President Obama loose with facts during speech

[CrimsonWhite]

We have seen an assload of bitching on the left about Jindal playing loose with facts. Why don't we examine a couple from the President during his speech.

Apparently, automobiles were invented in the US. Something tells me that the Germans would have something to say about that.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pork free stimulus bill is still my favorite though.

 

[Article 15]

We have seen an assload of bitching on the left about Jindal playing loose with facts. Why don't we examine a couple from the President during his speech.

Apparently, automobiles were invented in the US. Something tells me that the Germans would have something to say about that.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pork free stimulus bill is still my favorite though.

I lol'd at the car thing ... definitely a Bluto Blutarsky moment.

 

[pete]

Still one of my favorites
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States[/ame]

 

[midcan5]

The glib rantings of the right wing conservative republicans never fails to amuse. Come on guys you can do better than this, the economy is tanking and you are disputing trivial items in speeches? Good thing Lincoln or FDR didn't have to deal with the wingnut echo chamber. And even many conservatives criticized Jindal's soap opera of big government and taxes. Maybe thirty years ago his words would have meant something, but after the failures of Reagan/Bush those words are more than hollow.

Automobile History - The History of Cars and Engines

 

[Article 15]

The glib rantings of the right wing conservative republicans never fails to amuse. Come on guys you can do better than this, the economy is tanking and you are disputing trivial items in speeches? Good thing Lincoln or FDR didn't have to deal with the wingnut echo chamber. And even many conservatives criticized Jindal's soap opera of big government and taxes. Maybe thirty years ago his words would have meant something, but after the failures of Reagan/Bush those words are more than hollow.

Automobile History - The History of Cars and Engines

Lighten up, Francis

 

[Skull Pilot]

how about your fearless leader of hope's propensity of using straw man arguments?

Karl Rove Says Barack Obama's Speeches Address Positions Republicans Don't Hold - WSJ.com

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity....

Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?
...

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms....

Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln's 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying "a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."

Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that's a far cry from believing that in "every" case government is the problem or that government should be "dismantled" root and branch. Who -- other than an anarchist -- "constantly rejects any common endeavor" like building levees, roads or bridges?...

During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as "a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."

Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something.

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.

 

[xsited1]

Obama is a better liar than Bill Clinton. The only significant difference is that Obama is spending money we don't have faster than any administration in history.

 

[del]

The glib rantings of the right wing conservative republicans never fails to amuse. Come on guys you can do better than this, the economy is tanking and you are disputing trivial items in speeches? Good thing Lincoln or FDR didn't have to deal with the wingnut echo chamber. And even many conservatives criticized Jindal's soap opera of big government and taxes. Maybe thirty years ago his words would have meant something, but after the failures of Reagan/Bush those words are more than hollow.

Automobile History - The History of Cars and Engines

i'm sorry, did you say something worth hearing?

didn't think so.

 

[editec]

Playing loose with the facts?

I read the text of the speech, it was damned near FACT FREE.

It was mostly a pep talk, folks.

Nothing wrong with that but finding anything of true interest was rather difficult.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a non ideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.

Absolutely.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it was damned near FACT FREE.

Fact Free and therefore the epitome of politispeak

 

[editec]

it was damned near FACT FREE.

Fact Free and therefore the epitome of politispeak

The speeches that are designed for the public at large are always like that.

They're designed to move people emotionally, not intellectually.

That's why I wait for the text of them, mostly.

It's impossible to listen to a mving speaker like O and not be moved.

I don't WANT to be moved, I want to be informed.

 

[xsited1]

Playing loose with the facts?

I read the text of the speech, it was damned near FACT FREE.

It was mostly a pep talk, folks.

Nothing wrong with that but finding anything of true interest was rather difficult.

That's all we get from Obama because he only knows how to give speeches; he knows nothing about the details. However, the 'facts' that he did mention were either wrong or misleading. Kool-Aid anyone?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Playing loose with the facts?

I read the text of the speech, it was damned near FACT FREE.

It was mostly a pep talk, folks.

Nothing wrong with that but finding anything of true interest was rather difficult.

That's all we get from Obama because he only knows how to give speeches; he knows nothing about the details. However, the 'facts' that he did mention were either wrong or misleading. Kool-Aid anyone?

Cherry is on sale this week; BOGO.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it was damned near FACT FREE.

Fact Free and therefore the epitome of politispeak

The speeches that are designed for the public at large are always like that.

They're designed to move people emotionally, not intellectually.

That's why I wait for the text of them, mostly.

It's impossible to listen to a mving speaker like O and not be moved.

I don't WANT to be moved, I want to be informed.

the only movement i get from listening to O speak is a B movement

 

[editec]

Fact Free and therefore the epitome of politispeak

The speeches that are designed for the public at large are always like that.

They're designed to move people emotionally, not intellectually.

That's why I wait for the text of them, mostly.

It's impossible to listen to a mving speaker like O and not be moved.

I don't WANT to be moved, I want to be informed.

the only movement i get from listening to O speak is a B movement

Still evokative, though.

I'm not singling out O, I don't listen to any of these kinds of speeches no matter who gives them.

I didn't listen to Bush IIs, or Clintons, either.

Same reason, they are DESIGNED to rally the troops.

I don't LIKE pep rallies. Never have.

Unless I'm leading them, of course.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The speeches that are designed for the public at large are always like that.

They're designed to move people emotionally, not intellectually.

That's why I wait for the text of them, mostly.

It's impossible to listen to a mving speaker like O and not be moved.

I don't WANT to be moved, I want to be informed.

the only movement i get from listening to O speak is a B movement

Still evokative, though.

I'm not singling out O, I don't listen to any of these kinds of speeches no matter who gives them.

I didn't listen to Bush IIs, or Clintons, either.

Same reason, they are DESIGNED to rally the troops.

I don't LIKE pep rallies. Never have.

Unless I'm leading them, of course.

I avoid speeches, pep rallies and award ceremonies like the plague so i tend to agree with you.

I especially can't stand when the talking head "journalists" have to tell us what the speech meant for hours and hours afterward.