Fact checking the GOP debate

[Bo-4]

Republicans didn't need Trump to set a record for whoppers!

:point: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/factchecking-the-seventh-gop-debate/

[Tahuyaman]

As predictable as ever.....

[Matty]

As predictable as ever.....


Correct. Too bad they abide obummer and hildebeast's lies! Other than that some one might take them seriously. Roflmaalwao.

[Tahuyaman]

If you actually read the piece, you'll see that many of the things they call a lie, are not a lie at all. The fact checkers must use dishonest and creative tactics. They parse words to massage a comment into being a lie.

Some things they call a lie are differences in opinion.

The left refuses to engage in an honest debate on the issues.

[maineman]

does anyone from the right care to refute factcheck.org's claims about any of the misstatements made during the GOP debate?

[Tahuyaman]

Read them for yourself.....

[maineman]

Read them for yourself.....

I did. Was factcheck in error on any of them?

[Matty]

does anyone from the right care to refute factcheck.org's claims about any of the misstatements made during the GOP debate?


Why does it matter. We have proved the left abides liars so you should be happy happy that fact check found you some lies!

[Bo-4]

I did. Was factcheck in error on any of them?

Cons don't like fact checkers unless they call out a Lib of course.

[maineman]

Why does it matter. We have proved the left abides liars so you should be happy happy that fact check found you some lies!

so... I'll take that as a "no".

[Tahuyaman]

For one, Hillary Clinton does support the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court as Rubio claimed. She said it's a great idea, but she would need a democrat majority to make it happen.

Clearly Rubio didn't lie about that.

[Tahuyaman]

Intellectual dishonesty and deception are default positions of the left.

Parsing words is the tool they use to deceive.

[maineman]

For one, Hillary Clinton does support the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court as Rubio claimed. She said it's a great idea, but she would need a democrat majority to make it happen.

Clearly Rubio didn't lie about that.

Rubio misquoted her. That is all that factcheck said. They showed what he said she said... and they showed what she actually said.

[Tahuyaman]

They claimed Kaisich lied when he said 400,000 jobs were created while he's been governor. That's not a lie that's a fact. They support saying that's a lie by saying ohio's job creation numbers are lower than the national average. How does that make his factual claim a lie?

At most it would make it a fact not worth bragging about.

More intellectual dishonesty from the left.

[Tahuyaman]

If they don't like the tone of the wording, they call it a lie.

Typical left wing deception.

[Tahuyaman]

Rubio misquoted her. That is all that factcheck said. They showed what he said she said... and they showed what she actually said.

She supports the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court. That is a fact. She said so herself. She qualified her statement by saying that she would need a friendly congress to make that happen.

[Matty]

It's still a Hoot n nanny when obummer and the pooper hildebeast lies and they just crawl through the muck backing them up.

[maineman]

She supports the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court. That is a fact. She said so herself.

"supported"? She said it sounded like a good idea.... that she'd take it under advisement. That is not what Rubio said she said.

[maineman]

They claimed Kaisich lied when he said 400,000 jobs were created while he's been governor. That's not a lie that's a fact. They support saying that's a lie by saying ohio's job creation numbers are lower than the national average. How does that make his factual claim a lie?

At most it would make it a fact not worth bragging about.

More intellectual dishonesty from the left.
they never called Katich's statement a lie. To claim otherwise IS one, however.

[Tahuyaman]

You see. When you catch them in their lies, they deny that they lied even when it's in a national publication.

For whatever reason, liberals just refuse to be honest when debating their views. It's inexplicable.

[Tahuyaman]

Even here, there's a thread dedicated to Hillary Clinton's support of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court, but when that position is criticized in a public setting they deny she supports the idea.

[maineman]

You see. When you catch them in their lies, they deny that they lied even when it's in a national publication.

For whatever reason, liberals just refuse to be honest when debating their views. It's inexplicable.

again... they never called Katich's statement a lie. YOU said that they did. THAT IS a lie.

[Tahuyaman]

Cruz claimed that “millions” had lost jobs and been forced into part-time work because of the Affordable
Calling that a lie is in fact a lie and every objective person in America knows this.

[maineman]

Here is exactly what they said about Kasich's claim:

Kasich boasted that “we just found out we are up over 400,000 jobs since I took over as governor.” That’s pretty close, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which show Ohio gained 383,500 jobs between January 2011, the month Kasich took office, and December 2015, the latest figures available.
That may sound like a lot of jobs, but it reflects a growth rate of 7.6 percent. That lags behind the national growth rate of 9.5 percent over the same period. Compared with its neighbors, Ohio’s growth rate was better than West Virginia’s (0.4 percent) and Pennsylvania’s (3.4 percent), but worse than Indiana’s (8.8 percent), Michigan’s (10 percent) and Kentucky’s (8.6 percent).
As for the unemployment rate, Ohio’s has mostly tracked the national trend, though Ohio’s rate of 9.2 percent in January 2011 was slightly above the national average of 9.1 percent. And at 4.7 percent in December, it was slightly below the national average of 5 percent.
We generally caution readers to be wary of governors citing employment gains or losses without considering the prevailing national trends. For example, in August, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie touted the creation of 192,000 private-sector jobs during his time as governor, we noted that the job growth rate in New Jersey was less than half the national average and at the time, the growth rate ranked the state 44th out of 50 states.
It is also very difficult to compare governors who served during different times, when the national economic climate may have been very different. The Washington Post compiled a nifty analysis measuring the performance of the governors running for president on a slew of economic indicators, and attempting to account for some of the different economic conditions at the time.

[Tahuyaman]

Someone needs to fact check factcheck.org.

[maineman]

Cruz claimed that “millions” had lost jobs and been forced into part-time work because of the Affordable
Calling that a lie is in fact a lie and every objective person in America knows this.

here is what they said about Cruz's claim:

Cruz repeated an increasingly shopworn GOP claim that the Affordable Care Act has forced “millions” into unemployment and part-time work.
Cruz: It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.

