That's what I've always said. If one party had a lock on THE TRUTH it would be The Democrats!
Like I said, you've always been a hypocrite.
Looks like I've got lots of company.
quote:
quote:
That's what I've always said. If one party had a lock on THE TRUTH it would be The Democrats!Like I said, you've always been a hypocrite.
Looks like I've got lots of company.
Are you saying Ben Carson is not lying? How about some links to prove Factcheck wrong alloak? You said he is of unimpeachable integrity. In the face of this information how can you maintain such an egregious statement?
That's what I've always said. If one party had a lock on THE TRUTH it would be The Democrats!
Like I said, you've always been a hypocrite.
Looks like I've got lots of company.
True. And I know how much you love the "it's ok everyone does it" excuse.
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
That's crap. Format and moderators should make no difference to someone who wants to be President. Unless of course you are in North Korea or Russia or China or someplace else with state controlled media.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying.
Dr. Carson has shown that he is very capable as a lying politician. As a potential POTUS, not so much.
As for being "intelligent and thoughtful", here are a few things that might cause some other thoughtful and intelligent people to doubt that:
Carson Overlooks Russia’s Reserves
Ben Carson said the United States has more oil and natural gas than Russia. Not so.Carson Rewrites Laws of Thermodynamics
Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.Carson on Border Apprehensions
Ben Carson said that “a lot” of the people captured crossing the U.S. border and then released are from Iraq, Somalia and Russia. He’s wrong.Ben Carson on Nonprofit Failures
Ben Carson said “9 out of 10 nonprofits fail.” Yet data on nonprofits show that half of the organizations that received their tax-exempt status 20 years ago were still considered active by the IRS in 2015.[Edited on 11/3/2015 by gondicar]
______________________________________________________________________
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
This is how the left plays the political game and why the people’s business does not get done.
When unable to argue for their rarely stated positions the Democrats pull the Obama/Hillary Clinton playbook out and lie.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
Whether one likes Hillary or not, the idea of a one on one debate between Hillary & Carson would be well worth watching. She made the GOP Benghazi Prosecution team look like novices, and they were loaded up with notes and supporting detail. Her grasp of detail was exceptionally impressive as well as the ability to articulate and frame answers. She would have Carson for lunch.
Is this fact or opinion?
__________________________________________________________________________
Pure opinion.
I" find it troubling that the Democrats asked no questions about why the Benghazi tragedy actually happened, why Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice flat-out lied about the video even after being warned not to do so and what were we doing in Benghazi in the first place.
Why don't the Democrats seem to even care?
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying. She is well trained in how to attack someone.
I don't find it troubling that the Democrats wouldn't take part in a political witch hunt since this incident had already been investigated to death. I find it more troubling that the Republicans fought so hard not to release entire transcripts, so they could pick and choose what to release and release information out of context.
________________________________________________________________________
You regurgitate the Democrat’s talking point quite well.
Okay, then explain why The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton based on referrals by The State Department and The National Intelligence Services Inspector Generals ?
[Edited on 11/3/2015 by Muleman1994]
Alloak your hypocrisy relating to Carson's lack of integrity really exposes your own lack of integrity.
Mule - I don't think the FBI is investigating Hillary for criminal wrongdoing. I've read a lot of articles and it seems the FBI is parsing their comments to purposely not say anything about criminality. They use words like "checking to see if there was gross negligence".
Right wing news sites are interpreting the FBIs words to mean something different.
Alloak your hypocrisy relating to Carson's lack of integrity really exposes your own lack of integrity.
Mule - I don't think the FBI is investigating Hillary for criminal wrongdoing. I've read a lot of articles and it seems the FBI is parsing their comments to purposely not say anything about criminality. They use words like "checking to see if there was gross negligence".
Right wing news sites are interpreting the FBIs words to mean something different.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get informed son.
1.) All FBI investigations are criminal investigations.
2.) The State Department and The National Intelligence Services Inspector Generals both clearly said in their public statements that they had found criminal activity and were referring their investigations to the FBI.
