This just kills me. Factcheck.org proclaims to be a non-partisan outlet for information spewing out of politicians from everywhere. Lets just look at some of their "non-partisan" interpretations:
McCain's $5,000 Promise May 1, 2008 His new ad only tells half the story of what his health proposal could mean for U.S. workers. Summary McCain says in a new TV ad: "Let's give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit" to buy health insurance. Sounds good. But McCain failed to mention how existing employer-sponsored health benefits would be affected.
Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, partially offsetting the $5,000 credit for those now covered by such plans. Experts say a tax credit plan like this would likely cause companies to reduce or eliminate health benefits for their employees.
The aim of the McCain plan is to reduce health care costs through increased competition, by encouraging individuals to shop around for health insurance and medical care. There are many who favor such an approach, and we take no position on it one way or the other. But McCain's simplistic ad misleads viewers by promising to give "every American family" a $5,000 benefit while failing to mention what he would also take away.
First of all, to give every one 5k is retarded. I agree with that. But the premise behind discrediting his statement is so far out there, and such a reach it goes beyond anything witty I can think of right now. "He fails to mention what he would take away". Thats because he isn't taking anything away. Taxing those benefits that are already received is not taking something away. Its basically charging those who have, to pay for those that don't have. And listen you nits.... There are CEO's and high level executives today who ARE ALREADY TAXED on their benefits.
And what Experts are they talking about? "Most companies might just eliminate or reduce coverages now because of employees being taxed???" I doubt it. Employers would not be held responsible in the least for the employees tax burden on health care. Let Microsoft or Burger King tell their employees that they aren't going to receive health benefits anymore, because the government is taxing the employee. See how fast their attrition rate goes up, and see how fast they have problems providing goods and services to their customers. I don't want to debate the obvious issues with health care in our country. But to spin this the way they have above is just damn near slander.
By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;" it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration - the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.
Read that again... The point being that they are insinuating that the McCain camp is saying that the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts in '01 and '03 are the plans for tax increases by the Obama camp. This is total spin of the worst kind. Do they actually think that the dumbest people in the country read this stuff? This is supposed to be non-partisan? Where in any speech that McCain has given does it say that? Where in that article does it imply that McCain is saying that? Other than the fact that THEY say it.
Now some stupid hippy is going to read this and automatically agree, get a wiff of supposed intelligence (cause he/she just actually read something) and go around spouting off to all who will listen about how the Republicans lie, misrepresent, and distort the truth about everything.
When in fact, you pigs, that McCain has said or indicated nothing of the kind. Its real simple to find each others tax plans. I would link, but I am under the assumption that you know how to google. Obamas tax increase have nothing to do with the expiration of the cuts in '01 and '03. they have everything to do with his own plan.
Annenberg! I used to park the guys car. Way back when, he held some rockin fund raisers on the Main Line here. I worked for the guy who had a valet service. Most of them were for PETA, or some other hippie cause. Non-Partisan my ass. Now who's lying? I mean deceiving.
Ok, so lets go with what they pin on the left.
First of all, 11 of the 12 articles on the site today are all "correcting" statements made by the republican party. Because the Left is so goddamn truthful all the time, obviously. They don't lie about anything do they. They don't cover up anything would they?
Here's the ONE that rights a wrong done to Palin (for being slimed). Here is the link for this one, because its just too much to write here. But what makes me just explode with laughter here is the fact that all of the statements here discount what the left is saying, but most have a little caveat about them.
"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
Someone actually went to Alaska and interviewed this librarian. Who, most likely is a Palin supporter. They love her in that state. But that is a very large assumption on my part, so I will strike that from the record.
The real thing to look at here is this. One of you... and I won't say who, pointed to this website as being non-partisan and as a resource that will cut through all the bullshit and print the truths.
Not 10 minutes before he/ she told me this, they argued all the points that this site say are untruthful about Palin. So I guess the site is good, as long as its bashing a republican. Which is pretty goddamn often I might add.
I don't know who's right and who's wrong. I just want the person I am debating and arguing with to have at least some goddamn integrtiy and character when doing so.
In light of it all, I will still respect you, still be friends, etc. etc. I don't judge anyone for wanting a different party to be elected. I won't judge anyone for wanting a change, or not believing in what I believe in. Just be goddamn honest about it. Don't kid yourself, and don't fucking kid me. I am smarter than you. Always will be. You tell me this is a non-partisan web site? Then I think your an idiot. Because I won't be by virtue of agreeing with you after reading it.
Anyone for 2/4 PLO on Bodog tonight?