Slashdot Mirror

It would be nice if there were a running tally on each politician for how many times they distorted or lied about something

Well, there is!

Stride on over to politifact, which gives the claims, rates them (true ==> pants-on-fire), and gives a referenced analysis why. They even analyse internet chain letters and other such claptrap.

fact-checks are cross-referenced to the person who made the claim, so you can see, for example, the truthiness of Obama, and Romney, or, if you prefer bat-shit-insane, Palin, and Bachmann.

The problem with Politifact, and in fact much of political reporting, is the cult of false equivalency. If they consistently portray politicians as liars and others as truth-tellers, then they'll be accused of partisanship and lose credibility. So the effect of this is that political figures who are regularly liars and only occasionally speak the truth end up looking no more dishonest than political figures who usually tell the truth but occasionally slip up.

I'm not sure how true this is. Michelle Bachmann's Politifact profile for example ahref=http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/rel=url2html-11562http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/>. Of the statements they've evaluated by her, more than half fall into the "false" or "pants on fire" category (of 53, 19 are "false" and 12 are "pants on fire"). Obama in contrast has around 17% in those two categories. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/, and Romney has 27% http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/. One can definitely see here different degrees of care with the facts, with most of the people really divorced from reality being people like Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh who manage to have more than half their evaluated statements as simply false. (One interesting exception is Jon Stewart who is on the left and has more than half his evaluated statements as false, but they've only evaluated three statements in total http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jon-stewart/ which says small sample size).

The problem with Politifact, and in fact much of political reporting, is the cult of false equivalency. If they consistently portray politicians as liars and others as truth-tellers, then they'll be accused of partisanship and lose credibility. So the effect of this is that political figures who are regularly liars and only occasionally speak the truth end up looking no more dishonest than political figures who usually tell the truth but occasionally slip up.

I'm not sure how true this is. Michelle Bachmann's Politifact profile for example ahref=http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/rel=url2html-11562http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/>. Of the statements they've evaluated by her, more than half fall into the "false" or "pants on fire" category (of 53, 19 are "false" and 12 are "pants on fire"). Obama in contrast has around 17% in those two categories. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/, and Romney has 27% http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/. One can definitely see here different degrees of care with the facts, with most of the people really divorced from reality being people like Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh who manage to have more than half their evaluated statements as simply false. (One interesting exception is Jon Stewart who is on the left and has more than half his evaluated statements as false, but they've only evaluated three statements in total http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jon-stewart/ which says small sample size).

The problem with Politifact, and in fact much of political reporting, is the cult of false equivalency. If they consistently portray politicians as liars and others as truth-tellers, then they'll be accused of partisanship and lose credibility. So the effect of this is that political figures who are regularly liars and only occasionally speak the truth end up looking no more dishonest than political figures who usually tell the truth but occasionally slip up.

I'm not sure how true this is. Michelle Bachmann's Politifact profile for example ahref=http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/rel=url2html-11562http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/>. Of the statements they've evaluated by her, more than half fall into the "false" or "pants on fire" category (of 53, 19 are "false" and 12 are "pants on fire"). Obama in contrast has around 17% in those two categories. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/, and Romney has 27% http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/. One can definitely see here different degrees of care with the facts, with most of the people really divorced from reality being people like Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh who manage to have more than half their evaluated statements as simply false. (One interesting exception is Jon Stewart who is on the left and has more than half his evaluated statements as false, but they've only evaluated three statements in total http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jon-stewart/ which says small sample size).

The safety margins are estimated based upon what is known at that time and can also be too small. That's why these things have been watched like hawks and many portions replaced.

SONGS has been offline since January due to premature wear detected in pipes installed in 2010-2011. They've vowed not to restart it until they know exactly what caused the problem. The inspection regimen caught the problem. Fairly early too.

People always talk about how unsafe nuclear plants are due to human failings. But if you look at their safety record, we'd be a lot better off worrying more about other power sources rather than nuclear power. More people were killed in the U.S. by commercial wind power just last year (1 maintenance worker, 2 members of the public) than have been killed by commercial nuclear power in 54 years (zero). Statistically, nuclear power is actually the safest power source man has ever harnessed.

