[bigconig]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

Beck vs Kelly. Who's the dufus ? Who has his own nationally televised program ? Who works for the GOVERNMENT that Beck is always pointing out is FILLED with leftists/communists? And you bigconig, you must be suffering from severe memory loss. You can't even recall what you posted 5 minutes ago. The only Morons here are you two.

I don't even know what you are referring to but from what I remember of this thread (you are not worth the time to re-read) you have a real hard time following anything anyone says unless it's vilifying libruls (even though it's quite obvious that you don't know what one is). I am sorry I hurt your feelings by calling your hero a moron I'm sure a former alcoholic high school graduate is pretty special in the circles you run in.

Be sure to keep us posted on all the other great stuff the true patriot Beck exposes on his wonderful show.

[jikelly]

on Stewart and Glenn Beck couldn't be more different for obvious reasons. But Jon Stewart channeled Glenn Beck in an extended Daily Show segment, much like one of Beck's
Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck Sketch Most Extensive Beck Spoof Yet
extended rants. Jon Stewart's fans shouldn't worry that he's become Glenn Beck, however, as Stewart proved that Beck isn't off limits even when he's in the hospital. With news of Glenn Beck's appendicitis this week, Beck wasn't on the air to give Stewart more ammunition. So Jon Stewart made some up, as he took on Glenn Beck's internal organs, much like Beck takes on the Kenyan communists who hate our Founding Fathers.

Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck Sketch Most Extensive Beck Spoof Yet - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by bigconig

I don't even know what you are referring to but from what I remember of this thread (you are not worth the time to re-read) you have a real hard time following anything anyone says unless it's vilifying libruls (even though it's quite obvious that you don't know what one is). I am sorry I hurt your feelings by calling your hero a moron I'm sure a former alcoholic high school graduate is pretty special in the circles you run in.

Be sure to keep us posted on all the other great stuff the true patriot Beck exposes on his wonderful show.

at least glenn beck admits he is a recovering alcoholic rodeo clown, but he also does put out accurate information, which is why the left is attacking beck himself rather than what beck is saying. its the same with limbaugh, the left is attacking him rather than his message because they know the message is accurate.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

The difference between Glenn and Jon, is Glenn does not rely nor broadcast on inaccurate information. A simple check of his facts will attest to that.

You made me laugh while I was drinking. Now I have to clean all the water off of my monitor and keyboard. Well done sir.

I'm gonna slowly over time address this part of you last post:

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

... Glenn does not rely nor broadcast on inaccurate information.

So, on Oct 12th, Back made this comment:

Originally Posted by Glenn Beck

Do you really think that you're going to see an increase in medical students? I don't think so. Especially consider that the percentage of doctors who say they'll quit if this is passed is only 45 percent. No worries. Ha! You'll be able to find a good doctor. Really, you will.

Beck is stating that 45 percent of the current doctors will quit if the health care reform passes.

Well, PolitiFact did a fact check on him, and here is what they found:

It came from a survey of "practicing physicians" published in mid September. The survey was sponsored by the newspaper Investor's Business Daily and was done by the firm TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics, or TIPP. The survey was conducted between Aug. 28, 2009, and Sept. 15, 2009. It was mailed to 25,600 physicians nationwide at addresses purchased from a list broker.

OK, so Beck got his information from a poll. Now, if Beck were a good source of information, then he would have looked into how the poll was conducted to ensure that is was a quality source of information. We all know that almost anyone can show any point of view that they want with a poll by just conducting the poll in a given way.

So, let's see what PolitiFact found out about the poll:

— Beck misstated what the poll asked. Beck said that 45 percent of doctors will quit. But in fact, the poll found that 45 percent of doctors said they will consider quitting. Considering quitting isn't the same thing as quitting, which makes Beck's statement a significant exaggeration.

In addition, the specific question asked of respondents was, "If Congress passes their health care plan, will you ... continue your practice, [or] consider leaving your practice or taking an early retirement?" This wording leaves open the possibility that respondents are saying they might simply leave their current practice to join another practice, rather than quit.

Either Beck doesn't know how to comprehend, or distored what the poll said on purpose. Either way, doesn't seem like a good source of the facts to me. Let's continue:

— The poll had a low response rate. According to the statistics published in IBD, 1,376 practicing physicians responded to the poll, out of the 25,600 solicited nationally. That's a 5.4 percent response rate. In one of its articles about the poll, IBD bills this as "a high rate of return, considering how difficult doctors are to get hold of." But another survey of doctors released around the same time managed to do better — much better.

