Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   How to fact-check McCain or Palin: 1. Announce loudly that everything they just said is a lie. 2. Take a minute to briefly skim what they actually said. 3. Extract random, vaguely relevant information from butt to prove step 1   (article.nationalreview.com) divider line
74
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1351 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Oct 2008 at 12:37 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



74 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2008-10-06 12:29:53 PM  
Step 4: Sit back and hope no one is fact-checking the fact checkers.
 
Koggie
2008-10-06 12:32:15 PM  
Desperation
 
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-06 12:34:25 PM  
3. Extract random, vaguely relevant information from butt...

That describes everything that Palin ever says.
 
Pocket Ninja [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-06 12:37:32 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: That describes everything that Palin ever says.


Well, to be fair, she is a mavrick.
 
bulldg4life
2008-10-06 12:39:00 PM  
Insta-green of NRO articles.

I love it!
 
pwhp_67
2008-10-06 12:39:08 PM  
Palin: Under Obama's plan your taxes will go up.

Me: *looks around* Me? Um, no Sarah, they don't. Under McCain's plan, which you are supporting, my taxes will go up. Under Obama's plan they do not.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the fact checking that I need. She lies, McCain lies, and the MSM puckers up...
 
SpinStopper
2008-10-06 12:40:25 PM  
Oh, come on. You're supposed to believe everything a candidate says.

Right ;)
 
A Dark Evil Omen
2008-10-06 12:42:08 PM  

bulldg4life: Insta-green of NRO articles.

I love it!


I swear, they've got Sean Hannity as the new modmin...
 
DarnoKonrad
2008-10-06 12:42:18 PM  
Obama has supporters.

McCain has apologists.

And as far as pulling things out of your ass subby? The buttery socialists over at the National Socialist Review Online know all about that.

Giggity.
 
ExperianScaresCthulhu
2008-10-06 12:42:48 PM  
Invalid Article

We're sorry, but we couldn't retrieve that article. Please check the link and try again.

We may be performing updates on the server at this time.

Feel free to e-mail the webmaster with the current web address and how you arrived at this page.

We are constantly trying to improve NRO for our readers.

Sincerely,
NRO Web Team


Is there another link for the article?
 
RobDownSouth
2008-10-06 12:44:16 PM  
Invalid article.

Do Fark Mods even look at NRO submissions anymore before they greenlight them?
 
AndEhBus
2008-10-06 12:44:47 PM  
Step 5 remove said article from site once caught performing steps 1 thru 4.
 
CravenMorehead
2008-10-06 12:44:58 PM  
Fark needs to greenlight stuff from NRO from time to time to stay balanced. It's just like when they greenlight creationist links to balance out the evolution threads.

And NRO is to Real News what creationism is to evolution.
 
DamnYankees
2008-10-06 12:44:59 PM  
Ah, NRO. Where intellectul honesty goes to die.
 
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-06 12:45:10 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Well, to be fair, she is a mavrick.


Does that make McCain "Goose"?
 
CravenMorehead
2008-10-06 12:46:06 PM  
And the fact that it's an invalid article only means that it's actually a little closer to the truth than it would have been otherwise.
 
impaler
2008-10-06 12:46:20 PM  
Invalid Article

We're sorry, but we couldn't retrieve that article.
How to fact-check McCain or Palin:
1. Take a minute to briefly skim what they actually said.
2. Announce loudly that everything they just said is a lie.
3. Extract information from reliable sources to prove step 2


FTFY
 
priestrape
2008-10-06 12:46:52 PM  
All I know is that Obama pals around with terrorist.

All the rest of this stuff is clicks and buzzes
 
PUFTAS
2008-10-06 12:46:58 PM  
Well aren't WE bitter?
 
LocalCynic
2008-10-06 12:47:51 PM  
I guess even the NRO realizes that sometimes they can't publish too much stupid.
 
TripleK
2008-10-06 12:51:22 PM  
How to support McCain or Palin:

1. Announce loudly that Obama supporters are blinded by their messiah's lies
2. Take a minute to briefly skim what they actually said.
3. Extract random, vaguely relevant information from butt to prove step 1
4. Somehow, this makes McCain or Palin right.
 
Truncks1
2008-10-06 12:53:15 PM  
NRO's fact-checking method:

1. Listen to McCain and put hand in pants
2. ???
3. Get a towel
 
NeverDrunk23
2008-10-06 12:54:36 PM  

RobDownSouth: Invalid article.

Do Fark Mods even look at NRO submissions anymore before they greenlight them?


