It has the same tone because most liberals only deal with facts, not spin and blatant lies.
Eric -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:11 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Health Care reform, questions and predictions You are actually claiming that an article starting out with this statement: U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's latest outrage focuses on an old nemesis: ACORN. And then goes on to say this: This latest claim from Bachmann follows the same tortured logic on an even grander scale. Is non-partisan? How many fact checks do the have setting the same tone for liberals? As for why her tortured logic is on an even grander scale: But the fact is, 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. Because she said "despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud' she had to have meant the money was going to be used for voter registration. Perfectly non biased logic I would expect from the left side of the isle. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> Forth link in google: >> http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/polifacts-fixers >> >> I guess not everyone thinks it's fair and balan > > That's hilarious. The guy is supposed to be showing how politifact > isn't a good judge of truth and he starts off by criticizing their > tone instead and finishes the article off by rambling on about the > editorials in the paper that have nothing to do with the politifact > column. > > He was defending a statement saying "ACORN could be eligible for up to > $8.5 billion in federal funding" which is true in precisely the same > fashion that "Tomorrow, Al Queda might renounce violence". Yes, if > you take the argument completely out of context and parse it in the > most favorable light, the statement is not precisely incorrect. > However, when you look at it with any context and realize the > assumptions that would have to be made for it to be true in the > context of the statement, they are laughably absurd. And that is > precisely what Politifact pointed out. > > Juda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:314083 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