That other survey was conducted by Salomeh Keyhani and Alex Federman, internists and researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, who published the results in the New England Journal of Medicine. They mailed 5,157 questionnaires and got a response rate that exceeded 43 percent — nearly eight times the IBD survey's rate. In fact, Keyhani and Federman reached almost 50 percent more doctors despite sending out only one-fifth the number of inquiries. (They did not ask doctors if they would consider quitting as the other poll did.)

Does a higher response rate matter? In this case, it's hard to know for sure, said Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. However, she added, "higher response rates give me more confidence in results," a point echoed by other experts we interviewed.

Hmmm, looks like Beck will take anything that supports what he wants to say. Good source of information, right?

— The sponsor was listed prominently on the survey, possibly influencing who responded. The survey was sent out on Investor’s Business Daily letterhead, and the introduction said in part, "The results of this survey will be on Investor’s Business Daily’s front page and investors.com. A press release will also be prepared. This will give doctors a voice in this key issue."

This type of framing matters because IBD's editorial page is known for its conservative stance, including opposition to the Democratic health care effort.

While it’s safe to assume that not everyone who received the survey knew about IBD's political leanings, some respondents presumably did — and among those who did, such knowledge could have made a difference in determining who responded. Liberals might have been less likely to respond, while conservatives in tune with the IBD editorials would have been more enthusiastic about responding. In such a small sample, even a modest bias of that sort could skew the results.

— The wording of questions may have influenced who responded. In an interview, Mark Blumenthal, who blogs at pollster.com and has written critically of the IBD poll, said the wording of the questions could have skewed the results.

"Collectively, these questions imply that health care reform will mean very bad things for medicine," Blumenthal said. "I'm guessing that a proreform doctor would be inclined to ignore, and not return, a survey if the questions seem leading or biased."


In the IBD poll, 65 percent of the doctors who responded said they opposed "government's proposed health care plan" while just 33 percent supported it. By contrast, the Keyhani-Federman poll found that 63 percent of doctors surveyed favored giving patients a choice between public and private insurance, as congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama have advocated. Another 10 percent said they favored a single-payer health care system — a solution that is actually to the left of the president. In other words, the results of the two polls are so far apart that they are essentially opposites.

Hmmm, so it looks like another study that had a better response percentage found the opposite. Now, being a diligent fact checker, PolitiFact checked that poll:

The truth may actually lie somewhere in between the two surveys. It's worth noting that the Keyhani-Federman poll received financial support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which favors health care reform. Also, National Public Radio has said that "Keyhani and Federman belong to ... the National Physicians Alliance. It supports a public option, and Keyhani has spoken publicly about her own support for a public option." A campaign finance database search found that both researchers donated to the Obama campaign in 2008 — $500 from Keyhani and $300 from Federman.

In addition, the initial postcard Keyhani and Federman sent to doctors included the subheading, "Congress wants to hear from doctors on health care reform" — advocacy-style language similar to what the IBD poll said. This may have produced some ideological bias in the opposite direction from IBD's poll. (In an interview, Federman said the reason for choosing the words they did stemmed from "what the literature shows about what works to get docs to respond to surveys.")

Finally, Don Dillman, an expert in mail-based polls and a professor at Washington State University, suggests another factor that could make the IBD poll results on doctors quitting vastly overstated: People don't usually make decisions about changing careers lightly. "If one is trained to be a physician, then are you going to take on another occupation?" he asks. This concern is especially relevant for younger physicians, who would likely find few new careers that would earn them enough income to pay off their debts from attending medical school.

How about a little dash of common sense Beck?

So, how does PolitiFact sum this all up?

So, back to Beck's statement. First, he misstated the results of the poll. The survey didn't say 45 percent would quit; it said they would consider quitting, which is considerably different. Moreover, polling experts have raised significant questions about the poll's methodology. Of special concern are the combination of the heavy mention of IBD's name and questions that experts said appeared to be seeking answers critical of health reform. We'd like to see an independent poll assessing doctors' views of health care reform, but neither the findings from the IBD survey nor those from the Keyhani-Federman study are fully persuasive to us. We rate Beck's statement False.

Interesting. NPR pointed out an apparent bias in the Keyhani-Federman poll; they are really a left wing propaganda machine.



