Skip to main content

Letter-to-the-editor in "The Columbus-Dispatch" regarding Medicare

So, I read a letter-to-the-editor in The Columbus-Dispatch yesterday and found it to be quite amusing. The author of the "piece" (yes, I mean that term in an ambiguous manner) laid claim that the "liberal-news media" was lying about Paul Ryan wanting to do away with Medicare and that senior citizens had nothing to worry about. He didn't provide any facts, any sources; he really didn't provide much of anything. All he spouted were talking points. It was as if I were walking through a rush-hour traffic jam, packed full of cars sporting their favorite Republican slogans and talking points.

Where did I go? To the fact-checking site, Politifact.com and copy and pasted three URLs:

"Paul Ryan's Medicare plan 'could raise future retirees' costs more than $6,000."

Grade: Mostly True

Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/17/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-paul-ryans-medicare-plan-coul/


"[Obama] Says Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan 'want to turn Medicare into a voucher system'."

Grade: Mostly True

Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/16/barack-obama/does-paul-ryan-want-turn-medicare-voucher-program/


"[Romney] Says Barack Obama 'robbed Medicare (of) $716 billion to pay for ... Obamacare'."

Grade: Mostly False

Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/


I find it to be utterly ridiculous and almost amusing for some people to try and live through slogans and talking points, meanwhile ignoring the facts countering those very words. I can make any kind of outrageous statement without giving valid source material to back it, yet that doesn't make it true, and chances are someone will come along and prove it to be false. The author of the before-mentioned letter-to-the-editor knows what he wants to believe. Unfortunately for him, that doesn't make him accurate and unfortunately for us, that doesn't make it unlikely he'll vote for a candidate based upon false information.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more