And because someone who can't wrap his head around the idea that wind is more dangerous than nuclear under our current regulatory structure is going to call BS:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/lamar-alexander/facts-risks-nuclear-power-plants/
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=118532
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/news/2011/jun/14/bellevuefall061411azxml
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_e00a0cd2-bfcd-5543-85fd-cafa456922e4.html
(I'm limiting it to commercial power generation, leaving out 2 wind-related construction fatalities and one fatal fall from a research turbine.)

This is, at best, half-true, but mostly false.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/jul/11/john-robitaille/former-ri-gubernatorial-candidate-john-robitaille-/

khipu laid out plenty of facts and 2 minutes crawling the net would confirm everything he says.

How much data do you need? If you need everything referencing, here's about 5 minutes worth:

Healthcare cop-out:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Pushed for a 5 year prison term for Charles Lynch, the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary, legal under California law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Warmonger:

Sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm

Successfully protected Bush officials from prosecution for torture
http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line

Proposed a three year freeze on domestic spending, exempting cuts from the Pentagon and Homeland Security
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-allies-struggle-to_n_436996.html

Argued that the widespread use of Predator drones is a justifiable form of self-defense
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/drone-attacks-legit-self-defense-says-administration-lawyer/

Revived "Prompt Global Strike" weapons system, considered too controversial by Bush Administration
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/

Backed off on his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Cronyism:

Violated his own ban on lobbyists working for the administration
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Sided with utility companies in lawsuit to stop greenhouse gas emissions
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/26/obama-stance-on-climate-suit-stuns-allies/

Gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

Appointed Lawrence Summers as his top economic advise

There is a lot of hand-waving in there- yes, a lot of people pay no federal *INCOME* taxes, many of them do actually pay payroll taxes. According to Politifact, once you exclude the elderly and those that make less than $20,000 per year, 0.9% pay no federal Income tax or payroll tax. (Tax year 2011)

By "you" I mean "Americans". After all, if the person whom I replied to made statements such as "Germans waged war", I don't see why I shouldn't be similarly blunt.

If you're an American citizen, then you're certainly partly responsible for killing people. That holds true for any franchised citizen of any democratic country that wages war. You (again, you Americans, not necessarily you personally) voted for a president who promised to pull your troops out of Iraq - which he kinda sorta did - but he never promised anything of a kind with respect to Afghanistan, and we've yet to see how it fares with Iran, towards which he always demonstrated a hawkish policy, even before being elected.

As a side note, I'm not necessarily saying that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unjustified, either. That killing happens there is an objective fact, though - that's what wars tend to be about. I actually happen think that Afghanistan with US intervention today is better off than Afghanistan without it, though I kinda wish you spent less time screwing around there playing "let's build a mock democracy in a feudal society", and focusing more on the real threats - but that would mean going into Pakistan (they call it AfPak for a reason), and, yes, more deaths, too, including innocents. But it would have a definite meaningful and worthy goal in the end - curbing extreme fundamentalist Islam and preventing the re-establishment of the Caliphate on that fundament. Right now, though, I'm not so sure that what happens there serves anyone in the long term. Taliban is as strong as ever, and the moment you leave they come back - and a lot of angry people will join them...

I'm not going back and forth between WW2 and today, either. My purely hypothetical example with a hospital was used solely for illustration and is not tied to any particular time frame - you can place it in WW2 as well, if you so desire. Apparently, though, some people, for whatever reason, decided that it was a hint towards some current conflict (wonder why that would be?). The discussion only went towards here and now when the person to whom I replied mentioned "wars ... we're in".

[Lybian war] in a month, for under a billion dollars

Sounds like you are quoting the figures that were given before the war and didn't bother to check if that's how things actually played out. The war in Lybia lasted from March 31 to October 31, so it was more like 7 months. And wikipedia says 1.3 Billion spent just by the US. And now that Gaddafi is dead, everything is great there right? Not quite. There is still plenty of murder, torture, rape, etc. going on, probably worse that what was occurring under Gaddafi.