PolitiFact | Beck says 45 percent of physicians would quit if health reform passes

So, tell me how Beck doesn't rely or broadcast inaccurate information D.Hearne?

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Be sure to keep us posted on all the other great stuff the true patriot Beck exposes on his wonderful show.

Like Van Jones? All you have to do is wait for another 0bama appointee Czar to resign.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Like Van Jones? All you have to do is wait for another 0bama appointee Czar to resign.

PolitiFact | Glenn Beck says Van Jones is an avowed communist

Let me state right off the bat here to save you your breath; I DO NOT SUPPORT VAN JONES. I'm just trying to enlighten you on your bias........ and showing how laughable Beck is.

[strtrcr50]

To save myself some time, I don't watch Beck. Nor fox news. Merely stating that apparently Beck found something that caused Van Jones to step down.

[strtrcr50]

Oh, and since you seem to like politifact so much...

Why is the fact-checking operation PolitiFact.com carrying water for the radical left-wing activist group ACORN and attacking Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for trying to warn the public about the group?

A project of the St. Petersburg Times, the website's "Truth-O-Meter" purports to check and rate "the accuracy of statements by candidates, elected officials, political parties, interest groups, pundits, talk show hosts." After PolitiFact writers research a statement, it then receives one of six ratings on a continuum of truthfulness: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire.

It turns out that those who serve the Truth-O-Meter often have strange ideas about what constitutes truth.

A case in point is how PolitiFact handled Rep. Bachmann's recent claim that the much investigated activist group ACORN was eligible for up to $8.5 billion in federal funding this year.

Like everything having to do with ACORN, it's very complicated.

Reporter Robert Farley sets the tone for the piece in his first paragraph, writing that "Bachmann's latest outrage focuses on an old nemesis: ACORN." As blogger Bryan White points out at Sublime Bloviations:

The first sentence is an attack on Bachmann. The statement implies that she is guilty of serial outrage, though PolitiFact has only previously rated two of her statements. And regardless of how many were rated, the opening statement is an editorial judgment with no place in an objective news story.


Farley conveniently offers a sinister motive to explain Bachmann's anti-ACORN activities. ACORN has a "complex corporate structure," but "[t]he ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration."

Farley quotes from Bachmann's website which reposted an article by Kevin Mooney of the Washington Examiner:

At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.


Farley incorrectly identifies the statement as coming from a Bachmann press release and then systematically dissects the lawmaker's claim.

Eventually he declares the assertion "absurd" and "irresponsibly misleading on several levels" as the Truth-O-Meter officially pronounces the claim "False."

But is it?

Not at all. As Farley acknowledged, I am the original source for the $8.5 billion figure that was reported by the Washington Examiner. I covered the complexities of housing finance on Capitol Hill for nearly seven years as a reporter in the Washington bureau of the venerable Wall Street daily, the Bond Buyer. Here's how I came up with the amount.

The $800 billion-plus stimulus bill that President Obama signed into law Feb. 17 contains $2 billion in funds for housing redevelopment and $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Separately, the proposed $47.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds.

There is no legal impediment of which I am aware that would prevent ACORN taking in the whole $3 billion sum from the stimulus package, which has already been enacted. There is also no bar to ACORN taking in the entire $5.5 billion from the HUD budget, which is pending before Congress.

In other words, ACORN is indeed eligible for the whole $8.5 billion, as Bachmann said.

The congresswoman said much the same thing on the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. Debating ACORN ally House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Bachmann, a former tax litigation attorney, chose her words carefully.

She said she was worried about the fact that ACORN and other political advocacy organizations would "have access potentially to $8.5 billion" in federal funds:

Well, what I am concerned about is the eligibility criteria of organizations who have access to government grants. ACORN has received approximately $53 million since the early 1990s. Now, between the stimulus and the budget that was passed by President Obama, they have access potentially to $8.5 billion.


She again stressed the issue of eligibility during the broadcast, saying "we are talking about potential of access to ACORN or other similarly situated groups of $8.5 billion in grants." Bachmann never said ACORN alone was going to receive $8.5 billion, but Farley then proceeds as if she had, writing a news article that depicts something quite different from what actually transpired.

Farley states correctly that CDBG is an old program created in the 1970s. "To the extent ACORN has been eligible for CDBG money for decades, it is available to ACORN now."

Misinterpreting the evidence before him, he opines that "ACORN isn't eligible for CDBG funding. At least not for the controversial voter registration efforts that Republican leaders claim are a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda."

