Fact Checking Silliness

I was just reading an article by a silly site that claims to a fact checking group about Obama.

What is silly is that they really don't seem to understand a fact from a prediction and also ignore simple things like oratorical flourishes.

When someone says in a speech that it is easier for a teenager to get a gun on the street than a book, they take it as something that can be checked and say they simply need to go to a library.

Really?

Buying a gun on the street doesn't require a library card, so right there its a bit easier.

But in all honesty, it was about the wide availability of guns, not the lack of books.

Take maybe the most harped on thing that Obama was attacked for, when he said that under the ACA you could keep your insurance if you liked it.

This of course had to be understood in the context that the ACA did not mandate anyone change coverage.

However, it did have impacts that caused insurance companies to cancel policies that didn't meet its mandates, and obviously would make that coverage unavailable, so the statement wasn't true.

However, failing to see all the impacts on the insurance marketplace is not the same as telling a lie.

It would be nice if everyone had access to every bit of future information, but we don't.

The ACA had no requirement that anyone change insurance so from that point of view the statement was accurate, but it turned out to have other ramifications.

This is different than an outright lie.

If I'm fact checking I'm going to note that distinction and not equate the two.

Failure to do that is in itself a fact ignored.