The mainstream media has downplayed the FBI criminal investigation because it is contrary to their political agenda. It was Cheryl Atkinson of CBS News and The N.Y. Times that broke the cover up and scandal.
Nothing "right wing" about it. No Republicans involved.
This entire matter was and is of Hillary Clinton's making.
Sorry, but I'd be the first person to admit if there was a legitimate controversy, but I don't see one here. The Republican led investigation admitted to no wrong-doing. Aside from that, there serves no purpose whatsoever to direct any time, effort, and resources to belabor this issue with Hillary. We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. In hindsight we imagine troops arriving in time to stop it, but in reality everyone followed protocol. This fantasy that some conservative politician would've swooped in with troops and saved the day is a joke. Washington is a machine. There is plenty of opportunity for Republicans to sell alternate ways of building the country, but they have failed miserably at taking advantage. All we hear about is emails and Benghazi, but nothing positive or helpful to offer. Oh, except for Trump. I gotta give him credit for offering new ideas.
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
Blah Blah Blah attack the source, not the information. Show one case, just one, where they were wrong........
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black...... LOL
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
Blah Blah Blah attack the source, not the information. Show one case, just one, where they were wrong........
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black...... LOL
______________________________________________________________________
Actual facts still confuse you son.
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
Blah Blah Blah attack the source, not the information. Show one case, just one, where they were wrong........
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black...... LOL
He can't do that because he won't discuss or debate anything, he only attacks and then regurgitates the standard right wing talking points along side his own unsubstantiated opinions as if they are real or true. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Sorry, but I'd be the first person to admit if there was a legitimate controversy, but I don't see one here. The Republican led investigation admitted to no wrong-doing. Aside from that, there serves no purpose whatsoever to direct any time, effort, and resources to belabor this issue with Hillary. We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. In hindsight we imagine troops arriving in time to stop it, but in reality everyone followed protocol. This fantasy that some conservative politician would've swooped in with troops and saved the day is a joke. Washington is a machine. There is plenty of opportunity for Republicans to sell alternate ways of building the country, but they have failed miserably at taking advantage. All we hear about is emails and Benghazi, but nothing positive or helpful to offer. Oh, except for Trump. I gotta give him credit for offering new ideas.
Congress is NOT limited to only investigating "wrongdoing" It is entitled to investigate anything about the performance of the executive branch. There is plenty to look at here. Other attacks have happened. I do not recall an administration publicly blaming a video and then refusing to cooperate with an investigating Committee.
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
That's crap. Format and moderators should make no difference to someone who wants to be President. Unless of course you are in North Korea or Russia or China or someplace else with state controlled media.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying.
Dr. Carson has shown that he is very capable as a lying politician. As a potential POTUS, not so much.
As for being "intelligent and thoughtful", here are a few things that might cause some other thoughtful and intelligent people to doubt that:
Carson Overlooks Russia’s Reserves
Ben Carson said the United States has more oil and natural gas than Russia. Not so.Carson Rewrites Laws of Thermodynamics
Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.Carson on Border Apprehensions
Ben Carson said that “a lot” of the people captured crossing the U.S. border and then released are from Iraq, Somalia and Russia. He’s wrong.Ben Carson on Nonprofit Failures
Ben Carson said “9 out of 10 nonprofits fail.” Yet data on nonprofits show that half of the organizations that received their tax-exempt status 20 years ago were still considered active by the IRS in 2015.[Edited on 11/3/2015 by gondicar]
______________________________________________________________________
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
This is how the left plays the political game and why the people’s business does not get done.
When unable to argue for their rarely stated positions the Democrats pull the Obama/Hillary Clinton playbook out and lie.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
First of all, I am not a democrat and the only party I have ever been registered in is the republican party. Second of all, there are four "facts" listed above that Ben Carson tried to pass off a true. Rather than blindly assailing the source, why don't you tell us how/why factcheck.org is wrong and Ben Carson is right on these four "facts"...should be easy since factcheck.org is nothing but a "liberal misinformation group", but I won't hold my breath.
