• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Fact check: Romney speech

mak2

Active member
I have been doing some reading about Romneys speech. I know this is CBS but these same things were selected by other sources as questionable assertions. Coruse Faux did not mention a one. Interesting.

(CBS News) TAMPA, Fla. -- Mitt Romney's convention acceptance speech Thursday night did not contain the sort of questionable assertions that had fact checkers working overtime following Paul Ryan's speech on Wednesday night. But that doesn't mean there weren't a number of comments that deserve a closer look. Below, our take:

"I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour."

This one is easy: Romney has claimed over and over that President Obama has been traveling the world apologizing for America. As we detailed earlier this month, it's an unfair claim. The president has certainly at times suggested America is not perfect. But Romney uses out of context comments to support his claims - pointing to Mr. Obama's statement that America hasn't always appreciated Europe, for example, but leaving out the next line in which Mr. Obama says Europe should answer for its anti-Americanism.

"Unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class."

There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Mr. Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class. Certainly, there are a small percentage of Americans who could see some form of a tax increase as a result of the health care law - if you consider the individual mandate a tax. (Though Republican claims on the front are overstated.) The president has actually signed into law a number of tax cuts, including the payroll tax cut and the Making Work Pay tax credit.

The second problem is that, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would increase the tax burden on middle- and low-income Americans if it is to be revenue neutral, as Romney promises. Romney has not detailed some of the specifics of the plan, but the study reached this conclusion even by assuming he will first eliminate deductions and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans.

"His trillion-dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk."

This claim is tied to the fact that the defense budget is facing $500 billion in cuts at the end of the year. As part of an agreement between Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the cuts are set to go into effect (along with roughly equal cuts to domestic programs) in January - unless lawmakers can agree on an alternate way to cut spending. It is not correct to call those "his" cuts, in reference to the president.

"His $716 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obamacare will both hurt today's seniors, and depress innovation - and jobs - in medicine."

As CBS News explained earlier this month, these "cuts" - actually reductions in future Medicare spending - are to providers, not Medicare recipients. And they extend the life of the Medicare program - which is perhaps why Ryan, Romney's running mate, included them in his own budget plan.

"Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."

This one's true, but misleading. As Factcheck.org points out, the reason that there are more Americans in poverty than ever is because there are more Americans than ever. The poverty rate - a far fairer gauge of poverty under the president - was 15.1 percent in 2010. That's the highest since 1993, and it's nothing to be proud of. But it's 7.3 percentage points lower than the 1959 poverty rate.

"The centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success."

Romney didn't explain what he meant by this, but it's presumably a reference to the president's "you didn't build that" comment that Republicans repeatedly referenced throughout the convention. As CBS News and many other media outlets have pointed out, the criticism of the president over the comment depends on removing it from context: It came as part of a larger point about getting "help" on the path to being successful. The "that" in the full comment appears to have been a reference to roads and bridges.

"I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs."

This sounds ambitious - but it's not impossible. To do this in his first term, as Romney promises, would require creating 250,000 jobs per month for four years. In July, the economy added 163,000 jobs. There are not signs that that number will shoot up by 100,000 jobs per month anytime soon, but the economy has gone through periods of such job creation, most recently during the Clinton administration. And as the Washington Post points out, Moody's Analytics predicts 12 million jobs by 2016, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Romney says he'll get there through spending cuts and lower taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57504387-503544/fact-check-mitt-romneys-convention-speech/
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I have been doing some reading about Romneys speech. I know this is CBS but these same things were selected by other sources as questionable assertions. Coruse Faux did not mention a one. Interesting.

(CBS News) TAMPA, Fla. -- Mitt Romney's convention acceptance speech Thursday night did not contain the sort of questionable assertions that had fact checkers working overtime following Paul Ryan's speech on Wednesday night. But that doesn't mean there weren't a number of comments that deserve a closer look. Below, our take:

"I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour."

This one is easy: Romney has claimed over and over that President Obama has been traveling the world apologizing for America. As we detailed earlier this month, it's an unfair claim. The president has certainly at times suggested America is not perfect. But Romney uses out of context comments to support his claims - pointing to Mr. Obama's statement that America hasn't always appreciated Europe, for example, but leaving out the next line in which Mr. Obama says Europe should answer for its anti-Americanism.