The facts are otherwise, as we’ve noted in 2011, 2012 and 2013. And the latest jobs statistics make it even more clear that what Cruz said is a partisan falsehood, no matter how many times it is repeated.
The fact is, the law hasn’t prevented the economy from adding millions of jobs, month after month. Furthermore, fewer people are being forced to work part-time, not more.
It’s true, as we’ve said, that independent, nonpartisan experts projected some negative effect on employment. That’s because some small employers may resist hiring new workers, or may cut back the hours of some current employees, to keep their total, full-time payroll under 50 — which is the point at which the law requires them to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty.
But the experts characterized the negative effect as “small” or “minimal,” and one estimate put the total job loss at 150,000 to 300,000 — all of them low- or minimum-wage jobs — and far short of the “millions” claimed by Cruz.
The ACA’s employer mandate went into effect Jan. 1 last year, after being delayed for a year. Since then, the economy has added more than 2.4 million new jobs.
And during the same period, the number of people forced to work part-time for economic reasons (because full-time work wasn’t available, or because an employer cut back hours) has gone down — by 762,000.
As for Cruz’s claim that Americans “have lost their health insurance” because of Obamacare, the fact is that millions have gained coverage. The most recent quarterly report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that during the first six months of 2015, about 28.5 million people of all ages reported being without coverage at the time they were interviewed. That’s a reduction of 16.3 million uninsured since 2013, the year before the main provisions of the ACA took effect. (See Table 1.1a of the CDC’s previous report for historical annual figures.)
As Cruz himself said in another context during the debate, “Facts are stubborn things.” And with that we heartily agree — no matter how many times Cruz misstates them.

What is inaccurate in that paragraph?

[maineman]

Someone needs to fact check factcheck.org.

point out one quote from their article that is not factual.

[Matty]

here is what they said about Cruz's claim:

Cruz repeated an increasingly shopworn GOP claim that the Affordable Care Act has forced “millions” into unemployment and part-time work.
Cruz: It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.

The facts are otherwise, as we’ve noted in 2011, 2012 and 2013. And the latest jobs statistics make it even more clear that what Cruz said is a partisan falsehood, no matter how many times it is repeated.
The fact is, the law hasn’t prevented the economy from adding millions of jobs, month after month. Furthermore, fewer people are being forced to work part-time, not more.
It’s true, as we’ve said, that independent, nonpartisan experts projected some negative effect on employment. That’s because some small employers may resist hiring new workers, or may cut back the hours of some current employees, to keep their total, full-time payroll under 50 — which is the point at which the law requires them to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty.
But the experts characterized the negative effect as “small” or “minimal,” and one estimate put the total job loss at 150,000 to 300,000 — all of them low- or minimum-wage jobs — and far short of the “millions” claimed by Cruz.
The ACA’s employer mandate went into effect Jan. 1 last year, after being delayed for a year. Since then, the economy has added more than 2.4 million new jobs.
And during the same period, the number of people forced to work part-time for economic reasons (because full-time work wasn’t available, or because an employer cut back hours) has gone down — by 762,000.
As for Cruz’s claim that Americans “have lost their health insurance” because of Obamacare, the fact is that millions have gained coverage. The most recent quarterly report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that during the first six months of 2015, about 28.5 million people of all ages reported being without coverage at the time they were interviewed. That’s a reduction of 16.3 million uninsured since 2013, the year before the main provisions of the ACA took effect. (See Table 1.1a of the CDC’s previous report for historical annual figures.)
As Cruz himself said in another context during the debate, “Facts are stubborn things.” And with that we heartily agree — no matter how many times Cruz misstates them.

What is inaccurate in that paragraph?


So, why are 47 million Americans still on food stamps?

[Matty]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

[Matty]

The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probablyoccur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken
1. As referred to in this report, the Affordable Care Act comprisesthe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law111-148); the health care provisions of the Health Care andEducation Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152); and theeffects of subsequent judicial decisions, statutory changes, andadministrative actions.

full effect and overall economic output nears its maxi-mum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACAwill reduce the total number of hours worked, on net,by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the periodfrom 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers willchoose to supply less labor—given the new taxes andother incentives they will face and the financial benefitssome will receive. Because the largest declines in laborsupply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall econ-omy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction inhours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACAwill cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregatelabor compensation over the 2017–2024 period, com-pared with what it would have been otherwise. Althoughsuch effects are likely to continue after 2024 (the end ofthe current 10-year budget window), CBO has not esti-mated their magnitude or duration over a longer period.
The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours workedrepresents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalentworkers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
2.5 million in 2024. Although CBO projects that totalemployment (and compensation) will increase over thecoming decade, that increase will be smaller than it wouldhave been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACAwill consist of some people not being employed at all andother people working fewer hours; however, CBO has nottried to quantify those two components of the overalleffect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirelyfrom a net decline in the amount of labor that workerschoose to supply, rather than from a net drop in busi-nesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirelyas a reduction in labor force participation and in hoursworked relative to what would have occurred otherwise

[maineman]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

a projection of future effects does not validate false claims of current effects.

I would have thought you knew that.

[Matty]

a projection of future effects does not validate false claims of current effects.

I would have thought you knew that.


They planned it that way. They wanted the liar in chief to be long gone before the shit hits the fan. I pity you that you weren't aware of that.

[maineman]

They planned it that way. They wanted the liar in chief to be long gone before the shit hits the fan. I pity you that you weren't aware of that.

that's your opinion. Too bad your opinion doesn't magically make what Cruz said any less of a lie.

[Tahuyaman]

point out one quote from their article that is not factual.

its useless to do so. You left wingers just deny the facts of the matter. Like I said, the left feels no need to debate an issue based on truth. Trying to engage a liberal in an honest debate is a drill in futility.

[maineman]

its useless to do so. You left wingers just deny the facts of the matter. Like I said, the left feels no need to debate an issue based on truth. Trying to engage a liberal in an honest debate is a drill in futility.

I would gladly admit that politifact lied, if you could prove that they did.

[TrueBlue]

Republicans didn't need Trump to set a record for whoppers!

