Fact Checks on the GOP "debate"

[Guest]

Last night's "debate" was a snoozer and it provided some moments of lunacy that had not been heard before. All of the potential candidates had "points" they made that were fiction. I have copied the link that tells of their fictional statements. Read and heed - especially the lies told by Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-fox-news-debate-in-iowa/2011/12/15/gIQAPCQTxO_blog.html

Of course, I can already predict there will be some replies to this post that say the Fact Check is not accurate because it is by the Washington Post and the "lamestream media" (anything other than Fox Noise) is out to crucify Newt, Michelle, and the rest.

[Guest]

Where's your fact check on our current commander and thief? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't count.

[Guest]

Daryl,

I looked at the debate pretty close last night and unless it happened while I was getting a beer, I just did not see President Obama participating in the debate - which was the topic of the Fact Checker.

No doubt you could find plenty of things on both sides of the aisle all the way to the top rungs that need fact checked - but this was only about the Republican debate last night.

[Guest]

So what's your point? You'll vote Obama no matter who is running on the GOP side. We're going to have a new President next year and there's nothing you can do about it. All the links in the world won't change it.

[Guest]

Please keep this civil.....It was an observation about the debate, no need to lash out!




So what's your point? You'll vote Obama no matter who is running on the GOP side. We're going to have a new President next year and there's nothing you can do about it. All the links in the world won't change it.

[Guest]

Please keep this civil.....It was an observation about the debate, no need to lash out!

Might be his other brother Daryl. :laugh:

[Guest]

Last night's "debate" was a snoozer and it provided some moments of lunacy that had not been heard before. All of the potential candidates had "points" they made that were fiction. I have copied the link that tells of their fictional statements. Read and heed - especially the lies told by Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-fox-news-debate-in-iowa/2011/12/15/gIQAPCQTxO_blog.html

Of course, I can already predict there will be some replies to this post that say the Fact Check is not accurate because it is by the Washington Post and the "lamestream media" (anything other than Fox Noise) is out to crucify Newt, Michelle, and the rest.

Buggyone FactCheck is not accurate because it is owned by the Washington Post and the "lamestream media" (anything other than Fox Noise) is out to crucify Newt, Michelle and the rest. [/QUOTE] that was a double dare you wasn't it?:laugh:

[Guest]

Did you read the Fact Check and the quotes from the candidates and how the Fact Check debunked a lot of what they said? Just be reasonable and read the article completely before making a snap decision.

[Guest]

Buggyone: To be quite frank I'm campaigned out all we have here by both sides is a lot of cackling and I'm tired of it. Where the heck are America's finest? What I know for sure is that I am going to vote for the generic Republican because by any measure Obama has failed. worse yet he has already given you his best whatever that was. I can only imagine a further detoriation of our country with 4 more years of him.

Who will get my X for the Republican primary? Don't know but I will show up and vote. I I filled out the surveyand in the additional comments section suggested they past a rule that all congressmen/women must suspend all investment activity while serving in the senate/house. I put an X through the section that ask for a donation etc.

Succintly stated, "Im'm disgusted"

[Guest]

Rubicon,

I definitely agree with you on the Republican candidates. Where are the best and brightest that this country has to offer? These are not them!!!

If the Republicans could could up with some person that is vastly superior to what we have seen so far, they probably would get my vote.

However, if the current slate is all that is offered, President Obama has my vote again.

As you said, it is pretty disgusting that these are all the choices we have.

[Guest]

Last night's "debate" was a snoozer and it provided some moments of lunacy that had not been heard before. All of the potential candidates had "points" they made that were fiction. I have copied the link that tells of their fictional statements. Read and heed - especially the lies told by Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-fox-news-debate-in-iowa/2011/12/15/gIQAPCQTxO_blog.html

Of course, I can already predict there will be some replies to this post that say the Fact Check is not accurate because it is by the Washington Post and the "lamestream media" (anything other than Fox Noise) is out to crucify Newt, Michelle, and the rest.

I basically stopped reading this slanted article after it's first "view" on Gingrich. It's a nonsensical view that the budget was balanced by Clinton and not by Gingrich's leadership of the Congress. Pretty silly.

[Guest]

Where's your fact check on our current commander and thief? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't count.

Here you go. Merry Christmas:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/

[Guest]

THere you go. Merry Christmas:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/


Thanks BK for some sanity. This fringe group who now is constantly bringing this board to new low levels with the constant "flaming" being done is so annoying.

If you recall during the slugfest of debates between President Obama and Secy Clinton in 2008 brought cries of misinformation which was flung aside as "just the usual political exaggeration" but now it allows this group to call names as if they are superior beings of some sort.

Someday we will get our board back I hope and learn from each other...I dont want to learn names to call folks....left that behind when I left elementary school.

[Guest]

It is "flaming" to have a link to Fact Check - a service of one of the nation's leading newspapers? I think not. Obviously, if a poster is not of the conservative bent, they are a member of the "fringe group".

Someday you will get your board back? This forum belongs to conservatives? I think not. It is for the give and take of information from all who want to post on it.

Read the postings before making a snap decision. I wrote on an earlier posting on this thread: "No doubt you could find plenty of things on both sides of the aisle all the way to the top rungs that need fact checked - but this was only about the Republican debate last night."

I also stated that if there was a Republican candidate who was vastly superior to those currently in the running that I might very well vote for him over President Obama - but not with this bunch of contenders.

That is "flaming" or a "fringe group"? Personally, I think it shows a very open mind.

[Guest]

Here you go. Merry Christmas:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/

I hopr that Buggs will read these "Facts."

[Guest]

It is "flaming" to have a link to Fact Check - a service of one of the nation's leading newspapers? I think not. Obviously, if a poster is not of the conservative bent, they are a member of the "fringe group".

Someday you will get your board back? This forum belongs to conservatives? I think not. It is for the give and take of information from all who want to post on it.

Read the postings before making a snap decision. I wrote on an earlier posting on this thread: "No doubt you could find plenty of things on both sides of the aisle all the way to the top rungs that need fact checked - but this was only about the Republican debate last night."

I also stated that if there was a Republican candidate who was vastly superior to those currently in the running that I might very well vote for him over President Obama - but not with this bunch of contenders.

That is "flaming" or a "fringe group"? Personally, I think it shows a very open mind.

1. My post had nothing to do with conservative or liberal...Republican or Democrat, and the fringe group are those, in my opinion, in the fringe group are those that find it necessary to make up little demeaning names for people.

2. My reference to "getting the board back" was to the fact that this forum at one time consisted of folks who did research, presented it and shied away from the cute names that seem to dominate some folks posts. It is amazing how you can disagree without the venom and name calling. We still have folks who do that by the way. It was not left, right or Republican or Democrat...it was a thought out position presented without the slams and cute little side names. Oh people would criticize the "other party" whoever that might be, but not by calling them the names that the hate mongers come up with. They did it with a bit of respect and with facts.

I thank you, whatever name you are using today for defining the board for me.

3. The fact that you don't get this sends quite a message.

I respect both sides and frankly while I have opposed President's stand on issues from the outset and still do, many points have been made that sent me out to investigate and read and I came away better informed. Calling someone a bozo or whatever the name of the day is, flat out stops me from even listening anymore to whatever has to be said. Those comments are made to make the poster feel better I would assume and serve no purpose.

[Guest]

Bucco,

I read all the posts for this thread and the only name calling was "Where's your fact check on our current commander and thief?"

You had stated, "Calling someone a bozo or whatever the name of the day is, flat out stops me from even listening anymore to whatever has to be said. Those comments are made to make the poster feel better I would assume and serve no purpose."

Do you feel the same when the person being called a name is one who you oppose?

[Guest]

Even though Ann Coulter does not call Newt any names, she lambasts him and his record to no end in her Daily Sun column today. I particularily liked the statement she attributed to Newt that said "men are meant to hunt giraffes". You would have to have a mighty tall den to put a stuffed giraffe in a corner by the fireplace - well, maybe Newt has a 3 story house that he bought with his consulting money from Freddie Mac. Who knows?

Anyhow, it was a Coulter that made me laugh out loud. I wonder why she is so hard on Newt. Did he once have a date with her and did not come up to her condo afterwards or what?

[Guest]

Even though Ann Coulter does not call Newt any names, she lambasts him and his record to no end in her Daily Sun column today. I particularily liked the statement she attributed to Newt that said "men are meant to hunt giraffes". You would have to have a mighty tall den to put a stuffed giraffe in a corner by the fireplace - well, maybe Newt has a 3 story house that he bought with his consulting money from Freddie Mac. Who knows?

Anyhow, it was a Coulter that made me laugh out loud. I wonder why she is so hard on Newt. Did he once have a date with her and did not come up to her condo afterwards or what?

Nice to know you can find value in Ms. Coulter when it's not your ox being gored. I did tell you she's a writer to be admired.

I don't agree with her at all in her distaste for Newt, and think she is betraying ideals she's previously espoused, but she is what she is.

[Guest]

No, Richie, I did not say I admire Ann Coulter. I found her column this week and last week as good comedy - the same as I find the comedy of Bill Maher.

But I do have ask myself, "Why would anyone want to hunt giraffes?"