| Name: |
JustAGuy
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 8:15:22 PM
|
Along with snopes.com, this is now one of my favorite websites.
And to clarify, the website isn't new .... just new to me.
URL: PolitiFact.cm
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:00:30 PM
|
Also one of my recently discovered favorites. CNN has been using the director of this site as an on air consultant.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:12:15 PM
|
Pretty cool site, but you just know someone here is going to say it's a "liberal" site.
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:16:20 PM
|
I have reviewed this web site and absolutely was NOT impressed with its accuracy or its sincerity. This is nothing more than an attempt by Obama supporters outside Snopes to muddy the water with distorted facts and attempt to eqquate its accuracy with Snopes.
The following from the US Chamber of Commerce tells me what's going on.
Statement - "The health care reform plan being proposed in Congress would mean "big tax increases."
Answer - "Tax increases would be borne mostly by wealthy."
Declared to be false by this web site.
I would encourage forum members to visit the site and draw their own conclusions.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Told You
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:24:07 PM
|
Didn't take long did it?
These guys are afraid of the truth.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:24:24 PM
|
That is good... thanks
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Told You
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:30:42 PM
|
it was welcome to see the site said Obama is a liar when he tried to deny that he never said he was in favor of a single payer plan. He did and they confirmed. He has an agenda and the only one that seems to be afraid of the truth is you all. You are in denial.
What has he done right so far that you have such confidence?
As I have asked many times, where do you think we will be in two years ... better or worse. Interest rates higher or lower? inflation higher or lower. unemployment higher or lower? GDP growing or contracting? will we be in another recession or growing business?
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Our response WW
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:37:08 PM
|
However we respond you will come back and disagree. So, to save us time why don't you stop baiting and tell us your thoughts. Then, you will know whatever you write--- we think the opposite. Sounds fair to me!!!!
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
fishy man
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 9:47:19 PM
|
typical no backbone response. A true sign of a follower and not a leader ... you will just follow ... it it turns out right, you and i will both be happy. It it turns out the way I think it will, I will be sad for america and you will still be defending the speech maker.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You asked for it WW
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:03:34 PM
|
In two years (actually much less)
1/ Much better economy
2/ Interest rates higher (see 1/ above)
3/ Inflation higher (its 0 now, see 1/ above)
4/ Unemployment down (betwee 5 and 5.5%, see 1/ above)
5/ GDP advancing smartly (see 1/ above)
6/ Long out of current recession and clear sailing ahead (see 1/
above)
7/ Senate 62 D and I - 38 R...House 261 D - 174 R
Get back with me Aug 2011
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You asked for it WW
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:04:23 PM
|
you got it.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Did any of you ever notice
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:14:33 PM
|
how often a string goes completely off the rails and into the swamp with WW's first post in that string?
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Told You
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:14:36 PM
|
That's why I like the site WW .... it has posted that some Dems are truthful and some are not ... and some Repubs are truthful and some are not ... they seem to be more "fair and balanced" than most any other site I've found ... and certainly more "fair and balanced" than all of the viral e-mail cut-and-pastes that you are so fond of posting. I'm not a kool-aid drinker ... I just want an honest review of the issues. Thanks.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:22:34 PM
|
From the website posting about the U.S Chamber of Commerce ad.
"Things may change as these bills seek to solve the question of paying for the plan, but as the plans are now, some people would see a big tax increase, but most would not. That leaves us at a Half True."
Please lotowner ... what part of their analysis do you disagree with? And they have no connection with the Obama administration ... they are a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper out of Florida .... ?
I agree with lotowner, that folks should read this article and decide for yourselves.
URL: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/14/us-chamber-commerce/us-chamber-commerce-ad-says-health-reform-plan-wou/
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:29:02 PM
|
Review the following infor from this site and then draw your own conclusion as to its credibility.
Statement - "As many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance."
Web's Comment - It's an estimate, but he couches it right
Web's Rating - True
Statement - "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
Web's Comment - "No free health care for everyone"
Web's Rating - Pants on Fire
Statement - "Doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, (and) AARP" say that health reform "makes sense to do." (BO)
Web's Comment - "They're all behind the idea, but not the bills"
Web's Rating - Mostly True
Statement - The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance. (Investor’s Business Daily)
Web's Comment - "Misreading the legislation, then standing by it"
Web's Rating - Pants on Fire
Statement - "We were promised and the President said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed)." (Rep. Cantor)
Web's Comment - "Promise or a bad projection?
Web's Rating - Barely True
Statement - "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs."(J McCain)
Web's Comment - "Is Obama the Czar Czar?
Web's Rating - True
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:39:38 PM
|
you are right ... i should have looked deeper. all i saw is they rathe obama a false for saying he never said he wanted a single payer a plan. That is an outright lie (just like much of what he says). he will tell the american people what they want to hear, then do something different. He may really be the anti christ.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What?
