Fact Checking the SOTU speech (suspect, conspiracy, myths, economy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
subsound was totally off topic since not one of those Annenberg things pertained to anything the WAPO article said. I think that he should get his own thread for you people to pat backs on and leave this one to people who read links. BTW, I read the Annenberg thing to make sure I was not talking out my posterior as he did.
Your thread title and I quote "Fact Checking the SOTU speech". It did not say "using only the Washington Post information to Fact check the SOTU speech".
Not one of the facts in the Annenberg pile of Pelosi was about those in the WAPO article. If you would take the trouble of reading links you would know things like this. When will you begin to be truthful in that duty of posters?
In case you've forgotten, here's the title that you chose for this thread:
Quote:
Fact Checking the SOTU speech
You and some of your right-wing friends seem incredulous that there is another view of the speech, or another approach to fact-checking it, than the one that confirms your own views. That's understandable, but it doesn't mean that it's the only possible approach to "Fact Checking the SOTU speech".
Do you have anything substantive to add to this thread or are you just trolling?
Unlike you, I can stick to the topic at hand. Go post your links on another thread and discuss it there, since they have nothing to do with the OP. THAT is why I did not give a full reply to you.
Sticking to the topic at hand is posting a fact check of the speech. If you can't handle the fact check not done by some one you agree with or rebut factually, so you make up an anecdotal story about hearing of something slanted one way or the other with no proof, then it's not much of a conversation. It's whining after getting called out on things you can't substantiate.
If it's trolling to point out you can't prove what you are saying, what most people would call lying, find me a nice bridge to scare goats from.
Go ahead and admit that you read exactly not one word of the WAPO article. Do you have the guts to admit what you are doing? I think not.
I read all of it. I also read the FACTcheck.org and the CNN. They ALL had different veriations of information, your Washington Post was a little more .....hostile. whats your point?
Your link just happens to be called Factcheck. It is not the only one that does factchecking. I have also heard that Factcheck.org has a liberal lean to it, and just the bit I read in your second link, I saw lots of spinning.
And WAPO has a right wing lean to it. So what? I won't make excuses like some others here. Validity of argument doesn't change based on political leanings (or lack of). Facts remains... facts. Check them.
For example, where do you think Fact Check uses a lie? We can investigate one, your pick!
[/b]As the WAPO article points out, we are borrowing all that money, so Obama is essentially saying we are going to pay down our debt by borrowing and also borrow some more to "nation build" (i.e., start more social programs) here. In other words, he has no intention of reducing the debt so he can burden our children and grandchildren to pay for his pandering to his base.
I agree with this. Since the folks who took us to war always excluded it from the budget, it's never been truly funded. Even when Obama took office and started including it in the budget, we were still running at a deficit. The savings from leaving these conflicts is unlikely to be enough to eliminate our annual deficit, so none of it can go to paying down our debt or nation building. It would first go towards reducing our annual deficit. BUT....the candidates running in a primary right now don't want Defense Spending to go down from current levels, which means they plan to continue to spend the war dollars, presumably on things like new weapons development, increasing the number of military personel, etc.
So....if we assume the money is going to be spent either way, that changes the discussion.
I personally would like to see the savings from not being at war go towards reducing the deficit.
I agree with this. Since the folks who took us to war always excluded it from the budget, it's never been truly funded. Even when Obama took office and started including it in the budget, we were still running at a deficit. The savings from leaving these conflicts is unlikely to be enough to eliminate our annual deficit, so none of it can go to paying down our debt or nation building. It would first go towards reducing our annual deficit. BUT....the candidates running in a primary right now don't want Defense Spending to go down from current levels, which means they plan to continue to spend the war dollars, presumably on things like new weapons development, increasing the number of military personel, etc.
So....if we assume the money is going to be spent either way, that changes the discussion.
I personally would like to see the savings from not being at war go towards reducing the deficit.
How do you think that borrowed money being spent on anything is saved money? Borrowing is not the same thing as using your own tax money. Why can't so many people see that? Is it because they really do think that you can pay a debt with borrowed money?
It is not unusual to see lies and inflammatory threads stick, while responses disappear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.