Simply Politics & News

[fuagf]

Moving on to your Peter Roff article.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

Well. Lol. Those "Freedom"s in some of the organization's titles he is involved with say something. Ah soooo, chorkle, was initial reaction. Then too, OOPS, i saw he is a FOX guy! Lol. Funny you would use one of those in a chat about fact checking or reliability of much of anything. That is seriously funny. Anyway, for the hoi, go to his Obama untruths ..

"There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

Seriously. While Roff is having a go at PolitiFact why would he use those to make his case that PolitiFact is so bad? LOL, he falls flat on his face because PolitiFact agrees with him on all of those. Yup. i checked.

On Obama's 'you can keep your health plan' .. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/06/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-what-hed-said-was-you-could-keep/ .. Pants on Fire.

On Citizens United and floodgates of foreign money

"So, if anything, uncertainties about how foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries would be treated only further muddies the question. Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True." .. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/ ..

On the IRS (that's putting aside you could put any error at all there on Obama's plate as Roff did) .. Politifact offers real balance here ..
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=IRS+that+denied+conservative+political+groups+had+been+singled+out+for+special+scrutiny.+

On the 'taxes would not go up for any families under $250000/year
.. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/ .. a broken promise.

Couldn't Roff find any cases where Politifact disagreed with him? The only case he made there was that Politifact agreed with him on those. Hmm.

And Benghazi! Check this out.

New Benghazi Spin: Republicans Are in on the Cover-Up, Too
Eric Boehlert Posted: 12/09/2014 10:25 am EST Updated: 12/09/2014 10:59 am EST .. some of ..

"The more recent House report however, does seem to have produced a sense of creeping panic among dedicated partisans who remain committed to keeping the story alive through the 2016 presidential campaign. The House findings run so counter to what Benghazi promoters have claimed that they threaten the viability of that strategy.

And that's why, in a truly odd turn of events, the Republican-authored House report is now under withering attack from a cadre of Republicans and their allies in the right-wing media ("a classic Washington whitewash"!), who've logged thousands of hours over the last two years propping up the shaky cover-up tale and trying to turn it into a Barack Obama scandal brand.

"The House Select Committee on Benghazi has stated that it will reconvene on Dec. 10. Its work will be as important as ever," the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal announced this week (i.e., questions remain!). The Weekly Standard agreed, with its writers reporting that the latest Congressional report that debunked every major Benghazi conspiracy to date, simply confirms that Congress needs all the Benghazi investigations it can get.

Why? "This new Benghazi 'intelligence' report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012," according to Sen. Rand Paul.

This, of course, is the language of dead-enders. It's the language of partisans with stunted capacity for reason and who won't concede the facts on the ground. Instead, they tumble further and further down into a rabbit hole of what-ifs, spending extraordinary time (and taxpayer money) trying to undermine the facts while proclaiming the next inquiry will get it just right."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/new-benghazi-spin-repubic_b_6294668.html

Of course there is much subjectivity in an organization such as Politifact. This one,

The Flawed, Statistically Silly New Study That Calls the Republican Party More Dishonest
By Kurt Eichenwald 5:25 PM, May 29 2013 .. to the end ..

In other words, meh.

On the other hand, death panels? Benghazi cover-ups? Worse than Watergate? “You didn’t build that”? Yah,
the G.O.P. is dishonest. Now someone needs to do a good study to determine which party lies more often.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/flawed-study-gop-more-dishonest

though for mine there is no doubt to the answer to that question, is a much fairer and more insightful critique of the one your FOX guy Peter Roff failed so miserably on.

Ok, more on your Fox Roff .. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Roff .. sheesh .. are you a Gingrich man, too? LOL. Fair-dinkum, mate.

This takes time, but is kinda fun and a learning experience so not all a waste.