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:44:02 PM
|
lotowner .. I don't understand your disdain for this website?
Statement - "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
Web's Comment - "No free health care for everyone"
Web's Rating - Pants on Fire
lotowner - can you show us where any health plan being discussed provides "free health care srvices" to "all non-US citizens, illegal or not"? Even for legal US citizens, there is no provision for "free health care services"?
Statement - "Doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, (and) AARP" say that health reform "makes sense to do." (BO)
Web's Comment - "They're all behind the idea, but not the bills"
Web's Rating - Mostly True
Some Democrat (maybe Obama?) said that AARP supported the bill, and this website says that no ... AARP is for health care/insurance reform ... but they have not endorsed the bill. How is that not true?
Statement - The health care reform bill -- on Page 16 -- outlaws private insurance. (Investor’s Business Daily)
Web's Comment - "Misreading the legislation, then standing by it"
Web's Rating - Pants on Fire
What is your problem with this one? Do you really think that the bill outlaws private insurance? Please show us where it says that.
Statement - "Obama has more czars than the Romanovs."(J McCain)
Web's Comment - "Is Obama the Czar Czar?
Web's Rating - True
Many republicans have critized the Obama administration for having so many "czars" ... and this website confirms that we now have more "czars" that the Romanovs ... this website SUPPORTS the Republican characterization of the number of "czars".
You seem to dislike this website even when they are agreeing with your beliefs/positions ... I do not understand.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My New Favorite Website
|
|
Date:
|
8/16/2009 10:47:07 PM
|
WW ... so you agree ... this website was fair in it's analysis of whether or not Obama ever said he wanted single payer? The website confirms that "Obama has praised single-payer plans in the past" .... so this is a good website .. .correct?
URL: Politifact.com
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Quick Question on this Site
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 1:37:52 PM
|
Is it fair to look at the owner of this site when you want to judge whether it is truly bipartisan?
This website is owned by the St. Petersburg Times which you conveniently omitted. I don't know this paper very well but I looked at the editorial page to get a sense of their leanings and also their presidential endorsements.
On the first note they strike me as left leaning in the composition of their editorial board and their choice of editorials. Some recent editorials seem to support Obamacare. Look at their website and decide for yourself but I think any reasonable person would conclude it is left leaning. Some examples: Why Scientists Are Seldom Republicans", Dishonest Drug Makers Put Patients in Jeopardy", "Facing Death with Facts, Not Fear", "Medicare Advantage Works" and so on.
They have also not endorsed a Republican for President since Bush in 2000. According to Obama's own website they endorsed him in the last election. So can we really expect them to put aside their own endorsement and be truly honest in their fact checking? I doubt many on the left would give Fox News or the Wall Street Journal the same benefit of the doubt.
Like any website that claims to be a "fact checker", you need to do your own research on something that is important. Like snopes be very wary and come to your own conclusions. I am sure this will be dismissed because I am a right wing nut job despite the fact that any reasonable person would agree with my evaluation of the the Times.
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What?
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 2:09:35 PM
|
I really do not have disdain for this site. My problem is that I think that they "skirt" around the truth and have sarcastic answers for questions that are serious to the ordinary citizen.
The statement you questioned was all non US citizens, legal or not, will be ptovided with health care services. On pages 50 and 58 of the health care bill considered by Congress, the statements about health care and national ID cards were very clear.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Health card.
Statement to PolitiFact - "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
PolitiFacts Response - "No free health care for everyone"
PolitiFacts Conclusion - Pants on Fire (Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire)
lotowner - can you show us where any health plan being discussed provides "free health care services" to "all non-US citizens, illegal or not"? Even for legal US citizens, there is no provision for "free health care services"?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What?
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 6:29:17 PM
|
Lot Owner just where did you find this page 50? I just checked page 50 of the complete text of the proposal being considered in the house and it ain't there.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What?
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 8:51:22 PM
|
The statement you questioned was all non US citizens, legal or not, will be ptovided with health care services. On pages 50 and 58 of the health care bill considered by Congress, the statements about health care and national ID cards were very clear.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Health card.
Below are pages 50 and 58 in their entirety ... can you please point out to me where page 50 mentions "All non-US citizens, illegal or not"?
And where does page 58 state that "Every person will be issued a National ID Health card"?
Maybe you are reading a different version of the bill than I am ... I am posting the source for my version of the bill.
Thanks.
50
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of health insur-
2 ance coverage offered through the Health Insurance
3 Exchange—
4 (A) the requirements of this title do not
5 supercede any requirements (including require-
6 ments relating to genetic information non-
7 discrimination and mental health) applicable
8 under title XXVII of the Public Health Service
9 Act or under State law, except insofar as such
10 requirements prevent the application of a re-
11 quirement of this division, as determined by the
12 Commissioner; and
13 (B) individual rights and remedies under
14 State laws shall apply.
15 (2) CONSTRUCTION.—In the case of coverage
16 described in paragraph (1), nothing in such para-
17 graph shall be construed as preventing the applica-
18 tion of rights and remedies under State laws with
19 respect to any requirement referred to in paragraph
20 (1)(A).