If you submit an NRO article, it gets insta-greened.

Every day, that line between Fark admins supporting McCain and Fark admins supporting flamewars/trollbait gets blurrier and blurrier.
 
HulkHands
2008-10-06 12:56:10 PM  
I love it. "Palin said 94, when it is actually 54. 54 is still a lot so why fact check?"
 
Fart_Machine
2008-10-06 12:58:37 PM  
Fortunately NRO is safe because their editorials are fact-free.
 
neglogon
2008-10-06 12:58:41 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: bulldg4life: Insta-green of NRO articles.

I love it!

I swear, they've got Sean Hannity as the new modmin...


That would be Total Fark-Uptm.
 
belgianguy
2008-10-06 12:58:49 PM  
Link works here.

But I won't read it.


From the first glance it looks like a desperate attempt at launching some lies again, as the truth caught up with most of the others. Those that still believe that Obama is Muslim, probably also believe the world is flat.
 
whereisian
2008-10-06 12:58:59 PM  
I wonder why there was not a single look at McCain's facts in that article? I wonder.

/wondering
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2008-10-06 12:59:38 PM  

pwhp_67: Palin: Under Obama's plan your taxes will go up.

Me: *looks around* Me? Um, no Sarah, they don't. Under McCain's plan, which you are supporting, my taxes will go up. Under Obama's plan they do not.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the fact checking that I need. She lies, McCain lies, and the MSM puckers up...


Which brings up a really good question: Where the fark are Palin's financial disclosure forms?

I read something a week or two ago that they were due at the beginning of September, but she'd asked for, and gotten an extension from the FEC and that the new due date, conveniently, was the day after her debate. Well the debate has come and gone and still nary a blip about them. Odd. For two reasons: 1) how complex can a "hockey mom's" finances be? She's repeatedly claimed neither she nor her husband has ever earned six figures. So how complicated could her financial picture be? 2) why has that deadline slipped yet again with no outcry from the press?
 
Bloody William
2008-10-06 1:01:12 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Obama has supporters.

McCain has apologists.

And as far as pulling things out of your ass subby? The buttery socialists over at the National Socialist Review Online know all about that.

Giggity.


Mmmmm.... rich buttery socialists...
 
I_Love_Verdi
2008-10-06 1:01:36 PM  

Magorn: pwhp_67: Palin: Under Obama's plan your taxes will go up.

Me: *looks around* Me? Um, no Sarah, they don't. Under McCain's plan, which you are supporting, my taxes will go up. Under Obama's plan they do not.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the fact checking that I need. She lies, McCain lies, and the MSM puckers up...

Which brings up a really good question: Where the fark are Palin's financial disclosure forms?

I read something a week or two ago that they were due at the beginning of September, but she'd asked for, and gotten an extension from the FEC and that the new due date, conveniently, was the day after her debate. Well the debate has come and gone and still nary a blip about them. Odd. For two reasons: 1) how complex can a "hockey mom's" finances be? She's repeatedly claimed neither she nor her husband has ever earned six figures. So how complicated could her financial picture be? 2) why has that deadline slipped yet again with no outcry from the press?


She did, actually. I believe she makes 160,000-ish a year and gave like 7000 to charity or something.
 
MyRandomName
2008-10-06 1:03:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: bulldg4life: Insta-green of NRO articles.

I love it!

I swear, they've got Sean Hannity as the new modmin...


Is this line brought out if there is even one pro-conservative article? There are 3 keating 5 stories alone today.
 
FishingWithFredo
2008-10-06 1:03:58 PM  
It's not Fark, it's news.
 
vonster
2008-10-06 1:04:15 PM  
McCain/Palin could declare that the sun was up at noon on a clear day and the Obamunists would either say they were lying or attribute some dark purpose to the message.

Fawke you Guys
 
antidisestablishmentarianism
2008-10-06 1:05:10 PM  

I_Love_Verdi: She did, actually. I believe she makes 160,000-ish a year and gave like 7000 to charity or something.


Yeah that's pretty close, but I think the donations were combined between her and her husband. I can't fact check it because I heard it on the radio on my way to a hockey game.
 
Skleenar
2008-10-06 1:05:17 PM  
NRO:

Not
Reading this
Obvious tripe

Oh, was that attacking the source?

I'm sorry.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2008-10-06 1:06:02 PM  

RobDownSouth: Do Fark Mods even look at NRO submissions anymore before they greenlight them?


Seems to be working fine. Wonder if we briefly Farked it.
 
Bloody William
2008-10-06 1:06:16 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: I_Love_Verdi: She did, actually. I believe she makes 160,000-ish a year and gave like 7000 to charity or something.

Yeah that's pretty close, but I think the donations were combined between her and her husband. I can't fact check it because I heard it on the radio on my way to a hockey game.


Does that charity include tithing or dues paid to her church?
 
Skleenar
2008-10-06 1:06:44 PM  

Skleenar: Oh, was that attacking the source?


True story: I typed the above before clicking and seeing the article was by Byron York.

I shiat you not.
 
Kitwilly
2008-10-06 1:07:13 PM  
if desperation is not Palin trying to tie Obama to Ayers AGAIN, I dont what is.
 
pwhp_67
2008-10-06 1:07:45 PM  

vonster: McCain/Palin could declare that the sun was up at noon on a clear day



It's more likely they would take credit for it...
 
Skleenar
2008-10-06 1:08:59 PM  
Let's assume that FactCheck's analysis is correct. Why shouldn't McCain and Palin use the new, supposedly more accurate, numbers? When Palin said in St. Louis last week that Obama "had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction" - well, why not change it to "had 54 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 54 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction"? Wouldn't that still be a damning critique of Obama's stance on taxes?


Byron...Who are you criticizing here? The people who caught the lie, or the liars themselves?

Especially since there apparently was no need to lie in the first place.
 
Drunk Astronaut
2008-10-06 1:10:45 PM  
You are visiting fark.nro.com

Who knew?
 
antidisestablishmentarianism
2008-10-06 1:11:14 PM  

Bloody William: Does that charity include tithing or dues paid to her church?


I'm sure it does. I believe the bible tells you to give 10% of your wages. I think that's as bad as the tax rate.
 
MyRandomName
2008-10-06 1:11:21 PM  

Skleenar: Let's assume that FactCheck's analysis is correct. Why shouldn't McCain and Palin use the new, supposedly more accurate, numbers? When Palin said in St. Louis last week that Obama "had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction" - well, why not change it to "had 54 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 54 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction"? Wouldn't that still be a damning critique of Obama's stance on taxes?

Byron...Who are you criticizing here? The people who caught the lie, or the liars themselves?

Especially since there apparently was no need to lie in the first place.


I think he's pointing out the nuanced nature of how to define "voted for tax increases." Do you count ones that extend tax cuts as voting for/against tax increases, etc. Lots of the so called "facts" that have been checked can be a subjective stance on the issue. That is what I got from the article at least.
 
Skleenar
2008-10-06 1:12:39 PM  
Did anyone else read that less as a critique of 'fact checking' and more of an exercise in wordsmithing to figure out how to present a false impression that does not run afoul of the facts?
 
chipspastic
2008-10-06 1:14:20 PM  
i279.photobucket.comView Full Size


I notice the article never mentions how McCain's record compares with Obama's 54 votes.
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2008-10-06 1:15:54 PM  

Bloody William: antidisestablishmentarianism: I_Love_Verdi: She did, actually. I believe she makes 160,000-ish a year and gave like 7000 to charity or something.

Yeah that's pretty close, but I think the donations were combined between her and her husband. I can't fact check it because I heard it on the radio on my way to a hockey game.

Does that charity include tithing or dues paid to her church?


More importantly, how much does "first Dude " Todd make? I've seen numbers like $40K from racing and about 100K from fishing and anouther 50K from oil drilling. Which puts their combined income around $400k/ year. Which is hardly Joe Sixpack territory now is it?
 
magusdevil
2008-10-06 1:16:07 PM  
The point of this NRO article seems to be that McCain and Palin lie even when the truth would do. But even IF they EVER told the truth nobody would believe them anyway, so they choose to willfully lie. Is that REALLY the author's point?
 
Corpus Delecti
2008-10-06 1:17:01 PM  
From TFA:
What if McCain adjusted his campaign claims to conform to the fact-checkers' objections? In a number of cases he could easily satisfy their criticisms and still have a devastating attack against Obama.

Then why doesn't he? If he could get the same result by NOT lying, then why does he insist on lying? But the fact is that he couldn't get the same results. To use the example from the article: McCain claims that Obama voted for tax increases "94 times". Leaving aside the fact that this number includes re-votes an Procedural items that that never resulted in tax hikes, you're still left with the fact that McCain voted the same way OVER 500 TIMES. But that's how McCain rolls: accuse the other guy of something only you are doing.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.