Honesty Ratings Obama vs. Romney

reply to post by Indigo5


So, you're telling me that Byrd was only pointing out that PolitiFacts used statistical and number statements only when they picked the ones for Ron Paul?

Talking about Romney lying, this is by far one of my favorite quotes:

"Today there are more men and women out of work in America than there are people working in Canada."

I'm sure that right before he said that, he told himself "ok, I need a large number...let's say it's more than everyone in Mexico...or Canada...mhhhh, what country should I pick?". He's off by more than 200%, but who cares about facts, right?

I think he was trying to copy Beck with his "10% of Muslims are terrorists" claim...which was equally as ridiculous as there aren't over 150m Muslim terrorists. The Pentagon is estimating that only around 50-100 Al Qaeda fighters are left in Afghanistan, yet somehow an additional 149,999,900 terrorists are somehow evading US forces. If the US really faced 150m terrorists, they'd be toast

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, you're telling me that Byrd was only pointing out that PolitiFacts used statistical and number statements only when they picked the ones for Ron Paul?

No, they checked the dates (you know...numbers) of when those statements were made

Look, I'm not sure what your problem is, he made those claims, and they showed the facts proving it. You might not like it, but they're facts nonetheless. Now the question is, do you accept facts, or will you display an enormous amount of ignorance and simply pretend those facts don't exist?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, you're telling me that Byrd was only pointing out that PolitiFacts used statistical and number statements only when they picked the ones for Ron Paul?

No offense but Byrd's post reads very clearly and plain to me.

He cites two examples (1) concerning RP making a statement involving statistics and explains how politifact researches those stats to see if the claim is true. AND (2) A claim by Romney accusing Newt of saying "Spanish is the language of the Ghetto"...where Byrd explains how politifact checks multiple sources and confirms that Newt did in fact make that statement.

What you did was say it was ridiculous that poltifact would research the Romney claim with statistics.

You conflated the two examples and called it ridiculous, while at the same time excluding the relevant parts of Byrds post from your qoutes...then jumped on me calling me dishonest when I provided the relevant part again to show you your "confusion".

Not sure how to help you from here...you seem beligerantly wed to your ignorance...Byrds post is pretty damn plain, maybe re-read it? He did not say that Politifact made a determination of the Romney Claim with stats.

reply to post by xuenchen


OK....Now look at Poltifact as related to your post...

Obama: On fundraising for super PACs

Obama campaign says officials will now appear at super PAC fundraisers

RATED: FULL FLOP

www.politifact.com...

But here is your problem...Poltifact is littered with great ammunition for the right-wing...as wella s the left...cuz they don't consider political bias when evaluating statements.

But if you are going to trust Politifact when they call out Obama on BS, then you must also acknowledge when they do the same for Romney.

And then you start to wonder who BSes more....and then you have my OP summing it up for you.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by Byrd

If you go to the site, you'll even see their records on Ron Paul. They listen to the debates, wait till a candidate says something about numbers and statistics ("87% of all Americans are on welfare!") and then they use many sources to see if this is true.

So, for example, Polifact looked up Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto..

That's funny, are you telling me that Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto is a numbers and statistics statement? That sounds more like a "race card" tactic from the Obama administration to me.

Nope.

It's a campaign statement. They evaluate that. In this case, Romney gets a 100% on the truth meter (but Gingrich would get a "pants on fire" for saying that Spanish is the language of the ghetto. In fact, ghettos in the US have many different languages.)

If you follow the links, you can see that
* Romney said Gingrich made this claim
* Gingrich did indeed make the claim
* No Democrats were involved. This was a Republican-on-Republican attack.

reply to post by Indigo5


You knew darn well what statement I was talking about and yet you chose to use sarcasm instead of just stating what it was that I misunderstood. The way it was written by Byrd made it sound like Byrd was stating that PolitiFacts focused on statistical and numbers statements and turned around and used a racial statement for an example. I was just pointing out the obvious.

But since you choose to be rude, I'll just dig up more of these little Nuggets on Obama and paste them on your thread just to keep you jumping, since you're so eager to!!

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen

 

OK....Now look at Poltifact as related to your post...

Obama: On fundraising for super PACs

Obama campaign says officials will now appear at super PAC fundraisers

RATED: FULL FLOP

www.politifact.com...

But here is your problem...Poltifact is littered with great ammunition for the right-wing...as wella s the left...cuz they don't consider political bias when evaluating statements.

But if you are going to trust Politifact when they call out Obama on BS, then you must also acknowledge when they do the same for Romney.

And then you start to wonder who BSes more....and then you have my OP summing it up for you.

That's funny, because that's not what my screen or link shows. It shows "Half True" on the original statement and on the article. Here's the article backing up the "Half True".

www.politifact.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


So, I guess my question now is, is this another question that was asked and answered twice?

Your article and mine aren't the same.

