I have always been impressed with the degree and variety of misinformation represented as gospel truths coming from the right wingers. I know they have a strong email network that communicates special interest distortions/lies around the country in order to manipulate the dittohead masses.

Below is an interesting link from Politifacts, a nonbiased organization reporting on lies made by officials and public leaders. Pay particular attention to the repeat offenders.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Below is an interesting link from Politifacts, a nonbiased organization reporting on lies made by officials and public leaders. Pay particular attention to the repeat offenders.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Nonbiased? Please. I read thru the entire first page and didn't come across even one statement by a Democrat that they even questioned. Not a single mention of any claims made by the current administration or any other democrat. It appears that the site is mainly interested in debunking statements by Republicans...

In contrast, go to Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/), which checks on claims from both sides of the aisle. I'd say they're much more "nonbiased" (I'd have gone with unbiased, but I thought I'd follow your lead:))

Nonbiased? Please. I read thru the entire first page and didn't come across even one statement by a Democrat that they even questioned. Not a single mention of any claims made by the current administration or any other democrat. It appears that the site is mainly interested in debunking statements by Republicans...

In contrast, go to Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/), which checks on claims from both sides of the aisle. I'd say they're much more "nonbiased" (I'd have gone with unbiased, but I thought I'd follow your lead:))

What, are you saying they should lie and rate Democrats with paint on fire just to have an equal number of Dems listed? The site you listed does not present information if a format that can be easily managed as the Politifact site does. Therefore it is easier to hide.

Just because the side you like lies a lot and has been proven to do so does not mean that anyone, especially those that report it, are in any way biased.

What, are you saying they should lie and rate Democrats with paint on fire just to have an equal number of Dems listed?Factcheck.org
(http://www.factcheck.org/) comes across as much less biased. We have a Democrat preisdent, speaker of the house, and Senate majority leader. All of the most powerful elected offices are held by Democrats; but none of them said a single thing worthy of the front page on your site? Obama's recent speech was full of misleading statements (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/), yet not a word on it on your site.

Factcheck.org
(http://www.factcheck.org/) comes across as much less biased. We have a Democrat preisdent, speaker of the house, and Senate majority leader. All of the most powerful elected offices are held by Democrats; but none of them said a single thing worthy of the front page on your site? Obama's recent speech was full of misleading statements (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/), yet not a word on it on your site.

Care to give some examples of Obama's misleading statements in his economic speech?

Nonbiased? Please. I read thru the entire first page and didn't come across even one statement by a Democrat that they even questioned. Not a single mention of any claims made by the current administration or any other democrat. It appears that the site is mainly interested in debunking statements by Republicans...

In contrast, go to Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/), which checks on claims from both sides of the aisle. I'd say they're much more "nonbiased" (I'd have gone with unbiased, but I thought I'd follow your lead:))

click on all
politifact does a great job and its won a pulitzer

click on all
politifact does a great job and its won a pulitzer

Yes, I think this is clearly a case of inconvient facts. So Mad and his folks try to make like there is something wrong with the source. This is clearly a case of "it is what it is".

And to suggest that Poltifact should change it's unbiased ratings just because it exposes some unpleasant facts is absurd.

Pulitzers are biased. And if you click on Mad's link it details what was incorrect in Obama's speech.

Pulitzers are biased. And if you click on Mad's link it details what was incorrect in Obama's speech.

LOL, funny how everything that makes "conservatives" and or Republicans confront themselves suddenly becomes biased. :)

Liberals are alot worse. Those looney lefties.

LOL, funny how everything that makes "conservatives" and or Republicans confront themselves suddenly becomes biased.

It's to be expected. Take Madanthonywayne (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2436318&postcount=2)'s argument about bias as an example:


"Nonbiased? Please. I read thru the entire first page and didn't come across even one statement by a Democrat that they even questioned. Not a single mention of any claims made by the current administration or any other democrat. It appears that the site is mainly interested in debunking statements by Republicans..."

This is the kind of lazy argument I've come to expect of Republicans. I mean, it makes a fine superficial argument, but anyone who is paying attention can see through it. The link you posted was a search for the "Pants On Fire", or "worst" rating of falsehood. And, yes, there are Democratic candidates and politicians in that index. However, it's also chronological; the first result is the most recent, the last the oldest according to whatever limitations the search engine puts on the result.