:point: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/factchecking-the-seventh-gop-debate/
Of course not. And Cruz thought this debate was going to actually help him but it actually did not .In fact, it went against him in a bad way. Poor Cruz. He feels that he has been Cruzified!

[Matty]

that's your opinion. Too bad your opinion doesn't magically make what Cruz said any less of a lie.

So Cruz lying bothers you but Obama's dosen't you want a lollipop?

[Tahuyaman]

I would gladly admit that politifact lied, if you could prove that they did.

we were talking about factcheck.org. They did lie and I showed where.

[donttread]

Republicans didn't need Trump to set a record for whoppers!

:point: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/factchecking-the-seventh-gop-debate/

Good now fact check the dems and go out and vote mainstream anyway

[Tahuyaman]

Watch what happens when you call the left wingers on the lie they try to pass off. They immediately go into this grabastic song and dance. They spin and tap dance like the late Gregory Hines.

They just throw out all kinds of impossible to confirm nonsense thinking they are making a profound point. They just hope one throws up their hands and just gives up and let's them have their say unchallenged.

Its an incredible thing to watch.

[maineman]

we were talking about factcheck.org. They did lie and I showed where.

actually, you didn't. Grab the quote from them that is factually inaccurate from the article that is in the OP.

I am not asking for any difficult research here.... cut and paste the quote from the article in the OP that is factually inaccurate.

[maineman]

So Cruz lying bothers you but Obama's dosen't you want a lollipop?

I will never vote for Barack Obama for ANYTHING for the rest of my life. Will you say the same about Cruz?

[maineman]

actually, you didn't. Grab the quote from them that is factually inaccurate from the article that is in the OP.

I am not asking for any difficult research here.... cut and paste the quote from the article in the OP that is factually inaccurate.



::: crickets chirping:::

[Tahuyaman]

Inexplicably incredible. The lunacy of these liberals can't be matched.

[maineman]

Inexplicably incredible. The lunacy of these liberals can't be matched.

why are you incapable of a simple back and forth discussion? I have made the assertion that the fact check article is accurate. You have claimed that they LIED. I just asked you to post the quote from the article in the OP that is, in fact, a lie. That's all. What did they say that was factually inaccurate? It's not thirty pages long or anything.... it's fairly concise. They list some bullet points where they felt that the debate attendees quote-stretched the truth-unquote. Then they give a few paragraphs explaining why they thought the comments made were stretching the truth. Just go grab the quote from their article which is a lie. THat's all I ask. No bloviating about the lunacy of liberals.... just a simple response to my question which was based upon your rather simple assertion. Come on. You can do it.

[Bo-4]

::: crickets chirping:::

Tahu is s serious FactCheck, PolitiFact and Snopes hater - gotta be wild-eyed Lib-Lib-Libbies if they call out a con.

It's ridiculous and you've done a nice job of exposing him.

They take a quote and either pull it entirely out of context and/or change the wording to pretty much the opposite of what someone said.

Not much in the way of scruples - but it's just how they roll!

[Bo-4]

.. just a simple response to my question which was based upon your rather simple assertion. Come on. You can do it.

Actually no .. he can't ;)

[maineman]

Here Tahuyaman These are the bullet points listed by factcheck.org. Please highlight the statement(s) in here that are factually inaccurate: Please also note that the term "stretch the facts" is not synonymous with "lying".

The Republican presidential candidates debated in Iowa Jan. 28 and stretched the facts:

Sen. Marco Rubio went too far in claiming that Hillary Clinton “wants to put Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.” An Iowa resident suggested such an appointment to Clinton, and she said she’d take it “under advisement.”
Rubio also said that the White House “still refuses to acknowledge” that the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on Jan. 7 “had anything to do with terror.” But a White House spokesman said that terrorism may have been the motivation and that the Philadelphia Police Department would make that determination.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush exaggerated in saying that then-Sen. Obama killed the comprehensive immigration bill in 2007 that had the support of President George W. Bush.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich credited the Medicaid expansion with a reduction in the prison recidivism rate in Ohio. But the rate isn’t as low as he claimed, and the latest figures are on inmates released well before the expansion.
Sen. Ted Cruz claimed an amendment he offered to the 2013 immigration bill “didn’t say a word about legalization.” That’s technically true, but the effect of the amendment would have been to allow legalization of those in the country illegally.
Rubio claimed that when he opposed a “path to citizenship” when running for the Senate in 2010, it was due to legislation to provide “almost an instant path with very little obstacles moving forward.” But a 2010 Senate bill provided the same types of obstacles as the bill Rubio later backed as a senator.
Cruz claimed that “millions” had lost jobs and been forced into part-time work because of the Affordable Care Act. But the economy has added millions of jobs since the employer mandate, and fewer people are working part-time for economic reasons.
Kasich boasted of 400,000 jobs gained in the state under his governorship. But the rate of growth is below the national average.

[Tahuyaman]

Tahu is s serious FactCheck, PolitiFact and Snopes hater - gotta be wild-eyed Lib-Lib-Libbies if they call out a con.

It's ridiculous and you've done a nice job of exposing him.

They take a quote and either pull it entirely out of context and/or change the wording to pretty much the opposite of what someone said.

Not much in the way of scruples - but it's just how they roll!

i don't "hate" them. I just assign them the credibility they deserve. I never said anything about Snopes. Never read anything from them.

i gave a couple of examples where factcheck.org was completely dishonest. I know that the liberals here don't like their institutions being exposed, but they need to learn how to live with it.

[maineman]

i don't "hate" them. I just assign them the credibility they deserve. I never said anything about Snopes. Never read anything from them.

i gave a couple of examples where factcheck.org was completely dishonest. I know that the liberals here don't like their institutions being exposed, but they need to learn how to live with it.
again.... show me the lies in post #48.

[Tahuyaman]

Early on I showed you two examples where factcheck.org had to get extremely creative to call things a lie. I know you've tried to blur all the facts surrounding that, but it's not going to work.

You are going to need to come to terms with the fact that the left refuses to engage in any debate honestly. It's a default position and that's the way it is.

