Like I told my wife last night, "honey, its not a matter of them being honest, it's whether you can live with each's particular lies."
And this is why politics makes me sad.
ditto bro, there is no one to trust. You can't trust what you watch, read, hear bc ALL media is TAINTED! BUT, you can't give up either. So, we make judgements based on "half truths" and hope that it is the better of the two candidates. That's the way I look at it anyway....
don't kid yourself, most of the "fact checkers" out there have their own agenda just like every one else.
They LINK to the FACTS. You can actually READ FOR YOURSELF what they are referencing. If they were only calling out one side, I could see it, but they don't. Each side, and even those without a "side" are checked and called out continuously. Not everything is a conspiracy.
they LINK to other webpages created by PEOPLE with their own AGENDAS. the only thing I accept is video of the person saying it, and MULTIPLE reliable news sources to compare to.
they LINK to other webpages created by PEOPLE with their own AGENDAS. the only thing I accept is video of the person saying it, and MULTIPLE reliable news sources to compare to.
No *** they were created by people... web pages don't just spontaneously appear no matter how hard I try to will my workload into being. So, how do you decide which sites have agendas and which don't? If the facts agree with you, they are impartial, if they don't they are biased? I don't understand how, when they link to multiple sources, you can call bias. And if so, what bias have you discovered? Both sides quote politifact and other such checkers. The burden of proof is on you to show bias. Have you found incorrect facts listed?
ive found many "fact" lists to be full of opinion, mixed in with facts that I really don't have time to research.
So, at what level do you trust a fact? How do you decide the source is good enough? Or do you just trust your gut on things? I'm sorry if I am coming across as harsh here, re-reading my comments I think I sound overly critical, and that is not my intent. I am just trying to understand how you evaluate statements of fact as your methods seem so contrary to my own.
ive found many "fact" lists to be full of opinion, mixed in with facts that I really don't have time to research.
It just makes me cringe that we've gotten to a point, where so many politicians lie/tell half-truths/etc, we have to have fact-checkers....and on top of it, we're almost to a point where the definition of a "fact" is debatable.....aye aye aye, my head hurts. Time to go drink a beer.
for the most part, I dont. a lot of the *** that has gone down like fast and furrious, solyndra, stuff romney was involved in with bain, I dont know the real inside information and never will. so how do I decide something like who to vote for? I take what they have said and compare to their personal lives and known examples of who they are. obama-his first campaign you really had no idea who he was, there was almost no evidence about his life before the campaign, thats a red flag for me right there. for some time I thought he was the manchurian candidate for sure. his campaign promises were lofty, not concrete and all bent in the direction of pleasing people. another red flag. you had almost no idea where he stands on things. now we know more about his past, look at his association with david bell, and reverend wright. now its possible that obama sat in that mans congregation for all those years he was a member, disagreeing with the racism the man was about, but appreciating the nuggets of truth he spoke. but for me, a man that considers himself a member of a congregation led by that man, is a man that believes almost everything the man preaches. and now we know what he will do with the presidency, no indication that he will try a different direction, just throw more money at it till the problem goes away, give people everything for free, its all bullshit and has no place in real life.
romney-in every way a public figure, in terms of his religion and business practices, its all out there to be seen, hes even released his private financial documents. this is a man that gives to charity, has a track record of good business skills, has a lot of experience, these things I have read about the man from multiple sources, are they true? I would say yes, because they have not been disputed by the media. they cried for his tax records, then he released them, no one said a word, the records show he pays more taxes than obama even, the math adds up, it looks like a low percentage, and it is, because its not working income, its interest of investments, they are taxed differently. if there was any hint of incorrect information, they would have run with it. but they dont.
Who fact checks the fact checkers?? Romney mopped the floor with him. Quite frankly if you have not made up your mind by now and are waiting on debates to do that for you then you may not be paying attention. We have had 4 years of Obama and it is no secret to anyone how that has worked out.
Well Web, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Again, youve had 4 years to do reseach of Obama----that alone should be close to enough to decide if you want 4 more. Plus the info available on the other guy?? If you 30 days left, you still havent had enough time.....probably never will.
Well Web, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Again, youve had 4 years to do reseach of Obama----that alone should be close to enough to decide if you want 4 more. Plus the info available on the other guy?? If you 30 days left, you still havent had enough time.....probably never will.
From what I read Davis, you really aren't undecided. In one candidate, there is NO chance and in the other there is SLIM. I tend to feel the same, however, I will definitely back the one that I feel there is a slim chance of progress. Plus, he definitely won the debate! LOL!
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, 1,460 days. We all can't quite agree. Vulchor thinks O's time has been well spent (hush, don't tell him we're 6 Trillion in new debt), and Gypsy is counting his years to retirement. LMAO. I'm with Gypsy. LMAO. But my biggest concern with Vulchor is that he is gonna kick my ass this weekend in fantasy football. How the heck did you get those 2 running backs?
Yes, Ja-----thats what Im disagreeing with, lollll. Gypsy and I know each other (at least here politically) very well so I know that his opinion and mine on Obama's first term are different. That sir, is what I am disagreeing with.
Yes, 1,460 days. We all can't quite agree. Vulchor thinks O's time has been well spent (hush, don't tell him we're 6 Trillion in new debt), and Gypsy is counting his years to retirement. LMAO. I'm with Gypsy. LMAO. But my biggest concern with Vulchor is that he is gonna kick my ass this weekend in fantasy football. How the heck did you get those 2 running backs?
6 trillion, that's O's fault? Romney won the debate, Obama got beat. But on substance Romney fell flat, even trashed his same policies just to reach a huge audience. Just like he has done countless times. Even his campaign came out after the debate to say some things Romney said were not in line with the campaign. Obama isn't perfect but no president is, however for you that will back Romney what happened under bush will feel nice.
Oh I agree Squirrel totally. The question was who won the debate...Romney did, no doubt. Just the debate however. Who won with stats, numbers, realism, and specifics (ie the things people shoudl listen do but instead just liten to the tone and fervor of a guys voice)? Obama, hands down.
Comments