No surprise.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/sep/16/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-cuccinelli-tried-make-it-harder-mom/

The Truth-o-Meter, Fact Checker, et. al. guys have been kind of kicking McAuliffe's rich white ass lately. Wonder what he did to piss them all off.

The meat of the argument is that is successful VA would have one of the toughest divorce laws in the country....and that the Cooch was behind the bill. On that issue the commercial is 100% true.

the coochster is a die hard catholic man, and he won't be satisfied until we all are living as the vatican says we should. He takes gifts from wealthy people and thinks that it is ok. McAuliffe seems to be a big douche as well. Guess i'm going to be flipping a coin this election.

The meat of the argument is who gives a shit, both are equally worthless, and not from VA.

McSpanking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Truth-o-Meter, Fact Checker, et. al. guys have
> been kind of kicking McAuliffe's rich white ass
> lately. Wonder what he did to piss them all off.

He didnt have to do anything his bullshit is just so bad theres no way to defend it other than ignore it

TMAC is the poster child for everything that is wrong with politics and how they view themselves as an elite ruling class where we just live to better their lives

There is nothing factually inaccurate in the McAullife ad. The ad is rated 'mostly inaccurate' based on this observation:

"No doubt, the bill would have it harder for moms to obtain divorces. But McAuliffe, in trying to portray it as an attack on women, omits that the legislation would have made it equally more difficult for dads to get divorces."

Just because divorce might be made equally difficult for men does not make the ad untrue. And women initiate two out of three divorces, which puts the burden of this legislation disproportionally on women.

Moreover, if you are a man, you will not have the same reaction to this sort of legislation as a woman. The idea that a woman has to get 'permission' from her husband to divorce is incredibly offensive and paternalistic. We can expect a lot more of this crap if Cuccinelli is elected. Don't let that happen.

Very Misleading Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing factually inaccurate in the
> McAullife ad. The ad is rated 'mostly inaccurate'
> based on this observation:
>
> "No doubt, the bill would have it harder for moms
> to obtain divorces. But McAuliffe, in trying to
> portray it as an attack on women, omits that the
> legislation would have made it equally more
> difficult for dads to get divorces."
>
> Just because divorce might be made equally
> difficult for men does not make the ad untrue. And
> women initiate two out of three divorces, which
> puts the burden of this legislation
> disproportionally on women.
>
> Moreover, if you are a man, you will not have the
> same reaction to this sort of legislation as a
> woman. The idea that a woman has to get
> 'permission' from her husband to divorce is
> incredibly offensive and paternalistic. We can
> expect a lot more of this crap if Cuccinelli is
> elected. Don't let that happen.

Thanks for the bullshit.

I mean why would we expect men and women to be treated equally under the law which you yourself admit in this day and age where equal treatment means special treatment.

Youre an idiot.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the bullshit.

Your usual insightful analysis.

> I mean why would we expect men and women to be
> treated equally under the law which you yourself
> admit in this day and age where equal treatment
> means special treatment.

I tried to translate this into English, but I gave up.

> Youre an idiot.

Are you even capable of coherent thought, you moron?

IQ Test Calling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks for the bullshit.
>
> Your usual insightful analysis.
>
> > I mean why would we expect men and women to be
> > treated equally under the law which you
> yourself
> > admit in this day and age where equal treatment
> > means special treatment.
>
> I tried to translate this into English, but I gave
> up.
>
> > Youre an idiot.
>
> Are you even capable of coherent thought, you
> moron?

Can you tell us some more how this law is unfair because it applies to men and women you partisan hack?

How about make another stink about the 18k he got while ignoring the millions TMac got?

Run along to bed, first period is less than 10 hours away

YFVen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No surprise.
>
> http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013
> /sep/16/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-cuccinelli-
> tried-make-it-harder-mom/

I've been looking at the claims out there and found this on VA's Legislative Bill Tracker. He did present such a bill on January 17, 2008.

Looks like politifact might be biased....

"(d) Except in cases where either party has been adjudged insane, this subdivision (9) shall not apply to marriages entered under a license issued after July 1, 2008, if (i) there are minor children born of the parties, born of either party and adopted by the other, or adopted by both parties, and (ii) either party files a written objection to the granting of a divorce pursuant to this subdivision, which objection may be withdrawn at any time in the proceeding."