Beyond that, your labeling of factcheck.org as a "liberal misinformation group" is a joke and just one more data point in a long list that proves you are a liar or grossly ignorant or both (I would go with both). On some level I do understand why you would say that since you say that about any person or organization that dares to criticize anything or anyone that is politically right of center, but where your point of view falls short on factcheck.org is that they are equally critical of all political figures and topics, right, left or center.
Awards won by factcheck.org
Since we were launched in 2003, FactCheck.org has received several honors for our work sorting truth from spin in politics. In 2006, TIME magazine named us one of “25 Sites We Can’t Live Without,” and also that year the World E-Gov Forum named us one of 10 sites that “are changing the world.” In 2008, PC Magazine called us one of the “20 Best Political Websites.”
FactCheck.org won a 2010 Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for reporting on deceptive claims made about the federal health care legislation. In addition, we won a 2009 Clarion Award for presidential election coverage the previous year. In 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, FactCheck won Webby Awards from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences for being the best Politics site (the Webbys have been called the “Oscars of the Internet”), and for four straight years, 2007-2010, and again for four consecutive years, 2012-2015, we collected the most votes in the Webby People’s Voice competition in the Politics category. That means, among other things, that we have a devoted and motivated fan base, and we thank you.
The mission of factcheck.org
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
Funding sources for factcheck.org
Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.
In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any individual donor giving $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations.
In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
“FactCheck.org is totally transparent about its funding sources — going so far as to list a detailed breakdown of financial support by every quarter, the same standard expected of political campaigns and party committees,” it wrote. “So, quite apart from its stated mission, FactCheck.org is making a contribution by exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806.
Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including some infrastructure costs as well as supervisory, technical, and administrative support from APPC faculty and staff. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.
Complete funding disclosure at http://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
[Edited on 11/4/2015 by gondicar]
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
That's crap. Format and moderators should make no difference to someone who wants to be President. Unless of course you are in North Korea or Russia or China or someplace else with state controlled media.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying.
Dr. Carson has shown that he is very capable as a lying politician. As a potential POTUS, not so much.
As for being "intelligent and thoughtful", here are a few things that might cause some other thoughtful and intelligent people to doubt that:
Carson Overlooks Russia’s Reserves
Ben Carson said the United States has more oil and natural gas than Russia. Not so.Carson Rewrites Laws of Thermodynamics
Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.Carson on Border Apprehensions
Ben Carson said that “a lot” of the people captured crossing the U.S. border and then released are from Iraq, Somalia and Russia. He’s wrong.Ben Carson on Nonprofit Failures
Ben Carson said “9 out of 10 nonprofits fail.” Yet data on nonprofits show that half of the organizations that received their tax-exempt status 20 years ago were still considered active by the IRS in 2015.[Edited on 11/3/2015 by gondicar]
______________________________________________________________________
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
This is how the left plays the political game and why the people’s business does not get done.
When unable to argue for their rarely stated positions the Democrats pull the Obama/Hillary Clinton playbook out and lie.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
First of all, I am not a democrat and the only party I have ever been registered in is the republican party. Second of all, there are four "facts" listed above that Ben Carson tried to pass off a true. Rather than blindly assailing the source, why don't you tell us how/why factcheck.org is wrong and Ben Carson is right on these four "facts"...should be easy since factcheck.org is nothing but a "liberal misinformation group", but I won't hold my breath.
Beyond that, your labeling of factcheck.org as a "liberal misinformation group" is a joke and just one more data point in a long list that proves you are a liar or grossly ignorant or both (I would go with both). On some level I do understand why you would say that since you say that about any person or organization that dares to criticize anything or anyone that is politically right of center, but where your point of view falls short on factcheck.org is that they are equally critical of all political figures and topics, right, left or center.
