Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Fact checking the "Fact Checkers"
Topic Started: Sep 1 2012, 08:06 AM (1,122 Views)
kbp

duke09parent
 
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

Quote:
 
  • 4. Romney added, "[T]his president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office."

    Of course he can. I'm not sure who Romney is referring to you with "you," but for Americans, economic growth, job creation, the stock market, the auto industry, the deficit, and the manufacturing sector are all better off now than in January 2009.


No links sourcing herself or any others here.

Economic growth has not kept up with the growth rate of our currency. It's an illusion.

The job creation has not created the number of employed workers equal to when he took office, nor does it keep up with the population growth.

The rise in the stock market prices is like commodities; the more dollars you circulate, the more devaluation that dollars suffers, so the price of what you purchase goes up.

Our auto industry has done a little better, but not well enough to repay their loans, nor well enough to offset the costs of the tax credits and free mony spent on "Cash For Clunkers." We must still pay for that "better off."

I have no clue WTH she included the deficit for. The only thing I can think of is she is trying to blame all of the first year budget deficit on the Bush Administration, but we'd be back to both the budget increase and Stimilus Barry signed for to be added to the spending list for that first fiscal year.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

duke09parent
 
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

Quote:
 
  • 5. Romney complained, "[G]asoline prices have doubled."

    To call this comically misleading would be an understatement.


Link from that article:The Maddow BLOG ...she's back to using herself as a source.

It's true that when President Obama took office, gas cost about $1.81 a gallon, roughly half of where it is now.

Evidently she does not want to prove it is not a fact, just argue it is the fault of somebody else ...and she does a weak job at that!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

duke09parent
 
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

Quote:
 
  • 6. Romney went on to claim, "Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."

    That's insane. The percentage of Americans in poverty is high, but it's been much higher many times.


Link from that article:

NONE

Just take her word on this one! :laughin:

...or not...

From the NYTimes:
  • WASHINGTON — Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

or

The Washington Post

Maybe she just confused "more Americans" with the "percentage of Americans" ...or she wanted to confuse the reader!
Edited by kbp, Sep 1 2012, 09:15 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I'll leave the next 24 to another day ...or maybe never. It's really making Maddow look foolish, IMO.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Excellent, kpb!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
Obama adviser treads carefully when asked whether Americans are better off

By Sean Sullivan , Updated: September 2, 2012

Asked repeatedly on Sunday whether the country is better off than it was four years ago, David Plouffe, a top adviser to President Obama, would not provide a direct yes or no answer. He responded that the nation has improved from the “depths of the recession” because of Obama’s leadership, but would not flatly say whether the country is better off or not.

Plouffe said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that, “I think the American people understand that we got into a terrible economic situation,” and “they know we had a deep hole.”

“Yes or no? Are Americans better off today then they were four years ago?” asked Stephanopoulos later in the interview.

“I think everybody understands we were this close to a great depression. Because of the leadership of this president, we staved that off. We are beginning to recover. We have a lot more work to do,” responded Plouffe.

“We have clearly improved form the depths of the recession,” Plouffe also said. “The question for the American people is which path are we going to take,” he added.

Other prominent Democrats were posed with the same question on Sunday.

“Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?” CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked Democratic Governors Association Chairman Martin O’Malley on “Face The Nation.”

“No, but that’s not the question of this election,” O’Malley said. “The question, without a doubt, we are not as well as we were off before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits.”

Plouffe also said that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign is built “on a tripod of lies” which he said comprised of a “welfare attack that is just absolutely untrue, the suggestion that we are raiding Medicare, absolutely untrue, and then this whole ‘we can’t build it’ nonsense.”

Asked about Clint Eastwood’s attention-grabbing Republican convention speech, Plouffe praised the actor/director’s career work and added, ”the Romney campaign would probably not, three days after their convention, [prefer] still having questions being raised about Clint Eastwood.”


Hellllllllllllo

Where are the fact checkers now?

