So are the authors of the article racists or are they being paid by the Republican party. Obama lie, unthinkable!

/Quite a detailed read.

So let me get this straight, when I'm stating facts which I state are the truth but turns out they aren't true, I am lying?! HOLY FARK WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED OF THIS.

Link dead?

Farked already?

KaponoFor3: Link dead?

It took me four tries to get through, I think it was because of all the donations...

// A good percentage of them seemed to be taking issue with Obama saying stuff like "working households" income decreasing, not taking retirees and children (who made more) into account...
None appeared to be outright lies, just quibbles over wording...

Here's the original: Link (new window - FactCheck.org)

Exec sum:
We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

* Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong - his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
* He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
* Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."
* Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
* Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And - math teachers, please note - he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.


It went through each point in more detail, but I'm not clicking through 3 pages of slow...

KyngNothing: * He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

What I don't understand about this one is that the familiar graphic comparing the two tax plans shows that McCain's plan drops EVERYONE's taxes, whereas Obama's increases (sometimes drastically) the top two income brackets and gives much greater cuts to the rest of the income groups. It seemed like McCain's plan lowered taxes for all income groups.

Thanks, KyngNothing.

Yea, looks like Obama has some small stretches and they are just clarifying. Nothing groundbreaking.

KaponoFor3: What I don't understand about this one is that the familiar graphic comparing the two tax plans shows that McCain's plan drops EVERYONE's taxes, whereas Obama's increases (sometimes drastically) the top two income brackets and gives much greater cuts to the rest of the income groups. It seemed like McCain's plan lowered taxes for all income groups.

Neither one is interested in reducing spending, so the whole issue is moot anyway. It's like arguing over whose boat is sinking the slowest.

KaponoFor3: KyngNothing: * He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

What I don't understand about this one is that the familiar graphic comparing the two tax plans shows that McCain's plan drops EVERYONE's taxes, whereas Obama's increases (sometimes drastically) the top two income brackets and gives much greater cuts to the rest of the income groups. It seemed like McCain's plan lowered taxes for all income groups.

I was wondering that myself, unless that table is out of date and his plan has changed.

Wait, a politician was lying??? The deuce you say! And just yesterday I saw him turn water into wine, walk on water, and cast out the moneychangers from the temple.

so all McCain has to do is lie less to win? shouldn't be that hard.
i thought last night's speech was rather arrogant, coming from Jesus Christ.

KyngNothing: It took me four tries to get through, I think it was because of all the donations...

nice.

Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong - his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.



i cannot vote for this man now!

Someone please explain to me where the lie is. Oh McCain only leaves 66 million families without a tax cut; not 100 million. He is going to give you a $5,000 tax credit to off set the fact that he is going to make you pay for your own healthcare out of your after tax income after he eliminates your employers incentive to provide any benefits. Seriously, McCain is a joke even if Obama botched the punchline.

according to independent experts.

I wonder if these are the same experts that McCain talked to when he made the "Obama is going to raise everybody's taxes and jobs are going to disappear" commercial.

Canadian Canuck: So let me get this straight, when I'm stating facts which I state are the truth but turns out they aren't true, I am lying?! HOLY FARK WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED OF THIS.

I bet you were informed of this, and are stretching the truth.

I'm thrilled to see our friends on the Right rediscovering their dislike of being lied to. I wish it had happened in, say, 2002 but better late than never.

Notice how Democrats aren't blaming it on "bad intelligence?"

Darconix

Haven't seen this used much today, but you've certainly earned it.

Shocking news! This is why im not voting, both candidates that have a chance of winning are just run of the mill politicians. Obama tries to talk like he isn't, but its bull. And McCain is even worse. All shiatty.

But why would a politician lie to us?

It only hurts him when he cries?

THIS JUST IN, Barack Obama is a politician, we'll give you more on this breaking news at 11.

Crosshair: Neither one is interested in reducing spending, so the whole issue is moot anyway. It's like arguing over whose boat is sinking the slowest.

Yeah, but Obama is promising that HIS sinking boat will have shuffle board... and a pool... and an open bar... and gambling... and strippers...

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin? MY GOD MAN, WE NEED TO KNOW IF SHE'S EXPERIENCED!

This is McCain proving he is a maverick who tells it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY

Fact checking is good. I hope they check McCain next week.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:

That is a perfect pic.

"Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families."

Tax credits are not guaranteed health care. Especially with a cap at 5,000 dollars. A cancer patient would go through more than that in a year. Obama is envisioning a health care plan that would allow that person with cancer to lean on that person who only had to have two check-ups that year, and he's still cutting taxes for the middle class. So, in the context of his plan, McCain's tax credits don't really have the same punch as guaranteed coverage.

He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

For FactCheck.org, which claims to be non-partisan, this sure is a hefty fallacy since Obama isn't the one claiming to be a Maverick.

Malakili: Shocking news! This is why im not voting, both candidates that have a chance of winning are just run of the mill politicians. Obama tries to talk like he isn't, but its bull. And McCain is even worse. All shiatty.

You want to know something? With that biatch-ass attitude and absolutly no substance to your rant, you don't deserve to vote. Go back to Walmart and gripe about how crappy your life is but think the government is supposed to make everything better for you.

solobarik: Malakili: Shocking news! This is why im not voting, both candidates that have a chance of winning are just run of the mill politicians. Obama tries to talk like he isn't, but its bull. And McCain is even worse. All shiatty.