21 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per-
23 mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con-
24 sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
25 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
58
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro-
2 bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper
3 transactions or clarification by further commu-
4 nications;
5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real- 5
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa-
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma-
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-
13 fication card;
14 ‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time
15 adjudication of claims;
16 ‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment,
17 response, and status reporting applicable to any
18 electronic transaction deemed appropriate by
19 the Secretary;
20 ‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as
21 reason and remark codes) in unambiguous
22 terms, not permit optional fields, require that
23 data elements be either required or conditioned
24 upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad-
25 ditional conditions; and
URL: HR3200 - The Bill
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Quick Question on this Site
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 9:08:23 PM
|
MM: "This website is owned by the St. Petersburg Times which you conveniently omitted."
In the top left hand corner of every page of this website it says "St Petersburg Times". I didn't conveniently omit anything.
MM: "On the first note they strike me as left leaning in the composition of their editorial board and their choice of editorials."
Wikipedia supports your argument somewhat - "A study by Media Matters for America showed that the St. Petersburg Times was one of only four newspapers in Florida that featured more progressive opinions than conservative, with 43 percent of columnists considered progressive and 29 percent considered conservative"
So 43% of their columnists are progressive (you would say liberal) and 29% are conservative. So more progressive than conservative, but still ... it's not like they were 80/20
MM: "They have also not endorsed a Republican for President since Bush in 2000."
So, they endorsed Bush in 2000, and then someone else in 2004 and 2008 .... did they just become liberal in the last 8 years?
Instead of looking at their editorials, or their recent articles, I would suggest instead looking at their record within the PolitiFact.com website itself - which is separate from the main newspapger.
When Obama tried to say that he never said he wanted a single-payer plan - PolitiFact called him on it.
When Bill Clinton tried to say that he didn't accuse the Obama campaign of of playing the race card, PolitiFact replied "Pants On Fire".
Their Obameter tracks Obama's campaign promises, and his progress on these promises ... and Obama has by far not acted on most of these promises.
How can this website be so critical of democrats ... and yet you still discredit them?
Are they snarky? Of course, but they are just as snarky to Dems as they are to Repubs ... I just don't get it.
MM: "I am sure this will be dismissed because I am a right wing nut job despite the fact that any reasonable person would agree with my evaluation of the the Times."
I don't dismiss you, and I don't think you are a nut job ... (okay, ya gotta admit you are right wing ... just not a nut job).
This website won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize .... I just don't see how you can be so dismissive. Thanks.
URL: Pulitzer Prize Winner
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Also
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 9:26:46 PM
|
The St Pete Times endorsed Obama over Hillary in the Dem primary, and they endorsed McCain over the other Repubs in their primary.
And this posting makes it seem that they chose not to endorse either candidate in the general election ... citing McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as running mate as the reason they couldn't endorse McCain.
What am I mising on this? MM please check my facts ... did the St Pete Times endorse Obama over McCain or did they choose not to endorse either?
Thanks.
URL: Endorsement?
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Never Mind
|
|
Date:
|
8/17/2009 9:40:38 PM
|
I got my papers confused. The source I posted was a St. Petersburg Times article reporting on the fact that the Florida Times-Union (out of Jacksonville) elected not to endorse either McCain or Obama in the general election. Sorry for wasting anyone's time for reading my earlier post.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I'm not being dismissive
|
|
Date:
|
8/18/2009 8:29:45 AM
|
Reread my post and you will see that I was very balanced in my review of the site and only suggested that people do their own homework. I meant you omitted the owner of the site from your post and thanks for the url.
And I didn't say they couldn't put aside their endorsement of Obama but I do believe it is reasonable to ask the question about whether they would be influenced by that endorsement. I doubt any of us would give Fox News the same benefit of the doubt.
It may be a separate website but it is run by the same company. I have multiple companies and each have their own website but the design and content of each are approved by the same people. May or may not be the case here but those that decided to endorse Obama and endorsed John Kerry also created this website and hired the people to run it.
The fact that they take Obama to task for his outright lies is not in and of itself proof of non-bias. Their bias could also influence the meter readings. It could also influence their choice of issues to examine and present (i.e., we will lean toward presenting comments by Obama and other Dems that are mostly true and ignore comments by conservatives that are mostly true). There are lots of ways to work their bias in the website.
Again, I am not necessarily impugning the website but I do believe blindly embracing everything in here as coming from some unbiased, omniscient entity is also unreasonable and the facts about the Times supports that cautionary note.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Never Mind
|
|
Date:
|
8/18/2009 8:31:17 AM
|
No worries. I used Obama's website for my post about the endorsement which could have been wrong.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Logan Martin Lake
Login
|
Home