I know you'll come back with something smarmy and snarky in an attempt to make yourself look intellectually superior, but that's not something I'm going to worry about.

[maineman]

Early on I showed you two examples where factcheck.org had to get extremely creative to call things a lie. I know you've tried to blur all the facts surrounding that, but it's not going to work.

You are going to need to come to terms with the fact that the left refuses to engage in any debate honestly. It's a default position and that's the way it is.

I know you'll come back with something smarmy and snarky in an attempt to make yourself look intellectually superior, but that's not something I'm going to worry about.

they never called anything "a lie". I gave you a post (#48) where all you needed to do was copy it and highlight the lies that factcheck made. Why do you insist on tap dancing and not just having an honest two way conversation?

[Tahuyaman]

Look, I came out early here and gave you two supposed lies which were not lies at all. The tap dancing came when you tried to defend factcheck.org.

Im sure you'll continue.

[maineman]

Look, I came out early here and gave you two supposed lies which were not lies at all. The tap dancing came when you tried to defend factcheck.org.

Im sure you'll continue.

Who called them "lies"? Only you. Factcheck did not. Go to post #48. Highlight one LIE that factcheck made in their analysis. ONE.

[maineman]

Why are you SO afraid of simply going to post #48 and proving your own assertion?

If factcheck LIED about anything.... show it. If factcheck called anyone a LIAR.... show it.

[Bo-4]

i don't "hate" them. I just assign them the credibility they deserve. I never said anything about Snopes. Never read anything from them.

i gave a couple of examples where factcheck.org was completely dishonest. I know that the liberals here don't like their institutions being exposed, but they need to learn how to live with it.

Translation: I don't much care for facts & prefer to make up my own!

:D

[Tahuyaman]

There was even one example the used where they said Ted Cruz lied about an amendment he offered to a piece of immigration legislation, but then said his comment was "technically true".

So, to factcheck.org something which they admit is true can also be called a lie. That's funny.

[Tahuyaman]

Translation: I don't much care for facts & prefer to make up my own!

:D

Rught, I have no respect for the facts because I don't assign any credibility to the partisans who aren't honest enough to report factually.

[maineman]

There was even one example the used where they said Ted Cruz lied about an amendment he offered to a piece of immigration legislation, but then said his comment was "technically true".

So, to factcheck.org something which they admit is true can also be called a lie. That's funny.

show me PLEASE where they claimed that Cruz "LIED" about that.

[maineman]

why do you continue to avoid post #48? Just show me where they lied in that article, or where they called any of the debate participants liars in that article.

[Truth Detector]

We don't need fact checking of the Democratic debates; they're LOA....Lies On Arrival. :biglaugh:

[Tahuyaman]

now he's denying that factcheck said something was a lie..... Incredible.

[Tahuyaman]

We don't need fact checking of the Democratic debates; they're LOA....Lies On Arrival. :biglaugh:

Its amazing to me how these people can go so crazy when you expose their attempts to deceive.

[Matty]

Its amazing to me how these people can go so crazy when you expose their attempts to deceive.

But, They do crazy so well.

[Tahuyaman]

But, They do crazy so well.


If they were good at it, it wouldn't be so obvious. They'd be better at camouflaging it.

[Truth Detector]

Republicans didn't need Trump to set a record for whoppers!

:point: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/factchecking-the-seventh-gop-debate/

Whoppers???

The Republican presidential candidates debated in Iowa Jan. 28 and stretched the facts:

Sen. Marco Rubio went too far in claiming that Hillary Clinton “wants to put Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.” An Iowa resident suggested such an appointment to Clinton, and she said she’d take it “under advisement.”

This one is a YAWN not a lie; Hillary most certainly would consider Obama if he were nominated and in all likelihood argue to put him there.

Rubio also said that the White House “still refuses to acknowledge” that the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer on Jan. 7 “had anything to do with terror.” But a White House spokesman said that terrorism may have been the motivation and that the Philadelphia Police Department would make that determination.

I rate this one a LAUGH; key words from Obama admin: "White House spokesman said that terrorism may have been the motivation." In other words, they REFUSED to call it terrorism even after the perp SAID he did it did for Allah.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush exaggerated in saying that then-Sen. Obama killed the comprehensive immigration bill in 2007 that had the support of President George W. Bush.

I rate this one a YAWN; no lie here.....exaggerated doesn't equate to a lie no matter how much liberals stomp their feet and yell.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich credited the Medicaid expansion with a reduction in the prison recidivism rate in Ohio. But the rate isn’t as low as he claimed, and the latest figures are on inmates released well before the expansion.

Another YAWN; no lie here folks. But if Democrats want to admit that someone touting their agenda as a success is lying about it working, I'm fine with that. :biglaugh:

Sen. Ted Cruz claimed an amendment he offered to the 2013 immigration bill “didn’t say a word about legalization.” That’s technically true, but the effect of the amendment would have been to allow legalization of those in the country illegally.

I rate this BS; if it is "technically true," it can't be a lie. Dumb!

Rubio claimed that when he opposed a “path to citizenship” when running for the Senate in 2010, it was due to legislation to provide “almost an instant path with very little obstacles moving forward.” But a 2010 Senate bill provided the same types of obstacles as the bill Rubio later backed as a senator.

Another YAWN; but hey, if liberals think a path to citizenship is a bad idea, I'm good with that. :biglaugh:

Cruz claimed that “millions” had lost jobs and been forced into part-time work because of the Affordable Care Act. But the economy has added millions of jobs since the employer mandate, and fewer people are working part-time for economic reasons.

This one ranks as outright false; the economy has added millions of PART TIME JOBS as a direct result of this law. The claim that fewer are working part time as a result by this blog IS THE LIE.

Kasich boasted of 400,000 jobs gained in the state under his governorship. But the rate of growth is below the national average.

This one is a YAWN; so he did create the jobs, but because the RATE of growth is below the FALSE national average rate we should claim its untrue? That's retarded; just like Factcheck.org....a left leaning loony blog.

Want to see what a REAL LIE looks like?

