reply to post by RELDDIR
I'm not sure what your definition of 'fact' is...but mine is pretty much limited to that which can be empirically defined/proven.
Which means opinions, while nice and meaningful, are not 'facts.'
Neither are singular anecdotal accounts of situations and events...give me both sides of a story, however, and I know that facts can be gleaned with
some measure of reason provided there is no taking of sides beforehand.
That makes the issue of bipartisan politics a particularly slippery slope...much like religion.
I am not aligned with any religion and I am neither a democrat or a republican or even a third party independent. I am simply an American.
So as far as the 'facts' that Clinton might have presented in his speech being a bit off, I was interested in what he said that you have found to be
inaccurate and hopefully give some reference to accurate information on the same subject.
Just because an article uses the words "Fact Check" in the title does not necessarily mean facts are provided or checked. I am well aware of the
issues and conflicts that have been told to us about the budget compromise that fell through and I know that Obama can be a bit heated and/or intense
at times. That all has to do with being human beings...we are all passionate about what we care about and we don't get along with everyone we have to
work with...and when two stubborn, or maybe I should say "dedicated," individuals come together to try to work something out, it isn't always
smooth and it isn't always successful. No one can say it was all Obama's fault nor can we accuse Boehner of being the reason things didn't go as
planned. They both obviously had strong feelings about something they believed to be very important. I feel it could have been handled more
productively but then we are talking about two men who are invested in what they are doing. Two women would have worked it out, imo.
But none of that is what I would call 'facts.' The facts that Bill did include in his speech were all things that I had already looked into,
myself...not in order to justify Obama...since I have yet to actually cast a vote as a registered voter in my whole life, I have nothing to
justify...but just wanting to know what the truth actually is in the face of the increasingly hostile conflicting argument between the parties.
Basically I was wanting to know why Obama is so despised. And so I know that Bill was not misrepresenting at all.
According to the transcript of Bill's speech last night, available
But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, two full years before the election,
their number-one priority was not to put America back to work. It was to put the president out of work.
If the Senate Republican leader (and they know who they are, I'm sure) did NOT make that comment, then Bill is at risk of being sued for defamation
of character and/or libel-slander. I don't think Bill is dumb.
And as far as his dishonesty in the past...yes we all know that the House impeached him but the Senate acquitted him...and it is very likely Bill
learned a lot from that experience...mainly about how your words can come back and bite you in the butt if you aren't mindful of what you say and
whom you say it to. In other words...he got caught in a lie...in front of the whole world. I do not think he will let that happen again.
And the main thing is that Bill isn't a hater...it is the haters that skew the facts and devote so much time to spreading the distortion...if Bill
had been all about bashing the other side, then I'd have not cared what he said because I would not have trusted it to be free of emotional bias. And
I know he was probably the last person most of us ever expected to see nominating Obama for 2012...we all know why.
I see no reason not to give his speech the benefit of the doubt when it comes to fairness and accuracy.
And your second link to the voters' opinions about the speech only reinforce my confidence in that, rather than undermine it or bring what Bill said