Notice whose name is missing from the list of complaints, and see the complaint against Duncan Hunter at the bottom.
Libertarians were the folks with the Platform (last time I looked) for unconditionally open borders, anti-family efforts, and desires to effectively shut down our national defense. And they'll use any rhetoric that will get their man into office.
Did ABC7 do any “fact checking”of the Dem debate? Silly question!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
No surprise there. Her Heinous got her butt kicked ten ways to Sunday against Rick Lazio in their first debate in 2000, but according to the analysts she was the clear winner then, too. And before anyone says it, those same analysts said that it had nothing to do with Lazio's ill-advised stunt.
It seems to me that fact checking would include, well, some facts. For example, if 1.8 million is not the accurate number, then what is the accurate number? I know it is now easier to name a product not made in the USA, than to name one that is. I don’t think it is fair for Freepers to ask, “Will Dems be fact-checked”. Another government agency would have to be created to fact-check that exceptional grouping of pathological liars, aka, the Democraptic nominees. It could be funded partially from Billy Jeff’s Freezer, but I am not sure where we could get the rest.
Duncan Hunter: "The latest study I've seen shows that we've lost 1.8 million jobs in the United States."
Fact check: Hunter's numbers are not facts. They were prepared by the Economic Policy Institute, which is a liberal think tank with ties to the labor movement. The Libertarian Cato Institute calls the same study fundamentally flawed.
Methinks Cato's a bit worried about Hunter's stance on immigration, neh...?
Without trying to referee the competing think tanks, it's safe to say the study Hunter quoted was prepared by an organization that is hostile to current free-trade arrangements, and that its numbers are not accepted facts.
Show us why then.
It is interesting that the article does not mention Ron Paul, too.
This line is deceptive. The only mention of libertarians (small l) is to the Cato Institute and their take on the trade issue. I see no mention of “big L” Libertarians. Furthermore, the critique on Tancredo’s comments regarding global warming go against the take on the issue of any libertarian/Libertarian I know of.
Finally, whatever the merit of the trade deals, I too am concerned that a so-called conservative would take his cue on economic issue from the Economic Policy Institute.
Please. The Republicans are already doing this on their own.