Now, let us set that aside for just a moment. One of the questions I've long asked of conservatives is, "Really? Is everything really the same?"

Because it seems to me that one thing many conservatives forget is that we expect a certain amount of ... um ... failure from politicians. The reason for this is obvious. Consider the response to the problems with Obama's speech. Click the link, read the article; no need for a conservative to convey what is already written down in gospel stone. The problem is self-evident. Anyone who can't see it is just ignorant.

But the reality that such an argument overlooks is that much of the FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/) article has to do with political opinions:


We’re always alert for signs that the president (any president) is overselling his programs. Here’s what we heard in President Obama’s speech on Tuesday announcing new efforts to create jobs:


• He highlighted a Congressional Budget Office estimate that "up to" 1.6 million jobs resulted from stimulus spending, but was silent about CBO’s estimate that the total could be as small as 600,000.

• He said stimulus spending was "only a very small part" of the deficit. CBO has put it at $400 billion of last year’s $1.4 trillion shortfall.

• He said 10,000 infrastructure projects have been "funded," which is true. But relatively little has actually been spent for projects supposedly deemed "shovel ready" eight months ago.

• Obama slightly exaggerated the average number of jobs lost from December through March.

The political terms in the above are fairly obvious. They're criticizing what figure he chose from a range. This is everyday politics in the United States, and while there is a fine argument against such conduct, it's going to be a long time before we toss sales out of politics. The distortions alleged in those points about Obama's speech are less than you experience when buying a car or house.

Compare those problems or violations with the PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/) "Pants On Fire" result:


• Data storing microchips implanted in people. This is common end-time "Beast" theory among the paranoid religious. No wonder the source is a chain e-mail.

• Cap and trade retrofit limitations on home sales: Absolutely false. Indeed, it would be easy enough to simply imagine this as a chain e-mail, but apparently the issue also got play in Washington earlier this year, courtesy of House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner.

• Maj. Hasan was an advisor to Obama. You know, he attended a conference. Along with 300 other people. Okay, I'm more of an advisor to the Southern California Writers' Conference (I blog (http://scwc.wordpress.com/) for the conference and try to show my face at one conference a year) than Hasan was to Obama. It's another racist Corsi rumor attempting to damage Obama by raising people's fears about Muslims.

• Health insurance for dogs? Nice rhetorical twist but completely fictitious.

• Crist never endorsed stimulus? To the one, we're back in the realm of regular political rhetoric. To the other, though, the Crist case is so blatant. He had to know, somewhere in the back of his mind, that he would be called out on that one.

And it goes on. Bachmann on the death of private health insurance. Chain e-mail criticizing Obama for a nine year-old provision in a bill that died in committee; even the NRA washes its hands of this one. Obama's senior thesis? A satire piece treated seriously all the way up to Rush Limbaugh.

&c., &c. ....

This is what our conservative neighbors are trying to avoid. The detail makes the disparity clear. Let us consider:


• A president selects for his speech one of the more optimistic numbers in a given range.

• The losing vice-presidential candidate rails against "death panels" that don't exist in the legislation considered in order to stir people up against health reform.

To our friends on the other side of the aisle, these are the same thing.

After all, we have conservatives here who can't understand the significance of hypocrisy whenever they're defending the "privacy" of a professional conservative moralist caught in a moral compromise. Why don't we pick on this or that Democrat? Because this or that Democrat didn't campaign on an insane moralistic platform. Quite clearly, even the dedicated moralists can't keep it together. Their agenda on that front is a failure.

So take for a moment the idea that, "All politicians lie." Okay, now what do we do with this? Compared to the fits of racism, nightmares of terrorism, and phantom legislation intended to scare the bejesus out of voters, I don't see how working with the optimistic part of a data set is so ugly. Indeed, the latter is what we expect of politicians. The former is what many expect from Republicans.

They don't want a head-to-head, or point by point comparison; they know their argument won't hold up. So how do we treat the dishonesty of politicians? Is it a baseline or an equalizer? Obviously, I treat it as a baseline, comparing what I perceive to be egregious violations against an expected amount of noise. Others, however, seem to treat that dishonesty as an equalizer, mashing all political dishonesty together as if there is no variation in severity, relevance, intent, or effect.

