The Morning After: And Then The Fact-Checking Began

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Jeremiah65

 

I am fully aware of the plundering. Which is why I support an effort to, at the very least, partially privatize social security. My account, my money, hands off!!.... It worked with great success in Chile...

On that we can agree. It should never have been allowed to begin with. Ronald Reagan is such a wonderful poster child now to the Repubs for the "wonderful" things he did. It was him, in an effort to balance the budget and not raise taxes, that started the pilfering of the people's money. He suggested it, the other thieves (aka Congress) agreed and the stage was set. Sooo many times this little snippet of the national debt and deficit is forgotten or intentionally excluded from "the facts". The "debt" to social security is often portrayed as being totally unsustainable for paying out but a large portion of the debt is money the Gov "borrowed"...will we see it paid off? I seriously doubt it. They are hoping generations down the line will forget that the social security "deficit" is money the Gov stole.

I dislike both parties. Neither one has represented the largest part of the population for years....extremists...all of them. Most people are not extremists...most are centrist...or a little center left or a little center right. The extremists do not represent us as a people worth a crap.

I have been paying into Social Security for over 30 years. I would like to imagine I'll get some of that money back. If they choose to privatize it....then send me a check for what I paid in...I'll invest it myself thank you very much.

reply to post by Catacomb


Apparently not according to Automatic who posted above you. Romney, it seems, has teams of truth squaders who ensure that only the most pure, untwisted of truth emits from his mouth.

Same as it ever was....Obama supporters are still going to vote for him and Romney supporters are still going to vote for him (though they might have a little more spring in their step today). I don't think there is many "undecided" voters as the MSM (left and right) liars want people to believe there is.

I'm pretty sure when the dog and pony show of "fact checking" is done...people from both parties will be having a rather unpalatable dinner




My choice is clear:

Wonder if Obama took his Plan B One-Step pill this morning... I hear they are going to be free and can help take the pain of bad decisions away.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
I have seen and heard of these "fact-checkers" and have to laugh. Why? Because if you think that Romney doesn't have a team of his own "fact-checkers" who give him things to say that haven't been checked, double checked, re-checked, because they know that at this level of the game anything he says will be analyzed, checked, re-checked and torn apart then you are extremely naive. They know EXACTLY what they are doing...and for people to try to "fact-check" things he said at the debate is quite humorous and redundant to the point of ludicrousness. Common sense people...

Oh ok, so lets just take everything he says as gospel then. His fact checkers already made sure he won't make a fool of himself on national television right? No thanks, as has been proven a lot of the information he used to "win" the debate was incorrect. Maybe his fact checkers aren't very good?

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
I have seen and heard of these "fact-checkers" and have to laugh. Why? Because if you think that Romney doesn't have a team of his own "fact-checkers" who give him things to say that haven't been checked, double checked, re-checked, because they know that at this level of the game anything he says will be analyzed, checked, re-checked and torn apart then you are extremely naive. They know EXACTLY what they are doing...and for people to try to "fact-check" things he said at the debate is quite humorous and redundant to the point of ludicrousness. Common sense people...

Oh ok, so lets just take everything he says as gospel then. His fact checkers already made sure he won't make a fool of himself on national television right? No thanks, as has been proven a lot of the information he used to "win" the debate was incorrect. Maybe his fact checkers aren't very good?

No I'm not saying that everything Romney said was "gospel"...but don't you think that he does indeed have many, many people behind the scenes, his own personal analysts, script writers, fact-checkers, and people who have meetings, make lists, and make sure that everything he brings up has merit? Of course politicians are not stupid enough to just blatantly go out before the world stage and spew a bunch of random uncheckable false facts. Everything they talk about has been strategically thought up, mulled over, talk-pointed to death in meetings behind the scenes...so if he did have his facts wrong or skewed then it's because of his "teams". Make sense? Don't think for a minute that these guys don't have tons of behind the scenes people doing just that.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
I have seen and heard of these "fact-checkers" and have to laugh. Why? Because if you think that Romney doesn't have a team of his own "fact-checkers" who give him things to say that haven't been checked, double checked, re-checked, because they know that at this level of the game anything he says will be analyzed, checked, re-checked and torn apart then you are extremely naive. They know EXACTLY what they are doing...and for people to try to "fact-check" things he said at the debate is quite humorous and redundant to the point of ludicrousness. Common sense people...