As far at the Republican criticisms being inconsistent, I won't argue with you there, but Obama has been at least as inconsistent as them on this issue given that during his candidacy he specifically said the president does not have the power to do what he did in Libya.

Really?

Because the actual truth is that spending under Obama is the lowest it's been in 60 years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Private industry is required to prefund pensions, but not retiree health care (which USPS is required to do).

At least, per PolitiFact:

By federal law, private companies must fund their pensions fully, and catch up over time if they fall behind. They don’t have to prefund retiree health benefits.

So, the claims about how unfair this is to the USPS are very ironic, given that they are being similarly "hobbled" the way government hobbles private industry.

That said, I think it's egregious to *not* prefund pension liabilities. But hypocrisy and meddling is the nature of government, so there's not much to be done about Congress asset-stripping the USPS in the ironic name of fiscal responsibility.

I recently read this which seems to counter your claim (it is Rick Santorum claiming that Obama has made our power grid worse - got a "Pants on Fire" rating).

Not really. The stressed out grid and brown outs and black outs that I referred to were occurring *before* Obama became president. They are not something new.

I recently read this which seems to counter your claim (it is Rick Santorum claiming that Obama has made our power grid worse - got a "Pants on Fire" rating). Also, as things currently stand, most people would charge their cars at night which are not peak hours (so would actually help the power grid be more stable).

Do you have any evidence to back that up? That it was approved over the objections of the OMB? This PolitiFact article says the Bush administration was as eager as the current one to approve the loan guarantee.

According to PolitiFact the Bush administration tried to get the loan guarantee through before they left office but the Energy Departments credit committee held it up for more analysis. I think it's difficult to make the case that it's all the Obama administration's fault.

I agree with you that money in politics is a bad problem that neither party seems to want to tackle. It's ridiculous that congresscritters have to spend so much of their time raising money rather than doing the peoples business.

Most of your reply isn't really relevant because I've agreed with you that the US has serious problems and that some of them are getting worse. In that context, pointing to specific problems doesn't really do much. But it may be instructive to look at your examples:

Tarek Mehanna is an appalling example and not the only such case. Ward Churchill was guilty of severe plagiarism. It is true that people paid more attention to him and the plagiarism accusations because of his politically controversial statements, but that's a much weaker claim (and no one seriously disagrees with the plagiarism issue in his case). The issues related to recording the police are also a serious one and one that is really despicable. It varies a lot from state to state, and some states are actually improving (see for example, the ongoing legislation in Connecticut that will allow people to sue cops who try to interfere with recording http://stratford.patch.com/articles/bill-protects-citizens-recording-police-a8140340). In Pakistan, that wouldn't even be an issue because the police or military would just beat up the person recording and take the recording. Pihkal is a potential example of where someone was targeted for their speech, although actual violations of research and security policies were found in the lab. Your statement about the DMCA is just factually wrong- the DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, it doesn't prohibit discussion of how to do so. The PROTECT_Act has some pretty stupid provisions, and trying to make virtual porn illegal is a violation of free speech by many notions. In Pakistan essentially all pornography is essentially illegal and they regularly block pornographic websites http://tribune.com.pk/story/293434/pta-approved-over-1000-porn-sites-blocked-in-pakistan/. Free speech zones are a really wretched idea and do implicitly violate actual free speech protections, although weak forms that only restrict time, place and manner without any content aspect are probably ok (and in fact courts in the last few years have struck down many attempts to restrict anything beyond that- see for example what happened with Texas Tech in 2004).

In the US one is subject to such searches if one is going on a plane

This amounts to millions of people subjected to searches, in a systematic and humiliating way.