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SB725
Attachments:

Non-Partisan Undecided Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've been looking at the claims out there and
> found this on VA's Legislative Bill Tracker. He
> did present such a bill on January 17, 2008.
>
> Looks like politifact might be biased....

You should try reading the link sometime first, all of that was addressed how it was bullshit that it was an attack on women. It also only applies to no fault divorces, if it was in fact a bad marriage like the ad claimed you still have outs.

Youre right politifact does show bias but its certainly not for the GOP. You should go see the Obama "fact" checks.

Liberal Logic 28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Non-Partisan Undecided Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I've been looking at the claims out there and
> > found this on VA's Legislative Bill Tracker.
> He
> > did present such a bill on January 17, 2008.
> >
> > Looks like politifact might be biased....
>
> You should try reading the link sometime first,
> all of that was addressed how it was bullshit that
> it was an attack on women.

Just because you rebutted with a load of horseshit does not mean that this issue was put to bed.

> It also only applies
> to no fault divorces, if it was in fact a bad
> marriage like the ad claimed you still have outs.

Most divorces are no fault. It makes it much easier and does not require spewing hurtful and possible false allegations against the spouse. Most people think this is a GOOD thing.

> Youre right politifact does show bias but its
> certainly not for the GOP. You should go see the
> Obama "fact" checks.

Bullshit.

"A leading media fact-checking organization rates Republicans as less trustworthy than Democrats, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study finds that PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama’s second term."

Just because they pointed out that Republicans lie more, does not make them partisan.

U R So Stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bullshit.
>
> "A leading media fact-checking organization rates
> Republicans as less trustworthy than Democrats,
> according to a new study by the Center for Media
> and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason
> University. The study finds that PolitiFact.com
> has rated Republican claims as false three times
> as often as Democratic claims during President
> Obama’s second term."
>
> Just because they pointed out that Republicans lie
> more, does not make them partisan.


BS. Either you missed or are intentionally obscuring that they don't evaluate the actual claims. It's simply a tally of how that particular rating organization has rated which particular claims which they've selected to evaluate. As CMPA acknowledges, to the extent that selection bias exists in how many and what claims they may choose from either side, that's reflected in the counts. Although mindless partisan dipshits like you certainly try to present it as such, it's not at all a study of who is more or less truthful:

"In this and future reports, CMPA does not evaluate the ratings given by the fact-checkers. We simply aggregate ratings provided by the fact-checkers themselves. The findings provide an overview of how individuals, groups, political parties, etc. are portrayed in this increasingly important genre of political journalism."

And, by your same measure, if you'd looked at their similar studies of the other several fact-checking groups you' find that done for the Post's comes out equal for both.

U R So Stupid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just because you rebutted with a load of horseshit
> does not mean that this issue was put to bed.

I know facts are horseshit too. Why the name change again?

> > It also only applies
> > to no fault divorces, if it was in fact a bad
> > marriage like the ad claimed you still have
> outs.
>
> Most divorces are no fault. It makes it much
> easier and does not require spewing hurtful and
> possible false allegations against the spouse.
> Most people think this is a GOOD thing.

If they both want a divorce nothing changes which is a requirement for a no fault divorce, but again pesky facts.


> Bullshit.

Okay you convinced me with that well thought out response.

> "A leading media fact-checking organization rates
> Republicans as less trustworthy than Democrats,
> according to a new study by the Center for Media
> and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason
> University. The study finds that PolitiFact.com
> has rated Republican claims as false three times
> as often as Democratic claims during President
> Obama’s second term."
>
> Just because they pointed out that Republicans lie
> more, does not make them partisan.

Right. They focused on that being in the bag for Obama. By the way half those things they said were lies or half truths ended up being entirely true.

Not that anyone expects you to have the slightest grasp of reality considering your national past time is spaming this website and im sure others as well with complete bullshit.

Can you tell me again how a law that treats men and women as equals is unfair to women?

