PDA

View Full Version : Thom Hartmann Torches Politifact



Qtec
12-17-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thom Hartmann Torches Politifact For Nominating ‘Mediscare’ As ‘Lie Of The Year’

Just in time to help shill for the ill-conceived Ryan-Wyden Medicare “reform” plan, fact-checking website Politifact.com has nominated Democratic claims about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare-destroying budget for its “Lie of the Year” award. Liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann called the Pulitzer Prize-winning site out over the move, applying a blowtorch to the site’s trousers on Wednesday’s The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann</div></div>

LOL

Q

Soflasnapper
12-17-2011, 02:32 PM
Thom Hartmann is a near-genius, or is one, haven't yet decided.

Politifact and other media watchdog groups need watching themselves, having been appointed to their watch by nobody, and gaining altogether too much authority as the supposed arbiters of political truth or fiction.

As much as I could easily find his critique, please link it for others as well, thanks!

cushioncrawler
12-17-2011, 02:57 PM
wikileaks
Hartmann is considered to have progressive/liberal politics (although he describes himself as part of the radical middle).[9] He is the author of numerous books including Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, in which he argues that the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) did not actually grant corporate personhood, and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court clerk's notes. Hartmann considers this a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[10]

He has also written on the separation of church and state, drawing upon the Federalist Papers to argue that the Founding Fathers warned against the notion of the United States being a Christian nation.

He contends that the 2000 American election and 2004 American election were stolen through electronic tampering, denial of the voting franchise by rigged voting lists, and limiting availability of voting machines in selected precincts. He also accuses the Bush administration of eroding democracy and individual freedoms.

Hartmann is also a vocal critic of the effects of globalization on the U.S. economy, claiming that economic policies enacted during and since the presidency of Ronald Reagan have led, in large part, to many American industrial enterprises' being acquired by multinational firms based in overseas countries, leading in many cases to manufacturing jobs' – once considered a major foundation of the U.S. economy – being relocated to countries in Asia and other areas where the costs of labor are lower than in the U.S.; and the concurrent reversal of the United States' traditional role of a leading exporter of finished manufactured goods to that of a primary importer of finished manufactured goods (exemplified by massive trade deficits with countries such as China). Hartmann argues that this phenomenon is leading to the erosion of the American middle class, whose survival Hartmann deems critical to the survival of American democracy. This argument is expressed in Hartmann's 2006 book, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It. One of the book's main arguments is that media deregulation leads to corporate media's shifting the American consensus towards the acceptance of privatization and massive corporate profits – which causes the shrinking of the middle class.

In the book Ultimate Sacrifice, he and co-author Lamar Waldron argue that President John F. Kennedy's assassination resulted from a conspiracy by two mafia godfathers (Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante) who took advantage of a proposed 1963 USA-sponsored coup (against Cuba's Fidel Castro) to kill the President and then hide their tracks in the resulting cover-up of the top-secret coup plans. Gore Vidal, in his recent autobiography "Point To Point Navigation" devotes much of the final two chapters of his book to praising Hartmann's and Lamar Waldron's scholarship in "solving" the JFK case (JFK was a friend of Vidal's).

cushioncrawler
12-17-2011, 03:04 PM
Thom Hartmann Torches Politifact For Nominating ‘Mediscare’ As ‘Lie Of The Year’
videoby Tommy Christopher | 2:18 pm, December 16th, 2011 » 30 comments

Just in time to help shill for the ill-conceived Ryan-Wyden Medicare “reform” plan, fact-checking website Politifact.com has nominated Democratic claims about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare-destroying budget for its “Lie of the Year” award. Liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann called the Pulitzer Prize-winning site out over the move, applying a blowtorch to the site’s trousers on Wednesday’s The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann.

Politifact’s original fact-check was pegged to a specific political ad from the DCCC, and while it takes issue with several of the ad’s claims, the “Lie of the Year” award is based solely on the claim that “Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

Hartmann does a great job of fisking Politifact’s article, pointing out the logical leaps and lapses it takes to call the ad a “lie.” As Hartmann puts it, if you pour milk into a Coke can, you can still call it a can of Coke, but it isn’t one. Ryan’s plan would replace Medicare benefits with a voucher to buy insurance, one which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says would leave Medicare recipients on the hook for nearly triple the amount they pay now for health care. That’s like replacing a pile of dollar bills with 30¢ coupons, and still calling it “cash.”

Politifact also took issue with the ad for failing to mention that Ryan’s proposed changes would only affect senior citizens who are 55 years old now, a ridiculous objection. How, exactly, was the DCCC supposed to depict these people? Should they have put them in jet packs and hovercars? The fact that Ryan and his supporters went around telling current seniors they have nothing to worry about only underscores the fact that Ryan’s plan is, indeed, something to worry about.

Finally, Politifact found the phrase “voted to end” Medicare misleading because the vote Republicans took was symbolic. That doesn’t make the claim a lie, or even an exaggeration. If the plan ends Medicare (which it does), Republicans definitely voted for it. Symbolic or not, they signified their intent to do so, and they did it by voting. The fact that the Democrats were there to prevent them from enacting it doesn’t absolve Republicans of wanting to do it.

The real issue here is the effect of naming ”Republicans voted to end Medicare” the “Lie of the Year.” As I’ve noted many times on these pages, and as even conservative publications have noted, these “fact check” outfits are granted far too much credibility on the basis of that title. Politifact, by virtue of its Pulitzer win, benefits more than others from this phenomenon, although they frequently get it wrong. The average news consumer will see a “Lie Of The Year” headline as an indication that the Ryan plan really is nothing to worry about, even though Politifact itself acknowledges it will double costs for seniors, and “is a dramatic change of course.”

Trumpeting this “award” will, of course, loosen the jar for the ridiculous Ryan/Wyden plan, which is superficially better than Ryan’s original plan because it pegs the voucher amount to the actual cost of health insurance premiums. In reality, it’s just a back-door attack on Medicare that actually illustrates that the true intent of the Ryan plan is to end Medicare.

The modified plan won’t really save any money, but it accomplishes the heaviest lift in the war on Medicare: decoupling senior citizens from their benefits. Once that’s done, cutting the voucher amount is a lot simpler. The Ryan/Wyden plan also weakens Medicare by allowing private insurance companies to cherry-pick the lowest risk patients, increasing the costs for those who remain in the program. The only real “feature” of this plan is that it allows seniors to choose private health insurance, something they already can do, only now, it’s in the form of low-cost Medicare supplement policies.

I’ll admit that, for a long time, I was taken in by the fact-checking vogue, but after debunking so many of them, I’ve started to believe that the “Lie Of The Year” ought to be “fact-checking” itself.

Qtec
12-17-2011, 07:31 PM
link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/thom-hartmann-torches-politifact-for-nominating-mediscare-as-lie-of-the-year/)


Q

Soflasnapper
12-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Thanks for that link, and boy, does he ever blast them.

llotter
12-21-2011, 01:17 PM
I always enjoy listening to Thom. He always makes me laugh at his stupidity.

Soflasnapper
12-21-2011, 01:24 PM
He's too extremely well informed to be called stupid. He still might be wrong at times, but anything he's wrong about would not be for the reason of stupidity.

He's a rarity-- a polymath.

llotter
12-21-2011, 01:44 PM
I only get to listen to him when I'm driving my wife's car that has XM radio but I agree that he does seem to have a lot of facts at hand but, like most 'smart' liberals, fail to see the forest for all the trees around them. Statist policies are driving virtually every country over the economic/moral cliff and the Left clamors for still more.

When it's a choice between Hartmann and Hannity, it's the former for me every time.

ugotda7
12-21-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's too extremely well informed to be called stupid. He still might be wrong at times, but anything he's wrong about would not be for the reason of stupidity.

He's a rarity-- a polymath. </div></div>

Since when does being well informed correlate to a lack of stupidity? Thinking that is pretty stupid in and of itself......well informed or not.