No,this is untrue. Obama did go on a world tour early in his presidency tour where he did apologize for America's "dictating to others." What he did later?That was not refered to by Romney

"Unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class."

There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Mr. Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class. Certainly, there are a small percentage of Americans who could see some form of a tax increase as a result of the health care law - if you consider the individual mandate a tax. (Though Republican claims on the front are overstated.) The president has actually signed into law a number of tax cuts, including the payroll tax cut and the Making Work Pay tax credit.
Again not true. According to no less judgemental authority than Chief justice Roberts, Obamacare is a tax. and it is the largest single increase in our hisory. Atthe very least it falls on the middle class as muchas anyone.

The second problem is that, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would increase the tax burden on middle- and low-income Americans if it is to be revenue neutral, as Romney promises. Romney has not detailed some of the specifics of the plan, but the study reached this conclusion even by assuming he will first eliminate deductions and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans.

"His trillion-dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk."

The fact that Obama is not held accountable for the maditory reductions, AKA the fiscal cliff, deal continues to be an amazing bit of deceit by the press.

This claim is tied to the fact that the defense budget is facing $500 billion in cuts at the end of the year. As part of an agreement between Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the cuts are set to go into effect (along with roughly equal cuts to domestic programs) in January - unless lawmakers can agree on an alternate way to cut spending. It is not correct to call those "his" cuts, in reference to the president.

Why not.

"His $716 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obamacare will both hurt today's seniors, and depress innovation - and jobs - in medicine."

As CBS News explained earlier this month, these "cuts" - actually reductions in future Medicare spending - are to providers, not Medicare recipients. And they extend the life of the Medicare program - which is perhaps why Ryan, Romney's running mate, included them in his own budget plan.

No matter how the left explains it, removing spending from a program is a cut. These" cuts" are essentialy explained away by the same gosymer logic as providing free contraception by executive order.

"Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."

This one's true, but misleading. As Factcheck.org points out, the reason that there are more Americans in poverty than ever is because there are more Americans than ever. The poverty rate - a far fairer gauge of poverty under the president - was 15.1 percent in 2010. That's the highest since 1993, and it's nothing to be proud of. But it's 7.3 percentage points lower than the 1959 poverty rate.

As a rate of poverty,one in six is an increase over our past history. 12% poverty verses 18%. Not all of this is during Obama, but most is post 2007 after the housing crash and the takeover of congress by the Democrats. Of course i'mnot using the same metric as CBS here. they switched yardsicks midstream to make the stats work.

"The centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success."

Romney didn't explain what he meant by this, but it's presumably a reference to the president's "you didn't build that" comment that Republicans repeatedly referenced throughout the convention. As CBS News and many other media outlets have pointed out, the criticism of the president over the comment depends on removing it from context: It came as part of a larger point about getting "help" on the path to being successful. The "that" in the full comment appears to have been a reference to roads and bridges.

This is classic strawman argument by defining what they thought Romney meant. Actually what he meant had little to do with "you didn't build that' It had to do with Obama's attacks on successful profit ventures in general and Bain capital in particular. Attacks which are losing traction, even with democrats.

"I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs."

This sounds ambitious - but it's not impossible. To do this in his first term, as Romney promises, would require creating 250,000 jobs per month for four years. In July, the economy added 163,000 jobs. There are not signs that that number will shoot up by 100,000 jobs per month anytime soon, but the economy has gone through periods of such job creation, most recently during the Clinton administration. And as the Washington Post points out, Moody's Analytics predicts 12 million jobs by 2016, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Romney says he'll get there through spending cuts and lower taxes.

Once again presumptions of numbers to petitfog. in reality the 12 million figure is rather conservative. The energy industry itself has predictied 20 million jobs over the next 4-5 years if we unleash domestic exploration and mining.

[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57504387-503544/fact-check-mitt-romneys-convention-speech/"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57504387-503544/fact-check-mitt-romneys-convention-speech/[/URL]

In truth CBS has presented no facts here ,just coloured the water with cool aid,,,again. And they have expected everyone to percieve their opinions and judgement as factual. Simply because they said them. Much of it not even cleverly. "This is true but misleading............"

We know there is no bias with the media. Be it FOX or CBS or NBC. But thanks for tellin' everyone what you discovered about FOX.

Fearless Fosdick would be so proud.
 
Last edited:

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
"The centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success."

Actually, it didn't end there.


"The centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success.
Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression?
In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it."
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Ya know, mak2, ya seem to have a real itchy bug up your ass when it comes to Fox News. WTF started it for you? And don't come back with "they lie." You know that's bullshit and a liberal copout. Tell us EXACTLY why you loathe Fox and give credence to the networks that are proven over and over again to twist the truth and often just outright lie to the people.
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
My bet is that when the Democrats have convention, there will be a grander scale to the twisting of facts and out of context gatherings of sound bites gleaned from the Repulicans and their candidates. It's how the game is played these days. Especially since it's all they have....Other than out right class warfare, witch I also predict. Rich folks be ready to be demonised for your success. That is what happens when socialist take control..

The Dems are having a time getting any mud to stick to Romney I feel. The Bain Capitol mud keeps sliding off. Add in that we know Romney's life history and can as we come to know him respect that, and the man. Actually after hearing Mitt's life story a bit at the convention, I am more comfortable with the idea of voting for him. Especially since we know so little about our current president....

I still wish however, that I had a way to know who is behind the smearing of Dr Paul. Who at the "top" as they say had it so in for him to have done what has been done, and why. I will always wonder this, as I fear we'll never know what power brokers pulled the rug out from under him and why....Another wish is a cabinet postition for Paul, but I fear that is not a possibility now.

Regards, Kirk
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
And who is fact checking the fact checkers?!?



http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers
AUGUST 30, 2012 6:05 PM
Fact-checking the fact checkers
BY GABRIEL MALOR


The Democrats' least effective spokesperson said today that Republicans should have further reduced their convention plans out of respect for the victims of Hurricane Isaac. Within minutes, I was bombarded by delighted emails, tweets, and texts most of which expressed some variation of "she's done it again!"

Look, there are things that -- as a person who simply does not have enough hours in the day -- I am not going to give serious consideration to no matter how much you want to talk about them: conspiracy theories, diet plans, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, atonal post-punk revival. You get the idea.

So instead of dwelling on President Obama's worst proxy of the day, I thought it would better to consider the President's best: media fact checkers.

Just after Rep. Paul Ryan's speech last night, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent an e-mail blast claiming that Ryan had "lied" about Medicare, the stimulus, the deficit and the General Motors plant closure in Ryan's home town. The media jumped like good little lapdogs, claiming that the cited parts of Ryan's speech were indeed false. This Associated Press "fact check" is typical. But every Ryan statement criticized is either absolutely true or not a fact at all, but a matter of opinion.

Townhall's Guy Benson blows up each of the AP's (and Messina's) objections. The bottom line is that the fact checker criticisms of Ryan's speech come in only one form: "Yes it's true, but here's some context that Democrats want to talk about." That's not fact checking; that's advocacy. And it's not persuasive, it's absurd.

If they stay on this course, media fact checkers, as a class, are going to be regarded as having as much credibility as Wasserman Schultz. This has already begun. In response to Republicans' continued riffs on the President's "you didn't build that" comment, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler yesterday pulled out the big guns, saying he was "compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four." In response, I'm compelled to observe that this will not change Republicans' minds -- I give it four hallucinating Dumbos.

Human Events' Jon Cassidy took a hard look at another media fact checker, PolitiFact, which instead of the Washington Post's childish Pinocchios, rates political statements on a scale of "True" to "Pants on Fire." Cassidy found that in many cases PolitiFact writers investigated claims that are matters of opinion, rather than fact. That's not fact checking, either; that's punditry. And (ahem) pundits are a dime a dozen.

I get why media fact checking got so popular in the past four years. Assigning truth values to the silly things elected officials say is entertaining and, often, enlightening. But as fact-checking becomes less about checking facts and more about checking opinions, attention will fade. Wasserman Shultz is ineffective not because she fails to entertain, but because she's not credible. As readers come to realize that media fact checkers are merely writing op-eds by another name, they too will be dismissed as easily as Wasserman Schultz.​
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Ya know, mak2, ya seem to have a real itchy bug up your ass when it comes to Fox News. WTF started it for you? And don't come back with "they lie." You know that's bullshit and a liberal copout. Tell us EXACTLY why you loathe Fox and give credence to the networks that are proven over and over again to twist the truth and often just outright lie to the people.


I'll answer that for you, What do you do when a bee stings. You slap it.
Bee was just doing what it is supposed to do.

The product of FOX News is occassionaly uncomfortable to hear. But then so is MSNBC and CNN, CBS and PUblic Broadcasting. All present their lineup of guest who lie bloviate and sometimes spout a kernel of something useful. Most outlets bring on a guest and either fan them or flame them. Fox tends to put opposites up at the same time for a direct comparison.

Rhetoric and Lies are annoying,,,,,The truth hurts
 

Truth Detector

New member
And who is fact checking the fact checkers?!?


http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers
AUGUST 30, 2012 6:05 PM
Fact-checking the fact checkers
BY GABRIEL MALOR

The Democrats' least effective spokesperson said today that Republicans should have further reduced their convention plans out of respect for the victims of Hurricane Isaac. Within minutes, I was bombarded by delighted emails, tweets, and texts most of which expressed some variation of "she's done it again!"

Look, there are things that -- as a person who simply does not have enough hours in the day -- I am not going to give serious consideration to no matter how much you want to talk about them: conspiracy theories, diet plans, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, atonal post-punk revival. You get the idea.

So instead of dwelling on President Obama's worst proxy of the day, I thought it would better to consider the President's best: media fact checkers.

Just after Rep. Paul Ryan's speech last night, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent an e-mail blast claiming that Ryan had "lied" about Medicare, the stimulus, the deficit and the General Motors plant closure in Ryan's home town. The media jumped like good little lapdogs, claiming that the cited parts of Ryan's speech were indeed false. This Associated Press "fact check" is typical. But every Ryan statement criticized is either absolutely true or not a fact at all, but a matter of opinion.

Townhall's Guy Benson blows up each of the AP's (and Messina's) objections. The bottom line is that the fact checker criticisms of Ryan's speech come in only one form: "Yes it's true, but here's some context that Democrats want to talk about." That's not fact checking; that's advocacy. And it's not persuasive, it's absurd.

If they stay on this course, media fact checkers, as a class, are going to be regarded as having as much credibility as Wasserman Schultz. This has already begun. In response to Republicans' continued riffs on the President's "you didn't build that" comment, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler yesterday pulled out the big guns, saying he was "compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four." In response, I'm compelled to observe that this will not change Republicans' minds -- I give it four hallucinating Dumbos.

Human Events' Jon Cassidy took a hard look at another media fact checker, PolitiFact, which instead of the Washington Post's childish Pinocchios, rates political statements on a scale of "True" to "Pants on Fire." Cassidy found that in many cases PolitiFact writers investigated claims that are matters of opinion, rather than fact. That's not fact checking, either; that's punditry. And (ahem) pundits are a dime a dozen.

I get why media fact checking got so popular in the past four years. Assigning truth values to the silly things elected officials say is entertaining and, often, enlightening. But as fact-checking becomes less about checking facts and more about checking opinions, attention will fade. Wasserman Shultz is ineffective not because she fails to entertain, but because she's not credible. As readers come to realize that media fact checkers are merely writing op-eds by another name, they too will be dismissed as easily as Wasserman Schultz.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers

Bravo! :clap:

It will be interesting to see how much "fact checking" the media will do during the DNC Convention.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Wait a minute here. Wasserman Schultz is the head of the Democratic party! And she is not Credible?

"Wasserman Shultz is ineffective not because she fails to entertain, but because she's not credible."
Gabreil Malor



I am forced to ask this simple question; How can that be?
She was elected by the party members.

How can that be?

the same folks who supported Barak in 2008
How can that be?

the same folks who still blame all our pain on GWB
How can that be?

The same folks who now support him again
How can that be?

After what has been experienced in the last four years
How can that be?

But she sounds so articulate and sure?
How can that be?

The fools might vote for her again
How can that be?

and the same fools for him again
How can that be?

She, the Democrats, and he, will apply the same policies and actions as before , the same politics of division as before, expecting a different outcome
How can that be?

With Eric Holder protecting justice and the peace.
How can that be?

And hope our nation will survive four more years of it intact.
How can that be?
 
Top