Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More

LadyJazzer wrote: You were saying that about the Presidential polling...all the way up to RMoney's concession speech...

I don't know why you keep saying that. I was the one saying the electoral college was going to be won by Obama easily, and I was only 10 EV off of Silver's numbers.

I was the one willing to make a ban bet that BHO would win re-election.

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: You were saying that about the Presidential polling...all the way up to RMoney's concession speech...

I don't know why you keep saying that. I was the one saying the electoral college was going to be won by Obama easily, and I was only 10 EV off of Silver's numbers.

I was the one willing to make a ban bet that BHO would win re-election.

She's saying that because liberals lie. (isn't this fun :woo hoo: )

You = "You"... The NeoCons were saying it... I'm not going to try to split out individually which one or two of you were realistic enough to see the handwriting on the wall...

And I will keep saying it because it was true of the party/parties....

You don't even know what a neo-con is! A neo-con is a former liberal.
And Fox News polls had Romney loosing the popular vote by more than he actually did.

MY definition includes : " their concept of "national interest" conflicts with the traditional American understanding of national interest and is better described as national self-sacrifice for the purpose of achieving a kind of moral "greatness."[11] Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush had neoconservative advisors regarding military and foreign policies. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials of the Departments of Defense and State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War.[12]"

..i.e., Never met a war they didn't like...

I'm really not interested in splitting hairs with you over definitions, deflections, and excursions off into the weeds... Go play by yourself.

Name a neo-con please? The Left has invented this bogey-man that is a very small percentage of Republicans with almost no influence anymore. It is like scaring children with tales about ogres.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Can you refute a single assertion that the study made?

They only chose (100) statements. Who got to chose which out of hundreds of thousands were used?

Was it truly random? Or did they select statements from people on campaigns, where lying happens more often? Did they say that Obama lied because he didn't lower the debt levels, close Gitmo?

(100) samples, sounds way too narrow for me. tongue:

The study explains the samples that were selected and why they were selected. But of course you have no use for actual facts.

FredHayek wrote: Name a neo-con please? The Left has invented this bogey-man that is a very small percentage of Republicans with almost no influence anymore. It is like scaring children with tales about ogres.

Since you're not really interested in sources--or FACTS--- Here's an exercise for you:

1) [url=http://www.google.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.google.com[/url]
2) Enter: "prominent neocons"


There... Did your research for you.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Name a neo-con please? The Left has invented this bogey-man that is a very small percentage of Republicans with almost no influence anymore. It is like scaring children with tales about ogres.

Since you're not really interested in sources--or FACTS--- Here's an exercise for you:

1) [url=http://www.google.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.google.com[/url]
2) Enter: "prominent neocons"


There... Did your research for you.

http://bit.ly/15a9Wce

I love [url=http://www.LMGTFY.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.LMGTFY.com[/url].

I'm sure "source-free", "fact-free" Fred appreciates the source. Personally, I'm not interested.