FactCheck.org

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Did you know :

As we have seen multiple times on this blog that factcheck.org is non partisan and we have seen also that their facts are wrong more times than they are right. Now we know it is a Annenberg website. The same Annenberg who funded radical Ayers and Obama in Chicago.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Makes them a little bias ... no??

[Scorpiosue1102]

Annenberg is a Republican too

[Scorpiosue1102]

Forgot to add my link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

[daly]

Did you know :

As we have seen multiple times on this blog that factcheck.org is non partisan and we have seen also that their facts are wrong more times than they are right. Now we know it is a Annenberg website. The same Annenberg who funded radical Ayers and Obama in Chicago.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Makes them a little bias ... no??

Thanks for posting this. I was not aware. I had thought I had picked up on a bias (against McCain) several times when I read FactCheck but I had just shrugged it off because I'm for McCain. -Makes me wonder.

[4noisyboys]

Annenberg is a Republican too

Figures!!:lol

[Scorpiosue1102]

Thanks for posting this. I was not aware. I had thought I had picked up on a bias (against McCain) several times when I read FactCheck but I had just shrugged it off because I'm for McCain. -Makes me wonder.

But Annenberg is a Republican so wouldn't it lean right then?

[HLWalter725]

Annenberg at U Penn is one of the most respected academic political communication programs in the country. I'm actually surprised to see this infer that it is biased sourced. I'll have to look more into this.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

No, not necessarily. On Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck), the president and chairwoman of the foundation, Leonore Annenberg has endorsed John McCain.

[Chreamps]

Yes, Mrs. Anneberg is a supporter of McCain. (http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-4868-9906-62f555376089.htm)

From McCain's website:

...FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN
Weston Adams, Malawi -- Columbia, S.C.
Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn.
Cresencio Arcos, Jr., Honduras; FP/NS -- Coral Gables, Fla.
George Argyros, Spain and Andorra -- Costa Mesa, Calif.
Catherine Todd Bailey, Latvia -- Louisville, Ky....


And, the Annebergs were friends with the Reagans (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/9/104314/783/502/624955) (NOTE: the link is a liberal link but I'm linking for the picture of the Reagans with the Annebergs).

Biased?

[Glueless Media]

Did you know :

As we have seen multiple times on this blog that factcheck.org is non partisan and we have seen also that their facts are wrong more times than they are right. Now we know it is a Annenberg website. The same Annenberg who funded radical Ayers and Obama in Chicago.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Makes them a little bias ... no??

Thanks for the info, Heather.

[daly]

Yes, Mrs. Anneberg is a supporter of McCain. (http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/1b838127-b4a0-4868-9906-62f555376089.htm)

From McCain's website:



And, the Annebergs were friends with the Reagans (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/9/104314/783/502/624955) (NOTE: the link is a liberal link but I'm linking for the picture of the Reagans with the Annebergs).

Biased?

So now, who people have associated with in the past....matters?:lol

What is giving me pause (to contemplate....I really have not researched enough yet to draw conclusion) about Anneberg than the 'Republican' affiliation is the connection with Ayers, Obama and what I have seen were some 'left leaning' educational plans. That's all :)

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

So now, who people have associated with in the past....matters?:lol


Exactly!!!

[Scorpiosue1102]

No, it doesn't matter to me because then we should really look into McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy. I mentioned that the Annenberg's are republican because it was mentioned that factcheck.org may not be bi-partisan. So if the Annenberg's are Republican then factcheck.org would lean right. I for one have no problem, as an Obama supporter, with factcheck.org.

[HLWalter725]

No, it doesn't matter to me because then we should really look into McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy. I mentioned that the Annenberg's are republican because it was mentioned that factcheck.org may not be bi-partisan. So if the Annenberg's are Republican then factcheck.org would lean right. I for one have no problem, as an Obama supporter, with factcheck.org.

I agree. In fact, I feel that the fact that Annenberg supports McCain makes me feel validated in the information on the site that "leans" to Obama.

While I know its rare, I do think its possible to keep a professional site unbiased and still have personal preferences.

[Gina.Maria]

This is ridiculous. You're looking for plots that just don't exist and dreaming up "associations" that don't mean a thing.

Unless you're all ready to admit that McCain's past associations are just as relevant, then Ayers is a non-starter.

Ayers was never convicted, never said he wished they'd "bombed more" (he said he wished "we'd done more" to stop the war), and has been a reformed activist, working for children and the poor for years. I can't believe the guy isn't suing the RNC and McCain for slander. There's a commandment about "bearing false witness" and it's being broken repeatedly as everyone continues to spread these lies.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

This is ridiculous. You're looking for plots that just don't exist and dreaming up "associations" that don't mean a thing.

Unless you're all ready to admit that McCain's past associations are just as relevant, then Ayers is a non-starter.

Ayers was never convicted, never said he wished they'd "bombed more" (he said he wished "we'd done more" to stop the war), and has been a reformed activist, working for children and the poor for years. I can't believe the guy isn't suing the RNC and McCain for slander. There's a commandment about "bearing false witness" and it's being broken repeatedly as everyone continues to spread these lies.

Whoa, before you go calling anyone/thing ridiculous, look at what I said about some of the associations McCain has in the post about Obama being an Indonesian citizen. I specifically said I have been looking into them and frankly cannot find anything. Can you show me something ... just the names were mentioned in previous posts - but no links to prove them.


I personally think this is important, just as I think it is important why McCain refuses to release the information about the POW/MIA's during Vietnam. What is he hiding? I have tried searching info about the connections McCain has with some names some of you have posted. I cannot find anything to post because there really isn't anything. William Timmons, search him ... nothing really comes other then what we already know.

And personally, if you used to be known as a terrorist because you bombed something - you will always be a terrorist in my eyes. That is an inexcusable act no matter what. There are things that can be forgiven, but taking someone's life for his belief ... no way!

And as for Ayers ... he has said as stated here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78980) - in interviews over the past decade he has no remorse for his 1970s terrorist activities, declaring he only wished he could have done more.

[Gina.Maria]

Whoa, before you go calling anyone/thing ridiculous, look at what I said about some of the associations McCain has in the post about Obama being an Indonesian citizen. I specifically said I have been looking into them and frankly cannot find anything. Can you show me something ... just the names were mentioned in previous posts - but no links to prove them.



And personally, if you used to be known as a terrorist because you bombed something - you will always be a terrorist in my eyes. That is an inexcusable act no matter what. There are things that can be forgiven, but taking someone's life for his belief ... no way!

And as for Ayers ... he has said as stated here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78980) - in interviews over the past decade he has no remorse for his 1970s terrorist activities, declaring he only wished he could have done more.


I said THIS is ridiculous. If I ever have the urge to name-call, there won't be any question about it, so please don't put words in my mouth.

John Singlaub - Iran-Contra Affair (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-07-mccain-iran-contra_N.htm)
Charles Colson - Watergate (http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=68)(also considered a domestic terrorist by many)
G. Gordon Liddy - Watergate (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column)(I'm seeing a pattern here)
Charlie Keating - Keating 5 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1) (this is good - it's a local piece)
John Hagee - controversial pastor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html)
There are more but it's getting late and I need to get to bed.

Read further (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers) on Ayers, please. If all you read is the reports that have twisted his words, then you'll never get to the truth. He has a blog (http://billayers.org/), as well, but you probably won't find much on it about Obama aside from the comments left by haters. I advise you not to read them as they had me crying after only two posts.

[Tiffikat]

If half of you that are trying so desperately to dig up dirt about how terrible Obama may be spent that time posting about the great things McCain/Palin has done you just MIGHT make more of an impact on undecided voters. As is I see over and over again is what is wrong with Obama and very little of what is right with McCain. I don't see nearly as many threads about what is wrong with McCain from Obama supporters except often in defense of some new accusation to Obama. I do see those threads about Palin, but all of you McCain/Palin supporters seem to just blow them off.

I would really love to see more threads about what is good about McCain instead of these attempts to discredit Obama.

[NellieRose]

Exactly!!!

So wait...

1. Republican philanthropist, Walter Annenberg, sets up a foundation to keep the facts straight on the candidates running for office.

2. Members of the Annenberg family are known to be Republican and in support of John McCain.

3. According to your post these same Annenbergs (that are Republicans) also funded Ayers and Obama in Chicacgo.

Now you question bias??? Are you for real??? This is the bizarre set of Pretzel Logic I have seen to date here at DST....a total cherry pick of facts that you want to work for your own personal agenda. IF there were bias here it would lean to the Republicans if based on the founders party affiliation...but now, that you see that same founder made a contribution to "Ayers & Obama" you find it bias?????? Someone is supporting McCain, the family has been active in the Republican party for many years and you think there is bias???

Intelligent people can make decisions without bias as the Annenbergs know that and have done that, other wise FACTCHECK.ORG would never have been started, regardless of their personal choices and party affiliation they believe in the FACTS being put forward for the voters to make informed opinions....it's starting to look like you don't want to have an informed opinion.

[NellieRose]

I said THIS is ridiculous. If I ever have the urge to name-call, there won't be any question about it, so please don't put words in my mouth.