When Hillary declares that NONE of the emails held on her PRIVATE UNSECURED SERVER didn't contain ANY classified information, and then they find highly classified information on it.

It makes me laugh when Liberals act concerned over lies yet still support the liars in this Administration including Obama himself.

[maineman]

now he's denying that factcheck said something was a lie..... Incredible.

I find it incredible that you cannot substantiate this idiocy that factcheck called anything from that debate a "lie", or that factcheck themselves "lied" about anything in their article.

[Bo-4]

Truth Deflector, another one who prefers their own facts. :D

https://irevolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/truthinessdef.jpg?w=500&h=261

[Tahuyaman]

When you show them that what they called a lie was actually the truth, they say that they never called it a lie to begin with. But then even factcheck.org pointed out that one of the comments which they called a lie was actually " technically true".

So, they discredit themself.

[Matty]

Truth Deflector, another one who prefers their own facts. :D

https://irevolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/truthinessdef.jpg?w=500&h=261
There is no Truth Deflector in this thread. Just thought I would point that out.

[Bo-4]

I find it incredible that you cannot substantiate this idiocy that factcheck called anything from that debate a "lie", or that factcheck themselves "lied" about anything in their article.

Pretty sure either Truth Deflector or Tahu is actually Paul Broun. :)

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-all-that-stuff-i-was-taught-about-evolution-embryology-big-bang-theory-all-that-is-lies-paul-broun-54-23-56.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Truth Deflector, another one who prefers their own facts. :D

https://irevolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/truthinessdef.jpg?w=500&h=261
Please discuss the topic, not other members.

[maineman]

When you show them that what they called a lie was actually the truth, they say that they never called it a lie to begin with. But then even factcheck.org pointed out that one of the comments which they "called a lie" was actually " technically true".

So, they discredit themself.

that post is a lie. Factcheck never ONCE called any of the debate participants a liar nor did it every refer to any of their statements as "lies". It's pretty fucking obvious who the only one telling lies around here is... and that's YOU.

[maineman]

Go check this link:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/factchecking-the-seventh-gop-debate/

the words "lie" or "liar" do not appear ONE TIME in the entire article.

[Tahuyaman]

That's got be the funniest thing I've ever seen here

[maineman]

still running away from your own words. Classic. your mouth writes checks your ass can't cash.... so you run away from them. You said that factcheck had called several of the debaters "liars". How do you do that when you don't use the word? I have given you plenty of opportunity to go show one quote from that thread that calls anyone a liar or refers to anything they said as a lie. You can't... but, true to form, you cannot bring yourself to admit it when you step on your own dick.

[Tahuyaman]

Remember, I'm not going to let you drag me down to your level, so all your efforts to do so will be fruitless.

[maineman]

Remember, I'm not going to let you drag me down to your level, so all your efforts to do so will be fruitless.

I am not trying to drag you down. I am merely suggesting that you "stretched the truth" (lol) when you said that factcheck called any of the debate participants liars or said that any of their statements were lies. Clearly, you can't bring yourself to admit that. The facts, however, stand on their own, prima facie evidence of your deceit. Your failure to acknowledge that does not make it not the case.

[Tahuyaman]

Pretty sure either Truth Deflector or Tahu is actually Paul Broun. :)

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-all-that-stuff-i-was-taught-about-evolution-embryology-big-bang-theory-all-that-is-lies-paul-broun-54-23-56.jpg
I have no problem being associated with that quote.

[Tahuyaman]

Here we have the crowd which has redefined taxes to contributions and lies referred to as lapses in memory trying lecture me. How cute.

[maineman]

so you believe that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell?
wow.

[maineman]

Here we have the crowd which has redefined taxes to contributions and lies referred to as lapses in memory trying lecture me. How cute.

as I said... the evidence of your deceit stands on its own. If you think being a proven liar is cute, I guess that is further evidence that you and I do not share the same standards of personal integrity. If I am shown to be in error, I admit it.

[Tahuyaman]

If I am shown to be in error, I admit it.

You never have in the past, why would I believe it would happen now?

ive shown at least three clear examples of factcheck.org misrepresenting the facts.

[maineman]

You never have in the past, why would I believe it would happen now?

ive shown at least three clear examples of factcheck.org misrepresenting the facts.

point me to one post from the past where you have proven me to be in error about any statement I have made.

Regarding your second sentence....you have not. and you CERTAINLY have not shown any instance of them LYING or calling any candidate a LIAR.

[Matty]

Tsk tsk tsk. Poor Mexico. I am starting to feel badly for them.

[maineman]

oh... the kitty with glasses pipes up from the peanut gallery! how droll!

[domer76]

I have no problem being associated with that quote.

You need a savior? Why?

[Ransom]

point me to one post from the past where you have proven me to be in error about any statement I have made.

Regarding your second sentence....you have not. and you CERTAINLY have not shown any instance of them LYING or calling any candidate a LIAR.

I could break out your stubborn support for the Lancet Report that was politically motivated, disingenuous, and clearly wrong.

[maineman]

I could break out your stubborn support for the Lancet Report that was politically motivated, disingenuous, and clearly wrong.
I have admitted that the Lancet Report had numbers which, according to other sources, were higher than they should be. I have also said that the accuracy of that number was not as important as the fact that such a large number- even if well under half the Lancet figure - was still morally reprehensible... especially for a war that did not have to be fought in the first place.

[Tahuyaman]

oh... the kitty with glasses pipes up from the peanut gallery! how droll!


Really?

[Tahuyaman]

One thing I took from the debate. Megan Kelly is a fine looking woman, but I'm not a fan of her new hair style.

[maineman]

Really?

nah... I was only kiddin'

[maineman]

One thing I took from the debate. Megan Kelly is a fine looking woman, but I'm not a fan of her new hair style.

how about all those lies that factcheck told? You didn't miss those, did ya?

[Tahuyaman]

During the debate Rubio said that one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as president may be to pardon herself. I'm surprised factcheck.org call that a lie?

