# Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union



## Flaylo (Jan 26, 2011)

Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann&#39;s "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction

Will Bachmann ever get any focking thing correct and stop shooting off typical rightwing false propaganda?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 26, 2011)

_The president could agree to an energy policy that increases American energy production and reduces our dependence on foreign oil._

Now that's some balls. Bravo for her. 

Who gave the Republican response? Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The land of lakes and cow teats.
Not ONCE did he mention oil or energy.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.




Yes it is, it highlighted Bachman's lies.  Too bad her response wasn't aired on the networks and an analytical review wasn't offered but she's unfortunately considered a joke not to mention a diversionary attempt.

She did no harm to either the president nor Ryan.  

Ryan talking about the accounting end of things sort of put people to sleep so no harm to the president there either.

The sotu was a successful speech except for maybe the plane crash analogy.  I liked his comments on the repeal of healthcare by the morons in the house.  

Not that Republicans won't get it all wrong and spin the fucking shit out of it, nonetheless..



> The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I dont agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it  in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.
> 
> This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, Im willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction
> 
> Will Bachmann ever get any focking thing correct and stop shooting off typical rightwing false propaganda?



Might as well use the Daily Kos as a source.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.
> ...



Who fact checked the President's lies? Or are you that naive that you still think he hasn't lied? 

This partisan bullshit is laughable. Seriously. Outrage at Bachman's bullshit, while allowing the bullshit to slide from the Dems.... pur-leeeeze.


----------



## ba1614 (Jan 26, 2011)

"nonpartisan economists" Is that the cbo he's talking about?
 Just curious, I haven't heard or read anyone else saying such things.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

So, I've hunted around on this political bitchfest site and.... color me shocked... the only lies are from the right! 

It's no wonder so many on the left are thick as shit. No one 'splains stuff to 'em,


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 26, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.
> ...



The only thing that changed since the Stimulus became law is the way they count the unemployed. They even announced this fact when it changed, so the numbers reported are not accurate. It's gotten so bad that when new job losses dips below half a million the Obama Administration throws a party.

They don't count the actual unemployed, *only those who are currently collecting unemployment.* Those that lose their benefits go off the total. The actual unemployment rate is currently over 20 percent. Many of my renters have lost their jobs. In some states there has been massive increases in unemployment. Many illegal immigrants have returned to their country of origin, if they are able to, because there's no work here anymore.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I didn't even mention Ryan's lies.  Bachman is definately a liar and she repeats false talking points because she's too stupid to do any research for herself.

Obama KNOWS what he is talking about.  He writes his own stuff THEN it's tweaked.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> The only thing that changed since the Stimulus became law is the way they count the unemployed. They even announced this fact when it changed, so the numbers reported are not accurate. It's gotten so bad that when new job losses dips below half a million the Obama Administration throws a party.
> 
> They don't count the actual unemployed, *only those who are currently collecting unemployment.* Those that lose their benefits go off the total. The actual unemployment rate is currently over 20 percent. Many of my renters have lost their jobs. In some states there has been massive increases in unemployment. Many illegal immigrants have returned to their country of origin, if they are able to, because there's no work here anymore.




I think someone needs to fact check you, skinflute.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 26, 2011)

PolitiFact | Michele Bachmann's file

Bachmann @ Politifact - 7 "False" and 6 "Pants on fire."

Face it, the woman's a liar, in addition to being stupid and a radical.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



It's spelled 'definitely', Sarah. 

Obama lied in his speech last night. And.... no, he does not write his own stuff.... he instructs his speech writer about content. His speech writer produces a draft, Obama tweaks it..... probably more than once.... and eventually it is what it is. But it's still lies. 

I have no idea why some people think this guy is different from every other President. This obsession over him writing his own shit is laughable.... unless, he's managed to create 48 hour days.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> _The president could agree to an energy policy that increases American energy production and reduces our dependence on foreign oil._
> 
> Now that's some balls. Bravo for her.


*WHEW!!!!*

Talk-about *biting the hand that FEED$ you!!!!*

​


> *October 25, 2010*
> 
> *BP Among Foreign Oil Companies Funding Climate-Change Denying Tea Party Candidates*​


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



HaHaHa!  