John Singlaub - Iran-Contra Affair (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-07-mccain-iran-contra_N.htm)
Charles Colson - Watergate (http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=68)(also considered a domestic terrorist by many)
G. Gordon Liddy - Watergate (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column)(I'm seeing a pattern here)
Charlie Keating - Keating 5 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1) (this is good - it's a local piece)
John Hagee - controversial pastor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html)
There are more but it's getting late and I need to get to bed.

Read further (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers) on Ayers, please. If all you read is the reports that have twisted his words, then you'll never get to the truth. He has a blog (http://billayers.org/), as well, but you probably won't find much on it about Obama aside from the comments left by haters. I advise you not to read them as they had me crying after only two posts.

Gina...thank you for bringing this up again...last time I listed all of McCains beyond shady associations not one person stepped up to discuss a single one.

Let's not forget Rafaello Follieri who was just sentenced this past week and Oleg Deripaska.

[NellieRose]

And personally, if you used to be known as a terrorist because you bombed something - you will always be a terrorist in my eyes. That is an inexcusable act no matter what. There are things that can be forgiven, but taking someone's life for his belief ... no way!



Does this also apply to anti-abortion radicals that take the lives or harm doctor, staff, patients and anyone else that may cross their path? Do you consider these people terrorists?

[Scorpiosue1102]

Gina...thank you for bringing this up again...last time I listed all of McCains beyond shady associations not one person stepped up to discuss a single one.

Let's not forget Rafaello Follieri who was just sentenced this past week and Oleg Deripaska.


No, when you mention those associations they seem to be a thread killer.;)

[Theresa Hernandez]

I've seen them equally skewer both sides for misinformation and mis-stated facts. So if they're biased in either direction, they do a good job of hiding it. They also endorsed GWB in 2004, so I really can't see anyone calling them liberal.

[Gina.Maria]

Yep. Thread-killer. No one has responded, so I must assume no one REALLY wants truth about McCain.

[Glueless Media]

The reason I hadn't responded is I know nothing about any of these people except John Hagee. Most I have never even heard of.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Does this also apply to anti-abortion radicals that take the lives or harm doctor, staff, patients and anyone else that may cross their path? Do you consider these people terrorists?

If I were going by the definition of terrorist or terrorism ... then yes. It states - Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.

[NellieRose]

If I were going by the definition of terrorist or terrorism ... then yes. It states - Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Thanks for answering.

[movefearlessly]

Does this also apply to anti-abortion radicals that take the lives or harm doctor, staff, patients and anyone else that may cross their path? Do you consider these people terrorists?

absolutely. they might be the worst kind - they espouse a "pro-life" point of view, then kill in an attempt to get their way.

sorry - my response isn't intended to imply you were suggesting otherwise. this is just one of those instances of outright ridiculous hypocrisy that gets me riled up. sometimes i simply do not understand people.

[Glueless Media]

Jayne,
I must have missed this question.

Terrorists are terrorists plain and simple. There are other ways to fight a battle and violence is not one of them for anyone:)

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Rafaello Follieri

Anne Hathaway's ex? Lets see here -

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5003766.ece

All I can see here is that he spent time on the yacht with him - bad judgment maybe, there was no money exchanged, no illegal activity. It seem most of the wrong doing was between Burkle & Follieri. Am I missing something??

Oleg Deripaska - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html

Agian, "There is no evidence that McCain did anything for Deripaska after they met at a social gathering over drinks and dinner. " ...

"Mark Salter, a spokesman for McCain, said that meetings with Deripaska took place during official trips abroad by senators and that McCain did nothing improper. "Any contact between Mr. Deripaska and the senator was social and incidental," he added."

"Salter said the contact between McCain and Deripaska did not constitute a "private meeting"; both men were part of larger gatherings."

Again, am I missing something here.

Maybe I am too tired to be reading this and trying to analyze it. Help me out if you would.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Yep. Thread-killer. No one has responded, so I must assume no one REALLY wants truth about McCain.

WOW! Sorry ... had to do a senior photos shoot, was watching the Browns game with some friends, had to clean someone's house, had to eat dinner, get the kids bathed. I responded when I had time.

[lunafaerie]

Anne Hathaway's ex? Lets see here -

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5003766.ece

All I can see here is that he spent time on the yacht with him - bad judgment maybe, there was no money exchanged, no illegal activity. It seem most of the wrong doing was between Burkle & Follieri. Am I missing something??

Oleg Deripaska - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html

Agian, "There is no evidence that McCain did anything for Deripaska after they met at a social gathering over drinks and dinner. " ...

"Mark Salter, a spokesman for McCain, said that meetings with Deripaska took place during official trips abroad by senators and that McCain did nothing improper. "Any contact between Mr. Deripaska and the senator was social and incidental," he added."

"Salter said the contact between McCain and Deripaska did not constitute a "private meeting"; both men were part of larger gatherings."

Again, am I missing something here.

Maybe I am too tired to be reading this and trying to analyze it. Help me out if you would.

I guess that's how we feel about Obama's associations, he hasn't done anything illegal with Ayers either, even though Ayers did something illegal, it doesn't mean that Obama did, does that make sense?

[NellieRose]

I guess that's how we feel about Obama's associations, he hasn't done anything illegal with Ayers either, even though Ayers did something illegal, it doesn't mean that Obama did, does that make sense?

Exactly.

If nothing else then it's something that should be looked at by McCain supporters as they have insisted the Ayers/Obama connection be looked at.

This article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081020/ames_berman)should at least raise your eyebrows considering some of the statements John McCain has made regarding Putin, the KGB and a petro-rich Russia while campaigning.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081020/ames_berman

[Theresa Hernandez]

I don't know... I know a lot of people say you can judge a person by the friends they keep, but I don't feel that way. I have friends from all kinds of backgrounds and from various political persuasions. I have friends who have cheated on their spouses, left them and married the person they cheated with. Does this mean my husband shouldn't trust me?

Should I just abandon my friends because they made really BAD choices in life?

These are people I really, really like. People I'm probably far closer to than McCain is to Deripaska or Obama to Ayers. I guess that's why I don't care who they pal around with. Their political views are their own. I certainly don't base my marital beliefs on my friends' actions and I don't think it's fair to blame either candidate for the views of their friends. That's crazy in my point of view. I might be in the minority though.

[Scorpiosue1102]

I know I mentioned thread killers because I've mentioned G. Gordon Liddy about four times here and it gets no response. Same thing when others have mentioned other associations.

I for one don't care who they "pal" around with, but one campaign can't bring these things up and it not be questioned by the other. Interestingly enough the Obama campaign has not brought up any of these associations.

[Theresa Hernandez]

I for one don't care who they "pal" around with, but one campaign can't bring these things up and it not be questioned by the other. Interestingly enough the Obama campaign has not brought up any of these associations.

Hmmmm, excellent point.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I know I mentioned thread killers because I've mentioned G. Gordon Liddy about four times here and it gets no response. Same thing when others have mentioned other associations.

I for one don't care who they "pal" around with, but one campaign can't bring these things up and it not be questioned by the other. Interestingly enough the Obama campaign has not brought up any of these associations.

As I have said before many many times ... I have searched them and there is not a ton of info about these people. There is a ton of info about Obama's associations. I am kind of figuring it to be that it is because he is so new, just like Palin. Most know about McCain and Biden because they have been around forever. Obama and Palin are new so of course there will be alot of stuff coming out about them.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

G. Gordon Liddy

Here you go : http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004

As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

I guess the difference between the two and maybe why it isn't a big issue in the media - by reading about both of them - one plotted and one carried out. Now that is just an observation and in no way is a personal view - it is a hypothesis I guess?

[Scorpiosue1102]

I shudder to think what Liddy would have done if he was not caught with Watergate. I don't know how you can be proud of someone who has gone to jail for burglarizing the DNC, has said that if the ATF came to your door with guns to shoot for the head because they wear bulletproof vests and plotted to carry out assassinations, firebombings, etc. yet John McCain is.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I don't know how you can be proud of someone who has gone to jail for burglarizing the DNC, has said that if the ATF came to your door with guns to shoot for the head because they wear bulletproof vests and plotted to carry out assassinations, firebombings, etc. yet John McCain is.

I will agree with you there.

[Gina.Maria]

Anne Hathaway's ex? Lets see here -

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5003766.ece

All I can see here is that he spent time on the yacht with him - bad judgment maybe, there was no money exchanged, no illegal activity. It seem most of the wrong doing was between Burkle & Follieri. Am I missing something??

Oleg Deripaska - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html

Agian, "There is no evidence that McCain did anything for Deripaska after they met at a social gathering over drinks and dinner. " ...

"Mark Salter, a spokesman for McCain, said that meetings with Deripaska took place during official trips abroad by senators and that McCain did nothing improper. "Any contact between Mr. Deripaska and the senator was social and incidental," he added."

"Salter said the contact between McCain and Deripaska did not constitute a "private meeting"; both men were part of larger gatherings."

Again, am I missing something here.

Maybe I am too tired to be reading this and trying to analyze it. Help me out if you would.

What you're missing is that McCain "palls around with" scum. It's pretty simple. If he's not tainted by his association but Obama is then the only explanation is that McCain is made of Teflon. ;)