41 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Others say different
other reliable sources claim that Obama had 4 more minutes in the debate than Romney. If ThinkProgress can mess up on a simple time clock check, how can we trust any of their other assertions?
James, I only trust you...
... So, please get back to us after you sit down with a stop watch and time the two candidates time on air.
Remember.... I'm depending on you and only you.
if I may, here is a BBC fact checking article
Did they tell you that BO had 33 in 42 minutes?
I notice that neither of you have provided a link to...
... the 33 fact problems that Toni says Obama had.
Here's a complete list
from your link, I count 7 Obama gaffes.
That is a far cry from the 33 you were trumpeting.
you believe what BO said doesn't make Toni wrong!
Where on this thread did I say I believed Obama?
Where did I say Toni was wrong?
All I have done on this thread is provide links and questioned other people's assertions. Did I make Toni say Obama told 33 whoppers in 42 minutes? Am I wrong to ask people to take personal responsibility for the things they say?
what you said
was, "That is a far cry from the 33 you were trumpeting" To anyone else that means you are saying Toni was wrong. She also supplied a link from BOTH sides of the debate, did you read it? Yes Grim I would love to see all of SE take responsiblity for what they say, So why don't you start it? All I have seen is all of you making excuses for BO's poor debating.
RE: To anyone else that means you are saying Toni was wrong.
Not to me...it just means that Toni provided the wrong link...I know Toni will correct her error and provide a link showing Obama told 33 whoppers.
And I couldn't find 28 whoppers for Romney either
So we meet in the middle with PolitiFact's info.......both were guilty of exaggerations or fabrications; however, because Romney came out with what he considered to be facts and BO mainly stood there closed-mouthed and tried to play it safe, Romney got 'fact checked' more often. Romney won the debate.....and I would guess that the next debate where they are in a townhall element, it will be harder for both of them to carry the 'stage' for long.
I hope this link, since it is 'generic' for their home page, will still show the list of the 'sorting out' of the debate.
You did good Toni
Admitted screw up....I thought
I was replying to Glenda.........sorry. I'll be more careful from now on.
7 is a far cry from 33
Quit making excuses and quit being bellicose. I made no comment based on hyperbole. I stuck strictly to the facts as they were presented to us. You would not stay quiet if I made a mistake. hy should I stay quiet when other people make outrageous exaggerations?
A huge difference between you and I is that you are decidedly partisan to the point where you start to make things up. You accuse me of making excuses for Obama's poor showing in the recent debate when the truth is that I have made no comment about the debate, other than to point out that Toni was numerically wrong.
Actually, I was numerically wrong
but so was Josh. I got my 33 number from a news tv commentator when I posted that but never could find where HE got HIS numbers from. I suspect the same thing that happened with HIS numbers is the same thing that happened with the 27 number Josh got because commentators were counting repeated statements as individual statements. So both sides got their numbers elevated beyond reality. In any event, both sides were misstating some things, and some things they got right.
and here is NPR's list of Fact Checks
It really should have been 28
The list I posted didn't include Romney's claim that Obama has doubled the deficit. The deficit is currently down from last year and is projected to drop below $1 trillion in 2013, and --- based on CURRENT POLICY AND SPENDING will drop to around $500 billion by 2015. That means that if Romney got elected and didn't change a thing, he'd be able to run in 2016 and brag that he cut the deficit considerably.
economic salvation is always somewhere in the future. It's like that imaginary horizon you keep traveling toward but never reaching.
The fiscal cliff
is a diliberate, on purpose, Republican thing. It's Starve The Beast.
Is it not at least worth doing, to tax the ultra well off at least a little bit? At least as much as labor? As though there was a war going on?
"You didn't build that" is not just a bumper-sticker, knee-jerk. We used to be in this together Not so much anymore. The free money people don't want to pay.
Inheiritance is money "coming in". IE, income. Same as capital gains. It's BS to call it double taxed money. If you're paying taxes on your principal, you're doing it wrong.
What happened to "Created equal"? That IS what motivates people to the military.
You said we used to be in this together
This should mean a government that creates partnerships with business rather than calling it an enemy of the people. Whether you have issues with Wall Street or not, you don't call people there "fat cats" and expect them to come over to your side. You don't set people against each other based on income, race, immigration status, personal opinion, gender...etc...you name it. All are equal and none get special attention or treatment. If you want people to work together, you don't carve them into smaller groups and call some friends and some enemies.
Social Security is
a manditory annuity. Medicare is a manditory health insurance policy. Without these we would go back to the hero worship of bank robbers and bootlegers.
How is inheiritance and Capital Gains not income? Why does free money not pay the same as labor money? This makes no sense.
So you give a couple bucks to a fellow at the end of the freeway ramp holding a cardboard sign. How much should he pay in taxes on that free money?
As much as the Church when they get a donation?
Good. Then the homeless
can cook for and staff the soup kitchens rather than the churches. We'll need to make sure the menus are Michelle approved for proper balance and calorie count.
You don't carve people into smaller groups. It's not people I see differently. It's the two types of money.
At the very least, if you invest in a company that makes explosivly flamible baby pajamas, whether you knew it or not going in, should you keep your profits up to the point where publicity drives your stock price down to zero?
Not all companies are enimies. But some are.
Your "set people against each other based on income..." etc. is, IMO bogus. The divide is free money vs. labor money.
It's not me doing the divide and conquer thing.
BTW, I do think there's something to the 47% thing. I balieve everybody should pay something into the general fund.
I can't explain it here...perhaps a new thread
One needs to understand the concepts and differences between "ownership" and "stewardship". Paying taxes is, IMO, more for paying fees for services. We don't truly share by doing that. Paying taxes requires no thinking about what we are doing and allows us to wash our hands of what happens with what we are required to share. Good and proper stewardship requires a great amount of thought and comes with a great amount of responsibility for that which we are requested to share. There is no good substitute for stewardship.
Our economy is not competitive,,,
,,, NOT because we tax the rich too much. Rather! It's not competive because we don't accept cardboard shantytowns all over the place. Where if you don't steepen the pitch of the trench that runs down the middle of the pathway in front of your shelter that serves as a sewer, you end up with the logical consequences. You will do what ever it takes to push it on down to the next guy. Right?
Do we really want to go that far down. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just don't have enough preachers or ammunition or walls and gates. Or hired guards, to see the truth. Maybe the two Americas's blinds me.
Does anybody really believe that we can keep adding a billion more people to the world's population every 15 years, indefinitely? And in the mean time, absolutely DO NOT TAX THE RICH!
Our tax code is so screwed up with deductions, that we can't see the forest for the trees. Romney says we're borrowing Big Bird from the Chinese. Okay by me. Drop that. Drop almost everything in Mathew Lesco's Big Book of "Free Gubberment Money".
The thing is that we have reached this ballance through (supposedly) bi-partizan compromise. And everything SOUNDS ridiculous. ludicrous, laughable and absurd.
The "Earned Income Tax Credit" is a subsidy for other peoples kids. But it's hidden. Let's bring all these credits and deductions and shelters, out into the light. If we don't, we continue the deception.
It's really hard to be optimistic. I was raised to "leave the campsite better than I found it". The new Republicans have turned that on it's head. "The worse, the better"!!!
We, as Americans, are supposed to believe in investment. Risk. We are duel moneys type people. We make money by labor. And we "make" money by risk. The deal is that if the workers always absorbe the furthest down side of risk, then it's just a free money thing.
Who's going to pay the interest on our debt? And who's going to collect it?
Who didn't pay in in the first place?
At least let us collect cardboard and do what we can with it. And quit your B****ing.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)