Awards won by factcheck.org
Since we were launched in 2003, FactCheck.org has received several honors for our work sorting truth from spin in politics. In 2006, TIME magazine named us one of “25 Sites We Can’t Live Without,” and also that year the World E-Gov Forum named us one of 10 sites that “are changing the world.” In 2008, PC Magazine called us one of the “20 Best Political Websites.”FactCheck.org won a 2010 Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for reporting on deceptive claims made about the federal health care legislation. In addition, we won a 2009 Clarion Award for presidential election coverage the previous year. In 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, FactCheck won Webby Awards from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences for being the best Politics site (the Webbys have been called the “Oscars of the Internet”), and for four straight years, 2007-2010, and again for four consecutive years, 2012-2015, we collected the most votes in the Webby People’s Voice competition in the Politics category. That means, among other things, that we have a devoted and motivated fan base, and we thank you.
The mission of factcheck.org
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
Funding sources for factcheck.org
Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any individual donor giving $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations.
In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
“FactCheck.org is totally transparent about its funding sources — going so far as to list a detailed breakdown of financial support by every quarter, the same standard expected of political campaigns and party committees,” it wrote. “So, quite apart from its stated mission, FactCheck.org is making a contribution by exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806.
Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including some infrastructure costs as well as supervisory, technical, and administrative support from APPC faculty and staff. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.
Complete funding disclosure at http://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
[Edited on 11/4/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
You conveniently forgot to mention that factcheck.org is supported by and heavily influenced Media Matters, George Soros's far-left/ socialist PAC.
Cutting and pasting factcheck's own statements does not make their political bias and rhetoric true.
Wrong. Again.
In 2011, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lamented that the proliferation of half-true statements and fallacious accusations during the 2012 presidential campaign had inaugurated an era of “post-truth politics.”
This era is particularly enabled by the features of our contemporary media-saturated political environment: the distrust of the mainstream media, the rise of alternative and slanted news outlets, and a 24-hour news cycle that emits data and soundbites at a velocity and volume that can overwhelm even the most omnivorous and scrupulous consumer.
But the very technology that enables the proliferation of misinformation should, theoretically, be able to combat it. Enter the fact-checking phenomenon.
Three Fact Check Sources
The first major political fact-checker to arrive on the scene was FactCheck.org, which was launched in 2003 by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. FactCheck.org’s dozen-member staff regularly updates its blog evaluating the claims of politicians, pundits, and advertisements by checking them against authoritative reports, studies, and other documented facts.
In 2007, the Tampa Bay Times started its own fact-checking project: PolitiFact. Its staff harvests the statements of politicians, lobbyists, journalists, and pundits and assigns them a rating on the “Truth-O-Meter,” ranging from “True,” then through several degrees of veracity — all the way to “False” and “Pants on Fire.”
Finally, The Washington Post made its Fact Checker permanent in 2011 after a temporary existence during the 2008 presidential election. Its operator, Glenn Kessler, doles out 0 to 4 Pinocchios to statements based on the degree of a claim’s factuality, completeness, and intended effect.
While these fact-checking outfits nobly strive to maintain a floor of objectivity in their work, it is important to remember that old Enlightenment figure Giambattista Vico’s verum factum principle: the truth is made — made by people with their own biases, limitations, and subjective standards.
http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliable-are-fact-check-sources/
Wrong. Again.
In 2011, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lamented that the proliferation of half-true statements and fallacious accusations during the 2012 presidential campaign had inaugurated an era of “post-truth politics.”
This era is particularly enabled by the features of our contemporary media-saturated political environment: the distrust of the mainstream media, the rise of alternative and slanted news outlets, and a 24-hour news cycle that emits data and soundbites at a velocity and volume that can overwhelm even the most omnivorous and scrupulous consumer.
But the very technology that enables the proliferation of misinformation should, theoretically, be able to combat it. Enter the fact-checking phenomenon.
Three Fact Check Sources
The first major political fact-checker to arrive on the scene was FactCheck.org, which was launched in 2003 by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. FactCheck.org’s dozen-member staff regularly updates its blog evaluating the claims of politicians, pundits, and advertisements by checking them against authoritative reports, studies, and other documented facts.
In 2007, the Tampa Bay Times started its own fact-checking project: PolitiFact. Its staff harvests the statements of politicians, lobbyists, journalists, and pundits and assigns them a rating on the “Truth-O-Meter,” ranging from “True,” then through several degrees of veracity — all the way to “False” and “Pants on Fire.”