You want to know something? With that biatch-ass attitude and absolutly no substance to your rant, you don't deserve to vote. Go back to Walmart and gripe about how crappy your life is but think the government is supposed to make everything better for you.

You sure told him.

He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

Except that a huge chuck of those "working families" fall under the threshold where they aren't paying federal income taxes. So it's hard to "benefit" those people by cutting their taxes. That means that if his plan does benefit them then it's a wealth redistribution program not a tax cut.

Newsweek didn't say it wasn't a wealth redistribution program but then they didn't say it was either.

yeah, I know. Pot meet kettle, english isn't my first language

slobarnuts: FactCheck.org, which claims to be non-partisan,

You know they roast McCain every chance they can right? The seem to take pride in taking politicians down a notch.

KyngNothing: KaponoFor3: Link dead?

It took me four tries to get through, I think it was because of all the donations...

// A good percentage of them seemed to be taking issue with Obama saying stuff like "working households" income decreasing, not taking retirees and children (who made more) into account...
None appeared to be outright lies, just quibbles over wording...

Wow - just wow - spin like a top, fail like a Floridian.

Darconix: Obama the Messiah cometh near.

Let us attack those who would harm our master.

If he utters a lie, it is merely a misquote. If he utters a slur, it is merely due to stress.

Never hold the Messiah to facts. Jesus, while a lesser to Barack Hussein Obama, was never held to facts.

It was a campaign speech and he lied? No way.

They all lie. Every farking one of them. If they told us the truth we'd burn them at the stake.

slobarnuts: He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

For FactCheck.org, which claims to be non-partisan, this sure is a hefty fallacy since Obama isn't the one claiming to be a Maverick.

It isn't about who is or isn't a maverick...

It's about who's agreeing and disagreeing with an IDIOT!

Hm, considering how politicians usually are, Obama's fact-bending isn't really that bad. Take that in comparison to the "Iraq was never about WMD" and the "we had nothing to do with the attorney firings" and the "Valerie Plame? We don't know anything about that either" and it doesn't seem so awful anymore.

Mentat: What does this have to do with Sarah Palin? MY GOD MAN, WE NEED TO KNOW IF SHE'S EXPERIENCED!

Obviously she is.

She's got five (or four) kids, dammit!

The Why Not Guy: I'm thrilled to see our friends on the Right rediscovering their dislike of being lied to. I wish it had happened in, say, 2002 but better late than never.

Notice how Democrats aren't blaming it on "bad intelligence?"

Yes, I noticed. They're simply making up other lies to excuse the lies.

Same shiat different party.

phygz: Darconix:

That's really all you have left, isn't it?

jayg22: You know they roast McCain every chance they can right? The seem to take pride in taking politicians down a notch.

I know they do. Regardless,. If they claim to be presenting the facts, they should make rhetorical arguments based on fallacious reasoning.

I am really getting tired of the term "working families". Somehow it always seems to end up including people that aren't doing crap and sucking off the government teat. And at what income level do you end up not "working"? Obama's magical $250,000 per year? Are we saying that heart surgeons that make $300,000 a year are not "working", but are playing cardiovascular games in the OR? What about Ivy League University Presidents that make over $500,000 a year, are they not...never mind.

mud_shark: Same shiat different party.

Then don't vote for either.
I dare you not to vote for either.

slobarnuts: jayg22: You know they roast McCain every chance they can right? The seem to take pride in taking politicians down a notch.

I know they do. Regardless,. If they claim to be presenting the facts, they shouldn't make rhetorical arguments based on fallacious reasoning.

ftfm

bison0329: Thanks, KyngNothing.

Yea, looks like Obama has some small stretches and they are just clarifying. Nothing groundbreaking.

"clarifying"... changing the words from "working family" to suddenly include retirees and whatnot. That's not clarification, that's changing the argument.

heh, I said fallacious.

KaponoFor3: What I don't understand about this one is that the familiar graphic comparing the two tax plans shows that McCain's plan drops EVERYONE's taxes, whereas Obama's increases (sometimes drastically) the top two income brackets and gives much greater cuts to the rest of the income groups. It seemed like McCain's plan lowered taxes for all income groups.

Grats on the whole tens of dollars per year people who really need the money are going to be getting. They might be able to go out to the Olive Garden instead of the Sizzler for their semi-annual dinner out.

Fine, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but McCain give peanuts to the 'little guys' while Obama gives something more meaningful.

/Hope? Are you talking about hope?
//No, more money.

TFA: * He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
Dear God, instead of 'could' McCain said 'may'! And look at this mostly unrelated and off topic extraneous fact!

* Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

God forbid that something be taken out of context! But, seriously... it was the only answer he gave on the subject. He's just an empty suit, there's no substance behind his outer demeanor. If he won't take me seriously enough to give me an answer to a question, why should we give him the benefit of the doubt?

* Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

Does Obama have to sell McCain's plan for him? It's factual and in-context. If he provides the detail that McCain gives $5K in credit, shouldn't he also provide the context that McCain would eliminate incentives for employers to help foot the bill? If we're going down this road, someone needs to start fact-checking fact-check.

* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

These facts about McCain, whose platform largely consists of "Not the same as Bush" and "Lookee I'm a maverick," are relevant. Obama is not running as a party-bucking maverick. It's fine for fact-check to call him on falsehoods, but to make the other side's argument for them or to discount under apparently false pretenses a truthful statement speaks to an agenda.

Meh, and no I won't be picking apart their fact-check of McCain, someone else will.