All they have to do is check the links I provided in this thread!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Why the Fact-Checkosphere is failing: So, as I understand it, this year the MSM will righteously strike back against “Post-Truth Politics” through rigorous fact-checking, followed by a manly, non-balanced, yet authoritative calling out of transgressors for the liars that they are.  James Fallows and Jay Rosen, among others, have heralded this great new day. One problem, of course, is the ease–rather, the constant temptation–of presenting debatable policy issues as right/wrong fact issues, a problem emphasized by dissenter Ben Smith yesterday. Another is the way what Smith calls “the new pseudo science of fact-checks” opens up a giant sluice for the introduction of concealed bias, especially when “facts” are fed to the fact-checkers by the competing campaigns.

But a simpler problem is that the MSM’s fact-checkers often don’t know what they’re talking about.   For example,  the oft-cited CNN-”fact check” of Romney’s welfare ad makes a big deal of HHS secretary Sebelius’ pledge that she will only grant waivers to states that “commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work.” CNN swallows this 20% Rule whole in the course of declaring Romney’s objection “wrong”:

The waivers gave “those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.”

Why, it looks as if Obama wants to make the work provisions tougher! Fact-check.org cites the same 20% rule.

I was initially skeptical of Sebelius’ 20% pledge, since a) it measures the 20% against “the state’s past performance,” not what the state’s performance would be if it actually tried to comply with the welfare law’s requirements as written, and b) Sebelius pulled it out of thin air only after it became clear that the new waiver rule could be a political problem for the president. She could just as easily drop it in the future.

But Robert Rector, a welfare reform zealot who nevertheless does know what he’s talking about, has now published a longer analysis of the 20% rule. Turns out it’s not as big a scam as I’d thought it was. It’s a much bigger scam. For one thing, anything states do to increase the number of people on welfare will automatically increase the “exit” rate–what the 20% rule measures–since the more people going on welfare, the more people leave welfare for jobs in the natural course of things, without the state’s welfare bureaucrats doing anything at all.  Raise caseloads by 20% and Sebelius’ standard will probably be met. (Maybe raise caseloads 30% just to be sure.) So what looks like a tough get-to-work incentive is actually a paleoliberal “first-get-on-welfare” incentive. But the point of welfare reform isn’t to get more people onto welfare.

It’s understandable that MSM reporters and non-profit checkers–some of whom may have been given only a few hours to get to the bottom of a subject they’ve never written about before–would easily fall for a bit of bureaucratic fakery. Do they have to be so self-righteous about it?

Update: Defending Obama’s waivers on Meet the Press today, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel relies heavily on the bogus “20%” requirement. [Relevant clip is about 10:56 in]. … You have to suspect that what Rahm really thinks is: “Why am I talking about welfare? This #&*!$)! would never have made it out of HHS if I was still in the White House.” …



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/credulous-fact-checkers-fall-for-20-scam/#ixzz25Plbf0Qc
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Joan Foster
Sep 3 2012, 08:52 AM
Why the Fact-Checkosphere is failing: So, as I understand it, this year the MSM will righteously strike back against “Post-Truth Politics” through rigorous fact-checking, followed by a manly, non-balanced, yet authoritative calling out of transgressors for the liars that they are.  James Fallows and Jay Rosen, among others, have heralded this great new day. One problem, of course, is the ease–rather, the constant temptation–of presenting debatable policy issues as right/wrong fact issues, a problem emphasized by dissenter Ben Smith yesterday. Another is the way what Smith calls “the new pseudo science of fact-checks” opens up a giant sluice for the introduction of concealed bias, especially when “facts” are fed to the fact-checkers by the competing campaigns.

But a simpler problem is that the MSM’s fact-checkers often don’t know what they’re talking about.   For example,  the oft-cited CNN-”fact check” of Romney’s welfare ad makes a big deal of HHS secretary Sebelius’ pledge that she will only grant waivers to states that “commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work.” CNN swallows this 20% Rule whole in the course of declaring Romney’s objection “wrong”:

The waivers gave “those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.”

Why, it looks as if Obama wants to make the work provisions tougher! Fact-check.org cites the same 20% rule.

I was initially skeptical of Sebelius’ 20% pledge, since a) it measures the 20% against “the state’s past performance,” not what the state’s performance would be if it actually tried to comply with the welfare law’s requirements as written, and b) Sebelius pulled it out of thin air only after it became clear that the new waiver rule could be a political problem for the president. She could just as easily drop it in the future.

