Example of PolitiFact (and rdean) being wrong

[francoHFW]

so Pubs are FOS again...stunning.

 

[rdean]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

 

[edthecynic]

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

Hey genius, Bush wasn't even president in 2000, so if you can give Bush credit for ships ordered before he was ever in Washington, then Obama gets credit for being president when the ships came on line.

But no matter how you slice it, Mittens was STILL "pants on fire" lying!!!

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

I'd like to see numbers from '92- 2000, or even better contracts to build ships for the last 20 years.

 

[Amelia]

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

Pants on fire to take the word of the Secretary of the Navy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

They had 37 battleships, 33 cruisers, 66 destroyers, 17 frigates, and 44 submarines.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

I'd like to see numbers from '92- 2000, or even better contracts to build ships for the last 20 years.

Here are the numbers all the way back to 1886.

US Ship Force Levels

 

[edthecynic]

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

Let me guess, you want to give Obama credit for destroyers ordered under Bush before Obama was even a Senator?

Hey genius, Bush wasn't even president in 2000, so if you can give Bush credit for ships ordered before he was ever in Washington, then Obama gets credit for being president when the ships came on line.

But no matter how you slice it, Mittens was STILL "pants on fire" lying!!!

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why am I not surprised that they can look at what they agree is a technically factual statement, and call it 'Pants On Fire' anyway.

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

We had 278 in 2007, so Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Obama is building up the fleet Bush reduced to dangerous levels. The GOP is weak on national defense.

Hey Reagan worshippers.........check this........

Reagan plan

It was against this backdrop in 1980 that the United States began an election year. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, ran the presidential race on a platform that included improving the armed services, which appealed to then-current American fears regarding Soviet military power.[citation needed] He continued this in 1984, releasing a campaign commercial, A bear in the woods, which played on the use of the bear as a national symbol of Russia, asked the rhetorical question, "Isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear?"

Under the programs put forth by Reagan,[citation needed] the overseas strategic retaliation arm was strengthened and the development of new weaponry like the B-1B bomber, the Bradley fighting vehicle, and the Abrams tank was completed and they were put into production.

600-ship Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey genius, Bush wasn't even president in 2000, so if you can give Bush credit for ships ordered before he was ever in Washington, then Obama gets credit for being president when the ships came on line.

But no matter how you slice it, Mittens was STILL "pants on fire" lying!!!

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

That is one explanation. I would point out the fact that this post by Conservative 19 at 9:28 shows me saying Clinton/Bush, and your post was made at 9:36. Does it always take you that long to reply to a post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4709029-post19.html

 

[edthecynic]

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

Pants on fire to take the word of the Secretary of the Navy?

I didn't take the word of the Secretary of the Navy, and I looked it up myself. I would expect a potential president to be at least intelligent enough to figure things out for himself, as I am capable of doing, especially if he is going to attack someone with the false intel. If we had a president intelligent enough to tell phony intel in the previous administration, we wouldn't be bankrupt now!!! So the last thing we need is another president as stupid and gullible as Bush was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

Pants on fire to take the word of the Secretary of the Navy?

I didn't take the word of the Secretary of the Navy, and I looked it up myself. I would expect a potential president to be at least intelligent enough to figure things out for himself, as I am capable of doing, especially if he is going to attack someone with the false intel. If we had a president intelligent enough to tell phony intel in the previous administration, we wouldn't be bankrupt now!!! So the last thing we need is another president as stupid and gullible as Bush was.

Funny how you hold Mitt to a higher standard than Obama.

Actually, it isn't.

 

[Chris]

How many aircraft carriers did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear submarines did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear weapons did the Navy have in 1917? 0

Politifact was right.

Mittens is an idiot.

 

[edthecynic]

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

That is one explanation. I would point out the fact that this post by Conservative 19 at 9:28 shows me saying Clinton/Bush, and your post was made at 9:36. Does it always take you that long to reply to a post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4709029-post19.html

Obviously it can, my phone rang while I was answering your post. Excuse me for having a life. Are you DENYING that you ADDED Clinton when you edited your post rather than me editing Clinton out as you falsely claimed??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many aircraft carriers did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear submarines did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear weapons did the Navy have in 1917? 0

Politifact was right.

Mittens is an idiot.

Your idiocy is showing again? Did you ever answer my question about the Bush tax cuts for working Americans?

 

[Chris]

How many aircraft carriers did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear submarines did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear weapons did the Navy have in 1917? 0

Politifact was right.

Mittens is an idiot.

Your idiocy is showing again? Did you ever answer my question about the Bush tax cuts for working Americans?

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, said Reagan's tax cuts were a "Trojan Horse" to cut taxes for the rich.

Same as Bush's tax cuts...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

That is one explanation. I would point out the fact that this post by Conservative 19 at 9:28 shows me saying Clinton/Bush, and your post was made at 9:36. Does it always take you that long to reply to a post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4709029-post19.html

Obviously it can, my phone rang while I was answering your post. Excuse me for having a life. Are you DENYING that you ADDED Clinton when you edited your post rather than me editing Clinton out as you falsely claimed??

As soon as you admit that Politifact was wrong.

I still see no evidence that you did not edit the post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many aircraft carriers did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear submarines did the Navy have in 1917? 0

How many nuclear weapons did the Navy have in 1917? 0

Politifact was right.

Mittens is an idiot.

Your idiocy is showing again? Did you ever answer my question about the Bush tax cuts for working Americans?

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, said Reagan's tax cuts were a "Trojan Horse" to cut taxes for the rich.

Same as Bush's tax cuts...

Did they work?

 

[Chris]

Your idiocy is showing again? Did you ever answer my question about the Bush tax cuts for working Americans?

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, said Reagan's tax cuts were a "Trojan Horse" to cut taxes for the rich.

Same as Bush's tax cuts...

Did they work?

Bush started two unfunded wars, a trillion dollar Medicare drug program, and then cut taxes for the rich.

All that did was create a huge deficit.

Clinton cut the military budget and raised taxes on the rich and balanced the budget.

Which works better?