Fact checking the Fox debate

[Synthaholic]

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” — Gingrich
​

We have examined this issue before, giving Gingrich a Pinocchio for this statement.
This is an example of taking a fact — an all-time high for food stamp recipients — and taking it out of context. The president is struggling with the aftermath of an economic situation he inherited, while building on food stamp changes that preceded his tenure.

in others words I am the high and mighty fact checker, I no longer render a verdict ala does 2 + 2 = 4, I now say it can be 5, if you just let me explain why...

I no longer check if the statement is true, I check it vs. my ideological reasoning, so as to craft an EXCUSE for the undeniably empirically proven stated comment.

This fact checking blow out has become a rogues game, I don't care who is doing it.

the reason FOR a condition or fact being addressed is part of the DEBATE between people and themselves, we don't need a site unless they advertise as such, to make arguments in mitigation as the how and why the 'fact' is incorrect/correct, that's not objective, see how that works? ..........no wonder you're lost here 90% of the time.

In other words, you don't believe in facts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” — Gingrich
​

We have examined this issue before, giving Gingrich a Pinocchio for this statement.
This is an example of taking a fact — an all-time high for food stamp recipients — and taking it out of context. The president is struggling with the aftermath of an economic situation he inherited, while building on food stamp changes that preceded his tenure.

So it's 100% true, but the leftist press figures they can spin it.

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

A 100% factual statement.

 

[hortysir]

Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina - The Washington Post

Somehow I kew it wouldn't be TDM doing the actual "fact-checking".
Instead she relied on a rag like the Post

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” — Gingrich
​

We have examined this issue before, giving Gingrich a Pinocchio for this statement.
This is an example of taking a fact — an all-time high for food stamp recipients — and taking it out of context. The president is struggling with the aftermath of an economic situation he inherited, while building on food stamp changes that preceded his tenure.

And here comes her lap-dog walking lock-step saying that, although it is TRUE, it's a Lie

“The most extraordinary thing that’s happened with this military authorization is the president’s planning on cutting a trillion dollars out of military spending.”​

— Romney



Romney failed to mention that this figure is the result of a budget deal reached with Republican leaders — and that Obama has said he will seek to achieve the required deficit reduction though other means (ie. higher taxes).

Regardless of how it was reached, it is a fact.

“We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet.”​

— Romney



This is a strange comment, given that President Obama has just spent several months demanding that Congress pass his jobs plan.

Like they jumped at his last requaest for a budget?

“I was also proud of the fact that we balanced the budget every year I was in office. We reduced taxes 19 times.”​

— Romney



Somehow, he always fails to mention that, in order to balance the budget, he created hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new fees and closed as much as $1.5 billion worth of corporate tax loopholes.

Another case of a Fact being called a Lie

 

[Caroljo]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

So what is so great about his Jobs plan? What i've read about, i'm pretty glad it was blocked because it doesn't sound like Obama really thought this through very well. Or he did and he's just hoping nobody notices until it's over. I'm glad there's someone watching out for us....Congress is doing what we asked them to do, keep Obama from screwing us more!

What Do You Call a Jobs Bill That Begets No Jobs?: Caroline Baum - Bloomberg

It was a bunch of initiatives that Republicans have always supported. Note the word 'always'.

But not now, because that might help Obama. Pathetic. And people will be reminded of this big time, right before the election.

I don't think so.....what i understand of what is in that bill, it "sounds" nice, but the Republicans could see what it would ACTUALLY end up doing to us and stopped it. Good for them! That's what we put them in there for.....

 

[hortysir]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

Link?
(besides the Post)

 

[Synthaholic]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

So what is so great about his Jobs plan? What i've read about, i'm pretty glad it was blocked because it doesn't sound like Obama really thought this through very well. Or he did and he's just hoping nobody notices until it's over. I'm glad there's someone watching out for us....Congress is doing what we asked them to do, keep Obama from screwing us more!

What Do You Call a Jobs Bill That Begets No Jobs?: Caroline Baum - Bloomberg

Whoa..this guy went from "Does he have a jobs bill?" to "Whats so special about his jobs bill?" in 3.5 seconds. Thats a backpeddle world record

Good catch!

