Originally Posted by djplong

Well, I never said it was a Bible. Any time that you produce a summary like that, there are going to be some cases where interpretation might cause some movement in the numbers.

But what I really like about them is their individual entries. They don't just give a rating (from "True" to "Pants on Fire"). They go into detail about how and why they gave it that rating. As is the case with many incidents, when there are parts that are true and parts that aren't, they'll give you both parts. They also go to the mat trying to get clarification - contacting a candidate's office in many cases to get comments.

At least, if I disagree with Politifact, I'm going to know why.

There's a website that deals with nothing but PolitiFact bias. I think it's actually called politifactbias.com. They don't have your faith.

Originally Posted by dklassen

He's a great snake oil salesman but an otherwise rotten president.

Not true!

Originally Posted by RichieLion

There's a website that deals with nothing but PolitiFact bias. I think it's actually called politifactbias.com. They don't have your faith.

Ha! It is interesting that everything that fails to fit your perspective has a bias, but coulter, limbaugh, fox news, hannity et al have none. Hmmmmmmm

Accepting and using the numbers provided calculates out to be a 33% accomplishment. That is just unacceptable to performance oriented, high expectation constituents.

I guess if he hit one of the promises one is affected by one could/would be happy.

These numbers also gloss over the major issues with promises that have not made it to page one priority since made. And it is unacceptable to point to a bunch of other completions with significantly less impact.

My expectation? Do 100% what was promised and do it ASAP. Don't hang around three++ years later and whine about things tougher than expected and pleading for four more years to get the job done.

33% is a failing grade!!! No private industry executive would still be in the job
three years later with such a pitifully low accomplishment record.

My expectations do not change based on R or D or color or creed...however one wins the job they either do it (within a reasonable time period) or they are out. And please don't insult some of us by harping about how some things just take longer. OK, I accept that....show me where those have started, where they are now and when expected to be completed. And we all know that ain't gonna come from any politician.

33% is a failing grade in any book!!

btk

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Ha! It is interesting that everything that fails to fit your perspective has a bias, but coulter, limbaugh, fox news, hannity et al have none. Hmmmmmmm

I had had that observation for some time now.

Originally Posted by billethkid

Accepting and using the numbers provided calculates out to be a 33% accomplishment. That is just unacceptable to performance oriented, high expectation constituents.

I guess if he hit one of the promises one is affected by one could/would be happy.

These numbers also gloss over the major issues with promises that have not made it to page one priority since made. And it is unacceptable to point to a bunch of other completions with significantly less impact.

My expectation? Do 100% what was promised and do it ASAP. Don't hang around three++ years later and whine about things tougher than expected and pleading for four more years to get the job done.

33% is a failing grade!!! No private industry executive would still be in the job
three years later with such a pitifully low accomplishment record.

My expectations do not change based on R or D or color or creed...however one wins the job they either do it (within a reasonable time period) or they are out. And please don't insult some of us by harping about how some things just take longer. OK, I accept that....show me where those have started, where they are now and when expected to be completed. And we all know that ain't gonna come from any politician.

33% is a failing grade in any book!!

btk

Hard to get things done with The Party of NO blocking every positive thing he has tried to do. Place the blame where it belongs.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Ha! It is interesting that everything that fails to fit your perspective has a bias, but coulter, limbaugh, fox news, hannity et al have none. Hmmmmmmm

It's not my website and I've never contributed to it, I only point it out. I never said that the people (et al) you name have no bias. They have a bias to conservative ideals, as do I, but I don't even agree with all of them, all the time.

Fox News has as many liberals on it as the liberal networks and the inclusion of them in your post shows the extent of your bias, and I could say ignorance of the network.

The fact that you point to all these "conservative names" to counter my comments about PolitiFact tells me that even you link PolitiFact more liberal than conservative, and thereby prove my point. Thank you.

I just don't accept Snopes or PolitiFact as any sort of final arbitrator on anything. I'd be foolish if I did.

my post had nothing to do with blame and everything to do with accepting an responding, giving my observations on the performance reflected by the submitted numbers.

That 33% promises kept has been at that level for a year or more.

Good private sector advice? Don't say it if you don't intend to deliver on it.
Of course it is a given and all bets are off when something is said by a politician....especially one that is in continuous campaign mode.

btk

Originally Posted by RichieLion

It's not my website and I've never contributed to it, I only point it out. I never said that the people (et al) you name have no bias. They have a bias to conservative ideals, as do I, but I don't even agree with all of them, all the time.