"We checked, and there is no money in the stimulus package or the budget for voter registration programs," Farley writes. "So if ACORN Housing was to apply for and receive CDBG money, it would be for a very specific project. And legally, it could not be transferred to other ACORN affiliates to perform political activities like voter registration."

But ACORN has somehow managed to get its hands on CDBG funds, according to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). In a letter to President Bush Oct. 22, he wrote that his staff had determined that "ACORN has received more than $31 million in direct funding from the federal government since 1998, and has likely received substantially more indirectly through states and localities that receive federal block grants."

ACORN is notorious for its huge financial transfers from one affiliate in the network to another. "ACORN is constantly shifting funding," he quoted me saying. "The problem is that ACORN transfers vast sums of money around in its network all the time. We don't know whether the money would be spent on voter registration or other activities."

And of course, even though neither Bachmann nor I actually said ACORN Housing was necessarily going to be the protagonist in this publicly funded drama, Farley keeps pounding away. He accepts at face value a dubious statement by ACORN executive director Steven Kest that ACORN won't apply for or receive a large chunk of the federal money in the stimulus package or HUD budget.

Farley cites an Employment Policies Institute report that states that ACORN Housing "has paid more than $5 million in fees or grants to other ACORN entities." He notes that the report does not claim "that federal tax dollars were shifted into ACORN voter registration efforts."

For the record, after Farley interviewed me I followed up with more research. Some hours later I emailed him a list of suspicious transactions that ACORN Housing disclosed in its tax returns from 1997 through 2006. For that period alone, I identified more than $4 million in unusual transfers to other ACORN affiliates. The largest individual transaction was a $947,609 grant in Tax Year 2004 to the American Institute for Social Justice, an ACORN affiliate.

The institute has taken in money for voter drives from foundations such as the Wallace Global Fund. According to its own website, the institute trains community organizers "to build and mobilize a constituency for change needed to transform poor communities"

And ACORN Housing discloses in its tax returns that it received more than $18 million in federal money from 1997 through 2006.

Given the constant, well-documented shifting of funds within the nebulous ACORN network, how can Farley say with a straight face after his superficial examination of the facts that he knows for certain that federal tax dollars were not shifted into the ACORN network's voter registration efforts?

No one involved in the ACORN mess seems able to explain why ACORN Housing and other ACORN affiliates that are not supposed to be involved in elections routinely send money to ACORN affiliates such as the institute whose sole purpose is to organize and participate in the electoral process.

This is not to say that I don't understand Farley's desire to show his readers that in all likelihood ACORN won't get $8.5 billion from Uncle Sam this year. That's legitimate journalism. But instead of making that straightforward point, he chose instead to attack Congresswoman Bachmann, a favorite target of the left, and to try to depict her as a shameless liar.

That's reprehensible.

A more honest ruling by PolitiFact might have taken this form: "True, ACORN is eligible for $8.5 billion in federal funding but based on the evidence we don't think ACORN will get anything close to that amount from the federal government this year."

But that's not what Farley wrote.

Should anyone really be surprised that PolitiFact, part of the St. Petersburg Times, would have a liberal bias?

On Oct. 24, PolitiFact gave then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's statement that Obama would "experiment with socialism" a "Pants on Fire" ruling. Last month it praised President Obama's selection of radical jurist Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court because she was someone with a "powerful intellect who demonstrates compassion and a common touch." On Sept. 14, an editorial attacked Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak," it said.

A left-wing slant seems embedded in the paper's DNA.

Former St. Petersburg Times publisher, Nelson Poynter, was in the newsroom in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Poynter was dejected when the news flash came in reporting that aspected Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been detained in connection with the shooting.

"Oh, no," Poynter said. "I was hoping it would be a right-winger."

[Venom351R]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

PolitiFact | Glenn Beck says Van Jones is an avowed communist

Let me state right off the bat here to save you your breath; I DO NOT SUPPORT VAN JONES. I'm just trying to enlighten you on your bias........ and showing how laughable Beck is.

"The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment "


Your becoming a better beck follower all ready.


Just as Ive been saying all you liberals in here dont want to dispute what beck said in those videos. You just want to attack and discredit Beck.

I have not seen one of you flaming liberals put up a reasonable argument against anything he said in his videos. Truth hurt to much? Did it open your eyes a little more then you were comfortable with?

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Oh, and since you seem to like politifact so much...

Citation?

PolitiFact is sooo bias to the left, that they attack the left because they are right of their left:

PolitiFact | CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques
PolitiFact | Car pollution in China doesn't cause as many deaths as Nany Pelosi claims
PolitiFact | No, McCain's ads haven't all been negative
PolitiFact | Obama says preventive care saves money. It doesn't.
PolitiFact | Obama says lower obesity rates would save Medicare $1 trillion
(they have Obama with 25 barely true, 34 false, and 3 pants on fire)

They even have an article that shows how the statement, "the majority of American's support the public option" is incorrect.

Very bias.

You want me to continue on with all the Democrats and, as you would put it, liberals that they have called on?


Please link what you quoted as well; I want to look into that.

EDIT: If you link where I think you are going to link (I googled the first paragraph of the article you quoted), then . So you're proof that PolitiFact is a left bias site is by quoting a right bias site? That is just lol's on layaway.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by Venom351R

"The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment "


Your becoming a better beck follower all ready.


Just as Ive been saying all you liberals in here dont want to dispute what beck said in those videos. You just want to attack and discredit Beck.

I have not seen one of you flaming liberals put up a reasonable argument against anything he said in his videos. Truth hurt to much? Did it open your eyes a little more then you were comfortable with?

Follower? No, I wouldn't call it that; I never watch his show. The reason there is no counter to the video you linked is because it takes time to find out all the facts. This isn't something that is just done over night.


I'm not a liberal btw; I didn't even vote for Obama. Good job being wrong though.

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by Venom351R

"The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment "


Just as Ive been saying all you liberals in here dont want to dispute what beck said in those videos. You just want to attack and discredit Beck.

I have not seen one of you flaming liberals put up a reasonable argument against anything he said in his videos. Truth hurt to much? Did it open your eyes a little more then you were comfortable with?

The problems is he isn't really saying anything. He reads a quote from a founding father and then reads what could be considered and opposing view (totally without context) from Obama's advisers.

All this is doing is trying to get conspiracy minded people riled up, what is there to dispute or substantiate other than the validity or motivation of his theories?

If you really want to debate, point to the legislation that raised your taxes, point to the legislation that took guns away from people, point to legislation that did any of these things that Beck is trying to convince us is coming.

This whole thing is just trying to get people to refuse any sort of government option for health insurance by playing on their fear of isms. When what it's really all about is money. Why do you think insurers are spending millions for propaganda and lobbying? They have a freaking license to print money and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

Citation?

PolitiFact is sooo bias to the left, that they attack the left because they are right of their left:

PolitiFact | CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques
PolitiFact | Car pollution in China doesn't cause as many deaths as Nany Pelosi claims
PolitiFact | No, McCain's ads haven't all been negative
PolitiFact | Obama says preventive care saves money. It doesn't.
PolitiFact | Obama says lower obesity rates would save Medicare $1 trillion
(they have Obama with 25 barely true, 34 false, and 3 pants on fire)

They even have an article that shows how the statement, "the majority of American's support the public option" is incorrect.

Very bias.

You want me to continue on with all the Democrats and, as you would put it, liberals that they have called on?


Please link what you quoted as well; I want to look into that.

EDIT: If you link where I think you are going to link (I googled the first paragraph of the article you quoted), then . So you're proof that PolitiFact is a left bias site is by quoting a right bias site? That is just lol's on layaway.

I posted something that explains how in that case politifact is biased. If I learn a tool is faulty, I don't use it again. Especially when they can document how it is biased. With everything 0bama "stretches the truth" on, it would be impossible for them to not say anything negative. Unless they were Chris Matthews, I guess.

Since you want to keep acting put upon and saying I complain about liberals, please start pointing out when I use the word. As I've pointed out to you, the only label I threw your way is "enlightened progressive", and then I told you I thought you voted for Ron Paul. At which point, you told me you were a RP supporter, but didn't vote. So enough with the put upon act that everyone is mislabeling you a liberal. I haven't done it even once.
Now go back to assuming that I watch Fox News, hang on Glen Beck's every word, and am only capable of forming my opinions based on what Hannity says.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by bigconig

If you really want to debate, point to the legislation that raised your taxes, point to the legislation that took guns away from people, point to legislation that did any of these things that Beck is trying to convince us is coming.

This whole thing is just trying to get people to refuse any sort of government option for health insurance by playing on their fear of isms. When what it's really all about is money. Why do you think insurers are spending millions for propaganda and lobbying? They have a freaking license to print money and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.

And the government does the same (print money when the communist Chinese stop buying our T-bills) Only with the government doing it, the only way to stop it is to HOPE for the guys that are in charge get voted out (which doesn't seem to happen as there's no way to get the beaureaucrats who really run things out of power) As for pointing to THE legislation that takes our freedoms away, just look back at the way these lefties voted in the past. You honestly think, they're NOT going to do what Glenn warns us about ? If you do, then It's the way the left operates, they constantly insist that they aren't doing what they're always doing. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a dreamworld. And when they DO get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they immediately accuse their accusers of doing what they're doing. The left is so predictable. Once the laws taking your rights away are enacted, they very rarely ever get repealed. That is why it pays to be watchful as to what the left is planning for you.

[caballo]

Left, Right, middle... it's like the Ol' Gipper said about Russia... "Trust, but verify"

[Wart]

Originally Posted by Venom351R

The "whats behind the blue curtain" has been suspending watchers of Glen Beck over the past two weeks. He spent the previous two weeks talking a lot about radicals and socialists that are in or around the white house. Tonight he put the whole picture together.

Gwen Wreck ...

[Wart]

Originally Posted by bigconig

The problems is he isn't really saying anything. He reads a quote from a founding father and then reads what could be considered and opposing view (totally without context) from Obama's advisers.

All this is doing is trying to get conspiracy minded people riled up, what is there to dispute or substantiate other than the validity or motivation of his theories?

If you really want to debate, point to the legislation that raised your taxes, point to the legislation that took guns away from people, point to legislation that did any of these things that Beck is trying to convince us is coming.

This whole thing is just trying to get people to refuse any sort of government option for health insurance by playing on their fear of isms. When what it's really all about is money. Why do you think insurers are spending millions for propaganda and lobbying? They have a freaking license to print money and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.

Well said.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by Wart

Gwen Wreck ...

Wert !!!!!

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

I posted something that explains how in that case politifact is biased. If I learn a tool is faulty, I don't use it again. Especially when they can document how it is biased. With everything 0bama "stretches the truth" on, it would be impossible for them to not say anything negative. Unless they were Chris Matthews, I guess.

Since you want to keep acting put upon and saying I complain about liberals, please start pointing out when I use the word. As I've pointed out to you, the only label I threw your way is "enlightened progressive", and then I told you I thought you voted for Ron Paul. At which point, you told me you were a RP supporter, but didn't vote. So enough with the put upon act that everyone is mislabeling you a liberal. I haven't done it even once.
Now go back to assuming that I watch Fox News, hang on Glen Beck's every word, and am only capable of forming my opinions based on what Hannity says.

You didn't link that article.

I'd also like to re-state my point. If your argument is that PolitiFact has shown a left bias in one article, thereby meaning that you should not use them for anything, then you're being a hypocrite. IF the site you got that article from is the one I think it is, then you quote an obvious right bias site.

I read that whole article. His argument is weak at best; non-existent at worst. He assumes a bias because the article starts out with a negative connotation of Bachmann, however, if he read other articles were PolitiFact is showing how anyone lied, he would see that they do it for everyone regardless of who they are. His point is moot in trying to show a bias because PolitiFact does it towards both left and right politicians.

The rest of his article is based on assumptions and quoting what other politicians (Republicans at that) believe.

It seems he is more pissed that PolitiFact attacked a Republican that anything else. He ignores that fact that PolitiFact attacks Democrats in the same way. What he fails to realize is that PolitiFact is attacking both parties for their bull****.

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

And the government does the same (print money when the communist Chinese stop buying our T-bills) Only with the government doing it, the only way to stop it is to HOPE for the guys that are in charge get voted out (which doesn't seem to happen as there's no way to get the beaureaucrats who really run things out of power) As for pointing to THE legislation that takes our freedoms away, just look back at the way these lefties voted in the past. You honestly think, they're NOT going to do what Glenn warns us about ? If you do, then It's the way the left operates, they constantly insist that they aren't doing what they're always doing. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a dreamworld. And when they DO get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they immediately accuse their accusers of doing what they're doing. The left is so predictable. Once the laws taking your rights away are enacted, they very rarely ever get repealed. That is why it pays to be watchful as to what the left is planning for you.

Again this is a total straw man argument. Point to the legislation or at least proposed legislation.