He isn't that different from Clinton but much different from the last 4 or so Republican presidents.  More intelligent.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.



You mocking him has nothing whatsoever to do with the idiot response of Bachman .. who appears to have never picked up a history book in her life.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

BlackAsCoal said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.
> ...



Obama lied in the SOTU. Ryan lied in his response. Bachman lied in her response. Color me shocked. Same old shit, different day. 

Some of us are getting bored with the whole spin cycle. So we mock those who are dizzy.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Care to parse the lies you claim?


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



When you can back that claim up... with his college records.... let me know. Because, on the evidence in front of me.... he's no more or less intelligent than the rest of them. What is funny is that some people still buy that shit.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 26, 2011)

What are the Obama lies Cali?


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> What are the Obama lies Cali?



 Why not find out for yourself, 'truth'? Or do you not bother fact checking your own side?


----------



## Ravi (Jan 26, 2011)

Does this mean that Bachmann is the leader of the tea party? Awesome! I would have preferred Christine O'Donnell but this is almost as good.


----------



## Flaylo (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > What are the Obama lies Cali?
> ...



You're the one that said he told ls you flaming dumbass, so its on you to prove that he lied, do your own work or quit making stupid ass claims.


----------



## Flaylo (Jan 26, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



CG didn't learn her lesson from the last time she bashed one of my sources only to confess that the link in the OP was focking right.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jan 26, 2011)

Using a media-monitors subsidiary to fact check a response to a Democratic SOTU is as stupid as using the Texas Republican party to fact check a response to a Republican SOTU.

Zero credibility, just another propaganda arm.


----------



## CMike (Jan 26, 2011)

It's your radical left wing source that is lying.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.



*Attack on the messengers, not on the message. *

Oh, and look at the names of those who thanked CG for her helpful ad hominem:
Claudette (Today), CMike (Today), mudwhistle (Today) 

LOL, an echo chamber circle jerk.  How cute.


----------



## Claudette (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




You got that right. 

It was the usual bs fest for the Prez with 80 stops for applause. 

The usual bs fest for the response, in this case two responses. No applause.

Oh I'm sure each of the above had nuggets of truth but loads of bs as well. Don't think any of em would survive a real fact check. 

Anyone who thinks different is, well, an idiot.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



There is already a thead on Obama's SOTU lies, dumbass. I don't do spoon feeding idiots. Stupid boy.... linking to a left wing bitchfest about the right and refusing to accept that your boy lied too.... fucking partisan, unthinking, fool.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.
> ...



I attack a partisan source as not a non-partisan source for factually accurate, unspun, information. You do understand that, right? The source is a partisan one... it has a left wing agenda. Why would I take that seriously? It's applying critical thinking. Consider the source.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Claudette said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > BlackAsCoal said:
> ...



Very funny when he 'paused for laughter' and nobody laughed. That made me laugh.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction
> 
> Will Bachmann ever get any focking thing correct and stop shooting off typical rightwing false propaganda?



I read one of thier "counter points".  Since it didn't refute what she said, since they had to go after the language she used and not the facts.

I will assume the rest of it is utter bullshit that only those that lack any form of critical thinking would beleive.

shocker, it's a flaygo thread


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



My, my, my.  You didn't learn such profane language in professional writing school did you sweetie?  I wonder...maybe, is it possible?  Could be.  
Personal question, CG.  Are you LIEability in drag?


----------



## 8537 (Jan 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



^The above is quite simply wrong.  The calculation of the reported unemployment rate (the U3) has not changed.  at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2011)

LOL.  President Obama delivered a well thought out speech. It said some things that needed said, and put some ideas out there. Not a great inspiring speech, not a red meat for the base speech. Just a 'here's where we are and here is what we need to do the get where we want to get' speech. 

And that presents the Republicans with a problem. How to respond without looking like fools. Bachman responded as normal, and looked like the fool she is. Ryan hit the snooze button. Politically, it was a win for our President.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction
> 
> Will Bachmann ever get any focking thing correct and stop shooting off typical rightwing false propaganda?



Hey *FAIL-O*... how about you fact check that dumbasses speech from lastnight?

