Ace of Spades HQ

January 19, 2012

The End of PolitiFact
— Ace

Does any credibility remain?

Now PolitiFact will make its arguments. But I think that just about settles it. They are not checking "facts." The facts of the matter are that Romney was correct in saying the Air Force was smaller and older than at any time in its history, and that the Navy was smaller than it's been since 1917.

Those are facts.

But that's not the spin PolitiFact wanted.

Thanks to Drew.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

1
They are a joke.

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 09:52 AM (sqkOB)

2
Politifudged

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 09:53 AM (sqkOB)

3 The narrative: it must be defended.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 09:53 AM (SzAZ7)

4 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 09:54 AM (8y9MW)

5 Does any credibility remain?

Did any exist to start with?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 09:54 AM (8y9MW)

6
At the end of Politifact's "findings" they wrote:

"And it is racist of Romney to suggest so."

But they edited it out.

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 09:55 AM (sqkOB)

7
Because everything the Left says ends with:

"And you're racist."

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 09:56 AM (sqkOB)

8 You peasants are supposed to shut up and BELIEVE!

Posted by: MSM Hack at January 19, 2012 09:56 AM (i3+c5)

9 Politifact has always been a Democrat PR org. Politi-lie would be a better name.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 09:57 AM (YdQQY)

10
meanwhile Obama's speech today will be accompanied by background music of When You Wish Upon A Star

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 09:58 AM (sqkOB)

11 Why would that be the end of Politifact? That would be like saying a scorpion is dead because it stung somethinh

Posted by: blaster at January 19, 2012 09:59 AM (yUSMB)

12 You say it as if PolitiFact had anything to do with the truth in the first place.

Posted by: Truman North at January 19, 2012 09:59 AM (I2LwF)

13
Obama's gonna give out a shout out to Dr Joe Medicine Crow, Goofy, Dopey, Daffy, and Steamboat Willie.

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 10:00 AM (sqkOB)

14 orwell.

Posted by: fdg at January 19, 2012 10:00 AM (sYrJ8)

15 Why would that be the end of Politifact? That would be like saying a scorpion is dead because it stung somethinh

True.

No one went to Politifact for the truth (I hope, if so, I'm not sure how they tie their shoes in the morning). The either went because it reinforced their own biases (see also: liberals) or because they wanted to call out the site's perfidy (see also: conservative bloggers).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:01 AM (8y9MW)

16 I love how they just make up an imaginary underlying point to attack.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 10:01 AM (SzAZ7)

17 Facts are for losers.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 19, 2012 10:01 AM (Hx5uv)

Those are facts.

But that's not the spin PolitiFact wanted.

So he gave facts. Which you concede are accurate. But because YOU analyzed those facts differently than Romney and came to a different conclusion than Romney, Romney is a liar (Pants on fire) because he doesn't agree with you on what those facts mean? I assume you have a nifty graduate degree from a service war college to back up this expertise on military analysis that allows you to define your ramblings as inarguable truth?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 19, 2012 10:01 AM (0q2P7)

19 The Dodgers are going to the Stanley Cup!

I'm going to Disney Land!

Posted by: Choo-Choo Biden at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (Lpgtj)

20 Facts are for losers racist.

FIFY.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (8y9MW)

21 Funny dig on Springsteen there, Ace. I hate Springsteen. I went to a concert. About 20% of the concert was him preaching politics. I was under the impression that I was attending a musical concert, not a political rally. I was wrong.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (QcFbt)

22 Facts? Never heard of em.

Posted by: Charles Gibson at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (UK9cE)

Barack Hussein Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

I denounce myself.

Posted by: Alte Schule at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (MLJu8)

24 Should we tax media outlets when they exceed a reasonable amount of lies?

Posted by: t-bird at January 19, 2012 10:02 AM (FcR7P)

25 We view Politifact as a solid source of factual information. Wanna buy some cookies?

Posted by: The Girl Scouts at January 19, 2012 10:04 AM (QKKT0)

26 Same time ABC (owned by Disney) goes after Newt and Romney... Obama visits Disney World.

Posted by: Freedomplow at January 19, 2012 10:04 AM (2lCpc)

27 F* them. I feel like suing their sorry asses for false advertising, going around masquerading as "PolitiFACT" when they are actually pedaling "PolitiOpine"

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 19, 2012 10:04 AM (0q2P7)

28 Newt gave his first wife cancer and then divorced her and gave his second wife MS and then divorced her. And anybody that says different is a pants on fire Pinocchio liar!