You cut off part of my sentence which ended with "and one doesn't go through the backscatter screening", and that's quite relevant here. About 2 million people are subject monthly to pat-downs http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/may/17/janet-napolitano/homeland-security-chief-stresses-very-very-very-fe/. That estimate includes people who are getting pat-downs after they've already triggered some sort of warning, not just randomized pat-downs or op-out pat-downs. Again, the Pakistan situation is very different- the police and military can stop anyone on the streets and search them with no justification. I don't know if that results in more total searches in the US, but if it does, it is only because the US is a much larger country. As a percentage matter, the result would be pretty clear.

Any violation of this sort in Pakistan is actually orders of magnitude worse than the US

[citation needed]

Sure. http://www.hrw.org/asia/pakistan, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154485.htm,

Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

Obama also promised to:

Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers, expand the child and dependent care credit, create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, provide the option for a pre-filled-out tax form, require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans, require automatic enrollment in IRA plans, end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, end no-bid contracts above $25,000, repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes, phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners, sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize, forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses, allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court, allow imported prescription drugs, prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs, allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices, appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts, double federal funding for cancer research, direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives, provide the CDC $50 million in new funding to determine the most effective approaches for cancer patient care, fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security, change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts, reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees, provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave, require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault, form international group to help Iraq refugees, work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees, secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus, reinstate special envoy for the Americas, double the Peace Corps, create a public "Contracts and Influence" database, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, enforce tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials, double funding for afterschool programs, expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity, urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws, allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage, increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups, re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council, support human mission to moon by 2020, pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit, reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce, strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, limit term of director of national intelligence, give annual "State of the World" address, reduce earmarks to 1994 levels, enact windfall profits tax for oil companies, create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming, use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration, require plug-in fleet at the White House, require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government, mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012, provide an annual report on "state of our energy future," allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009, recognize the Armenian genocide, ensure no family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase," negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN, create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange, and introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year.

(From PolitiFact.)

So you'll understand if I don't take Obama at his word.

Not really. It makes for a good talking point, but it's much subtler than that. PolitiFact as a pretty good analysis.

The impression is that some ideology is the driver, when that's demonstrably untrue, given a thorough view of the survey results. But Fox News has by far the highest viewership of the cable news channels (in key demographics, they have a higher viewership than all other cable news channels combined). They also have pretty anchors that wear short skirts, and they keep things moving along to retain the interest of those with even the shortest of attention spans.

I despise the bias of the reporting on Fox News as much as anyone, but these surveys say more about the viewership and entertainment value of mainstream media than the efficacy of information from any particular source.

He scares the left because he's basically about leaving the states to their own resources, and most states (especially the Red States), don't generate enough GDP to do anything on their own.

Well, if the red states don't want "socialism", why push it onto them?

Red State Socialism

It's not being pushed on them. If anything, the red states are demanding it.

Also, state politics are notoriously corrupt and prone to special interest groups (see California).

As opposed to federal politics?

Anyway, a simple rule of thumb is this: the closer the government is to the people who elect it, the easier is to fix and/or change it.

No, the closer it is, the easier it is to fix it. States, and even cities, were run by political bosses who could rouse their base. And in smaller states and cities, that base could easily overwhelm elections. This was part of the reason the Seventeenth Amendment was created. At the Federal level, the ability to create power bases used to be near impossible. The different parts of the country balanced the power of other parts thus resulting in a tougher environment to get away with shenanigans.

Now devolving power is a useful conversation, and one America desperately needs. But the way to start that conversation is to start destroying the power bases state political parties love. For example, ending gerrymandering. If state elections became truly competitive, politicians will trip over themselves to do a better job. And with devolved power, one would hope, more interest in state elections.

The U.S. Federal government is the easiest institution to create a social safety net, control big corporations, etc.

Seeing how these things go, it seems that the Federal government is the easiest institution to create it and make it all wrong or useless. Because, first of all, it has to get through a bitter fight in Congress, and get emaciated due to various "compromises" that are necessary to get it to pass (see also: the recent healthcare reform). Then it has to be actually implemented, which means dealing with all the red tape that the government of a large territory necessarily generates.

