? How many times he was asked if the sky is blue?

Just read the 0bama one. Yeah, basically using statements from 0bama like "Well, Romney is a Mormon".

Yeah, very scientific.
It is Cherry picking at its best.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l
so basically none of them are honest more than 25- 30% of the time.
Nice!
If they are lying 70% of the time that means at best they are sociopaths and protecting themselves, or they are sociopaths trying to hurt and control others.
Either way I am tired of only HAVING THE CHOICE OF THE LESSER SOCIOPATH!

Politifact is a left wing site that trashes Republicans most of the time.

--------------
numbers.....

285......number of Electoral Votes President Mitt Romney will get November 6, 2012

1.5%....USA GDP and slowing

8.3%....Unemployment Rate and rising

$5 Trillion.....Added to the National Debt......the total now is $16 Trillion

104......Rounds of golf played by Obama

And those issues have nothing to do with the thread title

What amazes me is that Romney still gets 43% even though the below applies:



Not sure about others, but I only want sane people near the nuclear codes...

Or stuff like this.

Originally posted by macman
You and Indigo5 want others to take Politifact at their word.
They did not show where they got the stats from.

Wow...you keep saying all kinds of crazy, inaccurate stuff, without ever visiting the site...?? Weird more than frustrating..

The stats are number of statements...from the mouths of politicians...that were found to be true, false etc.

No Poll...Just, Sources...evidence...Research...fact-checking...statements the candidates made.

Originally posted by MrXYZ


What amazes me is that Romney still gets 43% even though the below applies:

Not sure about others, but I only want sane people near the nuclear codes...

Or stuff like this.

edit on 8-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Romney's God is a flip Flopper, just like him?

etch-n-sketch God?

The words Romney, Obama and Truth do not belong in the same sentence.

Mitt Romney rearranges to Mitt R Money. Obama spelled backwards is Satan.

The "percentages" have some meaning yes.

But the "Magnitude" of the truth or the lie is paramount.

A big lie on a chicken feed petty issue has less impact on voters and on a citizen's life than a "small" lie on a big issue.

I wonder if these "analysisms" focus more on "who is listening" ?

I bet we can see examples of twitching if we look close enough.

Not to mention that Obama IS the president.........

HIS lies and fibbs carry more weight after all

reply to post by Indigo5


I see errors in what they have labelled true and false, therefore the rest is nonsense.

"President Obama’s lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period. " FALSE

That is exactly what is claimed. It is unconstitutional to grant voting rights to members of the military. Their intent may not be to restrict military personel voting further, their intent is to add more days for other people. The logical conclusion if they win may result in restrictions placed on the voting rights of military personel though, and that would satisfy the Obama lawsuit. If it was not claiming it unconstitutional there would be no suit. Like I said, this list gets a PANTS ON FIRE rating.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
You and Indigo5 want others to take Politifact at their word.
They did not show where they got the stats from.

Wow...you keep saying all kinds of crazy, inaccurate stuff, without ever visiting the site...?? Weird more than frustrating..

The stats are number of statements...from the mouths of politicians...that were found to be true, false etc.

No Poll...Just, Sources...evidence...Research...fact-checking...statements the candidates made.

edit on 8-8-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

I did visit the site.
Again, statements were cherry picked to show a favorable outcome for 0bama.
Plus, normally one shows the evidence behind what they are stating as incorrect or correct.

They use black and white statements for 0bama, and basically him asserting "The sky is blue", and claim as fact beyond all fact.

For Romney, they use grey area statements.


AGAIN, politifact fail. Indigo5 fail.

reply to post by macman


Indigo5 and Politifact are drinking too much Obama Cool-Aid.

Go to the Pinocchio System at the Washington Post.