Introduction

Hi, everyone.

I'm not here to sway people one direction or another; nor do I want to feed false information. As a disclaimer: if I appear to be providing information that cannot be backed up or opinions presented as fact, please call me out. There's nothing worse in politics today than lying or misuse of information, and I want to hold myself to that same standard. I am here to provide counter evidence for the media's elaborate paintings. They have a huge palate to choose from and create wonderful, exemplary portraits of politicians and legislation. The problem with these paintings is they are not realism, they are abstract. The biggest clue is the continual rant against "socialist" Obama. While he is certainly liberal and legislation like Obamacare are more socialist, he is comparable to policies of the preceding president: George W. Bush. Bush had very comparable military expenditures and introduced legislation like "No Child Left Behind" which instituted more government standards on schools. 

Now, I haven't done enough individual research (yet) to really make assertions about either president; my point is that we, as citizens, must become skeptical. Not only should we be skeptical to the institutions that oppose us, but also skeptical to our own identities. 
                 "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical[...]There                    is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything                        else has only secondary value.This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the                      will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive?[...]                      One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious,                    dangerous, or fatal to be deceived."
This quote by Friedrich Nietzsche represents what I am trying to convey. In a society where we regard truth so highly, we have become burdened by acceptance. We no longer challenge each other on the level of honesty. Instead, out challenging has become more ethological (e.g. "Who are YOU to make that claim?). The next time someone makes a point or claim, lets all vow to take some time researching that point. I'm not talking about spending countless hours on wikipedia or the library trying to find why they're wrong. Instead, try find why they're right. If you can't, then the claim is unsubstantiated (you can usually make educated guesses as to which claims are unsubstantiated), or you can prove their point and learn something.