Finally, The Washington Post made its Fact Checker permanent in 2011 after a temporary existence during the 2008 presidential election. Its operator, Glenn Kessler, doles out 0 to 4 Pinocchios to statements based on the degree of a claim’s factuality, completeness, and intended effect.
While these fact-checking outfits nobly strive to maintain a floor of objectivity in their work, it is important to remember that old Enlightenment figure Giambattista Vico’s verum factum principle: the truth is made — made by people with their own biases, limitations, and subjective standards.
http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliable-are-fact-check-sources/
_________________________________________________________________________
You cite the left-wing New York Times?
Liberals are so easily led around.
Wrong. Again.
IVN stands for Independent Voter Network - they just quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman - and then discussed the 3 fact check organizations - are you really that dense?
I think we all know the answer..... 
[Edited on 11/5/2015 by Sang]
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
That's crap. Format and moderators should make no difference to someone who wants to be President. Unless of course you are in North Korea or Russia or China or someplace else with state controlled media.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying.
Dr. Carson has shown that he is very capable as a lying politician. As a potential POTUS, not so much.
As for being "intelligent and thoughtful", here are a few things that might cause some other thoughtful and intelligent people to doubt that:
Carson Overlooks Russia’s Reserves
Ben Carson said the United States has more oil and natural gas than Russia. Not so.Carson Rewrites Laws of Thermodynamics
Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.Carson on Border Apprehensions
Ben Carson said that “a lot” of the people captured crossing the U.S. border and then released are from Iraq, Somalia and Russia. He’s wrong.Ben Carson on Nonprofit Failures
Ben Carson said “9 out of 10 nonprofits fail.” Yet data on nonprofits show that half of the organizations that received their tax-exempt status 20 years ago were still considered active by the IRS in 2015.[Edited on 11/3/2015 by gondicar]
______________________________________________________________________
All of your links are to factcheck.org, a liberal misinformation group.
It is their mission to attack Republicans by manufacturing false information and then mock Republican’s positions based on factcheck.org’s false information.
This is how the left plays the political game and why the people’s business does not get done.
When unable to argue for their rarely stated positions the Democrats pull the Obama/Hillary Clinton playbook out and lie.
Do you ever use actual, factual information?
First of all, I am not a democrat and the only party I have ever been registered in is the republican party. Second of all, there are four "facts" listed above that Ben Carson tried to pass off a true. Rather than blindly assailing the source, why don't you tell us how/why factcheck.org is wrong and Ben Carson is right on these four "facts"...should be easy since factcheck.org is nothing but a "liberal misinformation group", but I won't hold my breath.
Beyond that, your labeling of factcheck.org as a "liberal misinformation group" is a joke and just one more data point in a long list that proves you are a liar or grossly ignorant or both (I would go with both). On some level I do understand why you would say that since you say that about any person or organization that dares to criticize anything or anyone that is politically right of center, but where your point of view falls short on factcheck.org is that they are equally critical of all political figures and topics, right, left or center.
Awards won by factcheck.org
Since we were launched in 2003, FactCheck.org has received several honors for our work sorting truth from spin in politics. In 2006, TIME magazine named us one of “25 Sites We Can’t Live Without,” and also that year the World E-Gov Forum named us one of 10 sites that “are changing the world.” In 2008, PC Magazine called us one of the “20 Best Political Websites.”FactCheck.org won a 2010 Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for reporting on deceptive claims made about the federal health care legislation. In addition, we won a 2009 Clarion Award for presidential election coverage the previous year. In 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015, FactCheck won Webby Awards from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences for being the best Politics site (the Webbys have been called the “Oscars of the Internet”), and for four straight years, 2007-2010, and again for four consecutive years, 2012-2015, we collected the most votes in the Webby People’s Voice competition in the Politics category. That means, among other things, that we have a devoted and motivated fan base, and we thank you.
The mission of factcheck.org
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
Funding sources for factcheck.org
Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any individual donor giving $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations.