There's absolutely no reason why a social safety net and other obvious advantages of the left-wing political program cannot be implemented on state level. This was done before elsewhere - for example, Canadian health care system was originally created by individual provinces on their own, without federal participation, and it still remains largely under provincial control.

FAIL! OK, 80% fail. :-) It started in two provinces then became a federal government program. To a certain extent it is provincially run, but Health Canada is an active participant in provincial programs.

Although my original post makes me sound more negative on devolution of power than I meant to. I just don't think devolution is a magic cure-all, and it shouldn't be done until problems in the state legislatures are fixed. For example, California's ability to let citizens create expensive programs by referendum, but not also mandate that any spending proposition must provide a revenue component.

Obama actually campaigned on doing exactly that, but Republicans think it's a tax conspiracy and refuse to do anything useful. ::sigh::

Still no charges for the agents who actually committed acts of torture. Waterboarding is just as wrong whether it's committed by us, or whether it's done to us. In either case, the torturer deserves the same fate.

And Obama has already demo'd that he is as bomb happy. Continue the Irag/Afghan War even though he promised to end them by Dec 31, 2009.

You are mistaken. He did not promise to end the war in Afghanistan. In fact, it was just the opposite. He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and ramp up the war in Afghanistan. That's what happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/

You have this habit of just making up shit. Try doing some fact checking before you post.

Yeah, Politifact currently has that one listed as Promise Broken, for a whole swath of reasons.

Only if you define the Heritage Foundation as "socialist."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

Or if you define "socialist" to mean "any government program that I don't like."

We are rapidly approaching the reverse of the above where those whom are wholly reliant upon the government for their subsistence will continue to vote to retain (and in fact, increase) that subsidy without regard for the financial feesibility of such a vote.

Which is why the states that are net consumers of federal funds vote republican and the states which are net producers of federal funds vote democrat.

2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care

After reading, quite extensively, on this topic, it is clear that there is much debate about this issue. It is quite painfully clear to people such as myself who don't qualify for medicare and can't afford private insurance that we are going to fall through the cracks in this not so well thought out government over-regulation. Some may argue that what FOX reported was a lie, but to me sounds more like hyperbole or half truth at worst. While the entire Obamacare bill may not be a government takeover of hospitals and/or doctors, it is a government takeover of my choice of how and where I receive my healthcare especially in the forcing me to purchase insurance. Hopefully the Supreme Court will shoot that aspect down when it hears this case later this year.

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

A quote by a specific news analyst who is known for his opinionated presentation, not representative of the news or news staff

White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/

After reading the ENTIRE Politifact, it was clear that the statement was not false until Politifact contacted Mr. Rathke where he then retracted his previous statement/blog-post:

".....Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in 'politics 101.'"

which IMHO sounds a bit fishy to me and probably needs a little more fact checking than asking the elephant: "Who stole the peanut butter". Rathke was the founder of ACORN and we're supposed to believe that he was mistaken about who was ACORN New York's political director? C'mon.

Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/12/gretchen-carlson/gretchen-carlson-says-state-board-education-consid/

I'll give Stewart this one although there was much confusion from FOX, the Texas BOE and Politifact. A lot of back pedaling on both sides, but FOX definitely fucked up

The best evidences showing PolitiFact's liberal slant - Politifact: http://politifactbias.blogspot.com/p/annotated-principles-of-politifact.html

I'll need to do more research regarding this supposedly unbiased fact checking site. However, after perusing the last three months of articles, over 70% were anti-republican claims, many of which fall into the category of could be true/could be false depending on ideology. Mr. Adair who founded the organization is a usual suspect on NPR, the embodiment of liberal talk radio and the director of PEW, a p

2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care

After reading, quite extensively, on this topic, it is clear that there is much debate about this issue. It is quite painfully clear to people such as myself who don't qualify for medicare and can't afford private insurance that we are going to fall through the cracks in this not so well thought out government over-regulation. Some may argue that what FOX reported was a lie, but to me sounds more like hyperbole or half truth at worst. While the entire Obamacare bill may not be a government takeover of hospitals and/or doctors, it is a government takeover of my choice of how and where I receive my healthcare especially in the forcing me to purchase insurance. Hopefully the Supreme Court will shoot that aspect down when it hears this case later this year.

