Lost all credibility in my mind from the outset.

"

2. 

"Whether it’s a fixed tax or a floating tax, (Rudd's floating-price emissions trading scheme) is still a tax."

Mostly false"

So, how is this "mostly false" simply stating that if it's a tax (either fixed or floating) it's still a tax. Just what is it then? A bunch of coconuts?

Although PolitiFact is extremely popular — the site had 42 million page views last year — it has no shortage of critics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last year argued:

“Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage … The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan.”

 

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/04/29/fact-off-abc-and-frays-politifact-dig-into-pollies-spin/

 

Commenting on the US version not the Aust version (even though they are probably in the same format, not the same ball park.

 

 

I find posts, like posts 5, 16 & 17 (that one not so bad)  hard to read. The large font, some bold, blue links here and there scattered through them.

Is that because they have been cut and paste and when posted here show in larger font.?

If so it is easy enough to change that in the reply box... highlight all the text and choose a smaller font.

I am wondering what the heck the michaelsmith.com rant has to do with the OP??

And I am also wondering who the heck reads michael smith?