For those wondering about who the current "leaders" are on the Politifact "liars championship":

Michele Bachmann 31 out of 53 statements were false: LINK

Sarah Palin 28 out of 51 statements were false: LINK

Ron Paul 13 out of 36 statements were false (decent compared to the hacks above): LINK

Herman Cain (I LOOOOVE that guy!!) 16 out of 23 statements were false, and he didn't speak the full truth once: LINK

Newt Ginrich 36 out of 61 statements were false, but he only spoke the total truth 6 times: LINK

Before you say "but hey, you don't list any lefties!!"...here we go, I'll include some of the most hated ones:

Hillary Clinton 25 out of 87 statements were false: LINK

Dennis Kucinich 4 out of 23 statements were false: LINK

Alan Grayson 5 out of 18 statements were false: LINK

There's a pretty clear trend, the right seems to take it "easier" when it comes to speaking the truth...but both parties lie way more than they should. They are misleading the people, and media are sadly helping them

reply to post by MrXYZ


I think that one thing your list of politicians MAY have in common is that they all use "scare tactics" in their speeches. Or at least the statements where they're outrageously wrong are from pieces where they're attempting to build outrage in the minds of their listeners. (take a look at the "pants on fire" meter of popular political chain mails) It's one of the reasons why I prefer to read speeches rather than watch them. If they say things convincingly, then people believe them and don't run off to check the facts.

Bachmann appears to be someone who feels that she can make broad claims based on her "gut feeling."

They all do better on their facts when they're talking about positive things that they want to do. The minute they get into negative things, their truthmeters start flopping toward the "pants on fire" rating.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You knew darn well what statement I was talking about and yet you chose to use sarcasm instead of just stating what it was that I misunderstood. The way it was written by Byrd made it sound like Byrd was stating that PolitiFacts focused on statistical and numbers statements and turned around and used a racial statement for an example. I was just pointing out the obvious.

But since you choose to be rude, I'll just dig up more of these little Nuggets on Obama and paste them on your thread just to keep you jumping, since you're so eager to!!

I don't think it's going to bother us Obama supporters much -- we're already aware of that plus the promises kept (which they also track) and so forth.

It sounds like you haven't seen Politifact before -- it's a really good source for checking up on politicians. I always check them after the debates because the speakers always fling around facts like they're tossing candy in a Mardi Gras parade. So even though I might like the way someone addressed the crowd, I check on them at Politifact.

I particularly like that they keep up with the chain mail stuff. I have a friend who sends me these all the time, so I check them out... although I think what surprises me is when the chain mail statements turn out to be true!

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, I guess my question now is, is this another question that was asked and answered twice?

Your article and mine aren't the same.

The statements were made at different times. And in different speeches. Things change over time. Politifact checks them when they come out with statements -- so if they've said it more than once and in a different context, it's likely to be on Politifact more than once.

Here is by far the biggest lie Obama has ever told:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This alone should make any other truth he's told null and void, because it doesn't really matter after this point.

"A List Of All Obama Lies With Links…..You Can’t Make This Stuff Up"

redwhitebluenews.com...

Originally posted by Deetermined
Here is by far the biggest lie Obama has ever told:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This alone should make any other truth he's told null and void, because it doesn't really matter after this point.

"A List Of All Obama Lies With Links…..You Can’t Make This Stuff Up"

redwhitebluenews.com...

So you are simply going to ignore Politifact because facts inconvenience you?

That site you linked isn't only listing lies, it's also listing stuff he said that's 100% correct...but conservatives don't like it, so they paint it as a lie:

Then you’ve got their(GOP)which is dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance

The GOP wants to abolish the EPA, so the air and water would 100% get dirtier than with proper legislation in place...and they're against health care, so millions (!!!) of people would get less healthcare if Obamacare gets repealed.

In short, they are adding TRUTHS to their "liars list" just because the truth makes the GOP look like a bunch of unethical psychopaths

reply to post by MrXYZ


The website had links to the articles to back up their claims. Once someone takes the time to read the articles, if they don't agree that it backs up the claim, that's their choice to ignore it.

Regardless, the particular quote that I chose to post is true and no one can deny it.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

The website had links to the articles to back up their claims. Once someone takes the time to read the articles, if they don't agree that it backs up the claim, that's their choice to ignore it.

Regardless, the particular quote that I chose to post is true and no one can deny it.

Those "sources" are sites like obamalies.net for crying out loud

Here's the link "proving" that Obama lied when he said the GOP policies lead to a dirtier environment and less people on healthcare: LINK

If you actually bother reading the link, which you clearly haven't, you realize Obama was speaking the complete truth in this case

Politifact's sources on the other hand are solid if you bother checking them out.

In short: Logic isn't really on your side

Forget the link. Forget the article.

Read the statement that Obama made and let it stand on it's own merit....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Forget the link. Forget the article.

Read the statement that Obama made and let it stand on it's own merit....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Freedoms have been kicked in the balls ever since 911...where was your outrage when Bush was in power?

But yeah, that dreadful indefinite detention act has to go, and so does the "corporations are people" act (which Obama opposed btw).

So there you go, you can blame Obama for indefinite detentions...that's a legit complain. Just like Bush's Patriot Act would have been a legit complaint.

Doesn't change the FACT that every single one of the GOP candidates lies way more