I question the validity of the equalization approach, but there is nothing about it that suggests to me any reason why conservatives would disdain it. They seek a throwback to a simpler sense of order, when people and ideas were much more fixed by the authority of nature. The underlying chaos of life is in some way offensive to their sensibilities; it cannot be that nature defies comprehension for any period—rather, it must be conspiracies and choices and evil people. You know, life itself to the one; gay, Kenyan, socialist Hitlers to the other. The choice is clear.

Which is why right now we have so many paranoid conservative arguments with such tenuous—if any—connections to reality. The scale of what is happening transcends conservative expectations, and they're either trying to catch up or else seeking to stem the flow.

Any group expression—be it art, religion, politics, or some other collective aspect of the human endeavor—reflects the major themes of the diverse psyches that form the common body. Now, with individuals, neurosis is, at its simplest expression, the conflict between the primal and the civilized. One of the differences in recent years between liberal and conservative politics is that the conservative neuroses emerge more quickly and apparently. Where much of liberal politics still masks its neuroses in complex formulae, conservatism has seen its neuroses emerge almost nakedly. The concept is called "the slow return of the repressed", by which the primal aspects of our nature that we repress in favor of civilization continue to find a way through to the surface:


Because of the basically unsatisfactory nature of the neurotic compromise, tension between the repressed and repressing factors persists and produces a constant series of new symptom-formations. And the series of symptom-formations is not a shapeless series of mere changes; it exhibits a regressive pattern, which Freud calls the slow return of the repressed, "It is a law of neurotic diseases that these obsessive acts serve the impulse more and more and come nearer and nearer the original and forbidden act."

(Brown)

There are a couple of processes explaining the faster emergence of conservative neuroses compared to liberal. The first is that liberals have different neuroses. The second is that liberals have more tools available to them than conservatives to deal with neuroses. Much of conservative policy is rooted in aging, and even obsolete myths explaining how nature works. This is why they work to preserve concentrations of wealth and power; why they are sexually obsessed; and why they tend toward military and other violent tendencies in public policy.

Presently, multiple barricades are degrading quickly. Nature, choice, and homosexuality. The limits of our economic schemes. The perils of our (quasi-) hegemonic foreign policy. These all find root in myth and superstition, and those myths and superstitions have been coming undone at least since Newton. Certes, the nineteenth century was rough for conservative philosophy, what with Marx and Darwin, and then Freud leading the way into the twentieth century. And the last century was a mess for conservatives, who have seen superstitious reactionism (e.g., religious fundamentalism) struggle for dominance despite its declining credentials.

As a result, conservative neuroses are emerging nearly nakedly. The political rhetoric of liberal neuroses is still somewhat encoded, but the conservative neuroses are the political rhetoric. That is, the conservative neuroses are demonstrable in their very expression. Look at the fear Obama has inspired among conservatives, and then count how much of that fear is valid. It's a striking imbalance.

The dishonesty of the conservative rhetoric right now is blatant, and even dangerous. Consider the comparisons we draw in the present political environment:


There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

(Samuelson (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/))

Let's think about that. Are these two actions—


• Celebrating the natural end of what people consider a bad presidential term.

• Praying that the country and its three hundred million citizens fare so badly that the president either fails to win a second term, or is assassinated.

—really all that similar?

Oh, yes, we all know about how we railed against Bush. And we're aware that conservatives believe that means the gloves are off. But there is a difference between someone's opinion of the truth and another's craven belief in lies. I have no doubt that some liberal somewhere prayed for Bush's death. Ten. Even a hundred. Maybe even thousands. But where were the t-shirts and bumper stickers? Where was the national campaign to pray for Bush's death?

There is a constant disparity that arises in questions of similarity:


• Carrying a loaded gun to a presidential event while advocating violent government overthrow.

• Wearing a t-shirt to a presidential address that criticizes the president for policy decisions.

(As a side note, guess who gets arrested.)

These are the reasons that the first response of conservatives to criticism is to attack the other side. No issue can be considered in a conservative context without an affirmative-action criticism of liberals. There must be an "equal" consideration, which is why you can expect such reactions as accusing bias and then referral to another source that criticizes Democrats. For them, we are to remove the quotation marks around the word "equal"; it really does seem equal to these people. (Or else they're all pathological liars, which just doesn't seem consistent with human diversity.)

It is a higher priority for conservatives to "win" an argument than to reconcile with facts. Of course, that's really all they have left to work with.

The conservatism we've known in our lifetime is undergoing a transitional period. It is transforming into a new expression that probably won't be finalized for a few more cycles at least. And then it will only hold for a short span of decades before being redefined again. This is a conservative cycle that accelerates in relation to historical cycles. They've been losing social policy arguments for a couple of decades; they just blew their foreign-policy playbook; their economic outlook is enduring greater scrutiny than ever before. Conservative political philosophy is in crisis, and that crisis is demonstrably reflected in their rhetoric.
____________________

Notes:

Jackson, Brooks et al. "Obama's Economic Speech". December 8, 2009. FactCheck.org. December 10, 2009. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/

St. Petersburg Times. "Statements we say are Pants on Fire!". (n.d.) PolitiFact.com. December 10, 2009. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

Samuelson, Tracy D. "Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?". The Christian Science Monitor. November 16, 2009. Features.CSMonitor.com. December 10, 2009. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/

LOL, funny how everything that makes "conservatives" and or Republicans confront themselves suddenly becomes biased. :)

I'm neither, and at one time in my life, I really wanted to win a Pulitzer -- more than anything. But pretending they are not routinely handed out to certain types of people writing about certain types of things is rather naive.

I'm neither, and at one time in my life, I really wanted to win a Pulitzer -- more than anything. But pretending they are not routinely handed out to certain types of people writing about certain types of things is rather naive.

You and I are going to have to disagree about the Pulitzer. But it is not germane to the issue here.

I think Tiassa laid it out very clearly. The bottom line is that the conservative, Republican, ex-Republican, RINO, Tea Bag Party, et al folks are getting some really whacky and blatently false information from their leadership, email chains, and internet sites. The consumers of this trash never ever question the veracity of the information, it is not filtered or fact check, just automatically accepted as gospel truth.

It is no accident that so many "pants on fire" designations are going to Republican, conservative, RINO, Tea Bagger folks. Someone needs to shine a light on this darkness. I have never before seen such outrageous lies in such quantity in American politics.

Factcheck.org
(http://www.factcheck.org/) comes across as much less biased. We have a Democrat preisdent, speaker of the house, and Senate majority leader. All of the most powerful elected offices are held by Democrats; but none of them said a single thing worthy of the front page on your site? Obama's recent speech was full of misleading statements (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/), yet not a word on it on your site.

at least none of his mistakes got us in a f$$$$$$$ war over "nukes" that were just barrels of god damned oil turned on their god damned sides and looked like a bomb from a satelite.

Liberals are alot worse. Those looney lefties.

LOL, Buffalo Roam says that a lot too. But no one ever produces evidence of same. Certianly the left does not lie as much as does the right as is shown by the evidence. Neither do they have an email chain network where truth is unneeded and unwanted.

For those who try to pretend the opposition to Obama is no different than the opposition to Bush was, please explain this:


Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.

Some threats to Mr Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, have been publicised, including an alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee late last year to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

For those who try to pretend the opposition to Obama is no different than the opposition to Bush was, please explain this:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

Really? nothing but Hyperbole......

Now from Director Mark Sullivan own mouth......


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2456618/obama_death_threats_falsely_reported.html

Obama Death Threats Falsely Reported by CNN's Sanchez, Says Secret Service Director
December 04, 2009 by J.C. Grant

J.C. Grant


On August 28, 2009, CNN correspondent and left-wing extremist, Rick Sanchez, reported that death threats against President Obama are 400 percent higher than during previous administrations—something Sanchez invidiously attributed to anti-abortion groups. And then, on October 18,
2009, The Boston Globe, a self-described "progressive institution" and subsidiary of The New York Times, also reported that President Obama is a mark for more death threats than his predecessors—a circumstance The Boston Globe imputed to Americans opposed to a large federal government.

According to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, however, both of these left-wing media reports are patently false. In fact, according to Director Sullivan, death threats against President Obama are no greater than those leveled against Presidents Bush and Clinton.