Simple Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U R So Stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > "A leading media fact-checking organization
> rates
> > Republicans as less trustworthy than Democrats,
> > according to a new study by the Center for
> Media
> > and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason
> > University. The study finds that PolitiFact.com
> > has rated Republican claims as false three
> times
> > as often as Democratic claims during President
> > Obama’s second term."
> >
> > Just because they pointed out that Republicans
> lie
> > more, does not make them partisan.
>
>
> BS. Either you missed or are intentionally
> obscuring that they don't evaluate the actual
> claims. It's simply a tally of how that
> particular rating organization has rated which
> particular claims which they've selected to
> evaluate. As CMPA acknowledges, to the extent
> that selection bias exists in how many and what
> claims they may choose from either side, that's
> reflected in the counts. Although mindless
> partisan dipshits like you certainly try to
> present it as such, it's not at all a study of who
> is more or less truthful:
>
> "In this and future reports, CMPA does not
> evaluate the ratings given by the fact-checkers.
> We simply aggregate ratings provided by the
> fact-checkers themselves. The findings provide an
> overview of how individuals, groups, political
> parties, etc. are portrayed in this increasingly
> important genre of political journalism."
>
> And, by your same measure, if you'd looked at
> their similar studies of the other several
> fact-checking groups you' find that done for the
> Post's comes out equal for both.


Oh the irony of a Dem talking point about Republicans lying more being fact checked and..........

wait for it...........

turning out to be a lie.

lmao

Simple Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U R So Stupid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > "A leading media fact-checking organization
> rates
> > Republicans as less trustworthy than Democrats,
> > according to a new study by the Center for
> Media
> > and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason
> > University. The study finds that PolitiFact.com
> > has rated Republican claims as false three
> times
> > as often as Democratic claims during President
> > Obama’s second term."
> >
> > Just because they pointed out that Republicans
> lie
> > more, does not make them partisan.
>
>
> BS. Either you missed or are intentionally
> obscuring that they don't evaluate the actual
> claims. It's simply a tally of how that
> particular rating organization has rated which
> particular claims which they've selected to
> evaluate. As CMPA acknowledges, to the extent
> that selection bias exists in how many and what
> claims they may choose from either side, that's
> reflected in the counts. Although mindless
> partisan dipshits like you certainly try to
> present it as such, it's not at all a study of who
> is more or less truthful:
>
> "In this and future reports, CMPA does not
> evaluate the ratings given by the fact-checkers.
> We simply aggregate ratings provided by the
> fact-checkers themselves. The findings provide an
> overview of how individuals, groups, political
> parties, etc. are portrayed in this increasingly
> important genre of political journalism."
>
> And, by your same measure, if you'd looked at
> their similar studies of the other several
> fact-checking groups you' find that done for the
> Post's comes out equal for both.

Is that the best you got? I never claimed that the Mason study evaluated the merits of the claims. That's immaterial. The fact remains that PolitiFact has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims. And this thread is about the PolitiFact Truth O Meter - not the Post.

You're Obfuscating Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is that the best you got? I never claimed that the
> Mason study evaluated the merits of the claims.
> That's immaterial. The fact remains that
> PolitiFact has rated Republican claims as false
> three times as often as Democratic claims. And
> this thread is about the PolitiFact Truth O Meter
> - not the Post.


Bullshit. You claimed:


> Just because they pointed out that Republicans lie more, does not make them partisan.





You're trying too hard. Just accept that you were lied to by the Dem talking point site that you got that one from.

Simple Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're Obfuscating Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Is that the best you got? I never claimed that
> the
> > Mason study evaluated the merits of the claims.
> > That's immaterial. The fact remains that
> > PolitiFact has rated Republican claims as false
> > three times as often as Democratic claims. And
> > this thread is about the PolitiFact Truth O
> Meter
> > - not the Post.
>
>
> Bullshit. You claimed:
>
>
> > Just because they pointed out that
> Republicans lie more, does not make them
> partisan.
>
>
> src="http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com
> /rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif">
>
>
> You're trying too hard. Just accept that you were
> lied to by the Dem talking point site that you got
> that one from.

I'm not going to accept anything from you nutjobs. Your logic is completely illogical. I referenced a study done by Mason, which as you pointed out did not evaluate the merits of the claims - nor was it intended to. If you are referring to the Mason study as "the Dem talking point site", then I can't help you. You are too dumb to debate.

Man, McAuliffe is really coming off badly in a number of sources. If they were the Drudge Report or something I wouldn't care, but he is coming off as out of touch and arrogant in a whole bunch of places.

You're Obfuscating Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not going to accept anything from you nutjobs.
> Your logic is completely illogical. I referenced a
> study done by Mason, which as you pointed out did
> not evaluate the merits of the claims - nor was it
> intended to. If you are referring to the Mason
> study as "the Dem talking point site", then I
> can't help you. You are too dumb to debate.