But Robert Rector, a welfare reform zealot who nevertheless does know what he’s talking about, has now published a longer analysis of the 20% rule. Turns out it’s not as big a scam as I’d thought it was. It’s a much bigger scam. For one thing, anything states do to increase the number of people on welfare will automatically increase the “exit” rate–what the 20% rule measures–since the more people going on welfare, the more people leave welfare for jobs in the natural course of things, without the state’s welfare bureaucrats doing anything at all.  Raise caseloads by 20% and Sebelius’ standard will probably be met. (Maybe raise caseloads 30% just to be sure.) So what looks like a tough get-to-work incentive is actually a paleoliberal “first-get-on-welfare” incentive. But the point of welfare reform isn’t to get more people onto welfare.

It’s understandable that MSM reporters and non-profit checkers–some of whom may have been given only a few hours to get to the bottom of a subject they’ve never written about before–would easily fall for a bit of bureaucratic fakery. Do they have to be so self-righteous about it?

Update: Defending Obama’s waivers on Meet the Press today, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel relies heavily on the bogus “20%” requirement. [Relevant clip is about 10:56 in]. … You have to suspect that what Rahm really thinks is: “Why am I talking about welfare? This #&*!$)! would never have made it out of HHS if I was still in the White House.” …



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/credulous-fact-checkers-fall-for-20-scam/#ixzz25Plbf0Qc
I sure hope that Romney and team are following this and correct the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
in his speeches, in his commercials, in the debates, etc.

The ill-informed need to be called out on their mis-information.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Mike, we need to get the word out too...this isn't much different than the lies the kids faced coming from every direction. We need to get our little mowers out and just start cutting down the field of lies. NO big MSM tractors are going to do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
Sad when you need fact-checkers for your fact-checkers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Joan Foster
Sep 3 2012, 08:52 AM
Why the Fact-Checkosphere is failing: So, as I understand it, this year the MSM will righteously strike back against “Post-Truth Politics” through rigorous fact-checking, followed by a manly, non-balanced, yet authoritative calling out of transgressors for the liars that they are.  James Fallows and Jay Rosen, among others, have heralded this great new day. One problem, of course, is the ease–rather, the constant temptation–of presenting debatable policy issues as right/wrong fact issues, a problem emphasized by dissenter Ben Smith yesterday. Another is the way what Smith calls “the new pseudo science of fact-checks” opens up a giant sluice for the introduction of concealed bias, especially when “facts” are fed to the fact-checkers by the competing campaigns.

But a simpler problem is that the MSM’s fact-checkers often don’t know what they’re talking about.   For example,  the oft-cited CNN-”fact check” of Romney’s welfare ad makes a big deal of HHS secretary Sebelius’ pledge that she will only grant waivers to states that “commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work.” CNN swallows this 20% Rule whole in the course of declaring Romney’s objection “wrong”:

The waivers gave “those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.”

Why, it looks as if Obama wants to make the work provisions tougher! Fact-check.org cites the same 20% rule.

I was initially skeptical of Sebelius’ 20% pledge, since a) it measures the 20% against “the state’s past performance,” not what the state’s performance would be if it actually tried to comply with the welfare law’s requirements as written, and b) Sebelius pulled it out of thin air only after it became clear that the new waiver rule could be a political problem for the president. She could just as easily drop it in the future.

But Robert Rector, a welfare reform zealot who nevertheless does know what he’s talking about, has now published a longer analysis of the 20% rule. Turns out it’s not as big a scam as I’d thought it was. It’s a much bigger scam. For one thing, anything states do to increase the number of people on welfare will automatically increase the “exit” rate–what the 20% rule measures–since the more people going on welfare, the more people leave welfare for jobs in the natural course of things, without the state’s welfare bureaucrats doing anything at all.  Raise caseloads by 20% and Sebelius’ standard will probably be met. (Maybe raise caseloads 30% just to be sure.) So what looks like a tough get-to-work incentive is actually a paleoliberal “first-get-on-welfare” incentive. But the point of welfare reform isn’t to get more people onto welfare.

It’s understandable that MSM reporters and non-profit checkers–some of whom may have been given only a few hours to get to the bottom of a subject they’ve never written about before–would easily fall for a bit of bureaucratic fakery. Do they have to be so self-righteous about it?