CNN's Sanchez Retracts His Claim of a 400 Percent Increase in ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Given death threats to this president, was there any attempt to ..... Secret Service: Threat level against Obama no greater than under Bush, Clinton ... U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan dismissed published ...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2009/12/03/cnns-sanchez-retracts-hi
s-claim-400-percent-increase-presidential-death- - 132k - Cached - Similar pages


Secret Service: Threats Against Obama No Higher than Normal ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Director Says Reports That President Obama Faces Higher Threat Levels are Outdated. ... Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents. ... Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry587
9268.shtml - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Secret Service: Threats Against Obama No Higher than Normal ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Director Says Reports That President Obama Faces Higher Threat Levels are Outdated. ... Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents. ... Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry587
9268.shtml - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

You and I are going to have to disagree about the Pulitzer. But it is not germane to the issue here.

I agree, but it was cited by you as bona fides. My point is that those bona fides do not really hold, a point that is all the more clear to me, given my past in the business.


I think Tiassa laid it out very clearly.

I typically don't read Tiassa's posts. They are a waste of time.


The bottom line is that the conservative, Republican, ex-Republican, RINO, Tea Bag Party, et al folks are getting some really whacky and blatently false information from their leadership, email chains, and internet sites. The consumers of this trash never ever question the veracity of the information, it is not filtered or fact check, just automatically accepted as gospel truth.

It is no accident that so many "pants on fire" designations are going to Republican, conservative, RINO, Tea Bagger folks. Someone needs to shine a light on this darkness. I have never before seen such outrageous lies in such quantity in American politics.

Then obviously you have never read the literature of the Hard Left. It's just as bad. The only difference is that it does not resonate with as many people and so it gets less play. But in general, you and I are in agreement. My only stipulation is that I think all politicians play with reality and rhetoric. Claiming one side is somehow more holy than the other is largely a waste of time. Assess the claims as they come.

Then obviously you have never read the literature of the Hard Left.

One wonders at the applicable definition of the Hard Left.


The only difference is that it does not resonate with as many people and so it gets less play.

True. Jesus was a radical, and he's largely absent from Christian political assertions these days. And the Apostles certainly fail to resonate with people, as well.

But the question arises: If Leftist extremism is appropriately marginalized, why is Rightist extremism mainstream?

I mean, are Americans really that crazy?

Remember, we who were so extremist as to question the WMD justification for the Iraqi Bush Adventure were denounced as terrorist sympathizers. What should we call these right-wing liars whose main purpose is to scare the hell out of people in order to achieve political ends?

I mean, "terrorists", is already taken.

One wonders at the applicable definition of the Hard Left.

Does that wonders, also apply to the definition of hard right?

Does that wonders, also apply to the definition of hard right?

Does it need to? Who is the "hard left's" equivalent of Sarah Palin?

Look, to me, the Hard Left involves things like the Spartacist League, which is reasonably marginalized for holding some ridiculous, even dangerous views. As such, I'm having a hard time seeing the comparison between last year's GOP vice-presidential candidate, or the current House Minority Leader, and the goddamn Workers' Vanguard newspaper.

It's like this one time, when I was living in Oregon, a Portland reporter for the Oregonian ran this strange article about whether Seattle or Portland was better. I mean, sure it's a fair regionalist question, but his take was hilarious. Sure, Seattle's got Nirvana, but who wants them? Sure, Seattle has the Mariners, but who wants them? The author compared a Portland microbrew to Ranier (although Portland easily could have won that contest by pitting its own swill—Weinhard's—against the big R), and not Red Hook, which was at the time losing a market fight to Sam Adams. In that context, Oregon has a lot of merits; it's not that far a drive from Portland to reach Deschutes Brewery, which easily beats Red Hook.

But consider for a moment the comparison. You might as well compare Blue Heron (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/43/467) to Green Death (http://www.40ouncebeer.com/40/rainierale40.html).

As such, I think the assertion of the hard or extreme right is fairly well established in this thread (see #11 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2436877&postcount=11) above for resources), while the question of the "Hard Left" remains open.

does it need to? Who is the "hard left's" equivalent of sarah palin?.

Bill Clinton...Al Gore....Rachel Madow.....Nancy Pelosi....Harry Reid.....

algore

:roflmao:

He invented the Internet! Which is a series of tubes!

algore

(chortle!)

I always enjoy a good chortle, especially in Italics. :D

I just can't bring myself to roll around on the floor, laughing. Up the dosage, I guess.

More seriously, though, I keep hearing this old Beatles line out of context as I read through this thread: "See how they run."

I can't tell if it's funny, or sad.

It depends on how fast they are running.

It depends on how fast they are running.