[maineman]

During the debate Rubio said that one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as president may be to pardon herself. I'm surprised factcheck.org DIDN'T [sic] call that a lie?

why? they didn't call anything the candidates said a "lie"....contrary to the bullshit you've been slinging about it.

[Tahuyaman]

how about all those lies that factcheck told? You didn't miss those, did ya?

I expect lies from the left wing sources. That's not unusual. I can miss something that never goes away.

[maineman]

they didn't call it a lie because it wasn't a lie... It WAS in very poor taste, however, but poor taste obviously plays to the troglodyte base of the GOP.

[maineman]

I expect lies from the left wing sources. That's not unusual. I can miss something that never goes away.

except, as we have shown, there were no lies in the factcheck article... and they were no accusations of GOP lies in that article either. You've got the reading comprehension of a kid first reading "Hop on Pop".

[Tahuyaman]

why? they didn't call anything the candidates said a "lie"....contrary to the bull$#@! you've been slinging about it.

So now you are claiming they didn't call any of their responses lies?

Have you tried raicilla for the first time tonight?

[Tahuyaman]

except, as we have shown, there were no lies in the factcheck article... and they were no accusations of GOP lies in that article either. You've got the reading comprehension of a kid first reading "Hop on Pop".

Yadda, yadda, yadda..... Whatever.

I know, your in box is full of messages from people who worship the ground you walk on. ...........



Yawn.

[maineman]

So now you are claiming they didn't call any of their responses lies?


that is PRECISELY what I am claiming, sarge.

show me one use of the word "lie" in that article. I'll wait

[maineman]

and I leave rotgut for the people with rotten guts. I stick to really good, old, tequila.

[Tahuyaman]

Holy shit, this guy has gone absolutely insane.

Thats ok. I just got back from the boat show and I learned a costly lesson. Don't ever tale your wife to a boat show. It's going to cost you several thousands of dollars you weren't planning on spending.

Maineman's lunacy is irrelevant.

[maineman]

Holy shit, this guy has gone absolutely insane.

Thats ok. I just got back from the boat show and I learned a costly lesson. Don't ever tale your wife to a boat show. It's going to cost you several thousands of dollars you weren't planning on spending.

Maineman's lunacy is irrelevant.

some guys are pussy whipped and their wives own their balls.... some of us aren't.

Casa Noble for me tonight.

[Tahuyaman]

and I leave rotgut for the people with rotten guts. I stick to really good, old, tequila.


If you can't handle raicilla, you ahave no business thinking you live in Mexico. Raicilla is truly a gift from God. I can't help it if you're a sissy.

[maineman]

It's funny that all you have are personal attacks on me, and yet, I keep asking you to show me anywhere where factcheck called any candidate a liar, and you just can't quite seem to find it.

pathetic.

[Tahuyaman]

some guys are $#@! whipped and their wives own their balls.... some of us aren't.

Casa Noble for me tonight.

right. You're not a boat owner, huh?

Raicilla is only for men. Sissy boys can't handle it.

[maineman]

If you can't handle raicilla, you ahave no business thinking you live in Mexico. Raicilla is truly a gift from God. I can't help it if you're a sissy.

"handle" it? Of course I can "handle" it. As a connoisseur, I chose not to. I'm sure you can handle all sorts of rot gut... and that only proves my point.

[Tahuyaman]

It's funny that all you have are personal attacks on me,...

Seriously? C'mon. Tell me you're either drunk or trying to make a joke.

[maineman]

I do not own a boat... but I know how to drive them.... really big ones, too.

[maineman]

Seriously? C'mon. Tell me you're either drunk or trying to make a joke.

when are you EVER going to show us where factcheck called anyone a liar in that article?????

[Tahuyaman]

"handle" it? Of course I can "handle" it. As a connoisseur, I chose not to. I'm sure you can handle all sorts of rot gut... and that only proves my point.

Connoisseur... That's funny. I'll bet you think Cohibas are great cigars too.

[Tahuyaman]

when are you EVER going to show us where factcheck called anyone a liar in that article?????


Heavy sigh....... Oh well. I tried.

Futile attempt.

[maineman]

Connoisseur... That's funny. I'll bet you think Cohibas are great cigars too.

I don't. They are plebeian....like you.

[maineman]

Heavy sigh....... Oh well. I tried.

Futile attempt.

you tried to make the word "lie" magically appear, but you realized it was a futile attempt? I agree.

[maineman]

Seriously. Go to the article in the OP. Cut and paste any phrase from that article which calls any of the candidates in that debate a "liar".

[Captain Obvious]

factcheck.org lawl, a hacks paradise.

Notice how nobody does their own, independent fact checking on these things.

[Bo-4]

I have no problem being associated with that quote.

Of course you don't!
:biglaugh:

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/16/50/41a6a29b752ddf9da6c08a1164ffff3c-jesus-with-a-dinosaur-16.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

factcheck.org lawl, a hacks paradise.

Notice how nobody does their own, independent fact checking on these things.

I have no problem with watchdog type organizations who expose misdeeds and such.

Whats ts funny here is that after factcheck.org was exposed for being dishonest, a certain hack here says that they were not because they never said anyone lied in the debate.

[Tahuyaman]

Of course you don't!
:biglaugh:

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/16/50/41a6a29b752ddf9da6c08a1164ffff3c-jesus-with-a-dinosaur-16.jpg

whats the significance of that one?

[Bo-4]

whats the significance of that one?

Well, if Broun's right and the Earth is only 9.000 years old, then Jesus probably rode around on a dinosaur!

:rofl:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/house-science-member-says-earth-is-9000-years-old/

[maineman]

I have no problem with watchdog type organizations who expose misdeeds and such.

Whats ts funny here is that after factcheck.org was exposed for being dishonest, a certain hack here says that they were not because they never said anyone lied in the debate.

what was dishonest about that link? where were the accusations of lies in that link?

[Tahuyaman]

See what I mean? Factcheck.org says candidates lied and a party hack says they did no such thing once their dishonesty was exposed.

[Bo-4]

See what I mean? Factcheck.org says candidates lied and a party hack says they did no such thing once their dishonesty was exposed.

