Even with your selective quote, it proves the point that Politifact made. He did not advocate forced abortions, he advocated free access to abortions.
no, he argued that voluntary population control methods (such as free acess to abotion) would, if followed strictly, save us from
having to enact forced population control measures (such as forced abortions and public water sterilants) in - and this is important -
most places. meaning that such measures would
still be necessary to avoid a worse fate,
even if strict voluntary family control measures were enated.
if i were to say that killing innocents in wartime is unfortunate, but sometimes you have to, then someone could justly accuse me of proposing an approach to warfare that included the killing of innocents.
This does not indicate bias.
it does. new information that is generally supportive of left-wing preferences is, on the hot-button issues, uploaded pretty quickly on politifact. they already have sections dealing with the Arizona law and the Texas curriculum changes. new information that is embarrassing to their political preferences is.... well, somehow less important.
You are not pointing to any evidence of a lbias anywhere but in your imagination.
actually plenty of people have pointed this out. you'll note i used the examples of Texas and Arizona? I'll throw into that their
Acorn coverage. their
Arizona page is particularly entertaining; they rate the claim that the new immigration law expressely bans racial profiling as only 'half true'...... when the bill no less than
three times, in fact,
expressely bans the use of racial profiling.
. but, as opponents (and politifact) state, it might happen
anyway.... so..... you know..... it still counts.... sorta. :roll:
and this is what you would expect; politifact is owned by the left-leaning
St Petersberg Times. It's not
quite what would happen if the NY Times or Newsweek ran a "fact checking" enterprise, but it's close.
You would need evidence of, you know, bias, not "OMG, they have too many promises".
my problem isn't "OMG they have too many promises"; my issue is that they are ignoring the huge number of statements that have since become, you know, inconvenient (like public financing, which I notice did not make Politifacts' list), and so, you know, are out of the times, and we meant it in a nuanced way to begin with.... again, they can only find 19? conveniently filling three general categories: 1) the stuff left wingers are irritated about 2) the one item (taxes) everyone knows and therefore can't be hid and 3) the stuff nobody cares about.
:shrug: i don't have a problem with people citing politifact on the facts; i think that search organs and organizations with a political bias are fully admissible. my only problem is when people try to bring in their subjective judgements (ie: the 'truthmeter'), or present politifact as though it were some kind of non-partisan reading.