How about ... screaming naked down the street with their hair on fire while imagining themselves pursued by nine-headed rat-demons?

Or, to simply consider Buffalo Roam's revised answer—


"Bill Clinton...Al Gore....Rachel Madow.....Nancy Pelosi....Harry Reid....."

—I'd say this one, at least, is demonstrating my point. Bill Clinton? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Rachel Maddow? Hard left?

I can't wait to see their examples of these folks' extremity. Their hardness. Their left-nuttedness.

Just remember that it's all the same to these people.

I have always been impressed with the degree and variety of misinformation represented as gospel truths coming from the right wingers. I know they have a strong email network that communicates special interest distortions/lies around the country in order to manipulate the dittohead masses.

Below is an interesting link from Politifacts, a nonbiased organization reporting on lies made by officials and public leaders. Pay particular attention to the repeat offenders.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

REPLY: Well , it would seem obvious that the BIBLE is full of unbelievable nonsense that anyone who actually believed in what it says is capable of believing ANYTHING. The same could be said of anyone believing in the koran and such. I am pretty sure I have read from many sources that most people believe in this sort of insanity. To me it is all very troubling to realize that most of humanity is that insane. I consider it INSTITUTIONALIZED INSANITY.
Some of my own relatives believe in this stuff. ...fellowtraveler

I agree, but it was cited by you as bona fides. My point is that those bona fides do not really hold, a point that is all the more clear to me, given my past in the business. um it was I who brought up the pulitzer though in the case of politifact you do have a point to the pulitizer being possible political. a member of the st. petersburg times sits on the pulitzer commitee.




I typically don't read Tiassa's posts. They are a waste of time. if you don't read them how can you tell if their a waste of time? and secondly considering tiassa's posts are some of the best citated and well thought out I wonder what makes you think they are a waste of time.

Really? nothing but Hyperbole......

Now from Director Mark Sullivan own mouth......


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2456618/obama_death_threats_falsely_reported.html

Obama Death Threats Falsely Reported by CNN's Sanchez, Says Secret Service Director
December 04, 2009 by J.C. Grant

J.C. Grant


On August 28, 2009, CNN correspondent and left-wing extremist, Rick Sanchez, reported that death threats against President Obama are 400 percent higher than during previous administrations—something Sanchez invidiously attributed to anti-abortion groups. And then, on October 18,
2009, The Boston Globe, a self-described "progressive institution" and subsidiary of The New York Times, also reported that President Obama is a mark for more death threats than his predecessors—a circumstance The Boston Globe imputed to Americans opposed to a large federal government.

According to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, however, both of these left-wing media reports are patently false. In fact, according to Director Sullivan, death threats against President Obama are no greater than those leveled against Presidents Bush and Clinton.


CNN's Sanchez Retracts His Claim of a 400 Percent Increase in ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Given death threats to this president, was there any attempt to ..... Secret Service: Threat level against Obama no greater than under Bush, Clinton ... U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan dismissed published ...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2009/12/03/cnns-sanchez-retracts-hi
s-claim-400-percent-increase-presidential-death- - 132k - Cached - Similar pages


Secret Service: Threats Against Obama No Higher than Normal ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Director Says Reports That President Obama Faces Higher Threat Levels are Outdated. ... Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents. ... Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry587
9268.shtml - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Secret Service: Threats Against Obama No Higher than Normal ...
Dec 3, 2009 ... Director Says Reports That President Obama Faces Higher Threat Levels are Outdated. ... Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents. ... Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry587
9268.shtml - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Hmmm. Blank page. Page not found. Page not found.

Vs. Ronald Kessler (the source of the Telegraph UK's claim):
Never before has a journalist penetrated the wall of secrecy that surrounds the U.S. Secret Service, that elite corps of agents who pledge to take a bullet to protect the president and his family. After conducting exclusive interviews with more than one hundred current and former Secret Service agents, bestselling author and award-winning reporter Ronald Kessler reveals their secrets for the first time.

Secret Service agents, acting as human surveillance cameras, observe everything that goes on behind the scenes in the president’s inner circle. Kessler reveals what they have seen, providing startling, previously untold stories about the presidents, from John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as about their families, Cabinet officers, and White House aides.

Kessler portrays the dangers that agents face and how they carry out their missions–from how they are trained to how they spot and assess potential threats. With fly-on-the-wall perspective, he captures the drama and tension that characterize agents’ lives.

