Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m

Posted By: ggourdpainter on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: I meant to post this link in the original message - Factcheck is not a credible source

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.

So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.

If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.

As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.

I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.

As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.

So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.

I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.

Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.

On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.

The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.

I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.

So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
reliable source for this please. nm
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
As far as I know it is a reliable source, but not
totally. At least, so I guess, it is controlled for neutrality, whereas other sources just smell partisan.

The b/c issue - Stating factcheck as a reliable source
Since they are all one in the same.  Factcheck is not an independent source.
As we can see, there is no reliable source. Twisted, misleading passages out of context
Right, because they are so much more reliable.
Note sarcasm.
Drudge is as reliable as any of the MSM
He routinely/daily posts articles leaning both ways, but when someone doesn't tout the liberal mantra verbatim then you write them off. You don't want anything to do with fair and balanced reporting do you?
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
Factcheck not reliable and b/c is forged
Look at it yourself and then read what the experts say.
Finding reliable news sm
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.

Here is a good article on the subject:

The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.

a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.

Cannot trust anyone it seems.
Reliable link? More fear mongering I think. You...sm
republicans will believe anything!
What is the source for this?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
Consider the source.
Consider The Source

Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.

So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager?  And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal! 

Wow, that's just classy. 

Source: About.com
And your source for this is? nm
Source please. nm
No source? Of course not.
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
One source............sm

is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.


And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
And your source is???? (nm)
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........

So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??

The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
And this is a source of pride? nm

The source of your post

I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum.  In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:

FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[

consider the source. MM is the sicko....
no source listed for this

chart.  No footnotes.  No data to support numbers.  Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded. 

also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts.  Must use links.  Please abide by the rules.


Now there's a reputable source--NOT

Huffington Post?  Daily Kos (Kooks)?  Moveon?  Media Matters?

This isn't surprising, just disturbing.

Where is your source? You should not spread
Please cite source........
WIKI?? THAT is your source?? lol
edited, changed, and added to by ANYONE, right? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself as an MT to cite Wikipedia as your authority for ANYthing. I don't even necessarily like SP but you're making the case to side with her if that's how Barack's followers think/act.
We are still waiting for that source
You're only source is obviously your TV set
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.

We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.

Well sure, look at the source of her income or
This is a laughable source of
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
I just did and cited my source.....sm
so what are you speaking of?

Not a credible source

Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about?  The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time.  I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.

Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids.  I could and I did.  I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive.  There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website.  Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here.  I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?

I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation."  .

According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.

Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.

You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".

Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.

The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.

The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.

I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Credible source

I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him.  I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that.  After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own.  I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so. 

You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me.  Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean.  We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled.  The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case.  You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1?  They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen.  It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint.  I should think you would know that.  They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing.  I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.