There have been studies which show that caffeine is absorbed into the system more rapidly from coffee than from tea. However, the caffeine from coffee is also processed back out of the body faster when it comes from coffee than from tea (however, I do not know if the latter effect is anything more than the fact that the body cannot start filtering the caffeine out until after it is absorbed). I started drinking a cup of coffee first thing after I get up and a cup of tea when I get to work and have observed that I no longer get sleepy about an hour before lunch (although I still get sleepy about two hours after lunch).

I cannot find the study at the moment, but I remember reading a study a few years back that said that if you adjust for single parent vs married parent households, the discrepancy between whites and blacks when it comes to being arrested for crime disappears.

What was great about that is that Barney Frank was chosen, along with one of the other more vocal deniers of the housing bubble, Chris Dodd, to draft the legislation to "fix" the banking problems that created the housing bubble in the first place.

My question is, why haven't they finished their homework by the time the public library closes? The public libraries around me are open until 9 or 10 pm. You should be able to finish your homework long before then.

And that is why nobody takes fact checkers seriously. Because Politifact only does that to Republicans. If it is a Democrat, all they worry about is whether the explicit fact stated is correct.

The problem is not the civil engineers (at least probably not). It is probably the fact that the political appointees over ruled the traffic experts for some political reason. What makes this especially difficult is that you can't just fix it by making it so the political appointees can't over rule the subject matter "experts" because than you have no way to hold those subject matter "experts" accountable. Either the political appointees (the people who answer to the people who answer to the voters) can fire the subject matter experts (and if they can do that, they make it be known that if the subject matter experts don't do it their way they will be fired) or the subject matter experts are not accountable to anybody.

If Harvard took cheating seriously, they would be investigating their faculty. They just discovered that their "Native American" professor lied about being Native American after she left to run for Senate. If she lied about that, how many other faculty members have lied about similarly difficult things to confirm, but which provide them with a step up? Her husband is still employed there and he almost certainly knew she was lying.

Except of course that nowhere did the ad say "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China." That is your opinion of what the ad meant to communicate. Your opinion may be correct, but it is not a statement of fact made in the ad. Therefore it is not the place of a fact checker to call the campaign on it. It would be perfectly acceptable for Politifact to express your opinion in something they called an opinion peice. It is not acceptable for them to take that position in a fact checking article.

See, now you are discussing what you believe that Romney should have said/how he should have made his point. That is not the question. The question is, was the statement, "Chrysler will build Jeeps in China" not just a lie, but the lie of the year? Not only was it not a lie, it was a fact. The theory of fact checkers is that they will check the facts that politicians use and point out when those facts are wrong. In this case, Politifact, as part of a "fact check", called that statement a lie?
You are failing to defend Politifact, you don't have a problem with them calling it a lie because you opposed Romney. This statement by Obama was a bigger lie, "I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class, asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way," At least by the standard you are using. By my standard, it could not be called so by a Fact Checker because it contains no facts, merely an opinion.

Right, the administration was hamstrung by Congress even though the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress for two of Obama's four years so far and still control the Senate.

Prosecutions for violating existing federal gun laws are down significantly under Obama. Joe Biden said that they do not have the time and manpower in order to pursue violations of the law on background checks. If the Administration does not enforce existing laws, why should we believe that any new laws will make any positive difference?

Yes, it does. However, when the fact checker says they are "checking the facts" and calls someone a liar because of the way that person interprets the facts, the "fact checker" is no longer a fact checker, especially when it is the "fact checker" interpreting what the person meant when they used the facts in question. Back to my original example, Politifact, as part of "fact-checking" called Mitt Romney's statement that Chrysler was going to build Jeeps in China the "lie of the year", when, in fact,Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China. The reason that they did so was because they believed that Romney was intending for people to interpret that statement as saying that Chrysler was going to build all Jeeps in China. You have no problem with that because you agree with their interpretation. However, the fact was not a lie, was not even missing information. I even have an interpretation of Romney's statement which makes it not even an attempt to mislead. Romney may well have been saying, "Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.? Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?" I do not know that Romney was saying that rather than what Politifact understood him to be saying, but it is consistent with other things said by the Romney campaign.

That reminds me of this story: http://sarcasticsarcasms.blogspot.com/2013/01/sowas-it-murder.html?spref=fb The story is not true, but is an interesting hypothetical.

Where he promptly started writing about how evil, or stupid everyone associated with Enron management was for not blowing the whistle on what was going on, while carefully avoiding mentioning that he had spent several years as a paid adviser to those very same management people and never once noticed any of the problems (or chose to keep quiet about them) with their financial dealings.

OK, so you want "fact checkers" who call those who disagree with your interpretations of the fact liars. That's fine, just don't expect me to consider them to be credible and non-partisan, since you are asking that they be partisan. To take apart your examples and show how real fact checkers could get the same results without worrying about interpretation:

Fact Checker: It is true that the fences did not kill the ostriches and that the fire did. It is true that SOME birds can fly, however, ostriches can not fly and thus were trapped by the fences so that they were unable to escape the fire. (This is assuming that the ostriches were indeed trapped by the fences and this unable to escape the fire, rather than the ostriches dying in the fire some rather large distance from the fences and someone claiming that they had not fled the fire because they "knew" the fence was there in the distance).

Fact Checker: Yes, industry experts reported 8000 cars in America, in 1900. What does that fact have to do with the question of spending money on highway improvements.

In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar, they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out (while some birds can fly, ostriches cannot, industry experts did indeed report a mere 8000 cars in America, but that was in 1900) and leave it up to those who listen to, or read, their fact-check to decide whether the original speakers comment constituted a lie. The advantage of doing this is that the fact checker remains credible to the everyone as the interpretation of the facts becomes more subjective (which is the area where most "fact-checking" occurs).