Fox News has as many liberals on it as the liberal networks and the inclusion of them in your post shows the extent of your bias, and I could say ignorance of the network.

The fact that you point to all these "conservative names" to counter my comments about PolitiFact tells me that even you link PolitiFact more liberal than conservative, and thereby prove my point. Thank you.

I just don't accept Snopes or PolitiFact as any sort of final arbitrator on anything. I'd be foolish if I did.

I don't watch Fox News, so please enlighten me as to who the liberals are that Fox employs. Here's a partial list of conservatives that MSNBC has:
Joe Scarborough, former Florida congressman on from 6:00am to 9:00am Monday through Friday; Michael Steele, former chairman of the republican party, Steve Schmidt, former McCain/Palin advisor, Megan McCain, daughter of Senator McCain, Jenna Bush, daughter of the former president.

I don't know how to react to the irrational giddishness from the liberal left concerning Obama's triumphant march into Detroit. The GM Chrysler bailout cost taxpayers $81.8 billlion, ignored creditors rights, gave a large prtion of the company to the UAW and by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat the Treasury gave an additional $18 billion more in assests. thus the Democratic Administration gave a massive tax benefit to one of its biggest party supporter at the expense of taxpayers. In addition the bailout reimbursement came from other taxpayer funds. While Obama crows about GM high profits the fact remains that they are not paying any taxes on those profits and will not for years to come. It kind of upsets me that as a retiree my tax rate is much higher than GM's Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Boy, based on the affect Obama has on my pocketbook it sure make me want to vote for Obama (not)....

Originally Posted by rubicon

I don't know how to react to the irrational giddishness from the liberal left concerning Obama's triumphant march into Detroit. The GM Chrysler bailout cost taxpayers $81.8 billlion, ignored creditors rights, gave a large prtion of the company to the UAW and by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat the Treasury gave an additional $18 billion more in assests. thus the Democratic Administration gave a massive tax benefit to one of its biggest party supporter at the expense of taxpayers. In addition the bailout reimbursement came from other taxpayer funds. While Obama crows about GM high profits the fact remains that they are not paying any taxes on those profits and will not for years to come. It kind of upsets me that as a retiree my tax rate is much higher than GM's Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Boy, based on the affect Obama has on my pocketbook it sure make me want to vote for Obama (not)....

You conspicuously omit the fact that George W Bush doled out the first 25 billion bridge-loan before he left office, then President Obama added 60 billion which has largely been repaid with interest.

Bill - did you vote for Reagan in 1984? Compared to what Obama inherited, Reagan inherited a situation not nearly as dire, produced far fewer results but still got re-elected because people believed that it took time to fix what was wrong.

...the people, and Reagan, turned out to be right.

Originally Posted by janmcn

You conspicuously omit the fact that George W Bush doled out the first 25 billion bridge-loan before he left office, then President Obama added 60 billion which has largely been repaid with interest.

Obama and his crew are using your tax money for their personal agenda and all you can say is Bush started with a bridge loan. Apparently the post was lost on you. this isn't about party this is about abuse of tax payers money Geeez

Originally Posted by rubicon

I don't know how to react to the irrational giddishness from the liberal left concerning Obama's triumphant march into Detroit. The GM Chrysler bailout cost taxpayers $81.8 billlion, ignored creditors rights, gave a large prtion of the company to the UAW and by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat the Treasury gave an additional $18 billion more in assests. thus the Democratic Administration gave a massive tax benefit to one of its biggest party supporter at the expense of taxpayers. In addition the bailout reimbursement came from other taxpayer funds. While Obama crows about GM high profits the fact remains that they are not paying any taxes on those profits and will not for years to come. It kind of upsets me that as a retiree my tax rate is much higher than GM's Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Boy, based on the affect Obama has on my pocketbook it sure make me want to vote for Obama (not)....

yes, and the repub candidates want to reduce corporate income tax to 0%. How's that for not paying taxes.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Obama and his crew are using your tax money for their personal agenda and all you can say is Bush started with a bridge loan. Apparently the post was lost on you. this isn't about party this is about abuse of tax payers money Geeez

Enlighten me. Post several links so I can delve into your facts and figures and learn all it. Trust but verify is my motto.