Oh ok, so lets just take everything he says as gospel then. His fact checkers already made sure he won't make a fool of himself on national television right? No thanks, as has been proven a lot of the information he used to "win" the debate was incorrect. Maybe his fact checkers aren't very good?

Get your point, I'm sure both sides of the fence do have an army of people putting their points together for them. We still need to be vigilant on the information that is given to us. I don't trust either of these guys as far as I can throw them to be honest.
No I'm not saying that everything Romney said was "gospel"...but don't you think that he does indeed have many, many people behind the scenes, his own personal analysts, script writers, fact-checkers, and people who have meetings, make lists, and make sure that everything he brings up has merit? Of course politicians are not stupid enough to just blatantly go out before the world stage and spew a bunch of random uncheckable false facts. Everything they talk about has been strategically thought up, mulled over, talk-pointed to death in meetings behind the scenes...so if he did have his facts wrong or skewed then it's because of his "teams". Make sense? Don't think for a minute that these guys don't have tons of behind the scenes people doing just that.

edit on 4-10-2012 by AutOmatIc because: random

Originally posted by Procession101

Get your point, I'm sure both sides of the fence do have an army of people putting their points together for them. We still need to be vigilant on the information that is given to us. I don't trust either of these guys as far as I can throw them to be honest.

I don't "trust" politicians either myself, however I do not believe that either of their behind the scenes people would purposely give them verifiable false and untrue facts to spew at a worldwide televised debate. Seriously. Think for a second, why in the world would Romney's or Obama's people give them a list of lies to regurgitate...especially when everybody is listening, and watching and some will most likely and have checked their facts to make sure they are correct? This goes for all sides of the campaigns, these people are not that stupid. As I said before, they all know exactly what they are doing, and saying.

Forgive me, but I don't care much about the fact checking in this case.

Obama had every possible edge; incumbency, friendly media, the world's greatest collection of facts and analysts, days in a resort to tone up, in short anything he wanted was his for the taking.

But the Commander-in-chief was AWOL. Clint Eastwood was right, Romney was debating an empty chair. The one glaring fact about this debate was that Obama, as a President, doesn't exist.

Independents are deciding for Romney in the polls after the debate, because there was only one President on the stage, and it wasn't the incumbent.

Obama could have had every fact right, he could have been reading from the Bible, but it wouldn't have mattered. The "fact-checks" will fill the air with their 30-second commercials, along with all the other commercials, but now the American people know who the leader is.

20-25% of the people polled thought Obama won. Sadly, nothing can be done for them. But for the rest of the country . . .

reply to post by Jeremiah65


This is exactly what is wrong with centralized Statist control. Govt is drunk driving. Indeed some members of Congress do appear to be drunk on the floor sometimes.

reply to post by charles1952


Yea that charismatic attitude of his will definitely pick us up out of the gutter, all it takes is a can do attitude!

and three more wars.

reply to post by jtma508


The attack on PBS and Sesame street was absurd. Do neocons and the dimmer GOP base really get that worked up about the fraction of a fraction that people actually enjoy? You could cut a thousand similar american institutions and lose thousands of jobs and end programming that is a staple of American culture... or make one cut to military spending and be done cutting for the year.

Tell me.. why would he even mention this? Why bring up such a thing? To look all business?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jtma508

 

The attack on PBS and Sesame street was absurd. Do neocons and the dimmer GOP base really get that worked up about the fraction of a fraction that people actually enjoy? You could cut a thousand similar american institutions and lose thousands of jobs and end programming that is a staple of American culture... or make one cut to military spending and be done cutting for the year.

Tell me.. why would he even mention this? Why bring up such a thing? To look all business?

PBS is the only f-ing thing that hasn't been corporatized

PBS exposes America to master works and some of the best art the world has to offer.

It is truly dumbfounding, without PBS America has sterilized entertainment

reply to post by campanionator


I meant fraction of a fraction of percent of budget (not fraction of a fraction of people). I agree and support pbs.

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jtma508

 

The attack on PBS and Sesame street was absurd. Do neocons and the dimmer GOP base really get that worked up about the fraction of a fraction that people actually enjoy? You could cut a thousand similar american institutions and lose thousands of jobs and end programming that is a staple of American culture... or make one cut to military spending and be done cutting for the year.

Tell me.. why would he even mention this? Why bring up such a thing? To look all business?