 

[Synthaholic]

HIS jobs plan? Does he actually have one? If he does, he should give Congress one that they feel they can pass....sounds to me like he's not working with them like he should. And, i've heard there are quite a few bills sitting in the Senate collecting dust. Are they still on vacation there, or are they still playing games?

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

You need to do a little fact checking of your own.

Harry Reid | Jobs Bill Blocked | Mitch McConnell | The Daily Caller


"For all of President Obama’s insistence that Congress must “pass this bill now,” and Democrats’ assurances that they have the votes necessary to pass it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in no mood to vote on the president’s jobs-creation bill Tuesday afternoon.

Reid blocked a vote on Obama’s jobs bill after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a motion to add it as an amendment to a bill being heard on the floor. That bill was an effort to put pressure on China to allow its currency to appreciate.

McConnell said earlier that given Obama’s insistence on passing his jobs bill quickly, he wanted to put the Senate on the record.

“Twelve times the president has asked us over the last few weeks to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now,” McConnell said. “I don’t think the president is saying here he wants an extensive debate on it. I think he’s saying he wants a vote on it. And I want to disabuse him of the notion that we’re not willing to vote on it.”

An early vote on the $447 billion jobs bill would have likely ended in embarrassment for the White House. Republicans are sure to oppose it as a whole, and Senate Democrats want to take a closer look at the bill, possibly proposing alternate payment methods.

Reid called the motion a “charade” and “ridiculous on its face,” adding the Senate will have a full debate on the jobs bill later. Reid has indicated that the president’s jobs bill will be brought before the Senate sometime this month."

Note that "this month" was October 2011. Has Harry brought his party's president's jobs bill up for a vote yet?

From "The Hill":
Senate blocks new Obama jobs bill


By Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan - 10/20/11 09:28 PM ET


For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

 

[hortysir]

So what is so great about his Jobs plan? What i've read about, i'm pretty glad it was blocked because it doesn't sound like Obama really thought this through very well. Or he did and he's just hoping nobody notices until it's over. I'm glad there's someone watching out for us....Congress is doing what we asked them to do, keep Obama from screwing us more!

What Do You Call a Jobs Bill That Begets No Jobs?: Caroline Baum - Bloomberg

Whoa..this guy went from "Does he have a jobs bill?" to "Whats so special about his jobs bill?" in 3.5 seconds. Thats a backpeddle world record

Good catch!

When you two finish snowballing Obama's wad, how about answering the question!?

 

[hortysir]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

You need to do a little fact checking of your own.

Harry Reid | Jobs Bill Blocked | Mitch McConnell | The Daily Caller


"For all of President Obama’s insistence that Congress must “pass this bill now,” and Democrats’ assurances that they have the votes necessary to pass it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in no mood to vote on the president’s jobs-creation bill Tuesday afternoon.

Reid blocked a vote on Obama’s jobs bill after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a motion to add it as an amendment to a bill being heard on the floor. That bill was an effort to put pressure on China to allow its currency to appreciate.

McConnell said earlier that given Obama’s insistence on passing his jobs bill quickly, he wanted to put the Senate on the record.

“Twelve times the president has asked us over the last few weeks to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now,” McConnell said. “I don’t think the president is saying here he wants an extensive debate on it. I think he’s saying he wants a vote on it. And I want to disabuse him of the notion that we’re not willing to vote on it.”

An early vote on the $447 billion jobs bill would have likely ended in embarrassment for the White House. Republicans are sure to oppose it as a whole, and Senate Democrats want to take a closer look at the bill, possibly proposing alternate payment methods.

Reid called the motion a “charade” and “ridiculous on its face,” adding the Senate will have a full debate on the jobs bill later. Reid has indicated that the president’s jobs bill will be brought before the Senate sometime this month."

Note that "this month" was October 2011. Has Harry brought his party's president's jobs bill up for a vote yet?

From "The Hill":
Senate blocks new Obama jobs bill


By Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan - 10/20/11 09:28 PM ET


For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

You highlighted the wrong part, dumbass

 

[Synthaholic]

Senate blocks $60B part of Obama jobs plan

By NBC's Libby Leist


The Senate on Thursday blocked another portion of President Obama’s jobs plan, a $60 billion bill to fund infrastructure projects around the country.


This is the second piece of the president’s proposal to be voted on and rejected in the Senate. The bill would have invested $50 billion dollars to fund immediate highway, transit, rail and aviation projects. And it would have put $10 billion toward a national infrastructure bank.


The Senate voted 51-49 in favor of a procedural motion to bring up the component of President Obama's jobs bill, nine short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, joined Republicans in opposition to the bill.


Republicans lined up unanimously against the measure which would have been paid for by a .7 percent surtax on millionaires.


In a second, 47-53 party-lines vote, the Senate blocked a Republican alternative that would have cost $12 billion paid for by $18 billion in spending cuts.

 

[Synthaholic]

Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina - The Washington Post

Somehow I kew it wouldn't be TDM doing the actual "fact-checking".
Instead she relied on a rag like the Post

You're dismissed, fool.

 

[kwc57]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

You need to do a little fact checking of your own.

Harry Reid | Jobs Bill Blocked | Mitch McConnell | The Daily Caller


"For all of President Obama’s insistence that Congress must “pass this bill now,” and Democrats’ assurances that they have the votes necessary to pass it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in no mood to vote on the president’s jobs-creation bill Tuesday afternoon.

Reid blocked a vote on Obama’s jobs bill after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a motion to add it as an amendment to a bill being heard on the floor. That bill was an effort to put pressure on China to allow its currency to appreciate.

McConnell said earlier that given Obama’s insistence on passing his jobs bill quickly, he wanted to put the Senate on the record.

“Twelve times the president has asked us over the last few weeks to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now,” McConnell said. “I don’t think the president is saying here he wants an extensive debate on it. I think he’s saying he wants a vote on it. And I want to disabuse him of the notion that we’re not willing to vote on it.”

An early vote on the $447 billion jobs bill would have likely ended in embarrassment for the White House. Republicans are sure to oppose it as a whole, and Senate Democrats want to take a closer look at the bill, possibly proposing alternate payment methods.

Reid called the motion a “charade” and “ridiculous on its face,” adding the Senate will have a full debate on the jobs bill later. Reid has indicated that the president’s jobs bill will be brought before the Senate sometime this month."

Note that "this month" was October 2011. Has Harry brought his party's president's jobs bill up for a vote yet?

From "The Hill":
Senate blocks new Obama jobs bill


By Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan - 10/20/11 09:28 PM ET


For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

Hey moron, did you just read the headline or did you actually read the article. You're really not very good at this are you? You missed some great quotes like:

"The majority of Democrats then blocked a second "jobs" measure offered by Republicans."

"The first measure, a piece of President Obama’s larger jobs package, failed in a 50-50 vote after two Democrats and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) joined Senate Republicans in voting against moving to the measure.


Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) also sided with Republicans.

Nelson and Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) were the two Democrats to vote against the president's full "jobs" package last week. Tester voted yes on Thursday's measure."

"Ten Democrats defected to vote with the Republicans to bring the bill just three votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.

The ten Democrats voting with Republicans were: Sens. Al Franken (Minn.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.)."

You really should know what the articles you post say to ensure they support your argument.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Senate Minority Leader has blocked those bills from coming up for a vote.

If you are going to argue politics, know what you are arguing.

Reid has blocked them.

Link?

Don't need to link, it is well known of reids track record since the election of 2010. House passes bill, goes to senate, the idiot reid refuses to bring it up for discussion or vote, then blames the house. Reid is a typical libtard idiot.

 

[hortysir]

From "The Hill":
Senate blocks new Obama jobs bill


By Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan - 10/20/11 09:28 PM ET


For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

Key word: 'Voted' to block.

Harry Reid won't even let anything make it to the floor.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You need to do a little fact checking of your own.

Harry Reid | Jobs Bill Blocked | Mitch McConnell | The Daily Caller


"For all of President Obama’s insistence that Congress must “pass this bill now,” and Democrats’ assurances that they have the votes necessary to pass it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in no mood to vote on the president’s jobs-creation bill Tuesday afternoon.

Reid blocked a vote on Obama’s jobs bill after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a motion to add it as an amendment to a bill being heard on the floor. That bill was an effort to put pressure on China to allow its currency to appreciate.