It was ALL a crock of steaming shit!


----------



## Sallow (Jan 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> They don't count the actual unemployed, *only those who are currently collecting unemployment.* Those that lose their benefits go off the total. The actual unemployment rate is currently over 20 percent. .



The Bush administration did the *exact same thing*. The Bush economy was a disaster.

And the people that laid off so many were hailed as "heroes". Carly Fiorina laid off 30-50K Techs at HP and shipped those jobs overseas. This was after she trashed Lucent.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

Sallow said:


> The Bush administration did the *exact same thing*. *The Bush economy was a disaster.*
> And the people that laid off so many were hailed as "heroes". *Carly Fiorina laid off 30-50K Techs at HP and shipped those jobs overseas*. This was after she trashed Lucent.



I'll take that disaster over this one any day.... avg 5% unemployment. Yep, thats better than 9% + any day.

GE layed off 34,000 and shipped 24,000 jobs to India....and then  

Obama recently tapped Connecticuts General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair the Presidents Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to reduce the stubborn unemployment rate.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.



Rather than dispute the actual data presented in the article?


----------



## 8537 (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The Bush administration did the *exact same thing*. *The Bush economy was a disaster.*
> ...



More private sector jobs have been created in the past 12 months than the net total of the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The Bush administration did the *exact same thing*. *The Bush economy was a disaster.*
> ...



Again.

The Bush economy was a disaster.

It's WHY we are where we are today.

It was an administration rife with crime, propaganda and misinformation.

They cut taxes while starting two wars. Then they put those wars off budget. Like the spending didn't exist.

Lots of people were suckered.

Lots.



> I'll take that disaster over this one any day.... avg 5% unemployment. Yep, thats better than 9% + any day.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.



What did they get wrong?   Or are you just another, to use your boyfriend Liability's word, dumbass who attacks the messenger not the message?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Now that's on the money!
However I will say as a Minnesotan, Bachmann would never carry Minnesota in an election. She hugely popular within her district but statewide, she has a high statewide negative rating.  Now Minnesota is looked upon as progressive but has shifted somewhat to the right.  In the last election, the GOP gained control over both houses but then a Democrat was elected governor by defeating a far right GOP candidate.  Call Minnesota Purple.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I saw the speech.  Nothing really jumped out at me as lies.  This morning I did a search and found no site listing factual lies.  Perhaps you could share your links that show the lying in the SOTU speech.  I'm not a huge supporter of Obama.....  But your statement I find outrageous.  Not in that you don't like him..in that you claimed his speech was all lies.

Bachmann did make some pretty stupid statements recently in regards to the American history of immigrants and slavery.  They were factually off the chart wrong.  She really is an embarrassment.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The Bush administration did the *exact same thing*. *The Bush economy was a disaster.*
> ...



Actually the 5% unemployment rate after the recovery from the much smaller Recession of 2001 was a play with numbers.
The US Labor Participation Rate is much more accurate and actually shows not much of a drop during the recovery from the recession on 2001 job wise.

File:US Labor Participation Rate.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## amrchaos (Jan 26, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



So are you saying that Michelle Bachman is the Cynthia McKinney of the right??


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 26, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



What does obie wan know? I'm just curious.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 26, 2011)

Bachmann is correct. obie wan pissed away a trillion dollars and the unemployment spiked to 9.8. Higher in some areas. No lie there. None.


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 26, 2011)

amrchaos said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I've never read  or heard or watched a C. McKinney speach.  I don't follow the dems that closely.  My focus is on the Christian Fundamentalists that have taken over my party.  They have done great damage to the GOP...The dems not so much.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.




Ahhhh hahahaha.. Fail-gomer busted again


----------



## hboats (Jan 26, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



It was Sarah that used the "intelligence angle."

Or didn't you see this?



Sarah G said:


> He isn't that different from Clinton but much different from the last 4 or so Republican presidents.  More intelligent.



Rick


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You making up shit about me again, Fail&Won'tGo? 

I don't even read your 'links'.... I don't read partisan spin shit from the HuffPuff, nor am I the slightest bit interested in the lies by Media Matters.... and since your OP links to yet another lefty whine source, I'm not gonna take it seriously either.


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Don't you think politicians who wield power and influence who are dizzy deserve to be mocked?
Bachman's inability to grasp Basic U.S. History 101 & 102 is stunning, to say the least.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Hey! Look! A stupid person! This one can't read a few sentences to work out who mentioned Obama's supposed 'intellect'. 

Must really suck to be you. Covering your own lack of intellect by lying about other peoples... when the whole fucking board can see exactly who mentioned intellect.... is the mistake of the terminally stupid.

You are dismissed.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > BlackAsCoal said:
> ...



Is Bachman the President? No. Has she announced that she's running in '12? No. Is she my Senator? No. (Although - I would actually prefer her to the twin bitches I'm stuck with).

I have no interest in Bachman until I have a reason to be interested.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> hey look cali is using the intelligence angle.....again....you know for someone who likes to use this angle over and over again.it really shows lack of thought.




How about you bring something to the table besides bullshit.


----------



## hboats (Jan 26, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Then you've got major reading comprehension problems, but it's your choice to go through life being an idiot.

Rick


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

amrchaos said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Actually, if Nancy Pelosi got a total makeover as a tea partier, she would BE Michelle Bachman.


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 26, 2011)

Dems smart, Reps dumb ... grunt grunt, snort snort...


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> Actually, if Nancy Pelosi got a total makeover as a tea partier, she would BE Michelle Bachman.



What?????


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




No interest. 

Copy that.


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if Nancy Pelosi got a total makeover as a tea partier, she would BE Michelle Bachman.
> ...




Both of them, respective to their idiotologies, are not the sharpest pencils in the box.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



Then why mention her name?

Your scared of Bachman.... thats why!


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.  President Obama delivered a well thought out speech. It said some things that needed said, and put some ideas out there. Not a great inspiring speech, not a red meat for the base speech. Just a 'here's where we are and here is what we need to do the get where we want to get' speech.
> 
> And that presents the Republicans with a problem. How to respond without looking like fools. Bachman responded as normal, and looked like the fool she is. Ryan hit the snooze button. Politically, it was a win for our President.




Politically, a new low bar has been set for what you consider a win. An ongoing ravaging of the middle class and the poor were never ever mentioned by Obama.
It was a SOTU speech befitting of an emergent immaculate Plutocrat.


----------



## jgarden (Jan 26, 2011)

*"Birthers," "death panels," "blood libel" - since when has the political "right" let the facts interfere with a good tirade?

The conservative "tried-and-true" strategy, as evidenced in this and other forums, consists of -
*****************************************************************************
1.  put the liberals on the defensive by throwing out "accusations" that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better
current examples from the usual "unreliable" sources: 
a) "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism." (ScreamingEagle)
b) Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate (Flagwavrusa) 
c) Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii (dvinman) 
d) Anti-American song played at Obama state dinner...surprised? (whitehall)
e) Don't Fall For All Of This Centerist BS From The Media (mudwhistle)  

2.  sit back and watch the liberals scurrying around trying to refute it

3.  dispute and question the validity of any data source that doesn't put consservative issues in a favorable light (unlike liberals, conservatives very rarely make any attempt to provide reliable sources or references)

4. before the liberals have had an opportunity to totally "debunk" the original thread, conservatives will proceed to post another thread(s) and start the whole process all over again

5. "flooding" the forum with "right-wing" threads is the easiest, "low-maintenance" way for conservatives (who have notoriously weak debating and research skills) to set the agenda and thereby attempt to keep the liberals on the defensive

6. the big mistake liberals are making is looking for signs of "intelligent life" in conservative threads - where none exists*


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Apprehensive. I get apprehensive whenever stupid and influential are joined at the hip.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



Apprehensive....?

I didnt say you were Apprehensive.... I said you are *SCARED* of her!

I bet you piss the bed at night just thinking about her


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...




Bachman's deficit graph went back, what, a whole ten years? At least Ryan's response layed the blame for the state of the economy realistically at the feet of both parties over a much longer period.


----------



## signelect (Jan 26, 2011)

Obama has never done anything for him self in his life.  He pays BIG money for speech writers just like all presidents.  He was appealing to his base and we all know them.  I will not insult everyone who voted for him but if they will quit believing the lies and realize that the promises he made are not coming through then maybe , just maybe they won't vote for him next time.  I didn't the first time and darn sure won't in 2012.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 26, 2011)

Flaylo said:


> Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction
> 
> Will Bachmann ever get any focking thing correct and stop shooting off typical rightwing false propaganda?



*sigh*

FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger

FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending

Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, On Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.

THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."

Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.

OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.


FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## California Girl (Jan 26, 2011)

signelect said:


> Obama has never done anything for him self in his life.  He pays BIG money for speech writers just like all presidents.  He was appealing to his base and we all know them.  I will not insult everyone who voted for him but if they will quit believing the lies and realize that the promises he made are not coming through then maybe , just maybe they won't vote for him next time.  I didn't the first time and darn sure won't in 2012.



He doesn't pay for his speech writers. We do. They are government employees. And, rightly so. Every other President has availed themselves of the same benefit.... and it is important that they do... because they are professional writers who can translate complex information in an accessible fashion. I have no issue at all with him using speech writers. 

I do,  however, take exception to the bullshit contained in that speech... but that's Obama's fault, not his writer.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



So let me get this right.... the substance was'nt wrong, she just didnt go back far enough?

Ok..... maybe she should have, but all it would do is substantiate her point.

Bottom line is... you libs are scared of Bauchman.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Ahhh no.  Sarah Palin is even a brain trust compared to Bachman.  Nancy Pelosi is very bright.  You all have no one with any sense in that party.


----------



## jgarden (Jan 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


*BRILLIANT STRATEGY !!!!!

1. liberal response to "birthers" - Bottom line is... you conservatives are scared of Obama

2. liberal response to "death panels" - Bottom line is... you conservatives are scared of Obamacare

3. liberal response to "blood libel" - Bottom line is... you conservatives are scared of the repercussions when you allow every mentally unstable American out on the street to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment Rights.

4. liberal response to "_____" - Bottom line is... you conservatives are scared of "__________" (fill in the blanks)*


----------



## ba1614 (Jan 26, 2011)

B. Kidd said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > BlackAsCoal said:
> ...


Were you just as critical of the obamas inability to grasp American Geography 101?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 26, 2011)

Is Willow Bachmann?


----------



## xotoxi (Jan 26, 2011)

California Girl said:


> PoliticalCorrection.org..... a project of Media Matters. This is the OP's idea of a fact check source. And he wonders why I mock him.



That fact check source tried to spin things in their direction as fast as Bachmann tried to spin things in her direction.

I'm getting dizzy.  Time to rest.


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




Last time I checked History is not Geography. You should've known this. Afterall, you're the one who lives 'deep in the woods'. (How the hell do you ever find yer way out.....).


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that changed since the Stimulus became law is the way they count the unemployed. They even announced this fact when it changed, so the numbers reported are not accurate. It's gotten so bad that when new job losses dips below half a million the Obama Administration throws a party.
> ...



Why don't you. Maybe you'll learn something.

How bout a lesson in manners for one.

*How does the government count unemployment*

According to the government, if a person gives up looking he's not unemployed, nether is he or she employed. Such a person becomes invisible in the system. How many are currently living in this country who have just given up looking because their hopes for a job are non-existent?


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Must've attended the 'Infidel School of Etiquette'.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Fact Checking Rep. Bachmann's "Tea Party Response" To The State Of The Union | Political Correction
> ...



The site might be biased but is the information on the site correct or wrong?
Let's have a straight answer.


----------



## Vanquish (Jan 27, 2011)

CaliGirl gets props for trying to sound centrist (fact check Obama as much as you fact-check Bachmann)...but she loses the same props for simply dismissing the fact checkers and not discussing the logic of what they put out there. 

If they're wrong...make an argument. Don't just lamely say "ooohh that site sucks" Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Flaylo (Jan 27, 2011)

Why do rightwingers keep trolling every thread?


----------



## Vanquish (Jan 27, 2011)

Both sides troll, Flaylo. Both sides. and it sucks.


----------

