• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney claims five studies back up his tax plan - Politifact says "mostly false"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,031
9,708
136
We're doing serious work.
Who is "we" exactly? There is precious little on your blog and searching around reveals very little information except for a few lengthy critiques of your "work" from other blogs. In short...nothing useful to establish your qualifications.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
Haha, nope. It was just a bit of deductive reasoning based on the tone, length, and content of your post. I hadn't clicked on your site yet. Since you replied, I have, and I see your poster name on the right column. Suspicion confirmed. I'll make my way to the FAQ page soon, as I'm typing this while simultaneously eating lunch.
Your thorough investigation apparently didn't reach the point where we explain that we are not paid. Since we are not paid, we are not employees.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
If you have a problem with that, it's your problem. :cool:
No, it's your problem. If Heritage Foundation says the sky is blue, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any level of bias you think you perceive. You're committing a fallacy if you assume the information is bad because of the source.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
If Heritage Foundation says the sky is blue, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any level of bias you think you perceive. You're committing a fallacy if you assume the information is bad because of the source.
The difference is, I can verify for myself that the sky is blue without having to rely on historically grossly biased, unreliable sources. OTOH, the political and social agendas of the authors published such sites are critically important to understanding their intentions and evaluating the veracity of their words.

Tell us -- Are you getting any support from organizations funded by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove or Sheldon Adelson? :\

No, it's your problem.
I decline it. You're stuck with it... along with the ridiculous track of your arguments, both here and on your lame site, and the lying losers you're pimping for public office. :p
 
Last edited:

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
Let's see if your analysis maintains your own standards.

In your site's study Ben Shapiro: "Politifact Cites Three Liberal 'Apology Experts' to Condemn Romney" you argue that politifact is hiding some of the opinions of experts about the nature of apology.
No, I didn't argue that, though PolitiFact can be faulted for failing to mention that the expert who did not respond had a history of disagreeing with the other three on the relevant issue.

In particular, you assert that politifact didn't include the opinion of Nile Gardner. You present no evidence whatsoever that politifact tried to contact Nile Gardner, you just assume that he was the expert that did not respond.
There's no assumption. It's solid reasoning and it looked like this:
PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
We know that PolitiFact tried to contact each of the experts it contacted earlier because PolitiFact says so (though perhaps we should consider that they're lying):

To explore whether the statement represented an apology, we sent it to the four experts we interviewed for our previous fact-check on Romney's claim about Obama's apology tour. Here are the comments of the three who responded:
Follow the link and it's obvious Gardiner is the missing expert.

Disregarding your baseless claim, what was Gardiner's actual opinion on the politifact fact check? Well I'd expect him to oppose politifact's ruling considering that HE WROTE THE ARTICLE THAT POLITIFACT REFUTED!
Disregarding your baseless claim that my claim was baseless, we have the same dynamic at issue with the pre-existing conditions claim. It was one of the authors of the study Obama was apparently citing who claimed it could technically support Obama's claim. Other experts, PolitiFact said, disagreed. It's an extraordinarily close parallel.

Your article does not even refute one of the arguments made by politifact, but instead tries to muddy the water between condemnation and apology by giving an example where someone can both apologize and condemn an action.
PolitiFact didn't really give an argument. Instead, it simply offered three experts who said it wasn't an apology but rather a condemnation. By showing that a condemnation can have the effect of an apology, I executed what in logic is known as a reductio ad absurdum. I showed that the reasoning of the three experts, as far as we have it, is not logical (maybe the embassy statement was a condemnation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also an apology). In reality, of course, the experts present no real reasoning in support of claiming that there was no apology. You're just supposed to take their word for it because they're like experts and stuff. And their support for liberal causes does nothing at all to color their expert opinions. Clear?

Does that mean that there is an implicit apology contained in every condemnation?
I'm pretty sure I covered this already.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
(A) country does not have any kind of responsibility to support and endorse every action of its citizens. We elect the people who decide what the rules of our nation are and what our foreign policy should be.
Right, but the issue here is whether the embassy statement was an apology. If the statement was intended to help smooth things over with the population of the country in which the embassy was located then the statement operates exactly like an apology. Do you think they were trying to smooth things over by condemning the film critical of Mohammed?