For the 50th time, FactCheck said no such thing.

[Tahuyaman]

Now two party hacks are claiming factcheck.org never said anyone lied.

The thread was started to supposedly expose the lies from the candidates during the last debate.

[Bo-4]

Now two party hacks are claiming factcheck.org never said anyone lied.

The thread was started to supposedly expose the lies from the candidates during the last debate.

Correct, normal people point out inconsistencies or exaggerations.

The brain-dead feel the need to call those things LIES!! -- (straight form the pit of hell! :~)

[maineman]

Now two party hacks are claiming factcheck.org never said anyone lied.

The thread was started to supposedly expose the lies from the candidates during the last debate.

lies were never mentioned in the OP.
lies are never mentioned in the article linked to in the OP.
lies get mentioned firs in this thread by your butt buddy matty.

I really think that the true issue here is a failure to communicate due to your failure to read the English language beyond the second grade level.

factcheck never said they were "exposing lies". They were suggesting that the candidates played fast and loose with the facts. Which they did. You cannot find ONE instance in that article where factcheck.org lied about anything or accused anyone of lying about anything.

[Tahuyaman]

Correct, normal people point out inconsistencies or exaggerations.

The brain-dead feel the need to call those things LIES!! -- (straight form the pit of hell! :~)

whatever......


Hacks

[maineman]

Now two people are claiming factcheck.org never said anyone lied.


that's exactly correct. If you care to prove us wrong by posting a quote from the linked article that mentions anything about anyone lying, that would be fabulous. If not.... kindly shut your piehole.

[Tahuyaman]

When I first exposed two things that factcheck stated were lies but actually true, the hacks said that those two statements were in fact lies. Now they are arguing the opposite.

I cant keep up with these guys.

[maineman]

When I first exposed two things that factcheck stated were lies but actually true, the hacks said that those two statements were in fact lies. Now they are arguing the opposite.

I cant keep up with these guys.

the bolded phrase IS a lie.

[Truth Detector]

Truth Deflector, another one who prefers their own facts. :D

What would a shrill, hyper partisan, race hustling thread troll like you know about facts or the truth???

[Truth Detector]

Pretty sure either Truth Deflector or Tahu is actually Paul Broun. :)


I'm pretty sure you're wrong; again. But then, being wrong is your shtick.

[Truth Detector]

For the 50th time, FactCheck said no such thing.

On your very first post you used the word "whoppers." What did you mean if "whoppers" doesn't mean lies?

[Tahuyaman]

What would a shrill, hyper partisan, race hustling thread troll like you know about facts or the truth???

they don't even have the courage to stick to their original accusation. One can actually coax them into claiming they don't support their own claims.

Its funny.

[Truth Detector]

Correct, normal people point out inconsistencies or exaggerations.

The brain-dead feel the need to call those things LIES!! -- (straight form the pit of hell! :~)

You're the one that started the thread with "whoppers." Most would interpret that as being lies. If not, what did you mean by "whoppers?"

[Truth Detector]

lies were never mentioned in the OP.
lies are never mentioned in the article linked to in the OP.
lies get mentioned firs in this thread by your butt buddy matty.

I really think that the true issue here is a failure to communicate due to your failure to read the English language beyond the second grade level.

factcheck never said they were "exposing lies". They were suggesting that the candidates played fast and loose with the facts. Which they did. You cannot find ONE instance in that article where factcheck.org lied about anything or accused anyone of lying about anything.

Then what did your hyper partisan hack buddy Bo-4 mean when he said "whoppers?" Was he talking about getting a burger?

Both of you make terrible liars; but then, most partisan hacks do.

[Bo-4]

that's exactly correct. If you care to prove us wrong by posting a quote from the linked article that mentions anything about anyone lying, that would be fabulous. If not.... kindly shut your piehole.

It would be nice if the incessant yammering from a few around here came to a merciful halt -- but it won't.

[Tahuyaman]

On your very first post you used the word "whoppers." What did you mean if "whoppers" doesn't mean lies?

malted milk balls? cheap burger? I'm sure he'll figure out some twisted way to say it didn't mean "lies".

[Truth Detector]

It would be nice if the incessant yammering from a few around here came to a merciful halt -- but it won't.

Then what is stopping you and maineleftist from your incessant yammering and lying? Yourselves? :rofl:

So what did you mean by "whopper?" Were you talking about Burger Kings?? :biglaugh:

[Tahuyaman]

It would be nice if the incessant yammering from a few around here came to a merciful halt -- but it won't.


then I guess you should admit your inconsistency here.

[Truth Detector]

malted milk balls? cheap burger? I'm sure he'll figure out some twisted way to say it didn't mean "lies".

I'm sure neither will answer the question honestly; both are incapable of it.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm sure no ether will answer the question honestly; both are incapable of it.

that's been clearly demonstrated countless times here in hundreds of threads.

[Truth Detector]

I'll try again; YO Bo-4, what did you mean when you said "whopper?"

[Tahuyaman]

He certainly didn't mean "lie".

[Tahuyaman]

does anyone from the right care to refute factcheck.org's claims about any of the misstatements made during the GOP debate?

now you are changing your tune......... Too funny

[maineman]

Then what did your hyper partisan hack buddy Bo-4 mean when he said "whoppers?" Was he talking about getting a burger?

Both of you make terrible liars; but then, most partisan hacks do.

I have no idea what he meant. You should obviously ask him, and not me. I DO know, however, that the article he linked in the OP never accuses anyone of lying. It doesn't ever even USE the word lie.

I have never tried to defend Bo's word choices. I have only pointed out that factcheck never called anyone a liar. And they, themselves, didn't lie about anything.

If Tahuyaman had confined his statements to the words used by the author of this thread, I would not have stepped in and called him on his own misstatements.

[maineman]

now you are changing your tune......... Too funny

you really can't read at all. How is that "changing my tune"? If you were honest, which you obviously are not, and took the time to read the linked article from the OP, you would be able to tell me what, if anything factcheck claimed was inaccurate in any way.

[Bo-4]

I'll try again; YO @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297), what did you mean when you said "whopper?"

A "whopper" is a ginormous lie - You and Tahu are the kings of such!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qzGPHi0z_E8/UIBJXrCCetI/AAAAAAAABKE/6M9HG6qe7Sw/w426-h474/0liar-thief.jpg

[maineman]

Bo... I happen to think that is, itself, stretching the truth. Factcheck did not call any of the candidates LIARS or anything they said LIES, per se. They said they stretched the truth.

[Tahuyaman]

I'll try again; YO @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297), what did you mean when you said "whopper?"


They start a thread dedicated to exposing the supposed lies told by the candidates. When the so called lies are shown to be creative musings, they respond by saying "no one ever accused them of lying here".

[del]

Now two party hacks are claiming factcheck.org never said anyone lied.

The thread was started to supposedly expose the lies from the candidates during the last debate.

put up or shut up, talulah

[Truth Detector]

A "whopper" is a ginormous lie - You and Tahu are the kings of such!


Bo... I happen to think that is, itself, stretching the truth. Factcheck did not call any of the candidates LIARS or anything they said LIES, per se. They said they stretched the truth.

The stench of irony is strong here. But I am happy that we are now getting maineman back on the thread topic and premise.

[Truth Detector]

A "whopper" is a ginormous lie - You and Tahu are the kings of such!



put up or shut up, talulah

See above; it was the entire premise of the thread.

[maineman]

See above; it was the entire premise of the thread.

the article linked to in the OP never accuses anyone of lying. That was ALWAYS my point.

[Tahuyaman]

The left wing hacks are circling the wagons.

[Truth Detector]

the article linked to in the OP never accuses anyone of lying. That was ALWAYS my point.

The thread author claimed that it did which is what everyone else's point WAS. DUH.

What would your interpretation be of "stretched the facts?"

Fact Check: The Republican presidential candidates debated in Iowa Jan. 28 and stretched the facts.

[maineman]

They start a thread dedicated to exposing the supposed lies told by the candidates. When the so called lies are shown to be creative musings, they respond by saying "no one ever accused them of lying here".

yawn......

As stated. FACTCHECK did not accuse anyone of lying here, nor did they, themselves, LIE about anything in the quoted article. That is ALL I have ever asserted.

[maineman]

The thread author claimed that it did which is what everyone else's point WAS. DUH.

Actually, everyone else's point was that FACTCHECK had called the candidates liars, not that Bo-4 had.

[Truth Detector]

The left wing hacks are circling the wagons.

When you support an ideology based on lies, you tend to "circle the wagons" a lot.

[Truth Detector]

Actually, everyone else's point was that FACTCHECK had called the candidates liars, not that Bo-4 had.

Actually, you continue trying to wallow in a never ending circle of stupidity and denial.

So what do you think the point of the OP was?

[del]

Actually, you continue trying to wallow in a never ending circle of stupidity and denial.

So what do you think the point of the OP was?

about ten thousand feet over your head

[maineman]

The thread author claimed that it did which is what everyone else's point WAS. DUH.

What would your interpretation be of "stretched the facts?"

Fact Check: The Republican presidential candidates debated in Iowa Jan. 28 and stretched the facts.

my interpretation would be something different than if they had said that the candidates debated and many of them LIED. Can you read the article and tell me one assertion by Factcheck that is, itself, inaccurate?

[Tahuyaman]

Hacks always get tangled up in their hackery.

[maineman]

Actually, you continue trying to wallow in a never ending circle of stupidity and denial.

So what do you think the point of the OP was?

Why should I care? I paid little attention to the OP, and got right to the article which I read completely. In it, I figured out that factcheck did not call any of the candidates liars. that has been my only position from that point on.

[maineman]

Hacks always get tangled up in their hackery.

find any LIES in that factcheck article, yet?

[Truth Detector]

about ten thousand feet over your head

Apparently you project your own ignorance of the topic onto me. YAY you. Do you ever add anything to any debate other than your puerile and juvenile attempts to insult me?

[Truth Detector]

my interpretation would be something different than if they had said that the candidates debated and many of them LIED. Can you read the article and tell me one assertion by Factcheck that is, itself, inaccurate?

Apparently you missed my summary of ALL their points. Get back to me when you're better informed on what they were.

I'll ask you again because you're prolific at dishonestly and avoiding anything that could be mistaken for for an answer: what would be your interpretation of "stretched the facts" and Bo-4s "whopper" claim which is the point made by the OP?

[Bo-4]

Apparently you project your own ignorance of the topic onto me. YAY you. Do you ever add anything to any debate other than your puerile and juvenile attempts to insult me?

http://i.imgur.com/4GI656G.jpg

[del]

Apparently you project your own ignorance of the topic onto me. YAY you. Do you ever add anything to any debate other than your puerile and juvenile attempts to insult me?

you need to look up *attempt*, corky

[Truth Detector]

Why should I care?

Another outright fib; you must care because you've been ranting about for pages here. Why can't you be honest for just one time; what do you think the point of the OP was?


I paid little attention to the OP, and got right to the article which I read completely.

You always pay "little attention" in any debate. What was the pint of the OP? What is meant by "stretching the facts?"


In it, I figured out that factcheck did not call any of the candidates liars. that has been my only position from that point on.

What did they mean by "stretching the facts" then?

[Truth Detector]

you need to look up *attempt*, corky

You need to get your head out of your ass and look up the definition of thread troll.

[Truth Detector]

http://i.imgur.com/4GI656G.jpg

Irony.

[del]

You need to get your head out of your ass and look up the definition of thread troll.

why?

you're right here

[maineman]

Another outright fib; you must care because you've been ranting about for pages here. Why can't you be honest for just one time; what do you think the point of the OP was?

I think the whole point of the OP was to introduce the factcheck article about the GOP debate. I got right to the article. The fact that bo-4 used the word "whopper" was not my concern, nor my interest. the article was.



What did they mean by "stretching the facts" then?


disingenuous, self-serving spin.

[Bo-4]

You need to get your head out of your ass and look up the definition of thread troll.

Irony
:laughing9: