@Cohenite:

One who relies on Bolt's blogs for his facts really doesn't know or value the meanings of words such as truth and fact.

Oh touche John, how clever of you to attack the messenger and ignore the evidence of rotteness in Gillard's state [to paraphrase the Shakespeare quoting other waste of space on the thread]; of course, Bolt must be wrong; and the material about Gillard is NOT missing from the Federal court registries; is that what you mean?

Alan, your wilful resistance to the truth makes you an unsuitable author for an article purporting to support fact.

Did you even read the nonsense asserting that Romney was other than factual: Romney said that “he should be elected in order to prevent "four more years of trillion dollar deficits in Washington.".

Believe it or not, that is one of the statements asserted by the truth challenged author of Austin’s reference, to be evidence of Romney’s prevarication.

Either the fellow is an imbecile, or he considers that his readers to be completely lacking in comprehension.

Romney spent a considerable part of his career gaining experience in turning around bankrupt companies. He was highly successful at this work, and would have been ideal as President of the financially challenged US.

This support of nonsense comes from Alan Austin, who in the same article suggests that Gillard is not accountable for the breaking of her promise of no carbon tax. He considers that her corrupt machinations left her no choice, if she was to pervert the democratic process in order to enable her to lead a government. She should never have been PM, and the Australian people have paid a terrible price.

Of course fact checking does not work, when the fact checkers are liars, as in the case of the one referenced by Alan.

You cannot be the dunce you pretend to be, Alan. We can only conclude that you are dishonest.

Bwhaha!! The authors hypothesis:

When is a lie not a lie? When someone on the Left lies. Apparently Gillard didn't lie according to Alan Austin, she just couldn't carry out her promise..LOL

No fact checking on Obama presented? I wonder why. He told more porkies than you can poke a stick at but being Left of centre, he can't lie right Alan?

Check this out. It documents Obama's li.. err lack of truthfulness.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/17/Top-Ten-Lies-of-the-Second-Presidential-Debate

This would be one of the most blindly one-sided articles I have ever read on this forum.

One of the signs as to how degraded our public culture has become is the fact that adolescent airhead nerds such as Chris Berg are featured/treated as some kind of authoritative voice re the important matters of politics and culture.

Back in the good old days of the Academy as it existed in the time of Socrates, when the Culture of Wisdom was truly valued, adolescent fools such as Berg would not have even be qualified to sweep the floor or even clean the toilets. So too with Breitbart in the USA.

This would have also been the case, and even more so, in the esoteric academy/ashram that was associated with the Pythagoras where even knowledge of the rules/law of geometry were considered to be dangerous in the hands of those who had not been initiated into a fully adult understanding and mastery of the yogic disciplines taught there.
Not that those on the left are really all that much better. But at least those on the left still maintain some semblance of sanity, especially as compared the now collective psychosis of those on the right side of the culture wars divide.

I’m all for fact checking and holding politicians to account, on all sides of politics.

But anyone who enters such a debate paying attention to the sins of only one party in a political debate is more likely to be seeking to score political points than to serve the values of objectivity and truth-seeking.

This is clearly true of Benen's website, where many so-called “lies” are matters of opinion or judgement, not objective facts – for example, the assertion that Romney would break his promise not to raise taxes on middle America. Likewise, Romney’s claim that Obama “has been spending massively more than he's been taking in" is not incompatible with Benen’s assertion that Government spending has fallen under Obama. Spending may be down, but so is revenue – otherwise, there would be no “fiscal cliff” looming. In short, Benen seems guilt of exactly the same selective fact-picking and misrepresentation that he accused Romney of.

To be credible, fact-checkers need to subject all sides to equivalent scrutiny, and to abide by the same standards by which they judge others. Benen fails both these tests.