In this headline-grabbing book, Kessler discloses assassination attempts that have never before been revealed. He shares inside accounts of past assaults that have put the Secret Service to the test, including a heroic gun battle that took down the would-be assassins of Harry S. Truman, the devastating day that John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas, and the swift actions that saved Ronald Reagan after he was shot.

While Secret Service agents are brave and dedicated, Kessler exposes how Secret Service management in recent years has betrayed its mission by cutting corners, risking the assassination of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and their families. Given the lax standards, “It’s a miracle we have not had a successful assassination,” a current agent says.

Since an assassination jeopardizes democracy itself, few agencies are as important as the Secret Service–nor is any other subject as tantalizing as the inner sanctum of the White House. Only tight-lipped Secret Service agents know the real story, and Ronald Kessler is the only journalist to have won their trust.
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307461353


RONALD KESSLER is the New York Times bestselling author of The Terrorist Watch, The Bureau, Inside the White House, and The CIA at War. A former reporter for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, he has won sixteen journalism awards. Kessler lives in Potomac, Maryland, with his wife, Pamela.
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=67551

Oh yeah Buff, you'd better demand a retraction from the New York Times as well.

Those on the right who defend the reckless radicals inevitably argue “The left does it too!” It’s certainly true that both the left and the right traffic in bogus, Holocaust-trivializing Hitler analogies, and, yes, the protesters of the antiwar group Code Pink have disrupted Congressional hearings. But this is a false equivalence. Code Pink doesn’t show up on Capitol Hill with firearms. And, as the 1960s historian Rick Perlstein pointed out on the Washington Post Web site last week, not a single Democratic politician endorsed the Weathermen in the Vietnam era.

This week the journalist Ronald Kessler’s new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, “In the President’s Secret Service,” rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there’s a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Clinton...Al Gore....Rachel Madow.....Nancy Pelosi....Harry Reid.....

I suggest you go back to the original post and read the link. Not one of the individuals listed had the "Pants on Fire" rating. Not so for the Republican side of the fence.

Additionally, Maddow is making a good living debunking all the Republican lies. She is not creating and promulgating falsehoods.

Gore, Pelosi, Reid, are not telling lies either. They are not promulgating falsehoods or whacko ideas and name calling like their Republican counterparts are doing on a regular basis. Nor are they using saying anything remotely comperable to the bizzare crap coming from the Republican leadership.

:roflmao:

He invented the Internet! Which is a series of tubes!

He did not say he invented the internet. He said the following,

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead"

It is one thing to invent the internet. It is another to make it a reality. Gore had a part in creating the internet. He did not do it alone, nor did he claim too.

I suggest you go back to the original post and read the link. Not one of the individuals listed had the "Pants on Fire" rating. Not so for the Republican side of the fence.

Additionally, Maddow is making a good living debunking all the Republican lies. She is not creating and promulgating falsehoods.

Gore, Pelosi, Reid, are not telling lies either. They are not promulgating falsehoods or whacko ideas and name calling like their Republican counterparts are doing on a regular basis. Nor are they using saying anything remotely comperable to the bizzare crap coming from the Republican leadership.

Only in your liberal world view of a Democrat/Liberal, does no wrong and a Republican/Conservative does no right.

Only in your liberal world view of a Democrat/Liberal, does no wrong and a Republican/Conservative does no right.

It doesn't matter what you think of me or what you think my positions are on any issue or party. You are free to attempt to prove I am wrong at any time. But I think the OP speaks for itself.

It doesn't matter what you think of me or what you think my positions are on any issue or party. You are free to attempt to prove I am wrong at any time. But I think the OP speaks for itself.

Yes, you would.

um it was I who brought up the pulitzer though in the case of politifact you do have a point to the pulitizer being possible political. a member of the st. petersburg times sits on the pulitzer commitee.

And that proves what? The Times is pretty partisan paper. Try looking at who and what they hand awards to. Hint: It ain't the likes of Hemingway anymore.


if you don't read them how can you tell if their a waste of time? and secondly considering tiassa's posts are some of the best citated and well thought out I wonder what makes you think they are a waste of time.

I've read enough of his material to know I do not appreciate the bias, the endless length or flavor, regardless of how impressive you think the footnotes are.