SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources. "the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = Specifics please. I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck Here's another site other may find of interest. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. I agree. I did the same thing. I'd make comments and not back them up with facts when I said such and such is a fact. Oh by the way if you guys didn't see it I did my source finally on the Universal Health Care topic. Check it out if you want to see the comparison articles. Thanks ChAiNz for the source plug. That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth. NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama. Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown. Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers. I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch. Concerning the Bill: Letter to the Editor: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/ Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted. Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/ Good you've now given your source. That's all we wanted. Yeah these days even credible sources can be biased. It's a shame. But also understandable. It's hard for people to not interject their views they believe in so to the core. So in the end all you can do is give your source and let people decide what they think is right. People will say that source is biased, wrong, spin it, or take things out of context. So again you simply have to let others make their own minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Yeah, I also had a source that actually had the actual bill in question and am still trying to find it. Thank you for taking the time to search/post some sources - Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Can't wait to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'. Perhaps we were watching different debates, but I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand. The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes. She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate. Sarah Palin proved that she is able to recite material. That is not an important quality for a Vice President. Joe Biden knew more about everything and was able to answer both hers and the moderators questions while she admitted in the opening of the debate that she had decided on her own format for the debate. ("I talk about whatever I want to talk about. WEEEEEE"). I am afraid that since a great number of people are more interested in style over substance they will be swayed by her folksie snarky demeanor, but I for one have had enough of leadership who I can 'really identify with'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Okay here is another source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190 I'm still trying to find stuff, so Palin was right and Biden was wrong. Here's another one: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/ Bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190 Page: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 click on show co-sponsors. Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] Sen. John Sununu [R-NH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'. ET Warrior]Perhaps we were watching different debates No. I simply believe we are biased in who we think won and who we were rooting for regardless. They say that statement because she was considered the underdog in this debate. And I think she did rneal well against a guy who has a heck of a lot more Washington experience than her. I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand. All candidates during debates have talking points memorized. Even Biden did. There is strategy in that. And your right it is bette when a candidate speaks more from the heart rather than from memorized statements. But she did not stick with them regarless of the question as you said. Maybe we were watching two different debates because I saw many times when she'd use her own words. So did Biden. The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes. I'll have to look back at the video sometime, but if she was nervous during that time it must have been the only time. I think she seemed relaxed and had good combacks. She would go back to a prevous topic when she wanted to rebut Biden and correct them. And I think she did it very well. And at the end she was so chipper and upbeat and even wanted and said she wished there could've been more of these VP debates soon. She had good zingers and I thought that helped her to look more real and down to earth. She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate. lol. Well thanks ET for your spin on it. Like I said I believe they had both of their talking points down, neither seemed nervous, and they both looked like they had a good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people. It could also be the fact he's had plastic surgery on his top eye lids that makes him look like he's making faces. I mean he when looking at the camera looks either like cat eyes or a little like a Klingon. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 ..little like a Klingon. lol. well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon. They're still finding gaffs made by Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 They're still finding gaffs made by Biden. When you have a source please provide them. well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon. I said or a cat's eyes, but I can't be sure. I should rephrase my statement about klingon eyes. I mean he has the klingon eyes only. No ridges, muscles, hair lol, and has droopy baggy lower lids. Not a very scary klingon if you ask me. More like a old klingon with massive hair loss. Interesting to find a star wars guy who likes trek too. I do too. We both seem to have a contradiction in comon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Here is something I'm looking for another source: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Here is something I'm looking for another source: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154 rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design. Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design. And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates. I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong. As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain." Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong. As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain." Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain. The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Hey guys I found the first interview they had with Palin after the VP debate. I think that since this interview has to do with how she did the night before and her answering some questions, I thought I'd post this for the topic: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=camren+interviews+palin&search_type=&aq=f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Lets see, Biden's been in politics almost the entire time that Palin's been alive, so for her to hold her own against him is a pretty big feat(yes I know it's an exaggeration). She came off as down home country. Biden came off as a politician(for the most part, but I think he started getting comfy around Palin and became more home townish as the debate went on...) Haha I really think that for the most part America is really pitting this race as Obama versus Palin. McCain and Biden seem to be along for their ride.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain. The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources. Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right.No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. When it comes to things like affairs and political scandals, they tend to do a better job than the NYT.... at least when the person happens to be a republican.... sorry, the NYT is quick to blast republicans, but seems to have some difficulty when a Democrat is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions. Facts come from sources. And those sources though they say they are not biased sometimes they are. Plus facts can be spun, half truths can be given, it can be manipulated. So like I keep saying it simply depends on who and what you think is a credible source. It also cand depend on what fits your way of thinking in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 Lots of posts about Palin-Biden debate were moved from the VP moderator's conflict of interest thread to this one. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 If John McCain is so good at working at cutting spending why didn’t he do that when the Republican had control of Congress and the Presidency? I believe he needs to remove his rose color glasses, they don’t suite his former maverick status and the American people are not that stupid. Well maybe they are not that stupid. mimartin he's been going after his own party too, Tom DeLay was kicked out of the United States Senate due to an investigation McCain headed up. He also called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign all the way back in 2004, and McCain was the one whom advocated the surge saying we didn't have enough people there and it was going to go to hell in a hand-basket. He's flat out accused the President (a member of his own party) of mismanagement. His campaign was considered to be dead back in 2007 because of his taking a stand. Most people know that, hell the media told people about it up till McCain won the Republican primary. Now the "mainstream" press is trying to say he's a Bush clone. I sincerely, doubt most people will be dumb enough to believe he's just another Bush term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.