Your article is missing any actual facts to refute the arguments politifact made,
Incorrect. I showed via logic that you have no (logical) reason to accept the opinions of the three experts PolitiFact cited. I showed the existence of an expert with an opinion opposite the ones PolitiFact cited (and PF somehow forgot to mention that oops sorry and all that). And I've just gone over with you how PolitiFact doesn't really have an argument supporting its position while also showing you a solid argument why a condemning statement can fill the role of an apology. That reasoning addresses the implicit argument (the only one we've got) from PolitiFact's three liberal experts.

it's only source is of one of the authors of the article that was refuted, and you did not actually prove that Obama apologized for any of America's actions. Those are the facts and the evidence. Your articles don't measure up.
1) What sources do I need other than the ones I cited? If I don't need more sources then your objection is pointless.

2) In this post I wasn't trying to prove that Obama apologized with his tour. The issue was whether the embassy apologized. PolitiFact's story pushes the conclusion that the embassy's statement was not an apology. My goal (and Shapiro's) was to show that PolitiFact provided insufficient grounds in support of its conclusion. That burden of proof is met.

3) You appear to think my articles don't measure up because you don't know what they're measuring.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,861
3,084
136
I wonder when the Repubs will realize that selling the same steaming turd in layer after layer of pretty wrapping paper and frilly ribbon can't work too much longer as the stench will eventually seep through the tiniest cracks and crevices faster than they can rewrap it.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
The difference is, I can verify for myself that the sky is blue without having to rely on historically grossly biased, unreliable sources.
Great, then by analogy you can confirm what Shapiro wrote, that PolitiFact relied on three liberal experts who really had no reasonable support for their conclusions. You don't need to rely on Shapiro. You don't need to rely on me. You can see it for yourself.

I'll give you some time to complete your review.

Done? Great! It's pretty obvious that PolitiFact relied on three experts who used spurious reasoning, isn't it?

OTOH, the political and social agendas the authors published such sites are critically important to understanding their intentions and evaluating the veracity of their words.
But not PolitiFact. They're neutral. Ignore the cutout of President Obama in Bill Adair's office. The Koch brothers probably planted it there in order to undermine your trust in glorious non-partisan Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.

Tell us -- Are you getting any support from organizations funded by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove or Sheldon Adelson? :\
Read the flippin' FAQ.

I decline it. You're stuck with it... along with the ridiculous track of your arguments, both here and on your lame site, and the lying losers you're pimping for public office. :p
I think I've yet to encounter any reasonable criticisms of my arguments from you. Could you remind me of any I've missed or forgotten?
 
Last edited:

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
Who is "we" exactly?
Read the flippin' FAQ.

There is precious little on your blog and searching around reveals very little information except for a few lengthy critiques of your "work" from other blogs. In short...nothing useful to establish your qualifications.
I don't have my degrees posted, and I don't do that for any of my current online projects because degrees aren't relevant. Content always ought to trump qualifications. People who can't deal with the content have a tendency to dismiss it based on a perceived lack of qualifications. Often anything will do, and the Nile Gardiner example serves as a fine example. Gardiner was the only apology expert among those cited who specialized in international relations. So naturally we need to dismiss his expert opinion since he writes for the Heritage Foundation.

Perfect.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Heh. What's diplomatic about admitting imperfection unless the admission fills the customary role of an apology (smoothing things over)? Would admitting imperfection prove diplomatic, for example, if one declared "Yeah, we bombed your embassy by mistake. So what? Get over it." See the point? Admitting imperfection strongly tends to convey regret implicitly. Compare: "We bombed your embassy by mistake." The latter, if intended to help smooth things over with the offended party, is an apology.
We're perceived (pretty reasonably) as a very arrogant nation (USA #1!!! Questioning American exceptionalism kills political careers, etc), so even admitting "Hey, we haven't always been perfect" is a step towards showing some humility. Apologies also serve this function, which doesn't mean admitting imperfection and smoothing things over constitutes an apology.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer forgets to pick up Bart from soccer practice, then says, "I know you're mad, and I'm kind of mad too. We could go on debating who forgot to pick up who all day, but let's just say we both were wrong and that's that." It's admitting failure, but it sure as heck isn't an apology.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
"Rainsford" is giving inaccurate information.

PolitiFact Bias highlights the best criticisms of PolitiFact from both the right and the left. We find better criticism from the right, though we're not shy about pointing out problems with those criticisms regardless of the source or the target.

Despite criticizing both sides (just like PolitiFact does), we get criticized for our bias. That's understandable to a point. We admit our bias up front. It's right in the FAQ. People are entitled to take it into account, hopefully not in a way that blinds them to the good information we're providing. But there's a contrast with PolitiFact on this point. Everyone is biased. But PolitiFact doesn't tell you about its bias, unless we count the evidence in the finished product.

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair doesn't reveal his voting record because he doesn't want you to get the supposedly false impression that he's biased. If that's the kind of honesty you want, then PolitiFact is the place to get it. And you can just ignore things like the cardboard cutout of President Obama that stands behind Adair as he works in his Washington D.C. office.

No I'm not kidding.

Please do us the favor of reading our FAQ or a representative selection of posts from the site itself before jumping to conclusions and posting bad information about us. Thanks.
Thanks for your work. It really is appreciated.
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
356
54
91
This isn't college policy debate. It isn't a game. You can't blugeon people with false equivalencies and restated opinions to convince others that you are right. People will decide what the truth is by using their own wits.

Your only cited evidence in the article is that Nile Gardiner, who wrote the originally refuted piece said
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
You need citations from experts that prove Obama apologized for US actions in order to refute the politifact article.

Second, your argument that the libyan embassy's statement was an apology isn't even topical to the debate about the article. 1. Politifact did not make any statement about the libyan embassy in their article "Obama's remarks never a true 'apology'", nor was it a topic in Nile Gardiner's article. 2. By your own argument, there were good reasons for the embassy to release their statement, to defuse anger at the United States. If you want to debate the merits of their statement, and whether it was an apology for our government's action or a condemnation of the movie that was released attacking the Islamic prophet, go right ahead.

Finally, your article cannot be used to measure anything but your own opinion because it consists mainly of your own biased opinion and links to biased and unreliable sources, as was shown above in this thread. If you want to refute politifact's article, refute each claim made and use evidence to support your claims. Don't generalize, don't try to cloud the water. Then there could be an actual argument about whether politifact is correct, based on the evidence.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
(E)ven admitting "Hey, we haven't always been perfect" is a step towards showing some humility.
Right, but why show humility? Can't one be humble by simply thinking that one is imperfect?

Apologies also serve this function, which doesn't mean admitting imperfection and smoothing things over constitutes an apology.
If admitting error has the same effect as an apology then why would it be ridiculously false (as PolitiFact ruled) to consider the admission of error an apology? I don't follow your reasoning.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer forgets to pick up Bart from soccer practice, then says, "I know you're mad, and I'm kind of mad too. We could go on debating who forgot to pick up who all day, but let's just say we both were wrong and that's that." It's admitting failure, but it sure as heck isn't an apology.
Well, it actually does fit the definition of an apology, which is an expression of regret. When Homer admits he was wrong it implicitly communicates that he regrets his action.

Certainly it sends a mixed message when he also states that Bart was wrong at the same time. But again, I covered that issue in my original description.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
Great, then by analogy you can confirm what Shapiro wrote, that PolitiFact relied on three liberal experts who really had no reasonable support for their conclusions. You don't need to rely on Shapiro. You don't need to rely on me. You can see it for yourself.

I'll give you some time to complete your review.

Done? Great! It's pretty obvious that PolitiFact relied on three experts who used spurious reasoning, isn't it?

But not PolitiFact. They're neutral. Ignore the cutout of President Obama in Bill Adair's office. The Koch brothers probably planted it there in order to undermine your trust in glorious non-partisan Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.

Read the flippin' FAQ.

I think I've yet to encounter any reasonable criticisms of my arguments from you. Could you remind me of any I've missed or forgotten?
There aren't even 3 liberals in the US senate(Just one, Bernie Sanders).. I have a hard time believing that any "expert" used was "liberal." Disagreeing with the fringe that the right has become does NOT make someone "liberal."
 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
"Rainsford" is giving inaccurate information.

PolitiFact Bias highlights the best criticisms of PolitiFact from both the right and the left. We find better criticism from the right, though we're not shy about pointing out problems with those criticisms regardless of the source or the target.

Despite criticizing both sides (just like PolitiFact does), we get criticized for our bias. That's understandable to a point. We admit our bias up front. It's right in the FAQ. People are entitled to take it into account, hopefully not in a way that blinds them to the good information we're providing. But there's a contrast with PolitiFact on this point. Everyone is biased. But PolitiFact doesn't tell you about its bias, unless we count the evidence in the finished product.

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair doesn't reveal his voting record because he doesn't want you to get the supposedly false impression that he's biased. If that's the kind of honesty you want, then PolitiFact is the place to get it. And you can just ignore things like the cardboard cutout of President Obama that stands behind Adair as he works in his Washington D.C. office.

No I'm not kidding.

Please do us the favor of reading our FAQ or a representative selection of posts from the site itself before jumping to conclusions and posting bad information about us. Thanks.
I definitely dislike it when people jump to conclusions based on their own preconceived political notions. That's a big reason I DIDN'T automatically judge your site as unfairly biased without checking it out (I had honestly not heard of the site until it was linked here). And I did take the time to look around the site and read a number of your front page articles before I made a decision, you didn't even have to suggest it ;)

The problem is that doing so is exactly why I posted what I did. ALL the posts I read (I think pretty much every post on the front page) defended conservative positions and/or Republican politicians, almost always with links to conservative (mainly opinion) sources like Breitbart, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.

And while this is a more subjective judgement, the articles on Politifact seem far more neutral, factual and comprehensive in tone and content while Politifactbias is clearly working towards a particular conclusion. And in almost all of the articles, there is a much more general conclusion being put forward as well...specifically, "Don't trust in mainstream fact checkers like PolitiFact." Now whether they are wrong or not on specific issues, that seems like an extraordinarily broad statement to make.

To be 100% fair, I think the idea of fact checking fact checkers is a good one...if it's approached with the right motivation and right methods. But I posted what I posted based on checking out Politifactbias, and I didn't really see anything on there that made me think it would be a good place for me to go for my political fact checking.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,031
9,708
136
Read the flippin' FAQ.

I don't have my degrees posted, and I don't do that for any of my current online projects because degrees aren't relevant. Content always ought to trump qualifications. People who can't deal with the content have a tendency to dismiss it based on a perceived lack of qualifications. Often anything will do, and the Nile Gardiner example serves as a fine example. Gardiner was the only apology expert among those cited who specialized in international relations. So naturally we need to dismiss his expert opinion since he writes for the Heritage Foundation.

Perfect.
I did read the FAQ, it includes zero information about your background. At least Politifact is traceable to actual people (with backgrounds/jobs that you can research) instead of random blog owners on the internet who seem to be almost exclusively using right wing and far right wing sources to back up their claims of a left leaning Politifact bias. You admit to a conservative bias as a shield to post your own biased interpretation of their supposedly liberally biased work.

Personally I prefer Factcheck.org since I think their stuff is often better written, cited, and researched. To the actual topic of this thread the conclusions of Factcheck and Politifact in this case are virtually identical.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
I think I've yet to encounter any reasonable criticisms of my arguments from you.
You have learned well from Karl Rove, a desciple of Hitler's propoganda minster, Joseph Goebbels, credited (truly or falsely) with postulating "The Big Lie."

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

I have yet to encounter any reasonable argument from you. The same is obviously true to others in this thread who have handed your ass to you for your dining pleaure.

I believe the medical term for your condition is "anal-cranial inversion." :biggrin:

Could you remind me of any I've missed or forgotten?
Ummm... Let me think... Truth, reality and facts come to mind. Let us know when you find them. Then, if you have half as much balls as it took to put up your ridiculous POS website, you'll post an apology on your site for just how full of sh8 you are, and you'll come back here to do the same.

Until then, you're a total waste of time and effort, and I'm through trying to discuss anything with you. To repeat my previous advice...

GO HOME AND PRACTICE... little boy. :colbert:
 
Last edited:

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
I'd just like to see this line of argument carried over into the real world. "Well, honey, I did, in fact, sleep with that woman, which is often considered immoral."
"Are you not even going to apologize for it?"
"I just did! Didn't you hear me admit to having done something imperfect?"
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
Why do conservatives keep giving him a pass when it comes to policy proposals that are almost complete lies? I'm starting to get the feeling that ALL of his supporters are willing to overlook it because they really don't care who the Republican candidate is - anyone but Obama. It's a real shame....
Not all conservatives give Romney a pass. Republicans on the other hand might give him the pass you are speaking of, but that just speaks to the stupidity of being a partisan tool. Of course conservatives tend to vote R, but is more by default than due to true representation IMO. And you are right, there is that 'anyone but Obama' attitude that some will buy into.

If you are of the opinion that the Republican party does not represent conservatism, this will make sense.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Serious work??? Seriously??? Buahahahahahaha!!!

< cough > Fap! fap, fap!

I was thinking of you when I wrote the title song for this movie...


Seriously (if anything about your site can be taken that way), you can't be serious. :biggrin:





The long history of the beliefs expressed by the vast majority opinions on breitbart and the Heritage Foundation are anything but unrelated to the idea of influencing the outcome of the coming elections. I could do a search for specific articles by a long list of authors appearing on both sites, but it's easier just to remind everyone that, just prior to his death, Andrew Breitbart was most recently seen as the unhinged, fulminating maniac starring in videos pimping the specious charges against ACORN and Shirley Sherrod Brown. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation sports the voices of neocon traitors from from Bush era and their Fox Noise cheerleaders who pimped wars, wars and more wars based on lies.

How'd those WMD's in Iraq work out for ya?

Didn't ya just luv the torture? :hmm:

Those same morons pimped Bush's deregulation of the Wall Street robber barons and the oil industry. Maybe you think we haven't had enough good financial collapses or environmental disasters for one decade. :\

Now, they're pimping the disastrous Ryan/Romney budget, but they refuse to put forth any concrete descriptions of what they would actually do or where the funds would come from to cover the revenue lost by continued and further tax cuts for the uber-rich. :thumbsdown:

Referring the sources of the statements and underlying goals of those who offer their opinions on Breitbart's and the Heritage Foundation's sites is hardly ann ad hominem attack. It's just full disclosure of who these people are and what their agenda is.

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem. :cool:
Not that I have a dog in this "my party is better than your party" circle jerk but he does sort of have a point. So far you have refuted absolutely nothing that he has posted and instead attack him and his sources instead of what most intelligent people do in debates which is actually debate the facts.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,677
482
126
Mitt Romney will not let his candidacy be dictated by fact-checkers, according to his campaign staff.

He will continue to claim that Obama removed the work seeking requirement from welfare, for example, despite the fact that even the Republican governors who requested exemption to implement their own system admit that the Romney claim is false.

Romney really has no qualms about just lying straight to your face. Fact-bending is an unfortunate part of today's political campaign, but to face the American people and repeatedly state something you know is completely untrue requires a lot of disgraceful will.
 
Last edited:

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
This isn't college policy debate. It isn't a game. You can't blugeon people with false equivalencies and restated opinions to convince others that you are right. People will decide what the truth is by using their own wits.

Your only cited evidence in the article is that Nile Gardiner, who wrote the originally refuted piece said You need citations from experts that prove Obama apologized for US actions in order to refute the politifact article.
Why do I need that evidence? Or, should I say, what is the evidence that I need that evidence in order to refute PolitiFact? Are we just going to assume that having three liberal apology experts with no apparent expertise in foreign relations were sufficient to support PolitiFact's original rating?

Second, your argument that the libyan embassy's statement was an apology isn't even topical to the debate about the article.
Right, but somebody on this board chose to make false statements about the site I helped create. I think I have a reasonable right to respond to such statements.

1. Politifact did not make any statement about the libyan embassy in their article "Obama's remarks never a true 'apology'", nor was it a topic in Nile Gardiner's article.
The point of the story was clear despite the lack of a specific statement. I can make a post and say it's about you and then quote a bunch of disparaging remarks from others and it would be clear my point was to disparage you.

2. By your own argument, there were good reasons for the embassy to release their statement, to defuse anger at the United States. If you want to debate the merits of their statement, and whether it was an apology for our government's action or a condemnation of the movie that was released attacking the Islamic prophet, go right ahead.
Thanks! I'm honored to have your permission communicated at such length.

Finally, your article cannot be used to measure anything but your own opinion because it consists mainly of your own biased opinion and links to biased and unreliable sources, as was shown above in this thread.
Your argument is self-defeating unless you link to unbiased sources to back up your own biased opinion.

To avoid such logical problems you need to avoid the fallacies of appeal to authority and address the substance of arguments regardless of sources and supposed bias. I think I've explained that already.

If you want to refute politifact's article, refute each claim made and use evidence to support your claims. Don't generalize, don't try to cloud the water. Then there could be an actual argument about whether politifact is correct, based on the evidence.
So basically if PolitiFact cites three biased experts and totally ignores the contrary claim of another biased expert that's enough to establish the burden of proof in PolitiFact's favor?

Are you quite certain that you're qualified to set the rules for what is needed to refute PolitiFact?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I wonder when the Repubs will realize that selling the same steaming turd in layer after layer of pretty wrapping paper and frilly ribbon can't work too much longer as the stench will eventually seep through the tiniest cracks and crevices faster than they can rewrap it.
We realize it..and are actively showing the libs that Obama is not worthy of their vote, no matter how many layers of pretty wrapping paper and frilly ribbon they cover him in.

Sadly, most will fall for the pretty wrapping paper and frilly ribbon and vote for Obama anyway. :(
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY