How about, a fact check of Biden/BHO speeches, didn't think the media had it in them

Amazing, it appears there are few "discrepancies" but that is no surprise

http://www.freep.com/article/20120907/NEWS15/120907038/Fact-check-A-look-at-Barack-Obama-Joe-Biden-speeches

I don't think the author of this article understands the terms 'fact' or 'check'.

boards of FL wrote:I don't think the author of this article understands the terms 'fact' or 'check'.

Of course you don't, it doesn't fit your rigid, partisan agenda.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:I don't think the author of this article understands the terms 'fact' or 'check'.

Of course you don't, it doesn't fit your rigid, partisan agenda.

Well, let's look at the first one:

President Obama boasted that his plan would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, citing "independent experts." But one such analyst called a key element of the plan a "gimmick."

Is it necessary for 100% of people who are deemed "experts" to agree with Obama's statement in order for it to be factually correct?

Example:

- I think the earth is round

- I consult 3 experts. They all agree that the earth is round

- I give a speech and say "Independent experts say the earth is round"

- But somewhere exists a person who may be deemed an "expert" who does not agree that the earth is round.

Question: When I said "Independent experts say the earth is round" was I lying? Does the fact that there may be other people out there deemed "experts" who disagree negate the fact that I spoke with 3 experts who agree?

If this is your idea of "fact checking", you must have been reeling after the Ryan speech!

[quote="boards of FL"][quote="nochain"]

boards of FL wrote:I don't think the author of
If this is your idea of "fact checking", you must have been reeling after the Ryan speech!

Don't you just hate it when the rules applied to the R/R campaign are applied to the O/B campaign? I don't recall any pontificating from you over all the "fact checking" of the RNC. I believe in a level playing field but it is starting to appear liberals and far right fanatics disagree. So it goes. Apparently the era of moderates like me is over.

I stopped reading after the second "fact check" ...

Vice President Biden quoted GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as saying "it's not worth moving heaven and earth" to catch Osama bin Laden. Actually, Romney said he'd target more than just "one person."

Romney: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden."
....
"It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."

nochain wrote:Don't you just hate it when the rules applied to the R/R campaign are applied to the O/B campaign? I don't recall any pontificating from you over all the "fact checking" of the RNC. I believe in a level playing field but it is starting to appear liberals and far right fanatics disagree. So it goes. Apparently the era of moderates like me is over.

I like to see the same rules applied to everyone, though that isn't what is happening here. You are posting a story that claims to be "fact checking" when in reality, it isn't. Rather than speak in tangents and generalizations, why don't you directly respond to my last post in which I take the first "fact check" to task? Is that an example of fact checking to you?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:like me is over.

I like to see the same rules applied to everyone, though that isn't what is happening here. You are posting a story that claims to be "fact checking" when in reality, it isn't. Rather than speak in tangents and generalizations, why don't you directly respond to my last post in which I take the first "fact check" to task? Is that an example of fact checking to you?

Your argument doesn't pass the validity test. This little article is no different then the so-called "fact-checkers" the left used to sift through every fart and giggle at the RNC. But in your mind it is. That is a sad fact. The numbers of "agreeing experts" is not relevant to the lefties (if necessary they would dredge up a member of an Amazon lost tribe if it met their "political or economic expert" agenda) so apply your same standard to this series of "fact checks". Or don't, it really doesn't matter.

nochain wrote:Your argument doesn't pass the validity test.

Why? Because you say it doesn't? You're still not responding to my post. I say your "fact check" link doesn't past the validity test, and I gave you an example as to why. This is more than you have given me.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Your argument doesn't pass the validity test.

Why? Because you say it doesn't? You're still not responding to my post.

I did, you just didn't get it. I feel like I am playing ping pong with a midget right now.

nochain wrote:I did, you just didn't get it. I feel like I am playing ping pong with a midget right now.

Ah, well since I'm slow, can you quote for me the part where you directly respond to my post which takes your fact checker to task? I'm simply not seeing it here in this thread.

lol... boards... do you think obama's plan will cut the deficit by 4 trillion over ten years?

for starters you might want to see how many votes his last budget rcvd.

PkrBum wrote:lol... boards... do you think obama's plan will cut the deficit by 4 trillion over ten years?

for starters you might want to see how many votes his last budget rcvd.

Who knows. We're debating whether or not independent experts have said that it will - which is something nochain struggles to wrap his head around.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:lol... boards... do you think obama's plan will cut the deficit by 4 trillion over ten years?

for starters you might want to see how many votes his last budget rcvd.

Who knows. We're debating whether or not independent experts have said that it will - which is something nochain struggles to wrap his head around.

i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

given that his budget proposal got ZERO votes of approval... i say it is not a fact.

in my expert opinion his "plan" is little more than a seaoat dog whistle.

5 OF THE BIGGEST LIES & UNTRUTHS FROM THE LAST DAY OF THE DNC (FEATURING OBAMA & BIDEN)

1) On Thursday, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) made some bold claims about the GOP’s handling of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the nation’s largest, most intensely valued — and most controversial — entitlement programs. The congressman said that “Republicans stood on the sidelines” when these programs were created, a notion that PolitiFact found to be false.

“When too many of our senior citizens who were living their golden years in the darkness of economic security, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic congress created Social Security, lighting a candle, while the Republicans cursed the darkness,” Clyburn said during his DNC speech.

And he wasn’t done there.

“When too many of our elderly found their lives darkened by unaffordable and inaccessible health care, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress lit the candles of Medicare and Medicaid, while Republicans stood on the sidelines and cursed the darkness,” he then added.

But, here’s what PolitiFact had to say about these claims:

Although some of the biggest and most vocal opponents of the bills were Republicans, it’s wrong to say that “Republicans stood on the sidelines” when the bills were being considered. On the final vote on Social Security, Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill. On Medicare and Medicaid, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill in the House, as did a significant minority in the Senate. We rate Clyburn’s claim False.

2) Vice President Joe Biden took the stage, too, last night, where he made a statement about Romney and Osama bin Laden that wasn’t factually accurate. Rather than placing the comments in their proper context, Biden claimed that Romney once said “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth” to catch the infamous terrorist.

Under a section called “Biden’s bin Laden Baloney,” FactCheck.org wrote:

The claim, which Republicansdisputed, fails to include the rest of Romney’s quote from an Associated Press story. Romney said the country’s focus should not be on one person, but it should be a “broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.”
Biden: Folks, Governor Romney didn’t see things that way. When he was asked about bin Laden in 2007, here’s what he said. He said, “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just to catch one person.”

3) President Barack Obama, too, had some verbal blunders. Among his misleading statements was a claim that his tax plan would merely restore rates to what they were under President Bill Clinton’s administration. This, though, doesn’t take into account the tax increases that the wealthy will face as a result of Obama care; these additional taxes kick in next year. FactCheck.org writes:

Obama refers to his wish to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for families with over $250,000 annual income, or for individuals with over $200,000. The top marginal income tax rate would return to 39.6 percent, where it was set by Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, up from 35 percent, where it has been since 2003.
But that’s not the whole story. Obama has signed some new taxes to help finance the Affordable Care Act, increasing the burden on those upper-income taxpayers. Starting Jan. 1 next year, they will pay an additional 0.9 percent of wages for Medicare payroll taxes. And they will also be subject to a 3.8 percent tax on investment income from such things as stocks, bonds and sale of real estate. Those are taxes that didn’t exist when Clinton was president. If Obama succeeds in raising the top income tax rates to Clinton-era levels, total taxes on those making over $250,000 family income are thus likely to be higher than they were under Clinton. (They’ll still benefit from the Bush cuts on their income below $250,000, because Obama wouldn’t restore those lower-bracket rates to Clinton levels. So some upper-income taxpayers could still end up paying less federal tax than they paid under Clinton, depending.)

4) Obama also repeated the same claim that Clinton was called out for on Wednesday — that the current president has a plan that will cut deficits by $4 trillion. During his speech, Obama said, “Independent analysis shows that my plan would cut our deficits by $4 trillion. Last summer, I worked with Republicans in Congress to cut $1 trillion in spending.”

The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker debunked this claim, once again, writing:

But, while the numbers seem large, the results are unimpressive. At the end of the 10-year budget window, Obama would have the national debt at a 76.5 percent of gross domestic product. That actually would be an increase over the 74.2 percent of GDP in this year. In contrast, the debt reduction plan envisioned by the Simpson-Bowles commission — cited by the president — would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio close to 60 percent.
Moreover, independent analysts have criticized the administration for claiming some $800 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. (The Bush administration had started the wars on borrowed funds.) Then, the president proposes to spend a good chunk of the nonexistent money on other spending — as he put it in his speech, “rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.”
The $1 trillion in savings negotiated with Republicans, mentioned by the president, actually accounts for the bulk of his proposed reduction in spending. Indeed, much of the president’s debt reduction would come from tax increases on the wealthy, not spending cuts.

5) The final lie comes, again, from Biden. During his speech, he contended that “the experts” claim that Romney has a corporate tax plan that would create hundreds of thousands — 800,000 jobs, to be exact — overseas. In reality, only one expert asserted that this is the case and she was careful to say that it depends on the details.

Even if these jobs do grow in other countries, she said it was possible for that to happen without hampering U.S. employment. FactCheck.org explains:

She notes in her study that “jobs abroad need not displace jobs at home” — that is, provided that the present economy improves, and U.S. unemployment drops to a low level. So depending on the economic circumstances, creating jobs overseas doesn’t necessarily mean losing jobs in the U.S., as Biden’s listeners might have assumed.
Furthermore, a critique of Clausing’s figure by the Tax Foundation (a group supported in part by corporate donations) says that she based it on current corporate tax rates — not on the lower 25 percent rate that Romney proposes. The lower rate, it is argued, would attract foreign investment and lead to importing jobs.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/final-edition-the-5-biggest-lies-from-the-last-day-of-the-dnc-featuring-obama-biden/

PkrBum wrote:i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

Because that is the actual issue at hand. That is what Obama said and the "fact checker" is stating that his statement is not non-factual due to the actual substance of the claim but, rather, because some un-named "expert" disagrees. The fact checker isn't challenging the claim itself. They are only challenging the idea that "independent experts" have agreed with it. I'm merely showing that that is complete BS, and I think you would agree.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

Because that is the actual issue at hand. That is what Obama said and the "fact checker" is stating that his statement is not non-factual due to the actual substance of the claim but, rather, because some un-named "expert" disagrees. The fact checker isn't challenging the claim itself. They are only challenging the idea that "independent experts" have agreed with it. I'm merely showing that that is complete BS, and I think you would agree.

Finally you get it. All of the "fact checking" is BS to some degree, my point was to illustrate the unqualified liberal acceptance of "fact checks" of the RNC while dismissing the "fact checking" of the DNC.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

Because that is the actual issue at hand. That is what Obama said and the "fact checker" is stating that his statement is not non-factual due to the actual substance of the claim but, rather, because some un-named "expert" disagrees. The fact checker isn't challenging the claim itself. They are only challenging the idea that "independent experts" have agreed with it. I'm merely showing that that is complete BS, and I think you would agree.

Finally you get it. All of the "fact checking" is BS to some degree, my point was to illustrate the unqualified liberal acceptance of "fact checks" of the RNC while dismissing the "fact checking" of the DNC.

So you feel that the BS that I pointed out to you is on par with Ryan accusing Obama of killing the ideas of the debt reduction panel when in fact it was Ryan, among others, that voted against their recommendation? Or how about Ryan in a round-a-bout way blaming Obama for the GM plant closing? These things are no different to you than the BS bullet points in the article that you posted? If so, I honestly question your judgement.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

Because that is the actual issue at hand. That is what Obama said and the "fact checker" is stating that his statement is not non-factual due to the actual substance of the claim but, rather, because some un-named "expert" disagrees. The fact checker isn't challenging the claim itself. They are only challenging the idea that "independent experts" have agreed with it. I'm merely showing that that is complete BS, and I think you would agree.

Finally you get it. All of the "fact checking" is BS to some degree, my point was to illustrate the unqualified liberal acceptance of "fact checks" of the RNC while dismissing the "fact checking" of the DNC.

So you feel that the BS that I pointed out to you is on par with Ryan accusing Obama of killing the ideas of the debt reduction panel when in fact it was Ryan, among others, that voted against their recommendation? Or how about Ryan in a round about way blaming Obama for the GM plant closing? These things are no different to you than the BS bullet points in the article that posted?

The Bob Woodward Book coming out Tuesday may change your mind. Remember, Bob is a liberal hero....he brought down Nixon....now it's Obamas turn. Enjoy......

[quote="boards of FL"][quote="nochain"]

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i see that you are trying to frame the issue upon that... but is it a fact or not?

Or how about Ryan in a round-a-bout way blaming Obama for the GM plant closing? These things are no different to you than the BS bullet points in the article that you posted?

You need to take that hat off. Ryan said many things and inserted his foot in his mouth up to the knee on several items. So did Biden, Obama, and Romney. They are, after all, politicians. So you are saying everything in that article is BS, or are you just cherry picking?

nochain wrote:You need to take that hat off. Ryan said many things and inserted his foot in his mouth up to the knee on several items. So did Biden, Obama, and Romney. They are, after all, politicians. So you are saying everything in that article is BS, or are you just cherry picking?

I am saying that what the democrats presented is a far more accurate representation of reality than that which the republicans presented. The democrats are the lesser of two evils here. This is painfully obvious.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You need to take that hat off. Ryan said many things and inserted his foot in his mouth up to the knee on several items. So did Biden, Obama, and Romney. They are, after all, politicians. So you are saying everything in that article is BS, or are you just cherry picking?

I am saying that what the democrats presented is a far more accurate representation of reality than that which the republicans presented. The democrats are the lesser of two evils here. This is painfully obvious.

heh... good luck. I think that if you listen carefully/critically that the message on the left is evolving.

there may be a point that it tests your sensibilities... i hope.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You need to take that hat off. Ryan said many things and inserted his foot in his mouth up to the knee on several items. So did Biden, Obama, and Romney. They are, after all, politicians. So you are saying everything in that article is BS, or are you just cherry picking?

I am saying that what the democrats presented is a far more accurate representation of reality than that which the republicans presented. The democrats are the lesser of two evils here. This is painfully obvious.

What is even more painfully obvious is that BHO is a miserable failure as a President and is unlikely to undergo some magical transformation over the next 4 years. He couldn't transform promises into deeds this time due to his inability to gain a consensus in Congress. For crying out loud he has never even had a budget!

PkrBum wrote:heh... good luck. I think that if you listen carefully/critically that the message on the left is evolving.

there may be a point that it tests your sensibilities... i hope.

Have we evolved to be more liberal or conservative as a nation over the last 30 years, in your estimation?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:heh... good luck. I think that if you listen carefully/critically that the message on the left is evolving.

there may be a point that it tests your sensibilities... i hope.

Have we evolved to be more liberal or conservative as a nation over the last 30 years, in your estimation?

liberal/progressive from both parties... and it isn't even close.