McConnell said earlier that given Obama’s insistence on passing his jobs bill quickly, he wanted to put the Senate on the record.

“Twelve times the president has asked us over the last few weeks to vote on what he calls his jobs bill now,” McConnell said. “I don’t think the president is saying here he wants an extensive debate on it. I think he’s saying he wants a vote on it. And I want to disabuse him of the notion that we’re not willing to vote on it.”

An early vote on the $447 billion jobs bill would have likely ended in embarrassment for the White House. Republicans are sure to oppose it as a whole, and Senate Democrats want to take a closer look at the bill, possibly proposing alternate payment methods.

Reid called the motion a “charade” and “ridiculous on its face,” adding the Senate will have a full debate on the jobs bill later. Reid has indicated that the president’s jobs bill will be brought before the Senate sometime this month."

Note that "this month" was October 2011. Has Harry brought his party's president's jobs bill up for a vote yet?

From "The Hill":
Senate blocks new Obama jobs bill


By Alexander Bolton and Josiah Ryan - 10/20/11 09:28 PM ET


For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

Hey moron, did you just read the headline or did you actually read the article. You're really not very good at this are you? You missed some great quotes like:

"The majority of Democrats then blocked a second "jobs" measure offered by Republicans."

"The first measure, a piece of President Obama’s larger jobs package, failed in a 50-50 vote after two Democrats and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) joined Senate Republicans in voting against moving to the measure.


Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) also sided with Republicans.

Nelson and Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) were the two Democrats to vote against the president's full "jobs" package last week. Tester voted yes on Thursday's measure."

"Ten Democrats defected to vote with the Republicans to bring the bill just three votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.

The ten Democrats voting with Republicans were: Sens. Al Franken (Minn.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.)."

You really should know what the articles you post say to ensure they support your argument.

He knows what he is doing, if he admitted the truth it would show him to be a liar. We all can see right through him though.

 

[hortysir]

Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina - The Washington Post

Somehow I kew it wouldn't be TDM doing the actual "fact-checking".
Instead she relied on a rag like the Post

You're dismissed, fool.

I left out a single letter "n".

You neglected to read an entire fucking article before clinging to the headline like a Lemming.

 

[freedombecki]

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” — Gingrich
​

We have examined this issue before, giving Gingrich a Pinocchio for this statement.
This is an example of taking a fact — an all-time high for food stamp recipients — and taking it out of context. The president is struggling with the aftermath of an economic situation he inherited, while building on food stamp changes that preceded his tenure.

Inherited? How about invented. Before he could print paper into money with ink and print more food stamps, he first had to have a scapegoat. By threatening businesses and business owners with higher taxes tailored specifically to their gross income, he made the business sector very, very nervous before he took office.

He wanted chaos and nothing but, in what was left of the financial sector after al Qaeda sent airplanes into the World Trade Center--and he got it.

He took over banks, to let them know he was in full control of them, and since it was just a throw money away deal to pals, he ignored the fact that they gave themselves nice fat bonuses with the tax cash Obama forced American taxpayers to give up.

He wanted to finish off America to butter up the Muslims--and he almost got it, except he couldn't wangle his way out of the war with the military breathing down his neck, so he threatened and rearranged their ranks to get their obedience to his whim--and he got it.

To show the world how he could crush America, he invented a story called "Mean, evil, racist, and bad business America," and apologized for its wrongs in Europe before his hundred days were up, and he farted all over the Queen of England by hurting her feelings over a gift after she treated him like royalty in her own home. Why didn't he just Joe Palooka her in public like he wanted to before he got there, prejudicial agenda to take her down a few pegs up his sleeve?

He wanted chaos for America internationally--and he got it.

When somebody doesn't want to pay something who's on his goody-goody list, he cancels their debt, leaving the American taxpayer holding the tab and the interest it accrued when his party granted moneys that were absent in the Treasury but not absent at the printing presses.

Sheeze, Synth, I'd like to sympathize with your devoted politics, but I'm sitting out here in America wondering how people get through the day with no one to look up to, with America being among the president's damned to hell on account of events that took place over 200 years ago, and in some cases, 350 years ago by people who weren't even colonials.

Obama's game was "blame the other guy." Now 3 years have passed, and he's into his 4th. But not to worry. His blame-game shell game always has a peanut under the shell. The new salvo will be blaming Republicans again, and he will go for his old standby Nancy Pelosi to puke niceties to the American people while she rewards her piggy friends while he points his finger at Republicans to take blame for his failure to treat America like anything but his personal fiefdom.

 

[hortysir]

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” — Gingrich
​

We have examined this issue before, giving Gingrich a Pinocchio for this statement.
This is an example of taking a fact — an all-time high for food stamp recipients — and taking it out of context. The president is struggling with the aftermath of an economic situation he inherited, while building on food stamp changes that preceded his tenure.

Inherited? How about invented. Before he could print paper into money with ink and print more food stamps, he first had to have a scapegoat. By threatening businesses and business owners with higher taxes tailored specifically to their gross income, he made the business sector very, very nervous before he took office.

He wanted chaos and nothing but, in what was left of the financial sector after al Qaeda sent airplanes into the World Trade Center--and he got it.

He took over banks, to let them know he was in full control of them, and since it was just a throw money away deal to pals, he ignored the fact that they gave themselves nice fat bonuses with the tax cash Obama forced American taxpayers to give up.

He wanted to finish off America to butter up the Muslims--and he almost got it, except he couldn't wangle his way out of the war with the military breathing down his neck, so he threatened and rearranged their ranks to get their obedience to his whim--and he got it.

To show the world how he could crush America, he invented a story called "Mean, evil, racist, and bad business America," and apologized for its wrongs in Europe before his hundred days were up, and he farted all over the Queen of England by hurting her feelings over a gift after she treated him like royalty in her own home. Why didn't he just Joe Palooka her in public like he wanted to before he got there, prejudicial agenda to take her down a few pegs up his sleeve?

He wanted chaos for America internationally--and he got it.

When somebody doesn't want to pay something who's on his goody-goody list, he cancels their debt, leaving the American taxpayer holding the tab and the interest it accrued when his party granted moneys that were absent in the Treasury but not absent at the printing presses.

Sheeze, Synth, I'd like to sympathize with your devoted politics, but I'm sitting out here in America wondering how people get through the day with no one to look up to, with America being among the president's damned to hell on account of events that took place over 200 years ago, and in some cases, 350 years ago by people who weren't even colonials.

Obama's game was "blame the other guy." Now 3 years have passed, and he's into his 4th. But not to worry. His blame-game shell game always has a peanut under the shell. The new salvo will be blaming Republicans again, and he will go for his old standby Nancy Pelosi to puke niceties to the American people while she rewards her piggy friends while he points his finger at Republicans to take blame for his failure to treat America like anything but his personal fiefdom.

I think I love you

 

[freedombecki]

Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina - The Washington Post

Somehow I kew it wouldn't be TDM doing the actual "fact-checking".
Instead she relied on a rag like the Post

You're dismissed, fool.

You don't know who you're talking about, Synth. The word on the street about Obama's first jobs bill/stimulus pak is that it included a lot of part-time and no-show employees who didn't collect the $2,000,000 per head that was collected from the American taxpayers to give him first year braggadocio. The taxpayer who has been there done that a few times since then didn't even get the damn t-shirt.

 

[Conservative]

Senate blocks $60B part of Obama jobs plan

By NBC's Libby Leist


The Senate on Thursday blocked another portion of President Obama’s jobs plan, a $60 billion bill to fund infrastructure projects around the country.


This is the second piece of the president’s proposal to be voted on and rejected in the Senate. The bill would have invested $50 billion dollars to fund immediate highway, transit, rail and aviation projects. And it would have put $10 billion toward a national infrastructure bank.


The Senate voted 51-49 in favor of a procedural motion to bring up the component of President Obama's jobs bill, nine short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, joined Republicans in opposition to the bill.


Republicans lined up unanimously against the measure which would have been paid for by a .7 percent surtax on millionaires.


In a second, 47-53 party-lines vote, the Senate blocked a Republican alternative that would have cost $12 billion paid for by $18 billion in spending cuts.

So, the Democrat controlled Senate couldn't manage a passing vote for Obama, so they instead killed a Republican alternative that was less costly and paid for by cutting wasteful spending.

Nice.