Politifact's Strange Ruling

[Ted S]

From Politifact:

Source

Get that? Republicans try more than 30 times to repeal Obamacare and because Democrats blocked them every single time, Republicans get gigged for breaking a promise.

That's a perfect example of how cherry-picked facts don't always tell the full story.

[clistensprechen]

And yet you fail to mention all the times Republicans blame Obama for not keeping promises because of House obstruction.  Let's be fair, shall we?

[Ted S]

And yet you fail to mention all the times Republicans blame Obama for not keeping promises because of House obstruction.  Let's be fair, shall we?

This is not one party blaming the other for obstruction, this is a fact checking organization making a ruling that blurs the truth.  While it is indeed true that Republicans have so far been unable to repeal Obamacare, the fact that it is because of Democrat obstruction isn't obvious from Politifact's simple designation as a "Broken Promise."

[kentay]

And yet you fail to mention all the times Republicans blame Obama for not keeping promises because of House obstruction.  Let's be fair, shall we?

This is not one party blaming the other for obstruction, this is a fact checking organization making a ruling that blurs the truth.  While it is indeed true that Republicans have so far been unable to repeal Obamacare, the fact that it is because of Democrat obstruction isn't obvious from Politifact's simple designation as a "Broken Promise."

There is always going to be excuses for broken promises. The Republican should not have said that would repeal healthcare it just make them look stupid and whinny, if they didn't know how congress works. Besides It was only done for political reasons to win over and hoodwink the less knowledgeable voters and haters. kentay    

[Ted S]

The Republican should not have said that would repeal healthcare it just make them look stupid and whinny, if they didn't know how congress works.

I agree that Republicans should not be making promises they may not be able to keep.  Romney should be saying that he will do his best to repeal Obamacare but not make any promises because only dictators can guarantee political outcomes.

[Don Houston]

Look,

Health care is what we need in this country.  I don't care if that makes me a ass or not.  But tell me, if we were so worried about Jobs, why did they push a law through, that includes a mandate, when we have such high unemployment?  shouldn't Jobs be his greatest victory?  I could have sworn he was trying to be the next Teddy Roosevelt?

[Woody]

I read factcheck often.  For the most part they are all right but no one disputes a slight left bias.  I am not surprised by this. 

[clistensprechen]

And yet you fail to mention all the times Republicans blame Obama for not keeping promises because of House obstruction.  Let's be fair, shall we?

This is not one party blaming the other for obstruction, this is a fact checking organization making a ruling that blurs the truth.  While it is indeed true that Republicans have so far been unable to repeal Obamacare, the fact that it is because of Democrat obstruction isn't obvious from Politifact's simple designation as a "Broken Promise."

I'm just saying that this sort of blurring is commonplace, and that nobody's been fair.

[Ted S]

I'm just saying that this sort of blurring is commonplace, and that nobody's been fair.

It's commonplace and expected with politicians, parties and pundits but it shouldn't be with news outlets that claim to be unbiased nor should it be with fact checking organizations like Politifact.

I agree with Woody that Politifact and most main stream news organizations have a slight bias to the left.  And of course you have your MSNBC who if they went any further to the left their HQ would be the Kremlin.

[clistensprechen]

I'm just saying that this sort of blurring is commonplace, and that nobody's been fair.

It's commonplace and expected with politicians, parties and pundits but it shouldn't be with news outlets that claim to be unbiased nor should it be with fact checking organizations like Politifact.

I agree with Woody that Politifact and most main stream news organizations have a slight bias to the left.  And of course you have your MSNBC who if they went any further to the left their HQ would be the Kremlin.

Well knock me over with a feather--you're a conservative IN FAVOR of the Fairness Doctrine! ....something that cons have purged from law a long time ago.  This is a monster that the cons created, so cons might as well live with the monster they've created.

[Woody]

I'm just saying that this sort of blurring is commonplace, and that nobody's been fair.

It's commonplace and expected with politicians, parties and pundits but it shouldn't be with news outlets that claim to be unbiased nor should it be with fact checking organizations like Politifact.

I agree with Woody that Politifact and most main stream news organizations have a slight bias to the left.  And of course you have your MSNBC who if they went any further to the left their HQ would be the Kremlin.

Well knock me over with a feather--you're a conservative IN FAVOR of the Fairness Doctrine! ....something that cons have purged from law a long time ago.  This is a monster that the cons created, so cons might as well live with the monster they've created.

Not quite sure how you came to that conclusion.  As conservatives we are not like you.  We do not need government diddling with the multiple sources of TV news.  We know how to change the channel.  If you like you can start a thread and discuss why with today's vast amounts of news sources the fairness doctrine is outdated and would only be a tool for your side to use to silence speech you disagree with.

[Ted S]

Well knock me over with a feather--you're a conservative IN FAVOR of the Fairness Doctrine!

Wow, you made a Grand Canyon sized leap with that one Clara.  Let me be perfectly clear; I am in no way in favor of government regulation of broadcast industry speech.

[clistensprechen]

Well knock me over with a feather--you're a conservative IN FAVOR of the Fairness Doctrine!

Wow, you made a Grand Canyon sized leap with that one Clara.  Let me be perfectly clear; I am in no way in favor of government regulation of broadcast industry speech.

That's what I thought--therefore I don't expect to hear a peep outta you about what Politifact (or any other media org) says, cuz it's free speech.

That goes for the rest of you cons. Either you believe in the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of the press or you don't.

[Don Houston]

Freedom of speech is always a good thing.  However; hate speech is NOT protected.  Racist statement or facts can be offensive to others and therefore is not covered under the first amendment. 

[clistensprechen]

Freedom of speech is always a good thing.  However; hate speech is NOT protected.  Racist statement or facts can be offensive to others and therefore is not covered under the first amendment.

QFT.
Neither is libel.
Or slander.
Or fraud.
Or contracts that violate other laws.
Or incitements to riot.
Or conspiring to break laws.
I know this, but the anti-government regulation people don't care. They call prohibition of hate speech and incitements to riot as
"PC", aka "Political Correctness".