If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRCB)   It may be hard to believe, but apparently a few of the statements made during last night's GOP debate were a just a tiny little off the mark in the truthiness department. Fact checking, how does it work?   (wrcbtv.com) divider line 88
    More: Obvious, fact check, GOP, truthiness, GOP debate, auto bailouts, Republican President George W. Bush, B.B. King, East Room  
•       •       •

2881 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Feb 2012 at 9:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-23 10:39:15 AM

born_yesterday: I haven't talked to him since, and see no need to.


That's just sad.
 
2012-02-23 10:40:33 AM
Hmmm. What, none on Ron Paul?
Must be a media blackout thing.
 
2012-02-23 10:41:08 AM

Cletus C.: How come when AP's fact checks call Obama on his b.s. there is an outcry of "right-wing, corporate dogs" but when they do the same thing to the Republicans it's treated as if it came down from the mount in tablet form?


How come when someone does something that the Democrats don't like there is an outcry of "[something that no one actually says]" but when they do the same thing to the Republicans it's a fair criticism?
 
2012-02-23 10:42:20 AM

born_yesterday: My 70 year old father lives in Montana. No TV. One radio station, a FOX (or whateverthefark affiliate). First thing in the morning, every morning, talking points on why "Obama is the worst President in American history". Stories all day about how the country is falling to pieces. Near the end of my trip, he actually said to me, "Obama is the worst President ever". I asked him to clarify, then I pointed out little things like the role of congress, and events that were set in motion during the Bush presidency. He retreated to "Yeah, both sides are bad".

I haven't talked to him since, and see no need to.


Before the last election my 75-year-old pops came to visit me. I just had to ask him about Palin: Dad, seriously, you can't possibly believe this woman is capable of taking over the presidency should McCain die. How is that possible?

And he sheepishly replied something along the lines of "Well she could learn," but you could tell how shamed he felt as making such a ludicrous statement.

I don't believe it really does have much to do with Obama's race, because my dad also threatened to retire from his illustrious military career when Clinton was elected. He didn't, of course.
 
2012-02-23 10:43:12 AM

BeesNuts: SixPaperJoint: Sock Ruh Tease: fatimcgee: Jake Havechek: Gingrich has made this misstatement many times before.

I'm sure we'll hear this a lot more. Serial adulterer Gingrich is a known pathological liar.

If he repeats it enough, it'll become truthy...right?

Are you saying that the great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one?

I read this last part in Leonard Nimoy's voice. I need a life.

Who's got the pig iron?

Dorfs.
[dwarffortresswiki.org image 640x686]

/What for defending your dorfs with.


+1

/Playing DF right now, kicks have been gotten, etc.
 
2012-02-23 10:43:55 AM

Salt Lick Steady: stoli n coke: Salt Lick Steady: Obama voted to KILL babies. BABIES!

Santorum actually did kill a babby. BABBY!

And I kinda figure that toting home your dead babby so that you con forever traumatize the kids that, you know, took is worse than killling the babby to begin with.


How else will we remember Quinn?
 
2012-02-23 10:44:22 AM
It would have been easier to list the truthful statements.

I'm still laughing at "Syria is Iran's route to the sea". That statement alone should disqualify Romney from holding any public office that deals in any way with foreign policy. If you are that ridiculously ignorant of the basic geography of the middle east you have no business trying to win a position where you will have to make foreign policy.
 
2012-02-23 10:45:56 AM

Bloody William: Salt Lick Steady: stoli n coke: Salt Lick Steady: Obama voted to KILL babies. BABIES!

Santorum actually did kill a babby. BABBY!

And I kinda figure that toting home your dead babby so that you con forever traumatize the kids that, you know, took is worse than killling the babby to begin with.

How else will we remember Quinn?


Screen shot?
 
2012-02-23 10:51:56 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Bloody William: Salt Lick Steady: stoli n coke: Salt Lick Steady: Obama voted to KILL babies. BABIES!

Santorum actually did kill a babby. BABBY!

And I kinda figure that toting home your dead babby so that you con forever traumatize the kids that, you know, took is worse than killling the babby to begin with.

How else will we remember Quinn?

Screen shot?


I can't find it. Any memestorian Farkers want to bring up the whole bit?
 
2012-02-23 10:53:49 AM

dababler: Cletus C.: How come when AP's fact checks call Obama on his b.s. there is an outcry of "right-wing, corporate dogs" but when they do the same thing to the Republicans it's treated as if it came down from the mount in tablet form?

Bullshiat.
AP doesn't do a horrid job of fact checking, but when wrong we call it out, and unlike conderpatives we can back stuff up with data (often peer reviewed) conservatives use WND, FR, Brietbart & Fox Nation as primary sources. Our biggest issue is fact checkers committing the false ecquivalency fallacy, like POLITIFACT.


I'm surprised your exhaustive research and peer reviews haven't revealed that most of the crap Obama and the Republicans shovel is pure political bullshiat designed to pander to their automorons.

Maybe run it through the data sorter again.
 
2012-02-23 10:56:04 AM

Cletus C.: I'm surprised your exhaustive research and peer reviews haven't revealed that most of the crap Obama and the Republicans shovel is pure political bullshiat designed to pander to their automorons.


Maybe back up your assertions that both sides r teh bad and we'll start to believe you. Just saying it over and over again might work with stupid people, but us ivory tower elites, we like facts and data.
 
2012-02-23 10:57:22 AM

Cletus C.: dababler: Cletus C.: How come when AP's fact checks call Obama on his b.s. there is an outcry of "right-wing, corporate dogs" but when they do the same thing to the Republicans it's treated as if it came down from the mount in tablet form?

Bullshiat.
AP doesn't do a horrid job of fact checking, but when wrong we call it out, and unlike conderpatives we can back stuff up with data (often peer reviewed) conservatives use WND, FR, Brietbart & Fox Nation as primary sources. Our biggest issue is fact checkers committing the false ecquivalency fallacy, like POLITIFACT.

I'm surprised your exhaustive research and peer reviews haven't revealed that most of the crap Obama and the Republicans shovel is pure political bullshiat designed to pander to their automorons.

Maybe run it through the data sorter again.


You've got a little something on your chin, there. It looks a little like drool.
 
2012-02-23 11:01:25 AM

More_Like_A_Stain: born_yesterday: I haven't talked to him since, and see no need to.

That's just sad.


He used to be a left-leaning moderate. Someone that honestly understood that the government, R or D, is there to screw us. Did I mention that he would revert to the "Obama is the worst President ever" every morning, out of habit?

When he moved out there, his attitude was along the lines of "If the animals in Yellowstone scare you, stay out. The park is as much for them as it is you". Now he's gone out and bought a snubnose .44. You know, to shoot bears. And before the President bans them. The same President that signed the law allowing firearms into national parks...

To quote Homer Simpson, "It takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen." I don't know what happens to the critical portions of a persons brain as they get older, but it seems to turn to shiat.
 
2012-02-23 11:01:45 AM

Thrag: It would have been easier to list the truthful statements.

I'm still laughing at "Syria is Iran's route to the sea".


That's just absolutely awesome in its ignorance. Maybe when the say they are going to close the strait of Hormuz it's by dragging Syria over and pushing it in the water?
 
2012-02-23 11:05:19 AM
Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-23 11:09:03 AM

Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)


Thats actually an opinion piece.
 
2012-02-23 11:10:02 AM

Thrag: It would have been easier to list the truthful statements.

I'm still laughing at "Syria is Iran's route to the sea". That statement alone should disqualify Romney from holding any public office that deals in any way with foreign policy. If you are that ridiculously ignorant of the basic geography of the middle east you have no business trying to win a position where you will have to make foreign policy.


Maybe when he heard from his fellow derpers that we annihilated Iraq he took that to mean that it was physically no longer there. BAM! Instant path to the sea via Syria!
 
2012-02-23 11:11:32 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)

Thats actually an opinion piece.


It's an AP fact check, by one of the writers of this piece.
 
2012-02-23 11:24:45 AM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)

Thats actually an opinion piece.

It's an AP fact check, by one of the writers of this piece.


Are you retarded? An example of the "fact check":

OBAMA: "We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama's third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year's State of the Union speech. And he's now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.


Saying "You've proposed this before and it didn't pass Congress the last time" is not remotely like saying "Santorum's claim that Obama has not called for Bashar al-Assad to step down is categorically false, because Obama actually called for Assad to step down."

FACT CHECK: You're an idiot.
 
2012-02-23 11:35:52 AM

indylaw: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)

Thats actually an opinion piece.

It's an AP fact check, by one of the writers of this piece.

Are you retarded? An example of the "fact check":

OBAMA: "We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama's third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year's State of the Union speech. And he's now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.

Saying "You've proposed this before and it didn't pass Congress the last time" is not remotely like saying "Santorum's claim that Obama has not called for Bashar al-Assad to step down is categorically false, because Obama actually called for Assad to step down."