PBS is the only f-ing thing that hasn't been corporatized

PBS exposes America to master works and some of the best art the world has to offer.

It is truly dumbfounding, without PBS America has sterilized entertainment

Are we watching the same PBS?

I honestly do watch some amount of PBS programming, maybe on the order of 6-8 hours a week. It's pretty hard to argue that the bulk of PBS programming is noticeably substandard to the hundreds of commercial channels available.

30 years ago when there were only a half dozen Network and local stations available on analog television, PBS with its emphasis on arts and education was necessary. The networks of the 70's would have never touched the likes of Cosmos or Nova however contemporary programming has become far more diverse, there are entire channels dedicated to subjects that PBS only brushes on a couple of times a month.

This debate has been going on since the mid 1990's. I thought it was a bad idea at the time but I am starting to see PBS as another example of flawed federal spending priorities paying for another substandard service.

Contrast PBS with the BBC, how does the BBC manage to stay relevant, intelligent and entertaining while PBS only broadcasts less and less original programming while the production quality becomes more sporadic?

What does PBS uniquely provide that makes it worth continued funding with public money time? PBS seems to have become one of those institutions made socially untouchable by political correctness.

I believe those of you who continue to unquestioningly support PBS funding would be hard pressed to give very many examples of relevant programming not provided by the commercial networks in a superior format.

That is just my opinion but it is something to think about.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
It doesn't matter which one wins, America loses, period.

Neither of them cares about the little guy.

And USA is the little guy.

Started to watch the show but after 10 seconds I asked myself what I was doing.
If there were to be anything new and ground-shattering I'd hear about it later.
So I switched the channel. To some other stupid TV nonsense...
Later I heard Rmoney had talked about how he wouldn't cut taxes for the rich and what not...
Didn't miss anything.

US debt - 16 trillion now. US total debt - 58,4 trillion. US deficit - 1,28 trillion.
Cut military spendings with 500 billion.
Cut social spendings with 280 billion.
Increse taxes worth 500 billion (for those who can pay).
DO IT NOW!

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


‎"Cutting PBS support (0.012%) to help balance the federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500G hard drive." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by tkwasny

 

I did look through them and can post you other sites where the numbers are in the exact opposite direction in every case.

Then do it.

Less talk, more action.

I wish Obama had said this to Romney in that debate.

I really don't get it, what drug is the US population taking?

Romney did NOT win the debate, he gave vague responses, telling people what they wanted to hear, and not telling people HOW he would do anything!

Vote for me, I'll invent unicorns that s**t skittles and turn off gravity for three hours every Thursday! Don't ask me how, just vote for me and I'll do it!

I am no Obama fan, but this is just insane! Romney stands on a podium and says he'll create jobs, America starts chanting USA! USA! USA! and that's it, debate won?!

Man, I'm rally starting to think the average American really should be under the 24 hour care of a nurse. Too many facts and their brains turn to mush, but look good and tell them what they want to hear and you're the next President.

reply to post by AutOmatIc


I agree that both camps have tons of people behind the scenes helping them craft their words.

But I disagree about the fact checkers....they may have a few real fact checkers....the rest of the folks are "fact spinners"

Slick PR and Ad types who know how to take a "fact" and skew it just enough to make it appear concrete when in reality it is off base.

We call it "fudging" the numbers, or "fudging the truth".

Statistics get manipulated that way.....it all depends on how people frame the numbers within the sentences, and how vague they are in their wording.

Example: 34% of Americans live in poverty.

Really? Okay.....by what definition of poverty? Do you mean below the poverty line? Or do you mean by some other arbitrary measurement of poverty? How exactly did we get to that figure? Where did the number come from?

Nowadays debates are about who comes off looking "strongest" it's really a verbal fight....so in that sense, every word is crafted, every "fact " is pulled that gives the apperance of the speaker looking in command of his thoughts, "facts" and physical apperance.

Lots of wordsmithing is involved.....lots of stragetic PR is involved.....image is everything in a debate......substance is not neccessary when people are just looking for which candidate comes off the strongest and most in command.

I'd argue that Romney looked not so in command.....he kept getting all emotional and worked up and interrupting which IMO doesn't seem like a guy who is in command, rather a guy that is trying way too hard.

But I can't fault him for that......he has wanted that job forever. It's so close he can almost taste it this time.

It's shady stuff, all the way around, and ALL politicians do it....nature of the beast sadly.