His Kenyan Grandma and what she REALLY said: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-05-obama-kin_N.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UreJZMY_2IY (notice she said when he went as an adult was the first time she had met him.) If you can find video of her saying "I was there for his birth" please share it b/c I can;t find it.. I can only find on far right blogs and reviews of Corsi's crap book where she allegedly said that and not even as a quote.
Ok A. WND is not credible... neither is FreeRepublic. If you expect me to accept those then you need to accept Huffington Post b/c it's all the same. If you don't accept the Huffington Post as credible then do not present me with "evidence" from WND or FR.
B. The suit is a civil suit and the motion to bar him from running was denied. The plaintiff will not accept the birth certificate Obama has b/c he wants the original straight-from-the-delivery-room one which I don't have mine even.. do you? The birth certificate he has is a raised seal signed court copy of his real birth certificate and is legally acceptable.
How is factcheck not unbiased? they call out Obama on stuff as well... if McCain is wrong more often than Obama wouldn't that make them appear to lean left and the times when they call out Obama for misleading wouldn't that make them lean right? Unless both candidates are unblemished then there is NO site that is unbiased b/c one or the other camp is always saying something stupid.
Oh you mean like these? (actual titles) Obama's Trade Trickery or Obama's Social Security Whopper or Sliming Palin or Scaring Seniors or Out of Context on Health Care and some about McCain: FactChecking McCain (ooh scary ;o) or Keeping Quiet? :-O or Off Base on Sex Ed (cause he was) or McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding (they did) and the Again one was probably this one: There He Goes Again (as it says in the article they called it that because it has been debunked over & over)
They have titles that make both look bad and that are blah for both. It all depends on what it is they are debunking & how many times they have already debunked it & how big of a whopper it really is.
i didn't follow the flow of that, but i think if i got it right...yes...just like that...
that one time i am refering to that i noticed it, it seemed to me that the titles were overly dramatic when it came to JM /palin's blunders, but less so when it came to BO's
as i said before, it was one time, and not really a big deal to me...
it could definately go both ways...it didn't seem to that one time...but it could have been a fluke..
but in my opinon, the big flashy titles, and dramtics (either way) are not necesary in a non-partisan fact checking forum....and it makes me question the bias of the author (either way)
~~~~oh...and i first thought that too...maybe it depends on how big the whopper really was, but then i thought to myself, that it shouldn't matter, they shouldn't make the judgement, they should put the facts out there for us to decide
I understand your thought process but at the same time, when a candidate has stated the same half-truth or false information over and over it seems silly to say "so and so's twist of words" or whatever. They should call the candidate out on it b/c at that point enough is enough and if a dramatic title is how they choose to do that then it's fine by me. The title's not important in the scheme of things anyway, it's the content, the actual fact-checking that matters. I read nearly all the articles and Q & A on factcheck.org whether it's redeeming my candidate or calling him out on something and I think they're definitely an unbiased source.
Pages
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
Wonder why there's some guy out there suing obama over this Birth Certificate? He was a Hillary supporter.
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
Ok A. WND is not credible... neither is FreeRepublic. If you expect me to accept those then you need to accept Huffington Post b/c it's all the same. If you don't accept the Huffington Post as credible then do not present me with "evidence" from WND or FR.
B. The suit is a civil suit and the motion to bar him from running was denied. The plaintiff will not accept the birth certificate Obama has b/c he wants the original straight-from-the-delivery-room one which I don't have mine even.. do you? The birth certificate he has is a raised seal signed court copy of his real birth certificate and is legally acceptable.
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
I understand you not crediting WND or Free Republic but you also can't then expect me to take FactCheck as unbiased
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
regarding factcheck's allegiance...
i once read a review on factcheck after a debate...
and i thought to myself that it seemed a bit biased, but not enought to comment on untill i saw you all talking about it...
my concern wasn't with the actual material being discussed, they did seem to correct both candidates equally....
what i noticed (once) was that it seemed that the headlines were a bit biased...
when they corrected BO, it was like....(i am making this up for my example, because i dodn't feel like going back and finding what it really was)
......Barack was incorrect.....or......Obama was almost right
but if JM was being corrected.... it would be something like
.....McCain fabricates another whopper of a lie.......or...... Palin is way out of touch
it struck me that they seemed a bit biased in thier calling the mistruths....by the different touch put into the headlines.
but i don't care to go back and find the headlines that made me feel that way, so take it for what you want.....it was just something i noticed once.
-Kristen
Oh you mean like these? (actual titles) Obama's Trade Trickery or Obama's Social Security Whopper or Sliming Palin or Scaring Seniors or Out of Context on Health Care and some about McCain: FactChecking McCain (ooh scary ;o) or Keeping Quiet? :-O or Off Base on Sex Ed (cause he was) or McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding (they did) and the Again one was probably this one: There He Goes Again (as it says in the article they called it that because it has been debunked over & over)
They have titles that make both look bad and that are blah for both. It all depends on what it is they are debunking & how many times they have already debunked it & how big of a whopper it really is.
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
i didn't follow the flow of that, but i think if i got it right...yes...just like that...
that one time i am refering to that i noticed it, it seemed to me that the titles were overly dramatic when it came to JM /palin's blunders, but less so when it came to BO's
as i said before, it was one time, and not really a big deal to me...
it could definately go both ways...it didn't seem to that one time...but it could have been a fluke..
but in my opinon, the big flashy titles, and dramtics (either way) are not necesary in a non-partisan fact checking forum....and it makes me question the bias of the author (either way)
~~~~oh...and i first thought that too...maybe it depends on how big the whopper really was, but then i thought to myself, that it shouldn't matter, they shouldn't make the judgement, they should put the facts out there for us to decide
-Kristen
I understand your thought process but at the same time, when a candidate has stated the same half-truth or false information over and over it seems silly to say "so and so's twist of words" or whatever. They should call the candidate out on it b/c at that point enough is enough and if a dramatic title is how they choose to do that then it's fine by me. The title's not important in the scheme of things anyway, it's the content, the actual fact-checking that matters. I read nearly all the articles and Q & A on factcheck.org whether it's redeeming my candidate or calling him out on something and I think they're definitely an unbiased source.
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
Pages