FACT CHECK: You're an idiot.


OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.
 
2012-02-23 11:46:26 AM

Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.


Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?
 
2012-02-23 11:51:36 AM

Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)

Thats actually an opinion piece.

It's an AP fact check, by one of the writers of this piece.

Are you retarded? An example of the "fact check":

OBAMA: "We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama's third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year's State of the Union speech. And he's now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.

Saying "You've proposed this before and it didn't pass Congress the last time" is not remotely like saying "Santorum's claim that Obama has not called for Bashar al-Assad to step down is categorically false, because Obama actually called for Assad to step down."

FACT CHECK: You're an idiot.

OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.


Obama's statement contains 2 facts

- We've subsidized oil companies for 100 years

- The oil companies have rarely been more profitable

I will even grant you a third fact

- The clean energy industry has never been more promising

The so called fact check ignores those and talks about Obama's voting record

That is the kind of thing we're objecting too
 
2012-02-23 11:52:07 AM

indylaw: Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.

Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?


Nah, more along the lines of the partisan sheeplings here are so deep into mouthing talking points and are so stuffed with pseudo intellectual certitude they fail to recognize just how badly their thought process has become one of indentured servitude to their political cause.

But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.
 
2012-02-23 11:55:22 AM

Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.

Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?

Nah, more along the lines of the partisan sheeplings here are so deep into mouthing talking points and are so stuffed with pseudo intellectual certitude they fail to recognize just how badly their thought process has become one of indentured servitude to their political cause.

But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.


www.jesseshunting.com
 
2012-02-23 11:55:35 AM


But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.


You should make this a consistent position. It really will work in your favor.
 
2012-02-23 11:55:45 AM

Cletus C.: Remember this little gem after the sotu speech? There was so much denial, rationalization and conspiracy nuttiness flying you'd think someone had accused the president of being foreign born.

Link (new window)


Here's the difference:

OBAMA: "Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households."

THE FACTS: It's true that a minority of millionaires pay a lower tax rate than some lower-income people. On average, though, wealthy people pay taxes at a much higher rate than middle-income taxpayers.

Obama's claim comes from a Congressional Research Service report that compared federal taxes paid by people making less than $100,000 with those paid by people making more than $1 million. About 10 percent of families with incomes under $100,000 paid more than 26.5 percent in federal income, payroll and corporate taxes. And about a quarter of millionaire taxpayers paid a rate lower than that.


Read that. It says that what he's saying is exactly correct, I don't even understand why it's here. It calls out that on average they pay a higher rate, but how is that the slightest bit nonobvious, especially considering that one would expect this to be the case as it's the core of our progressive tax system?

If someone says that they are taller than half of the population, do you really need a fact check telling you "well, yes, but they are the same size or shorter than the other half!" ?

My point is, at least in the fact checks I've seen, Obama fairs far better than these republican candidates have been fairing. The one exception might be Ron Paul, I haven't seen him come up too often in these things that I recall.
 
2012-02-23 12:00:11 PM
Nooo subby, the statements were right on the truthiness mark but deficient in truth. Look it up.
 
2012-02-23 12:07:23 PM
The one exception might be Ron Paul, I haven't seen him come up too often in these things that I recall.

Ron Paul is usually pretty accurate and does OK on factcheck.org

much less so on madoldcoot.org.
 
2012-02-23 12:08:53 PM

Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.

Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?

Nah, more along the lines of the partisan sheeplings here are so deep into mouthing talking points and are so stuffed with pseudo intellectual certitude they fail to recognize just how badly their thought process has become one of indentured servitude to their political cause.

But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.


Oooh, I would HATE for it to turn personal. P-p-pwease don't hurt my feelings!

/You could answer the farking question about how you can "fact check" a policy suggestion, but judging from your posts it's b-b-beyond your mental capacity.
 
2012-02-23 12:10:43 PM

Jake Havechek: Gingrich has made this misstatement many times before.

I'm sure we'll hear this a lot more. Serial adulterer Gingrich is a known pathological liar.


The only journalist I've seen flat out call Gingrich on his BS was Jorge Ramos over at Univision (new window). I submitted the link but alas, was not clever enough for a greenlight, apparently. It was lovely to see Newt squirm and spin in righteous indignation.
 
2012-02-23 12:16:16 PM

WayToBlue:

My point is, at least in the fact checks I've seen, Obama fairs far better than these republican candidates have been fairing. The one exception might be Ron Paul, I haven't seen him come up too often in these things that I recall.


