Non-Partisan Fact Check Site...Looks Interesting

[Dreadsox]

I would appreciate everyone's opinion on this. One of the things I cannot stand is seeing quotes used and misrepresented. I also hate it when my opinion has been shaped by a quote that has been taken out of context, only to find out after the fact that I was side tracked. Check this one out, give me some feedback please.

Thanks.

Matt

http://factcheck.org/default.aspx

 

[STING2]

An interesting site, dripping with some bias toward the left despite what ever non-partisan claims they may make. Considering the way they talk about "facts", they need someone to check them as well, based on some of the articles I read on the opening page. Its still good though, but its certainly no bible on the truth or totally non-partisan either.

 

[Klaus]

Verry interesting, thanks Dreadsox

 

[verte76]

Pretty good, but you can't keep opinions out of politics. Huh, what *is* politics? Opinion. A bit of a "lefty" inclination in that I don't think these people like Bush.

 

[deep]

A bit of a "lefty" inclination in that I don't think these people like Bush.

In what regard?


They give him the benefit of the doubt about not meeting his military obligations.

And except answers like "I don't recall".

 

[verte76]

In what regard?
They give him the benefit of the doubt about not meeting his military obligations.
And except answers like "I don't recall".

True. They're telling Michael Moore to calm down about the "deserter" thing, one of many Democratic Controversies of the Week. Whew, I'm dizzy and I have to confess some sins soon.

 

[Dreadsox]

I was pretty impressed with it overall. They defended Wesley Clark Pretty good. That thread made me steamed, wow, the next sentence totally changed to context of what he said before congress.

They did a decent job pointing out that it is OVER the TOP to say he deserted. At best, you can say he was given favorable duty, something many people are given in Guard and Reserve Units, not just because they are politicians sons and daughters.


I am not sure if Sting went into the archive, but they disect the Democratic Debates, so I gather from the cover you would say there is a bit of a slant, but in the archive, I would make the case it slants right. But really, the focus is on the race, and the Democrats are where the contest is for now.

 

[STING2]

Take what they said about Bush's State of the Union:

They decided to focus on certain things like the fact that under Bush 2.3 million jobs have been lossed in response to the fact of strong economic growth since July 2003. They also talk about the number of Jobs created since July 2003 in an attempt to rebut the facts put up by Bush on economic growth.

Here is a little fact for this fact website, Unemployment is a "lagging indicater". That means it will take some time before one will see significant job growth provided the economy continue's its growth. In general, it takes at least a year of solid economic growth before you start to see an improvement in the situation for jobs.

In discussing the Federal Budget deficit, they mention Bush's tax cuts first and then spending and the economic down turn as reasons for the budget deficits. Thats precisely how the democrats would have written, but in fact the #1 reason for the Budget deficits is the economic downturn which began just prior to Clinton leaving office. Second would be the spending which has had huge increases because of the war on terror and Iraq. Then third would be the tax cuts most which are over several years and therefor even less responsible for current budget deficits as it would seem.

Yes, WMD weapons have yet to be found in Iraq and I am sure that if Bush had not found Saddam, they would be listing that as well.

You could probably find something a President did not mention from every State of the Union speech in history. The fact that they feel the need to do this now I think shows their leanings.


Whether they really are biased or not will come into focus more once the democrats pick a candidate.

 

[sue4u2]

That's amazing, someone just ask me a couple of day's ago, if I knew where to go to check out reports and/or soundbytes put out by both parties. I simply said, well that doesn't exist.
I haven't looked at all the archives yet but it seems to be a good site to start.
Thanks Dreadsox