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 19, 2012 10:04 AM (Hx5uv)

29 I didn't think the PolitiFact article was that egregiously misleading. He's just pointing out that "smaller" doesn't necessarily translate into "less lethal." The comparison of a 2012 USN to a 1917 USN is absurd. Do we forever need to maintain the same number of airplanes with the development of UAV and satellite technology?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 10:05 AM (+lsX1)

30 t-bird, I like how you're thinkin'!!! Think about it - the media is the 1% when it comes to lies. THEY ARE STEALING ALL THE LIES FROM US. We would like some of this precious resource of dishonesty, too; but the Fat Cats of Deception are monopolizing a limited resource. Let's get a panel to set Lie Allowances and tax excess at a high rate, to give some lies to the 99%.

Posted by: ace at January 19, 2012 10:05 AM (nj1bB)

31 I don't see it as the end of Politifact, just the beginning of its deployment as a stringer for the NYT.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 19, 2012 10:05 AM (Z6meB)

32 What is problem here, comrades?

Posted by: Izvestiya at January 19, 2012 10:05 AM (QKKT0)

33 The Spanish blew up the USS Maine. We know. Do not ask us how. We just know.

Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!

Posted by: Politifact at January 19, 2012 10:05 AM (EjCq8)

34 21 Wtf? What was he saying?

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 19, 2012 10:06 AM (1zcrC)

35 The comparison of a 2012 USN to a 1917 USN is absurd. Do we forever need to maintain the same number of airplanes with the development of UAV and satellite technology? Posted by: Gristle Encased Head

Ok, then what metrics would be useful?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 19, 2012 10:08 AM (xbjUC)

36 Wtf? What was he saying?

Well, I wasn't there, but this was Bruce Springsteen, so it shouldn't be too hard.

"uhnumha blafalgraff USA SUX!"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:08 AM (8y9MW)

37 I hate Springsteen. I went to a concert. About 20% of the concert was him preaching politics.

Springsteen has felt the need to dispense his profound wisdom to the proles for a long time. I gave up on him in the '80s. Mark Knopfler is a better Springsteen anyway.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 19, 2012 10:09 AM (QKKT0)

38 Do we forever need to maintain the same number of airplanes with the development of UAV and satellite technology? Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 02:05 PM (+lsX1) ******** Wait...what? I don't think even UAV guys would make a statement that goes near- the mission of UAVs completely overlaps "fighters" for example... You know "fighter"....

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:09 AM (r2PLg)

39 Come on GOP...come on. Stop playing games now and roll out a real candidate....

Posted by: c. up at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (oZfic)

40 I didn't think the PolitiFact article was that egregiously misleading. He's just pointing out that "smaller" doesn't necessarily translate into "less lethal." The comparison of a 2012 USN to a 1917 USN is absurd. Do we forever need to maintain the same number of airplanes with the development of UAV and satellite technology?

Again, if his analysis draws him to a different conclusion that seems like a job for a pundit/talking head, NOT an organization that specializes in verifying FACTS. If he wanted to gas on about how he thought about stuff he should be writing for huffpo or newsweek. Not use the basis that he is doing FACT CHECKING to push his own opinions.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (0q2P7)

41 They're trying this too early on pedestrian issues. When you run a scam like this, you build your cred by going after your own people on meaningless issues, but when it counts, you haul out the big guns.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (T0NGe)

42 How many ..enemy planes can a UAV down? Riddle me that...

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (r2PLg)

43 politi-huh?

Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (Ho2rs)

44 PolitiSpin

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at January 19, 2012 10:11 AM (goitd)

45 When it comes to questions of military readiness and national security PolitiFact is the last place I'd go.

Unless really soft toilet paper was a factor.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 19, 2012 10:12 AM (ZJCDy)

Link in my name to Instapundit and BOTW poking at PolitiFact Tennessee.

The meaning of "choice" is nuanced, you see.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 19, 2012 10:13 AM (XdlcF)

47 Wow.... Look out China and Russia we are going to completely replace our planes with UAVs... Wooo Hoooo!!! Take THAT!

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:13 AM (r2PLg)

48 I don't think even UAV guys would make a statement that goes near-

the mission of UAVs completely overlaps "fighters" for example...

But he didn't say "fighters" he said airplanes. Why do you think so much emphasis is being placed on UAV development? Why do you think the SR-71 was scrapped? Of course technology is going to displace manpower, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that's been conscious in the last 100 years.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 10:13 AM (+lsX1)

49

Technology has advanced in the last 100 years. Therefore, "Pants on Fire".

Posted by: dan-O at January 19, 2012 10:14 AM (sWycd)

50 How many ..enemy planes can a UAV down?

Liberals believe that UAVs will be the ultimate fighter craft one day.
Because a remote-controlled fighter plane would never, ever suffer a communication failure in the middle of a fight.

And satellite relays are just as fast as an actual human being in the cockpit making decisions right then.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:14 AM (8y9MW)

51 Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 02:05 PM (+lsX1) Except that is not the argument Romney was making. Politifacts just made up an strawman from some parts of his statement and tried to beat the fuck out of it.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 10:14 AM (SzAZ7)

52 Are there any plans by MoronPAC to run TV and internet ads attacking PolitiFact's credibility?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 19, 2012 10:14 AM (2YIVk)

53 How much money did George Soros contribute to PolitiFact?

Posted by: Naqamel at January 19, 2012 10:15 AM (UMwMT)

54 Are there any plans by MoronPAC to run TV and internet ads attacking PolitiFact's credibility?

I would say, "You can't attack something that isn't there," but PolitiFact's absolute demolition of that stawman makes me pause in that statement.

But, really, how much weight does PolitiFact have anyway?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:16 AM (8y9MW)

55 I believe everything I read on Politifact, but reading it makes me dizzy.

Posted by: Joe Biden at January 19, 2012 10:16 AM (lXi+d)

56 Are there any plans by MoronPAC to run TV and internet ads attacking PolitiFact's credibility?

No, but the idea of a really snarky bumpersticker is currently under review.

Posted by: The AoSHQ Political Special Ops Council at January 19, 2012 10:17 AM (QKKT0)

57 But he didn't say "fighters" he said airplanes. Why do you think so much emphasis is being placed on UAV development? Why do you think the SR-71 was scrapped? Of course technology is going to displace manpower, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that's been conscious in the last 100 years. Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 02:13 PM (+lsX1) ***** Oh, bullshit. Of course technology is going to displace manpower, You're kidding right? You get that they are remotely piloted by- humans. SkyNet isn't...gawd.

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:18 AM (r2PLg)

58 Did they certify the Iowa Caucus?

Posted by: c. up at January 19, 2012 10:18 AM (oZfic)

59 So I thought Andy said he was going to do a MoronPAC post... is he still compiling that? Any of the Cob-loggers (or Ace, I suppose, but he hasn't commented on MoronPAC at all, yet) know?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:19 AM (8y9MW)

Do we forever need to maintain the same number of airplanes with the development of UAV and satellite technology?
<<}

No. But there is a limit to how much force you can project that is entirely dependent on numbers.

What is the minimum number of carrier groups needed to cover Japan, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and Indian Ocean? It's more than 4, because you can't keep ships deployed constantly.

Likewise with aircraft. And UAVs aren't the answer. I would think the whiz-bang top of the line drone of ours those savages in Iran are ullulating over would disabuse you of that notion .

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 19, 2012 10:20 AM (CmheR)

61 OT but the DHS just extended protective status to el Salvador immigrants thru September 2013. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the election at all.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 19, 2012 10:20 AM (FzVXi)

62 allen you haven't taken up drinking yet?

Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 19, 2012 10:20 AM (Ho2rs)

63 Are there any plans by MoronPAC to run TV and internet ads attacking PolitiFact's credibility?

No, but the idea of a really snarky bumpersticker is currently under review.
Posted by: The AoSHQ Political Special Ops Council at January 19, 2012 02:17 PM

How about a vitriolic rant?

Posted by: huerfano at January 19, 2012 10:21 AM (lXi+d)

64 Forget the fact that most funding in the AF is decided by _____.

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:21 AM (r2PLg)

65 you haven't taken up drinking yet?

Not yet. That's a big step for me.

My dad was a borderline alcoholic (he stopped drinking because it was that or lose his wife- my mom- which would suck for me because when they had that fight, I wasn't even conceived, yet), and his dad was a full on alcoholic who died in an oil field in Odessa (don't walk through an active oil field while drunk. Just don't). So it's not a place I'll go lightly.

But the Republicans may drive me there, yet.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:22 AM (8y9MW)

66 52
Are there any plans by MoronPAC to run TV and internet ads attacking PolitiFact's credibility?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 19, 2012 02:14 PM (2YIVk)

All you need is some organization with credibility to set up a website with a catchy name. The organization doesn't have to have all that much credibility either, as long as it's honest about its bias and catchy: "Factchecking the factcheckers".

Posted by: AmishDude at January 19, 2012 10:22 AM (T0NGe)

67 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 02:19 PM (8y9MW) Thought ya'll couldn't agree on a name. I'm all for Cheesy Bacon Bowl PAC

Posted by: Cajun Carrot at January 19, 2012 10:22 AM (zHl9z)

68 60 Also those UAV's have to take off and fly from small landing strips. their flying radius isn't that big either so they sometimes they have to install SF or flip a FN to launch em.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 19, 2012 10:23 AM (FzVXi)

69 In fact to stop the civilian confusion.. for awhile UAVs were suppose to be more correctly labeled RPAs- remotely piloted aircraft-or something like that. It didn't take-they really should get back to that though.

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:23 AM (r2PLg)

70 We don't need all this military hardware when we have technology. All we have to do is deploy one Starship. Us that so hard to understand?

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 19, 2012 10:23 AM (eFnXz)

71 Says "Iowa Caucus" "Certified Results" link

Posted by: c. up at January 19, 2012 10:23 AM (oZfic)

72 They didn't claim Romney lied about the number of ships and personnel, they claimed Romney lied about the accumulated strength of the US Navy. And he did. When there are less pilots due to UAV deployment, is it truthful to claim US has lost aerial superiority? It's not a lie, just misrepresentation similar to that of Paulians and other conspiracy theorists use to spread 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, it's strikingly similar to Obama's retarded ATMs-steal-jobs claim.

Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 10:24 AM (azzOs)

73 Thought ya'll couldn't agree on a name. I'm all for Cheesy Bacon Bowl PAC

We haven't, yet. I'm just using MoronPAC until we have an official name.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:24 AM (8y9MW)

74 Politfacts: "His underlying point: The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago." However, Romney was talking about FUTURE budget cuts and said "I will fight to make sure America RETAINS military superiority." So I rate Politfacts 4 weak-ass strawmen for inventing an argument to attack. Where's my fuckin' pulitzer?

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 10:24 AM (SzAZ7)

75 It's the "unmanned" thing-isn't it? **** gawd-I'm out.

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:25 AM (r2PLg)

76 I like how Gristle Encased Head, and PolitiFact, are basically saying "Yeah but our ships are now high-tech and more capable," apparently disregarding the fact that so are enemy ships. Enemy ships that can sink a carrier with a $1000 air-to-ship missile.

Posted by: ace at January 19, 2012 10:25 AM (nj1bB)

77 Are you going to believe your racist "facts" or what I tell you?

Posted by: The State Media at January 19, 2012 10:26 AM (7BU4a)

78 All we have to do is deploy one Starship. Us that so hard to understand? Posted by: polynikes

Works for me. Who wants cake?

Posted by: D. Vader at January 19, 2012 10:26 AM (xbjUC)

79 I don't always want to read a steaming pile of cow manure masquerading as fact, but when I do, I choose Politifact.

Posted by: The Most Interesting Policy Geek In The World at January 19, 2012 10:27 AM (QKKT0)

80 Serious question.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:27 AM (QcFbt)

81 Serious question. We complain about how the media digs into Repub sleaze, but ignores, say,

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:28 AM (QcFbt)

82 We view Politifact as a solid source of factual information.

We view Politifact as a sordid source of fictional information.

FIFY

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 19, 2012 10:28 AM (E5QHF)

83 I like how Gristle Encased Head, and PolitiFact, are basically saying "Yeah but our ships are now high-tech and more capable,"

It does seem like they missed the point where the linked post says something like "Yeah, we're probably about as deadly- or more so- but the force is actually more fragile because it's more dependent on each aircraft or ship. Given that the current USS Enterprise could lay waste to, say, Saudi Arabia all by itself, the loss of that same ship would be much more damaging to us in relative terms now than it would have been then."

Guys- attrition happens. At some point, we're going to lose a big ship, or some planes. And each one hurts use worse now than it did 50 years ago, in terms of relative (not just absolute, though that,too) strength.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:28 AM (8y9MW)

84 I guess Romney's facts, weren't facts facts.

Posted by: Penfold at January 19, 2012 10:29 AM (1PeEC)

85 allen one grandpa died an alcoholic alone in a veteran's home.....oddly enough.....he wasn't the irish one.....i wouldn't recommend drinking to become an alcoholic....i think we all know people who were or are......and it ain't pretty........

Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 19, 2012 10:29 AM (Ho2rs)

86 Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 02:28 PM (QcFbt)

Laryngitis?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:29 AM (8y9MW)

87 Thought ya'll couldn't agree on a name. I'm all for Cheesy Bacon Bowl PAC

We haven't, yet. I'm just using MoronPAC until we have an official name.

I've got one: The Concerned Physicians for Enlightened Policy PAC. Put "'concerned" and "physicians" in the title and the leftard MSM's critical thinking ability melts away into a gooey puddle.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 19, 2012 10:29 AM (QKKT0)

88 I like how Gristle Encased Head, and PolitiFact, are basically saying "Yeah but our ships are now high-tech and more capable," apparently disregarding the fact that so are enemy ships.

More to the point, the sole nominal reason for organizations like PolitiFact is to determine the Facts - look at their name.

Whether or not American military resources are sufficient is a judgment call that would only become a fact, and even then a difficult to establish one, in a general war. Consider, was America's military sufficient in 1939? No, it could not compare to Germany or Japan, BUT we also weren't open to invasion either.

But Romney was discussing specific numbers, or more specifically, facts. And his numbers were accurate.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 19, 2012 10:30 AM (7BU4a)

89 Fascinating. I tried to make a joke about media bias and the the supposed Obama mistress, Miss Baker. Looks like her name is in the spam filter.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:30 AM (QcFbt)

90 "What is the minimum number of carrier groups needed to cover Japan, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and Indian Ocean? It's more than 4, because you can't keep ships deployed constantly."

Fuck the Med. If the "powerhouses of Europe" can't police their own birdbath, they can spend the next Thirty Years... or wait, maybe Hundred Years War non-violent intervention discussing the issue.

If Israel needs that much backup, sell them two aircraft carriers. Two nuclear powered aircraft carriers are practically more land than they've got, and the squeals of their neighbors would be priceless.

Posted by: Al at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (NDhQN)

91 Enemy ships that can sink a carrier with a $1000 air-to-ship missile.

Posted by: ace at January 19, 2012 02:25 PM (nj1bB)

That's why AEGIS equipped destroyers are deployed as escorts.

Posted by: ErikW at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (zotcU)

"Facts" are whatever we need them to be to support our worldview.

/Leftards

Posted by: maddogg at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (OlN4e)

93 Likewise with aircraft. And UAVs aren't the answer. I would think the whiz-bang top of the line drone of ours those savages in Iran are ullulating over would disabuse you of that notion .

Agreed. Just saying that a simple head count of ships and airplanes is not an effective way of measuring ability to project force. Nuclear power put a few oilers in the scrapyard. Satellites and UAVs put some spy planes out of business. Mitt's statistics were technically true, but incomplete.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (+lsX1)

94 Enemy ships that can sink a carrier with a $1000 air-to-ship missile.

Well ace take from me,who has been on carriers for years, there is no single air to ground missile short of a nuke that will sink a modern carrier. A single conventional torpedo may come close but even that is doubtful.

Besides, there is no modern missile as cheap as $1,000. A standard cruise missile is now $2M or more.

Besides, what about that "D" Train?

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (YdQQY)

95 Posted by: phoenixgirl....a voter without a candidate at January 19, 2012 02:29 PM (Ho2rs)

Yeah. And that's my problem.
Actually, I've tried drinks before (I'm not philosophically opposed to drinking at all) and none of them tasted good, so I didn't bother. However, if I start drinking to numb myself (even a little) to what's going on, I'm afraid I'll lose control at that point.

Anyway, this was probably a far more serious answer than you expected... I'll try to be more snarky the rest of the day. Well, about snarky questions, anyway.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (8y9MW)

96 @89: Only Ace is allowed to joke about her, he specifically put her off-limits during the '08 campaign.

Besides, the idea that Obama would have a female mistress isn't supported by evidence, IYKWIM (and Kal Penn thinks you do).

Posted by: Ian S. at January 19, 2012 10:31 AM (tqwMN)

97 They didn't claim Romney lied about the number of ships and personnel, they claimed Romney lied about the accumulated strength of the US Navy. And he did.

Except Romney didn't say the Navy was weaker than in 1917, only that it's smaller. And it is. But PolitiLie chose to grade him on what they think he should've said rather than what he did say.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2012 10:32 AM (SY2Kh)

98
for the old timers:

We Don't Placate PAC

Posted by: soothie at January 19, 2012 10:32 AM (sqkOB)

99 Is there any big national journalism convention? Some event which would bring them all together in a big room so we can murder them? Because I am sick and tired of the constant lies, spin, and distortions. We call them on it over and over and OVER and they just keep doubling down.

Posted by: Trimegistus at January 19, 2012 10:33 AM (QBrz4)

100 That's why AEGIS equipped destroyers are deployed as escorts.

And AEGIS could never, ever miss.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Considering taking up drinking at January 19, 2012 10:33 AM (8y9MW)

101 My general point is that sleaze investigations really aren't that expensive. Basically paying someone to call friends and family to dig up dirt. Biggest expense is travel and lodging to go get interviews, maybe a surprise gotcha interview. Easily affordable by any of the big, or even medium to small, right wing media outfits.

Yet we don't see much of this. Why is that?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:33 AM (QcFbt)

102 Fascinating. I tried to make a joke about media bias and the the supposed Obama mistress, Miss Baker. Looks like her name is in the spam filter.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 02:30 PM (QcFbt)

Now I know how how Nikolai Yezhov felt.

Posted by: Vera Baker at January 19, 2012 10:33 AM (7BU4a)

103 And AEGIS could never, ever miss.

That's where Phalanx comes in.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 19, 2012 10:33 AM (QKKT0)

104 Except Romney didn't say the Navy was weaker than in 1917, only that it's smaller. And it is. But PolitiLie chose to grade him on what they think he should've said rather than what he did say.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2012 02:32 PM (SY2Kh)

I don't see any problem with that.

Posted by: Dan Rather at January 19, 2012 10:34 AM (/izg2)

105 The tactic for taking out surface combatant ships now is to launch multiple missiles, usually from aircraft at a distance of 50 to 100 miles (for the enemy) and hope that at least a lethal combination of them make it through the air defenses and then the close in defense systems.

It will take quite a few of those to actually sink a carrier. But one other thing to keep in mind. They don't actually have to sink the carrier. All they have to do is damage the flight deck enough so that planes can not be launched or recovered. At that point the carrier is not mission capable and is good as sunk.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 10:34 AM (YdQQY)

106 But, but, but, all the Iranian navy has are little "swift" boats.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 19, 2012 10:34 AM (ybkwK)

107 Except Romney didn't say the Navy was weaker than in 1917, only that it's smaller. And it is. But PolitiLie chose to grade him on what they think he should've said rather than what he did say.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2012 02:32 PM (SY2Kh)

Actually I'd go a bit further. They set out to call him a liar and changed his words until they could then somehow justify calling him a liar.

The left is very ends focused.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 19, 2012 10:35 AM (7BU4a)

108

Politfacts: "His underlying point: The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago<<<

Can we fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously, as we could in 1990?

NO. Our capabilities are LESS than they were.

I grade this one: Shut Your Whore Mouth Before You Taste The Painbow Of Backhand Flavor, Bitch.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 19, 2012 10:35 AM (CmheR)

109 76 I like how Gristle Encased Head, and PolitiFact, are basically saying "Yeah but our ships are now high-tech and more capable," apparently disregarding the fact that so are enemy ships. Enemy ships that can sink a carrier with a $1000 air-to-ship missile. Posted by: ace at January 19, 2012 02:25 PM (nj1bB) The scale of technological advancement is not linear. US military is years ahead of EU, 15 years ahead of Russia and China, and 2400 years ahead of the Muslims. Arbitrary increase of manpower will not give you more edge, as most personnel cuts were in technical units, not combat units. Communication, radar, tracking, logistics - many units here were endowed by electronics that need little menial input. Anyway, your argument is mute - since Romney was comparing the size of US personnel to US personnel, not US personnel to China or whatever.

Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 10:37 AM (azzOs)

110 Say what you will about the advance of technology, but you can only project naval force if you have boats. The fewer you have, the fewer places they can go.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 19, 2012 10:38 AM (T0NGe)

111 Is there any big national journalism convention? Some event which would bring them all together in a big room so we can murder them?

I'd go with some sort of chemical lobotomy additive in the punch bowl instead, since murder is such a messy business. Having them lurch around like mindless zombies might be entertaining...

..but wait. They're already mindless zombies.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 19, 2012 10:38 AM (E5QHF)

112 PolitiCORN

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 19, 2012 10:38 AM (6fUZX)

113 And AEGIS could never, ever miss.

Well Murphy always shows his ugly head in every battle but AEGIS is normally highly reliable. It is not new technology. However, it can be overwhelmed if you can launch enough into the envelope.

This is why the normal doctrine for peace time is to set a 100 to 150 mile bubble around a carrier group in which you do not allow combat ships that could be hostile. In war time that bubble is expanded considerably.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 10:38 AM (YdQQY)

114 Anyway, your argument is mute

So could you mime it for us?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 19, 2012 10:40 AM (T0NGe)

115 but you can only project naval force if you have boats.

"ships". Unless you're talking about submarines.

Posted by: Naval Pedant at January 19, 2012 10:41 AM (Br7O6)

116 101 My general point is that sleaze investigations really aren't that expensive. Basically paying someone to call friends and family to dig up dirt. Biggest expense is travel and lodging to go get interviews, maybe a surprise gotcha interview. Easily affordable by any of the big, or even medium to small, right wing media outfits.

Yet we don't see much of this. Why is that?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 02:33 PM (QcFbt)

I would attempt to answer your question, but I don't think you are serious. But, the short answer is: Conservatives = Good, Liberals = Bad.

Posted by: Not an Artist at January 19, 2012 10:42 AM (fOPv7)

117 The fewer you have, the fewer places they can go.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 19, 2012 02:38 PM (T0NGe)

Bingo, as I said a few days ago. The Dems do this every damn time. Cut back the Navy then expand the work with a shit-ton of humanitarian missions.

This due to the extended cruises and wear on people and equipment more cutbacks. People start leaving in droves. They do this on purpose. Lying fuck-weasels.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 10:42 AM (YdQQY)

118 Hey, the Royal Navy ships are now more powerful than ever. So I guess the Royal Navy has never been stronger, right!

You know, the Dallas Cowboys are, individually, bigger and stronger and faster than they were 10 or 20 years ago.

I guess this year must have been the best ever for the Cowboys.

Oh, wait. Strength in a competition has to be measured relative to competitors. Never mind.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at January 19, 2012 10:44 AM (QcFbt)

119 Number of ships and age of the fleet are commonly used as a proxy for war fighting capability when brevity is important...like in a debate, for instance. Besides, try to send a half an Aircraft Carrier to the Sea of Japan and see how that works.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 10:45 AM (SzAZ7)

120 How about Punch Down PAC?

Posted by: ycrt at January 19, 2012 10:46 AM (fFBmX)

121 Yeah the new high tech stuff always works, kind of like replacing a gun on the F4 with the AIM-7 missile that had a success rate of less than 10% or the LAWs rocket where if you found one that would actually fire it had just as good of chance of blowing up as soon as it left to the tube injuring the guy firing it as it did getting to it's target.

Posted by: robtr at January 19, 2012 10:47 AM (MtwBb)

122 Just to clarify-so some Ron Paul bot doesn't jump in his pants... You have to be superior in technology. Why? ...because we can't' afford a war of attrition. we have to supplement our weakness in that department with about- a 15 year head start somewhere else...

Posted by: tasker at January 19, 2012 10:47 AM (r2PLg)

123 This is why the normal doctrine for peace time is to set a 100 to 150 mile bubble around a carrier group in which you do not allow combat ships that could be hostile. In war time that bubble is expanded considerably.

This is why the Iranians have invested so heavily in coastal anti-ship missile batteries. The strait at its narrowest is very very narrow. At a distance of only a few miles, if they fired a big swarm with little warning, they would inflict damage and we would wind up losing something big. All our fancy jamming gear and anti missile defense systems would be largely moot if they did it "old school" and aimed it all manually and just went with ballistic tracking. You can't jam or spoof a chucked rock where Newton is doing the driving.

CIWS would be getting a real workout.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 19, 2012 10:47 AM (E5QHF)

124 And seriously, there are no "1000$ missiles" to throw at ships. There are cheap *rockets* that can't hit shit if shit was the size of moon, because they're fucking rockets and have no guidance system. The cheapest anti-ship missiles our enemies can get their hands on are the Chinese C-802As (the same ones used by Hizballah to hit an Israeli cruiser), and they cost like half a million.

Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 10:48 AM (azzOs)

125 I like Ike!

Posted by: Honey Badger at January 19, 2012 10:50 AM (GvYeG)

126 Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 02:48 PM (azzOs) That motorboat full of explosives that almost sunk the USS Cole. How much did it cost?

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 10:54 AM (SzAZ7)

127 That motorboat full of explosives that almost sunk the USS Cole. How much did it cost? Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 19, 2012 02:54 PM (SzAZ7) A motorboat full of explosives while it was docking. Like, terrorist sabotage, and shit. In battle, there is a nifty auto-aim vulcan cannon on these destroyers that can obliterate 100 motorboats in under a minute, while AEGIS sips some roasted Turkish coffee and yawns from boredom. It's called Phalanx.

Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 10:58 AM (azzOs)

128 You can sabotage a ship with C4. You can fucking sabotage a ship with a rotten banana split and two motherboard jumpers if you're MacGyver. How much does it cost? Making more ships will surely help prevent this!

Posted by: Juicer at January 19, 2012 11:01 AM (azzOs)

129 I love when we talk military hardware up in this bitch. I learn alot of things I never knew about. Everytime I finish reading about something the US has I rest a little easier. I wanna kiss the man who came up w/ the "Peace through Strength" Doctrine. Fucking genius.

Posted by: Cajun Carrot at January 19, 2012 11:02 AM (zHl9z)

130 Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 19, 2012 02:47 PM (E5QHF)

That is why you never move a carrier into waters like that under hostile conditions. A carrier doesn't need to get any closer than 200 miles and even that can be greatly extended.

Those coastal missile batteries will cease to exist within hours of the conflict opening. And most of that time will be inn transmitting the operations order.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2012 11:06 AM (YdQQY)

131 "Meaningless," "glib," "preposterous," "ridiculous;" that was absolutely, 100% editorial. It was not fact-checking. It was a political attack. The entire "Politifact" ad campaign is a lie, it is and always was and always will be propaganda. Because they lie about everything, and the GOP is too God-damned polite to point it out.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 19, 2012 11:06 AM (bxiXv)

132

You know what?

Let's hope they got this right, it seems to me they do not cut Obama any slack on these three pages.

http://zapit.nu/SCOAMF

Posted by: Mister Money at January 19, 2012 11:13 AM (wN82N)

133 If I recall the lefturd "St. Peterburg Times" owns politifact.

Politifact like Politico like Snopes started out left wing and moved very far left after building a tiny emoticon of respect. Apparently that is their strategery.

e.g. the opposite of Fox News.

Maybe we can learn from that pattern next time a conservative media outlet is launched.

Posted by: Shiggz Newt Warp 9.9 at January 19, 2012 11:33 AM (RfvTE)

134 Sorry, have to agree with politifact on this one. Their answer was reasonable I thought. They acknowledged that as far as simple widget counting goes numbers of today appear lower than in the past. But the problem is we're not counting widgets. The point of Romney's statement was that our military is in a dangerous decline, which is a complete and total lie. His facts may be technically accurate, his message is a lie. Our military has never been stronger. I'm sick of the shifty politicians. While you may not like all of Paul's answers, at least he gives them to you straight.

Posted by: Andrew at January 19, 2012 12:15 PM (HS3dy)

135 What do they have to say about the 4th greatest president ever?

Posted by: MarkD at January 19, 2012 12:46 PM (iYBP2)

136 Stuff like this really makes me wish Perry wouldn't have repeatedly brainfarted... or wasn't someone who repeatedly has brainfarts. He'd call out Politi"Fact" beautifully sometime during the campaign. Mittens will probably act like it doesn't exist.

Posted by: deepelemblues at January 19, 2012 12:49 PM (lFU4D)

137 Since when did the left care about their credibilty? ....Or care if we know that they are lying.

Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2012 01:34 PM (xgj/f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

136kb generated in CPU 0.0403, elapsed 0.245 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2171 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.