Soflasnapper
12-22-2011, 01:47 PM
You have a technically correct point, I suppose.

However, while I would say a person could be smart yet ignorant about certain matters, I find it unlikely they could be very well informed about almost everything and still be stupid. Theoretically, it's possible, but I cannot think of an example, outside of idiot savants or the Rain Man from the movie of the same name.

Generally speaking, if one has vast knowledge of facts, and a ready ability to bring them forward in conversation or in response, one has a sharp mind as to memory and no less than at least average intelligence (i.e., is not stupid).

It was said that George W. had a near-encyclopedic knowledge of baseball stats, so some might think this a counter-example-- someone with a lot of knowledge (although in a limited area, baseball stats) and yet, someone who is still stupid. I don't think this example shows that. One, having a limited area of expertise or knowledge isn't necessarily what I'm talking about, in referring to people with a lot of knowledge. Second, W was not that stupid. Ignorant, sure. Evil, likely, although who can judge what is in another's heart? Stupid? don't think so.

LWW
12-28-2011, 04:07 AM
So to get this straight ... Hartmann proves himself to be a moonbat crazy leftist by defending dear leader and the regime from the public realizing the truth, and our leftist members here cheer this as a great thing?

How revealing.

Qtec
12-28-2011, 05:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to get this straight . </div></div>


He shoots down your crap but you refuse to accept it.

Q

LWW
12-28-2011, 05:37 AM
Denying the obvious is all that it takes to fool you.

How truly sad.

Soflasnapper
12-28-2011, 01:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to get this straight ... Hartmann proves himself to be a moonbat crazy leftist by defending dear leader and the regime from the public realizing the truth, and our leftist members here cheer this as a great thing?

How revealing. </div></div>

I deny he does that, but in any case, he isn't doing it here. He's attacking the claims of PolitiFact that defend the indefensible, and deny the clear truth of what Paul Ryan's Medicare changes do, which even Paul Ryan's allies and supporters admit they do.

The PolitiFact apologia relies on exactly the kind of special pleading and word-meaning-bending spin that you'd rightly condemn if it were in support of Obama or liberals or Democrats, but which you LOVE when it's performed for your side?

Please. They didn't really vote to end the program because the Senate would have to agree, and the president sign the bill for their vote to have an effect? Although it's true that for their vote to have its desired and intended effect, those other two things would have to occur, still, however, as for their part, there is no difference in the two situations. In both the cases-- where in one, their vote is endorsed and goes forward into a signed new law, and in another, it's defeated-- the House had voted to end Medicare as we know it, if not right away, and if not for everyone, yet.

hondo
12-28-2011, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

When it's a choice between Hartmann and Hannity, it's the former for me every time. </div></div>

LMFAO! Glad to hear that, but like most folks who call others stupid, I'm guessing you don't know the difference between former and latter. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Soflasnapper
12-28-2011, 05:30 PM
I thought the same thing, but upon reflection, and re-reading it, I decided I was probably wrong, and that he did mean he would pick Hartmann over Hannity if given the choice.

And why not? Even if you believe the same things as Hannity, you probably would find him repetitive, obnoxious, and a one-trick pony, literally, in other words.

hondo
12-28-2011, 10:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought the same thing, but upon reflection, and re-reading it, I decided I was probably wrong, and that he did mean he would pick Hartmann over Hannity if given the choice.

And why not? Even if you believe the same things as Hannity, you probably would find him repetitive, obnoxious, and a one-trick pony, literally, in other words. </div></div>

Sofla, my friend, you give him way too much credit.

LWW
12-29-2011, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought the same thing, but upon reflection, and re-reading it, I decided I was probably wrong, and that he did mean he would pick Hartmann over Hannity if given the choice.

And why not? Even if you believe the same things as Hannity, you probably would find him repetitive, obnoxious, and a one-trick pony, literally, in other words. </div></div>

Sofla, my friend, you give him way too much credit. </div></div>

67.5 hours ...