Update: Defending Obama’s waivers on Meet the Press today, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel relies heavily on the bogus “20%” requirement. [Relevant clip is about 10:56 in]. … You have to suspect that what Rahm really thinks is: “Why am I talking about welfare? This #&*!$)! would never have made it out of HHS if I was still in the White House.” …



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/credulous-fact-checkers-fall-for-20-scam/#ixzz25Plbf0Qc
That 20% pledge line of BS from Sebelius is interesting, and how it would actually work is even more interesting, but...

It is NOT a part of Memorandum which grants the waivers.

I'd challenge Sebelius more on just how many UN-DOCUMENTED rules the HHS operates under, rather than to argue WTH her verbal pledge does to cover up the work waiver.

A work waiver simply waives the work - period. There is no math that changes whether or not someone is working.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster


Scott Walker on Janesville "lie. :elmer:

The reviews of Rep. Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech for the Republican vice presidential nomination are in, and it’s being cited as a success. Is there any wonder that the Obama campaign staffers and surrogates are in full-blown damage control mode, screaming that Paul was unfair in some of his criticisms of President Barack Obama?
You’ve likely all now heard about the General Motors plant in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wis. It’s closed — has been as long as Obama has been president.

“A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant,” Ryan said. “Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.”
When the Obama campaign heard that, they couldn’t yell “Liar!” loud enough. But the question remains, what exactly did Ryan say that’s not true? Did Obama say that? Yep — and there’s video to prove it. Did the plant shut down within the year? It did. Is it locked up and empty to this day? As anyone from Janesville knows, it certainly is.
So why is the Obama campaign so upset? Like so many things in this election, they don’t want to focus on how Obama’s promises have turned out. They want to blame somebody else for our problems. They are telling us the plant closed before Obama could put his policies in place. So we shouldn’t blame him for that.
But here’s where the Obama campaign’s argument goes off the rails — and here’s why Ryan’s speech scares them so much.
Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for closing that Wisconsin plant. As he said in his speech. “President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two.” Ryan said, “Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account.”
This election is not about what happened before Obama become president. It’s about his failure to make things better, and it is about where we are going in the future.
Obama didn’t close that factory — but he hasn’t re-opened it either. Despite telling the people of Janesville that was the plan. When GM announced in October 2008 that it would be halting production there, then-candidate Obama said, “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
Though Obama got his bailout, the people of Janesville are still waiting for that re-tooling. It’s that failure to accomplish the very goals he set out for himself that is the greatest indictment of Obama’s presidency.
The president has not brought prosperity back to Janesville.
“And that’s how it is in so many towns today,” Ryan said, “where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”
That’s a fact that no amount of spin or hysteria can change. And it’s a fact that seems to terrify the Obama campaign to its very core.
Gov. Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80546.html#ixzz25QY34HoC
Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 3 2012, 12:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Listen the MSM dfoesn't care about the facts. This poll proves it. Gallip & Rasmussen have Romeny up, but the NBC Poll has Obama up by 4 per cent

NBC/WSJ poll: Heading into conventions, Obama has four-point lead

After Mitt Romney selected his vice presidential running mate, and just days before the political conventions kick off next week, President Barack Obama maintains his advantage in the race for the White House, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

A Democratic ticket featuring Obama and Vice President Joe Biden gets support from 48 percent of registered voters, and a Republican ticket of Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan gets 44 percent.

These numbers are only slightly changed from July, when Obama led Romney by six points in the survey, 49 percent to 43 percent, suggesting a minimal bounce for Romney (if at all) after this month’s Ryan pick....snipped

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13399788-nbcwsj-poll-heading-into-conventions-obama-has-four-point-lead?lite


Why? They polled 11% more Democrats than Republicans. What Hogwash, even in the banner 2008 election the Demcorats voted 7% more than Republicans and now NBC has decided to raise that to 11%. Republicans have voted in that low of numbers since Watergate.

The majority of the MSM is in the tank for Obama.

Edited by Baldo, Sep 3 2012, 04:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

How convenient; the Walker column in a post immediately followed by the NBC poll.

Think back to the Walker Recall election. After the MSM had him losing in the polls, they then tried to hold on to the possible upset of Walker even after the voting booths had closed and the numbers were out. The "Baghdad Bob" Polling System!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

I always thought the WSJ was more sane than those poll stats suggest. 11% more democrats? I might be wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply