Research study shows Republicans lie more often

[OCGuy]

This just in: Research shows Tom Brady is in fact the hottest person alive, according to a study of Seventeen Magazines "Hot-Or-Not" meter.

Contrary to popular belief, George Clooney is only "Smoldering".

 

[shira]

This just in: Research shows Tom Brady is in fact the hottest person alive, according to a study of Seventeen Magazines "Hot-Or-Not" meter.

Contrary to popular belief, George Clooney is only "Smoldering".

And we once again have a righty reinforcing the conclusion that Repbublicans are less truthful, by equating objective statistics of past fact-checking determinations with completely subjective evaluations.

 

[OCGuy]

And we once again have a righty reinforcing the conclusion that Repbublicans are less truthful, by equating objective statistics of past fact-checking determinations with completely subjective evaluations.

Ah yes, because "Fact checking" is completely scientific.

You can't get 5 people in a room to agree what happened two weeks ago, so how the heck can one determine "Half-truths" and lies? What if it is a 3/5ths truth?

I guess it is a good thing when on one forum I am called a "righty" and on another they want me ran out for being a commie pinko gay-loving libtard.

 

[nehalem256]

Ah yes, because "Fact checking" is completely scientific.

You can't get 5 people in a room to agree what happened two-weeks ago, so how the heck can one determine "Half-truths" and lies? What if it is a 3/5ths truth?

What if Obama tells the same lie 10 times? Does that count as 1 or 10 lies?

What if 10 Republicans tell the same lie once each? Does that count as 1 or 10 lies?

More importantly has the article in the OP been fact checked

 

[shira]

Ah yes, because "Fact checking" is completely scientific.

You can't get 5 people in a room to agree what happened two weeks ago, so how the heck can one determine "Half-truths" and lies? What if it is a 3/5ths truth?

I guess it is a good thing when on one forum I am called a "righty" and on another they want me ran out for being a commie pinko gay-loving libtard.

You're confusing objectivity with science. Maybe you need to go back to school.

Are you claiming that there's no such thing as a true or false political statement? I can get lots of people to agree what happened two weeks ago when they're shown videos and transcripts of what was said and done and what wasn't said and done. And that's exactly what fact-checkers do: They compare the claims made by politicians against the objective records.

You do that 400 times over a few years and add up the totals. Voila! You've got some objective statistics about claims made by Republicans and claims made by Democrats.

But keep on insisting that it's all smoke and mirrors and that the truth of political statements can't be evaluated objectively.

 

[OCGuy]

I'm claiming that whenever I am fed a "fact", I check to see who it is coming from, and what their angle is. Then I like to see who their source is that they used to determine if it was the truth or only a "half truth".

 

[MagickMan]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman,"

[points at some random chick off-camera]

"Miss Lewinsky..."


Yeah, we know how the Left lies. :\

 

[fskimospy]

I'm claiming that whenever I am fed a "fact", I check to see who it is coming from, and what their angle is. Then I like to see who their source is that they used to determine if it was the truth or only a "half truth".

I think your criticism of this analysis are somewhat valid. As I mentioned before, Politifact does not choose statements at random; they tend to highlight controversial or outrageous comments for checking. This adds an inherent bias to their dataset. Additionally, you're right that the determination of what is half true or mostly true or whatever is subjective.

That being said, there's no particular reason to think that Politifact is biased against Republicans, and I'm frankly not surprised that they say more outrageous things that would attract Politifact's attention. As I said before I don't think this is because they are inherently more dishonest, I think they just gain more politically from saying outrageous things at this time.

 

[OCGuy]

That being said, there's no particular reason to think that Politifact is biased against Republicans, and I'm frankly not surprised that they say more outrageous things that would attract Politifact's attention. As I said before I don't think this is because they are inherently more dishonest, I think they just gain more politically from saying outrageous things at this time.

The frequency of rhetoric in general is going to lean more towards the party that is on the outside looking in.

Todays "Obama personally ordered the Benghazi militants to kill the ambassador after a death panel decided he should die..." is yesterday's "Bush brought down the towerzzz!" "Cheney is gunna cancel elections and declare martial law!" "Bush to attack Iran and cancel elections!!"

 

[fskimospy]

The frequency of rhetoric in general is going to lean more towards the party that is on the outside looking in.

Todays "Obama personally ordered the Benghazi militants to kill the ambassador after a death panel decided he should die..." is yesterday's "Bush brought down the towerzzz!" "Cheney is gunna cancel elections and declare martial law!" "Bush to attack Iran and cancel elections!!"

I would say that if you look at when the liberals were out of power they tend towards more extreme things, however they don't meet the level of conservatives. I remember an interview with the people who run Snopes.com and they had something to that effect to say.

It's also important to note that politifact measures what elected figures and other prominent people say, not random forwarded emails from your uncle. The insane things aren't coming from the base to officials, they are coming from officials to the base.

 

[shira]

I think your criticism of this analysis are somewhat valid. As I mentioned before, Politifact does not choose statements at random; they tend to highlight controversial or outrageous comments for checking. This adds an inherent bias to their dataset. Additionally, you're right that the determination of what is half true or mostly true or whatever is subjective.

That being said, there's no particular reason to think that Politifact is biased against Republicans, and I'm frankly not surprised that they say more outrageous things that would attract Politifact's attention. As I said before I don't think this is because they are inherently more dishonest, I think they just gain more politically from saying outrageous things at this time.

In fact, the "statistics" underlying Politifact's numbers were themselves evaluated by a study. As reported in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#Analysis_of_PolitiFact.27s_ratings

University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He said "PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)..."

So the disparity in truthfulness can't be explained by claims that Republicans are attracting more attention by saying more outrageous things, since the numbers would indicate that both Republicans and Democrats have been saying almost equal numbers of statements that have attracted Politifact analysis.

 

[fskimospy]

In fact, the "statistics" underlying Politifact's numbers were themselves evaluated by a study. As reported in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#Analysis_of_PolitiFact.27s_ratings

So the disparity in truthfulness can't be explained by claims that Republicans are attracting more attention by saying more outrageous things, since the numbers would indicate that both Republicans and Democrats have been saying almost equal numbers of statements that have attracted Politifact analysis.

Interesting! I didn't know that.

 

[OCGuy]

So the disparity in truthfulness can't be explained by claims that Republicans are attracting more attention by saying more outrageous things, since the numbers would indicate that both Republicans and Democrats have been saying almost equal numbers of statements that have attracted Politifact analysis.

And what are the criteria for attracting analysis from Politifact?

Not only can they choose which subjects to analyze, but their analysis is based on their source of information, whatever that is.

Point being "studies" like these are as credible as Gawker Top 10 lists.

 

[dank69]

And what are the criteria for attracting analysis from Politifact?

Not only can they choose which subjects to analyze, but their analysis is based on their source of information, whatever that is.

Point being "studies" like these are as credible as Gawker Top 10 lists.

16 peer-reviewed studies predicted that you would attempt to rationalize this away.

 

[Oldgamer]

Clearly this research is another liberal lie :sneaky:

Wow, and here I thought Politifact was a right leaning site....lmao

 

[Genx87]

My post and your response are perfect examples of the difference between the degree of intellectual honesty of lefties and righties. I clearly and accurately described the study results, and accurately summarized by writing that Democrats are "a LOT more intellectually honest" by a 3-to-1 ratio (bolding added to highlight the operative word "more"). That's a RELATIVE statement about intellectual honesty, not an absolute statement.

Of course your statement is relative. My response noted you are arguing one party's bullshit smells better than the others.

You replied by distorting the study results (all of a sudden, the study's "54% mostly or entirely true" becomes "50% mostly true" in your version). And you changed my relative statement into statement about absolute intellectual honesty.

I hardly distorted the study. Half the time is rounding for sake of simplicity. Holy christ are you really going to argue over 4%? And describing the results of half the time being mostly true is appropriate. Because it includes the 22% that is completely true. You are really nitpicking here. And I didn't change your statement at all. I asked you a question if you believe being mostly true half the time in intellectually honest. A question you unsurprisingly didn't answer.

But you're a righty, so the temptation to distort and lie is obviously much stronger for you than for me. Poor baby.

Ahh yes the insult only an infantile brain can make. A sign of a weak argument.

 

[dank69]

Of course your statement is relative. My response noted you are arguing one party's bullshit smells better than the others.



I hardly distorted the study. Half the time is rounding for sake of simplicity. Holy christ are you really going to argue over 4%? And describing the results of half the time being mostly true is appropriate. Because it includes the 22% that is completely true. You are really nitpicking here. And I didn't change your statement at all. I asked you a question if you believe being mostly true half the time in intellectually honest. A question you unsurprisingly didn't answer.



Ahh yes the insult only an infantile brain can make. A sign of a weak argument.

4% is the difference between entirely true and mostly true

 

[Genx87]

4% is the difference between entirely true and mostly true

lol good one.