In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
“FactCheck.org is totally transparent about its funding sources — going so far as to list a detailed breakdown of financial support by every quarter, the same standard expected of political campaigns and party committees,” it wrote. “So, quite apart from its stated mission, FactCheck.org is making a contribution by exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806.
Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including some infrastructure costs as well as supervisory, technical, and administrative support from APPC faculty and staff. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.
Complete funding disclosure at http://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
[Edited on 11/4/2015 by gondicar]
________________________________________________________________________
You conveniently forgot to mention that factcheck.org is supported by and heavily influenced Media Matters, George Soros's far-left/ socialist PAC.
Cutting and pasting factcheck's own statements does not make their political bias and rhetoric true.
Another baseless claim with nothing to back it up, which is all you ever bring to the table. #clueless
A Hillary Clinton/Ben Carson debate would also greatly depend on the format and the moderators.
That's crap. Format and moderators should make no difference to someone who wants to be President. Unless of course you are in North Korea or Russia or China or someplace else with state controlled media.
Ben Carson is far more intelligent and thoughtful but Hillary Clinton is a pure politician most known for lying.
Dr. Carson has shown that he is very capable as a lying politician. As a potential POTUS, not so much.
As for being "intelligent and thoughtful", here are a few things that might cause some other thoughtful and intelligent people to doubt that:
Carson Overlooks Russia’s Reserves
Ben Carson said the United States has more oil and natural gas than Russia. Not so.Carson Rewrites Laws of Thermodynamics
Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.Carson on Border Apprehensions
Ben Carson said that “a lot” of the people captured crossing the U.S. border and then released are from Iraq, Somalia and Russia. He’s wrong.Ben Carson on Nonprofit Failures
Ben Carson said “9 out of 10 nonprofits fail.” Yet data on nonprofits show that half of the organizations that received their tax-exempt status 20 years ago were still considered active by the IRS in 2015.A couple other good reads about Dr. Carson...
Ben Carson: Egyptian pyramids were grain stores, not pharaohs' tombs
The racist liberals continue to try and tear down a good black man.
As a self made black man Dr. Carson scares the liberals because he is proof that creating a special class and controlling them by Gov’t handouts does far more harm.
The racist liberals continue to try and tear down a good black man.
As a self made black man Dr. Carson scares the liberals because he is proof that creating a special class and controlling them by Gov’t handouts does far more harm.
Another baseless claim with nothing to back it up, which is all you ever bring to the table. #clueless
The racist liberals continue to try and tear down a good black man.
As a self made black man Dr. Carson scares the liberals because he is proof that creating a special class and controlling them by Gov’t handouts does far more harm.
Another baseless claim with nothing to back it up, which is all you ever bring to the table. #clueless
________________________________________________________________________
Just borrowing a political tactic from the liberals playbook.
When conservatives were critical of Obama's policies the liberals called them racists.
What's the matter son, can't take your own medicine?
You too can read Hillary Clinton’s Emails except her email messages to and from Obama during the run up to, during and after the Benghazi tragedy and subsequent cover up. The White House has refused to disclose those documents until after Obama leaves office.
Search Hillary Clinton’s Emails
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Just borrowing a political tactic from the liberals playbook.
When conservatives were critical of Obama's policies the liberals called them racists.
What's the matter son, can't take your own medicine?
Dude. Claiming the pyramids were for grain storage is not a policy matter. Claiming the pyramids were for grain storage is just being a dumb ass. I wasn't even going to comment on it, since it was in 1998. However Carson was recently asked if he still believed it and he doubled down.
Just borrowing a political tactic from the liberals playbook.
When conservatives were critical of Obama's policies the liberals called them racists.
What's the matter son, can't take your own medicine?Dude. Claiming the pyramids were for grain storage is not a policy matter. Claiming the pyramids were for grain storage is just being a dumb ass. I wasn't even going to comment on it, since it was in 1998. However Carson was recently asked if he still believed it and he doubled down.
_______________________________________________________________________
What, Democrats don't like it when their own political tactics are thrown back at them?