I'm onboard with that.
 
2012-02-23 12:19:07 PM

indylaw: Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.

Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?

Nah, more along the lines of the partisan sheeplings here are so deep into mouthing talking points and are so stuffed with pseudo intellectual certitude they fail to recognize just how badly their thought process has become one of indentured servitude to their political cause.

But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.

Oooh, I would HATE for it to turn personal. P-p-pwease don't hurt my feelings!

/You could answer the farking question about how you can "fact check" a policy suggestion, but judging from your posts it's b-b-beyond your mental capacity.


Other than a complete failure to understand each other, I think we could be good friends.
 
2012-02-23 12:23:00 PM

Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: indylaw: Cletus C.: OK, OK, if I say you've proven my original point you'll probably call me a poopy pants. So I say nothing.

Was your point that you don't like it when other people point out that you are an imbecile and obviously wrong, and therefore Democrats are b-b-bad?

Nah, more along the lines of the partisan sheeplings here are so deep into mouthing talking points and are so stuffed with pseudo intellectual certitude they fail to recognize just how badly their thought process has become one of indentured servitude to their political cause.

But it's best to lay low right now before it turns personal.

Oooh, I would HATE for it to turn personal. P-p-pwease don't hurt my feelings!

/You could answer the farking question about how you can "fact check" a policy suggestion, but judging from your posts it's b-b-beyond your mental capacity.

Other than a complete failure to understand each other, I think we could be good friends.


How is a disagreement with the wisdom of a policy proposal like a refutation of a factual statement?
 
2012-02-23 12:33:03 PM

indylaw: How is a disagreement with the wisdom of a policy proposal like a refutation of a factual statement?


Liberal Opinions:
-burning fossil fuels adds to global warming
-people in the US don't live as long as other G-20 countries
-the world is more than 6,000 years old

GOP Facts:
-Fartbongo is destroying the country
-tax cuts create jobs
-the civil war wasn't about slavery
 
2012-02-23 01:00:49 PM
am I missing something in the article's headline?


FACT CHECK: Errant claims on auto bailout, taxes

Errant:

1: traveling or given to traveling

2a : straying outside the proper path or bounds
b : moving about aimlessly or irregularly
c : behaving wrongly

Not really seeing a fit anywhere. Maybe c, but wouldn't erroneous be a little more better?

Or "false"?
 
2012-02-23 01:04:25 PM

I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: BeesNuts: SixPaperJoint: Sock Ruh Tease: fatimcgee: Jake Havechek: Gingrich has made this misstatement many times before.

I'm sure we'll hear this a lot more. Serial adulterer Gingrich is a known pathological liar.

If he repeats it enough, it'll become truthy...right?

Are you saying that the great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one?

I read this last part in Leonard Nimoy's voice. I need a life.

Who's got the pig iron?

Dorfs.
[dwarffortresswiki.org image 640x686]

/What for defending your dorfs with.

+1

/Playing DF right now, kicks have been gotten, etc.


Enjoying the new update? I'm still reading through the bug fix (new window) record. Because I find that just as fun as the game itself.

I mean, any game that can have bug reports like:
"A dwarf in my fortress entered a fell mood, and claimed a tannery. He murdered a nearby victim. However, the dead dwarf's clothing was not forbidden, despite the "forbid your death items" order having been enacted."
or
"While testing stuck-ins with a possessed giant in the arena, I started playing around with wrestling. Dwarf tossing is fairly fun, but I've noticed on occasion that I throw the dwarf into myself, knocking me prone. Doesn't really seem intended."

Has to be good, right?
 
2012-02-23 02:06:49 PM

Tigger: Thrag: It would have been easier to list the truthful statements.

I'm still laughing at "Syria is Iran's route to the sea".

That's just absolutely awesome in its ignorance. Maybe when the say they are going to close the strait of Hormuz it's by dragging Syria over and pushing it in the water?


A quick google search found a msnbc interview from Dec. where Romney also says it. It seems not only does be believe it, nobody has bothered to correct him yet. (around 3:48)

Amazing.
 
2012-02-23 02:56:51 PM

John the Magnificent: am I missing something in the article's headline?


FACT CHECK: Errant claims on auto bailout, taxes

Errant:

1: traveling or given to traveling

2a : straying outside the proper path or bounds
b : moving about aimlessly or irregularly
c : behaving wrongly

Not really seeing a fit anywhere. Maybe c, but wouldn't erroneous be a little more better?

Or "false"?


Well your post is errant.

/good call
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report