Neither Mason nor Politifact evaluated what YOU claimed re it saying that Republicans lie more.

Politifact even came out and shot that one down directly:

Quote

Responding to a George Mason University press release about our work
Posted by Bill Adair :: Published on Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 02:55 p.m.

We’ve gotten questions this week from media reporters about a study from George Mason University on our work. Their press release claims that PolitiFact found that Republicans "lie more" than Democrats.

Actually, PolitiFact rates the factual accuracy of specific claims; we do not seek to measure which party tells more falsehoods.

The authors of the press release seem to have counted up a small number of our Truth-O-Meter ratings over a few months, and then drew their own conclusions.

We've rated more than 7,000 statements since we started in 2007. We are journalists, not social scientists. We select statements to fact-check based on our news judgment -- whether a statement is timely, provocative, whether it's been repeated and whether readers would wonder if it is true.

For more on how we select facts to check, please read the Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter.

As did Lichter, the guy who runs the CMPA, who later clarified when the story started to make the rounds in that way.

The truth is that nobody evaluated whether anyone is more trustworthy or lies more.

Simple Minds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're Obfuscating Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I'm not going to accept anything from you
> nutjobs.
> > Your logic is completely illogical. I referenced
> a
> > study done by Mason, which as you pointed out
> did
> > not evaluate the merits of the claims - nor was
> it
> > intended to. If you are referring to the Mason
> > study as "the Dem talking point site", then I
> > can't help you. You are too dumb to debate.
>
>
>
> Neither Mason nor Politifact evaluated what
> YOU claimed re it saying that Republicans
> lie more.
>
> Politifact even came out and shot that one down
> directly:
>
>

Quote

> Responding to a George Mason University press
> release about our work
> Posted by Bill Adair :: Published on Wednesday,
> May 29th, 2013 at 02:55 p.m.
>
> We’ve gotten questions this week from media
> reporters about a study from George Mason
> University on our work. Their press release claims
> that PolitiFact found that Republicans "lie more"
> than Democrats.
>
> Actually, PolitiFact rates the factual accuracy of
> specific claims; we do not seek to measure which
> party tells more falsehoods.
>
> The authors of the press release seem to have
> counted up a small number of our Truth-O-Meter
> ratings over a few months, and then drew their own
> conclusions.
>
> We've rated more than 7,000 statements since we
> started in 2007. We are journalists, not social
> scientists. We select statements to fact-check
> based on our news judgment -- whether a statement
> is timely, provocative, whether it's been repeated
> and whether readers would wonder if it is true.
>
> For more on how we select facts to check, please
> read the Principles of PolitiFact and the
> Truth-O-Meter.
>

>
> As did Lichter, the guy who runs the CMPA, who
> later clarified when the story started to make the
> rounds in that way.
>
> The truth is that nobody evaluated whether anyone
> is more trustworthy or lies more.

THIS IS SEMANTICS. The FACT is that PolitiFact has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims. I made the monumental leap in conjecturing that the reason for this is that Republicans lie more.

Is this true? Beats the crap out of me. I'd have to deconstruct each Truth O Meter finding to find out. But people like the OP can't just pick one instance that they (falsely) believes supports their claims without expecting to be challenged.

You people make my head hurt. And now you're going to misconstrue that.

You're Obfuscating Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> THIS IS SEMANTICS. The FACT is that PolitiFact has
> rated Republican claims as false three times as
> often as Democratic claims. I made the monumental
> leap in conjecturing that the reason for this is
> that Republicans lie more.

No, it's not semantics. Your characterization completely misrepresented/misinterpreted what the study was. Really not that big of a deal and you weren't the only one, but when inserted in the context of a discussion re evaluation truthfulness and bias it merited correction. I do give you credit for at least recognizing that it was incorrect.


> But people like the OP can't just pick one
> instance that they (falsely) believes supports
> their claims without expecting to be challenged.
>

Not an equivalent comparison. The OP's post relates to a specific article which evaluates specific claims made for truthfulness. It actually IS evaluating accuracy of specific claims made in the McAuliffe ad. And, in fact, the article says what they represented - that the claims made that Cuccinelli tried to make it more difficult for mothers to obtain divorces are mostly false aka "lies."


> You people make my head hurt. And now you're going
> to misconstrue that.

I can't argue that one. lol

I registered to vote and all I got for it was these two clowns plus jury duty. FML.