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

A quote by a specific news analyst who is known for his opinionated presentation, not representative of the news or news staff

White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/

After reading the ENTIRE Politifact, it was clear that the statement was not false until Politifact contacted Mr. Rathke where he then retracted his previous statement/blog-post:

".....Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in 'politics 101.'"

which IMHO sounds a bit fishy to me and probably needs a little more fact checking than asking the elephant: "Who stole the peanut butter". Rathke was the founder of ACORN and we're supposed to believe that he was mistaken about who was ACORN New York's political director? C'mon.

Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/12/gretchen-carlson/gretchen-carlson-says-state-board-education-consid/

I'll give Stewart this one although there was much confusion from FOX, the Texas BOE and Politifact. A lot of back pedaling on both sides, but FOX definitely fucked up

The best evidences showing PolitiFact's liberal slant - Politifact: http://politifactbias.blogspot.com/p/annotated-principles-of-politifact.html

I'll need to do more research regarding this supposedly unbiased fact checking site. However, after perusing the last three months of articles, over 70% were anti-republican claims, many of which fall into the category of could be true/could be false depending on ideology. Mr. Adair who founded the organization is a usual suspect on NPR, the embodiment of liberal talk radio and the director of PEW, a p

2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care

After reading, quite extensively, on this topic, it is clear that there is much debate about this issue. It is quite painfully clear to people such as myself who don't qualify for medicare and can't afford private insurance that we are going to fall through the cracks in this not so well thought out government over-regulation. Some may argue that what FOX reported was a lie, but to me sounds more like hyperbole or half truth at worst. While the entire Obamacare bill may not be a government takeover of hospitals and/or doctors, it is a government takeover of my choice of how and where I receive my healthcare especially in the forcing me to purchase insurance. Hopefully the Supreme Court will shoot that aspect down when it hears this case later this year.

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

A quote by a specific news analyst who is known for his opinionated presentation, not representative of the news or news staff

White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/

After reading the ENTIRE Politifact, it was clear that the statement was not false until Politifact contacted Mr. Rathke where he then retracted his previous statement/blog-post:

".....Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in 'politics 101.'"

which IMHO sounds a bit fishy to me and probably needs a little more fact checking than asking the elephant: "Who stole the peanut butter". Rathke was the founder of ACORN and we're supposed to believe that he was mistaken about who was ACORN New York's political director? C'mon.

Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/12/gretchen-carlson/gretchen-carlson-says-state-board-education-consid/

I'll give Stewart this one although there was much confusion from FOX, the Texas BOE and Politifact. A lot of back pedaling on both sides, but FOX definitely fucked up

The best evidences showing PolitiFact's liberal slant - Politifact: http://politifactbias.blogspot.com/p/annotated-principles-of-politifact.html

I'll need to do more research regarding this supposedly unbiased fact checking site. However, after perusing the last three months of articles, over 70% were anti-republican claims, many of which fall into the category of could be true/could be false depending on ideology. Mr. Adair who founded the organization is a usual suspect on NPR, the embodiment of liberal talk radio and the director of PEW, a p

2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care

After reading, quite extensively, on this topic, it is clear that there is much debate about this issue. It is quite painfully clear to people such as myself who don't qualify for medicare and can't afford private insurance that we are going to fall through the cracks in this not so well thought out government over-regulation. Some may argue that what FOX reported was a lie, but to me sounds more like hyperbole or half truth at worst. While the entire Obamacare bill may not be a government takeover of hospitals and/or doctors, it is a government takeover of my choice of how and where I receive my healthcare especially in the forcing me to purchase insurance. Hopefully the Supreme Court will shoot that aspect down when it hears this case later this year.

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

A quote by a specific news analyst who is known for his opinionated presentation, not representative of the news or news staff

White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/

After reading the ENTIRE Politifact, it was clear that the statement was not false until Politifact contacted Mr. Rathke where he then retracted his previous statement/blog-post:

".....Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in 'politics 101.'"

which IMHO sounds a bit fishy to me and probably needs a little more fact checking than asking the elephant: "Who stole the peanut butter". Rathke was the founder of ACORN and we're supposed to believe that he was mistaken about who was ACORN New York's political director? C'mon.

Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks - Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/12/gretchen-carlson/gretchen-carlson-says-state-board-education-consid/

I'll give Stewart this one although there was much confusion from FOX, the Texas BOE and Politifact. A lot of back pedaling on both sides, but FOX definitely fucked up

The best evidences showing PolitiFact's liberal slant - Politifact: http://politifactbias.blogspot.com/p/annotated-principles-of-politifact.html

I'll need to do more research regarding this supposedly unbiased fact checking site. However, after perusing the last three months of articles, over 70% were anti-republican claims, many of which fall into the category of could be true/could be false depending on ideology. Mr. Adair who founded the organization is a usual suspect on NPR, the embodiment of liberal talk radio and the director of PEW, a p

Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....

----

But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.

Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/

If the US government did not pony up and buy GM then Chinese companies would have picked the corpse clean. Of course, most Chinese companies are partially state owned and have strong advantages in China. They then use that core market where they are always the main player to gain advantage overseas where we allow free market ideas to stifle our own government into not standing up for our own industry in the name of short term profits.

A great example of this is how China is currently building a commercial airline fleet. The first models are being built by Boeing, then the next models will be built by Boeing in china using Chinese workers and companies, then the Chinese companies get to sack off Boeing and use what they learned to build their own. The new high speed rail they are developing is the same as well, they buy in foreign expertise but only with a definite plan to bring that expertise in house eventually at any cost. This might have meant the country developed slower in the short term, but it has given the country a very solid base to build on now and it will only get bigger in future.

This is not saying GM never made mistakes, but the government that were in power when it went tits up had very tough choice to make.

Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....

----

But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.

Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/

they fought for the rights of gays and women

This is also a theatrical wedge issue. The only slight difference is that public opinion fell heavily on the "change the military policy" side, so one tiny corner of gay policy got changed. Until gays have they same rights as non-gay citizens, they are still not showing true support. How many of them are fully invested in truly equal rights for gays? How's Obama's position on gay marriage? They don't even get the half-a-loaf that is civil partnerships. Has there been a single substantive change in non-military policy regarding gay rights?

Yes:
- Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Source
- Presidential Memorandum protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights. Source
- Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. Source

There's your substantive change.

Why didn't you link to his complete record of promises on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Or his complete file on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Or was this just a lame attempt at twisting the data? Of course no politician will ever be able to keep all the promises they make, unless they're a dictator of some kind.

Why didn't you link to his complete record of promises on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Or his complete file on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Or was this just a lame attempt at twisting the data? Of course no politician will ever be able to keep all the promises they make, unless they're a dictator of some kind.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Is that not what you're looking for when you say "Or Obama for that matter?" They track his campaign promises. I don't think they tracked Bush or Clinton considering they didn't exist until August of 2007. I guess they could go back in time to do so, but would it matter? And does it matter if he keeps a higher percentage of campaign promises than others if the results are mediocre?

Just off the top of my head, he's broken promises regarding:

- Ending the wars. Regrettably Bush was responsible for the draw-down in Iraq. Obama just held to the agreement.
- Human rights. He's deporting people in droves. He's murdering citizens based on the decisions of a secret council.
- Transparency. His administration is seeking to weaken the Freedom of Information Act. He doubled-down on prosecutions of whistle-blowers. He's stonewalling on Solyndra and Fast-n-furious.
- Guantanamo. Still going strong.
- Medical Marijuana.

Hell, he just added a new foreign base in Australia. Do we really need to expand our military into Australia?

There are 3 pages of broken promises over at politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Sure, other presidents might have been worse. I don't care. I voted for a guy who promised he'd be different. He wasn't. He lied.

Except that it's completely true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/22/john-edwards/black-and-white-family-net-worth-disparity-true/

I'm not sure what the current figures are, but it's even worse now than it was then. The number there is probably a pretty good indicator of what it was like before the current recession made it even more so.

Yeah, the internet hasn't been used to create any jobs at all~

BTW - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/

Your comment about Portland's cost evaluation interested me, and for others with similarly piqued interests, I found this explanation by PolitiFact Oregon:
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/mar/19/sam-adams/portland-mayor-sam-adams-says-portlands-spent-its-/

The only correction I have is that the estimate is for 1 mile of urban highway, not 3.

Interesting stuff.

So 5 in 2.5 years? Cool, slightly less per year than 18 in 8 years .

Half the country pays no income tax. They still pay almost 7% tax FICA etc. The rich and republicans like to say income tax knowing that the American people don't know any better. Some people want a 10% flat tax which when combined with what the poor already pay gives them a 17% tax rate. Warren Buffet pays around 15%. So how is that fair in any world?

We need to raise the capital gains tax to around 25%. Norquist says that will kill investment, but there is no facts to back up his statement. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/19/grover-norquist/grover-norquist-said-economy-has-grown-or-been-dam/
Raising the capital gains won't lower investment, but it may get investors to keep their money in the company longer. Modern investment is screwing us over. You don't invest in a company for a quarter or a year. You don't invest then demand they not R&D but just outsource to artificially inflate stock price.

both the gp and the response had errors in it. But the GP's point wasn't invalid. People will get paid, seniors will get thier checks and so on through accounting gimmicks for several months. The only way this would not happen would be at the direction of, or incompetence of the head of the executive office. If people are put out of pay or benefits because of not raising the debt ceiling within the next 5-7 months, it will be because of Obama's direct actions or the lack of action to avoid it. The capability is there for at least the rest of this fiscal year.

Someone isn't going to get paid. I don't see how there's any way around that, and that's on Congress. They're supposed to pay the bills.

Oh, wait, except here are the numbers: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.pdf. You fucking lose.

I think you're oversimplifying. We'll be defaulting somehow, the only question is who gets the shaft.

Guess what? That is up to Obama, unless Congress passes a law specifying differently. That means it is Obama who is threatening the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans. Obama or the Democrats in the Senate could put a proposal on the table and then we could debate the relative merits of the Republicans' plan and the Democrats' plan. The problem with criticizing the Republican's plan is that it is the only plan on the table. There are, currently, no other options (except to keep on racking up ever more debt until to no one will loan the government any money).

That's complete nonsense. If Congress abdicates on its responsibility to pay the country's bills, then yes, decisions will have to be made about where we will default, but that isn't on Obama. It's Congress' responsibility to pay the bills.

Saying that the Republican plan is the only plan is bullshit though. Proposing something that you know the other side can't possibly agree to is not a good-faith negotiation. There are two ways to close the deficit gap, cutting spending and raising revenues. The Tea Party Republicans want to take one of those completely off the table and have refused any compromise at all. This is on them.

There have been plenty of other plans being put together, even bi-partisan plans, but the Tea Party faction refuses to budge at all on any sort of tax revenue increase, so those plans are dead before they can even be formed. As long as they insist that only cuts and no revenues can be part of the bill, they are the ones holding the country hostage. Wonder how people will like the tax we all get to pay when it starts costing us more to borrow anything at all because our credit gets downgraded.

We've seen poll after poll now that shows that something like 70% of the country, including a large percentage of Republicans, think that both taxes and cuts should be part of any compromise plan, but the House Republicans won't allow it. This shit is on them, and I think people will see it that way come the next election too. You can't just sit there with your little faction and insist that everything be done your way. That's not how democracy works, and people will recognize which side isn't willing to compromise and get a plan put together that can pass both houses. If the shit hits the fan, we know which group is responsible.