PolitiFact: Only 22% of Obama's Listed Comments Rated as True

LOL...you don't me that well, but at the time Bush was pushing HHS powers and the TSA, I was highly skeptical & critical. I didn't trust Bush/Cheney/Rove anymore than I trust Obama, but for different reasons. Politicians lie, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, and it's why I don't really trust any of them as far as I can spit.

 

then answer the question, i'll break it into two parts so you don't get confused

have you ever supported any president,


******************************************************************************************


what about these guys?:



Mitt Romney
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Herman Cain
John Boehner
Mitch Mcconnell
Michelle Bachmann

 

Incorrect, these programs don't help the bottom 20%, they BURDEN the bottom 20%. Let's use your beloved ACA as a terrific example, in which you can only earn a certain disposable income, and if you earn above that you no longer qualify for credits. In other words, the ACA perpetuates poverty.

Another example? Food stamps. Irregardless of one's median income, if it reaches a certain threshold it actually goes down. Starving the impoverished families.
The Liberal "War on Poverty" has been a bigger fail than the war on drugs and terrorism put together.

It makes me wish those Liberals would stop focusing on anything economic, they don't know what they're doing. Or, if they really want to do something about the causes of poverty, they should read on economic theories regarding the notion and maybe that party can propose real solutions.


Here, I'll get us started:

Drawing on data from a survey of family households in nonmetropolitan Pennsylvania, this paper examines how households
construct livelihood strategies through participation in the formal labor market, government assistance programs, and
informal work (for cash, barter, and savings/self-provisioning). Throughout, special attention is paid to influence of
household income. The results show that participation in a varied livelihood strategy is common. Greater formal labor force
participation is shown among higher income households, and greater participation in assistance programs is shown among
lower-income households. (Work, Welfare and the Informal Economy).

As we can see, higher income is(obviously) shifted towards those in formal labor force participation. So, what should an Economic Party do? Indeed, what should the Liberal party be focused on? Their ill-advised, economically nonsensical war against the 1%?

No, you should be favoring tax cuts to ALL Americans!(I'm going to make a thread on this shortly, I'm tired of our two political parties and most Americans being economically dumb as bricks). You see, the more tax cuts you enable, the more money is freed up in the system. A tax is an obligation, which strips monetary power away from the taxed.

You'd know this if you weren't too busy looking at the 1 % as the holy grail of all evil. The top 20% have more than 40% of the wealth, not merely because of(and not even primarily because of) low taxation. In fact, their wealth is what promotes higher taxes(the bottom 20% of course barely pays any taxes.). Or at least, that's relating to federal income tax.

The real reason that the Top 20% own more than 40% of the wealth boils down to a real simple concept: Capital Gains.(Hence, there's even a Capital Gains tax)

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalgain.asp

Guess what? Money(for the average folk) operates in much the same way. Money is an asset, what you purchase with money becomes the equity that you brought. So when the government has State Tax, VAT Tax, Federal Taxes, investments into your 401(K), Etc al. This depreciates the earning power of average Americans.

It's bad enough that the government depreciates our earning power, but its "welfare programs" judge based on a median income level(IE: the base income). Get it now? This problem far exceeds the 1%. That's what your beloved Liberal Government wants you to suck up at night to believe, like a good little Liberal child.

Economic reality is far crueler. But also much simpler. There's an easy solution for the government, and for the people of America.(Both top 1% and bottom 10%), gay, straight or cross-gendered. Win-win for us all: Lower taxes. To be specific, there are two proposals that come to mind: State or Federal, which do you prefer?

If, as a Liberal you don't believe in State rights, I have some bad news for you: I'll concur, but the Federal Government is going to have to pick up the tab for all 50 states from this point on. It's absolutely counter productive that American Citizens pay State AND Federal taxes, if only one is solvent. If we only have to pay federal taxes, the states will instantly be able to balance their budgets, and American Citizens will lose a lot of tax burdens.

Likewise, if the Federal Government doesn't want to take that burden, then it's just going to have to eliminate federal taxes and will only be funded by the U.S States.(This will force a long overdue government contraction. Good riddance to awful garbage).

Either way, what we have now in the form of taxation is cruel. It sabotages hiring, it keeps people lower on the economic scale and the haves can continue to have at a discount. More taxation is NOT the answer.

 

Here I will give you the opportunity again

Here- I will give you an opportunity again

Mitt Romney - 41% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John McCain - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Sarah Palin - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Rick Perry - 37% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Herman Cain - 68% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John Boehner - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Mitch Mcconnell - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Michelle Bachmann - 75% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire (including whopping 27% "pants on fire")

Now based upon Politifact- the source of your information for this thread- do you rate:
Obama a bigger liar than those GOP politicians?
Obama and the GOP both big fat liars?
The GOP bigger liars than Obama?

I look forward to seeing a thread started by you questioning the honesty of anyone who is not a Democrat.

 

Sure, anything is possible, but based on emperichal data there is no one who lies as much or damages as much with their lies as OWEblamer.

Pass? LOL Your world is fantasyland. It's essential to being an Oppressive.

 

Actually using the OP methodology, Bush is more honest than Obama.

Politifact rates Obama statement on health care as the "Lie of the Year", it's no wonder the majority of Americans believe the president is not honest and trustworthy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...anager-take-hit-in-new-cnnorc-poll/?hpt=hp_t2

 

Sure thing, Rush. Let's eliminate the SS and Medicare benefits little old ladies rely on. It'll be good for them to live out in the streets. Fresh air and all that.

I'm all in favor of cutting FICA taxes on middle/lower income workers. But then you have to make up the tax revenues somewhere, or we run up more debt you all pretend to be so concerned about.

The top 1% have 40% of the wealth because they are now getting 20% of the income.

And they had that special privileged low 15% max tax rate on CG income for years under Bush. Now a whopping 20%.

It's been a very special time to be super rich in American, and since "trickle down" policies designed to make them richer they've gained tremendous at the expense of the
middle classes and the nation.

How do federal income taxes which don't apply to low income worker depreciate their earning power?

The regressive effective 15% FICA taxes do, no doubt about it.

The top 10% now take 15% more of the nation's income than 30 years ago, before "trickle down". In an economy with $14 trillion gross income, that accounts for about $2.1 trillion each year going to the top 10% instead of the bottom 90%.

Reverse "trickle down" policies and get some of that $2.1 trillion back to the 90%, and they'll both be a lot better off, and so will the economy when they spend it.

Sure, we need more of the nation's wealth going to the top 1%.

Because for heaven's sake. The top 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough for you, is it? Because more is never enough.

Agreed. Having a regressive FICA tax on the poorest while the richest pay a maximum 20% on billions in investment income is cruel.

But that's trickle down. Time to reverse it.

 

How is that using the OP methodology?

Politifact wasn't active when Bush was president. Only four of his statements were rated. You can't compare him because they never rated his many whoppers in office. Pity.

 

what a joke

[video=youtube;8Ux3DKxxFoM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM[/video]

 

Empirically not, based on the OP methodology.

Obama - 27% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.

Mitt Romney - 41% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John McCain - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Sarah Palin - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Rick Perry - 37% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Herman Cain - 68% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
John Boehner - 53% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Mitch Mcconnell - 44% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire.
Michelle Bachmann - 75% rated mostly false, false or pants on fire (including whopping 27% "pants on fire")

Feel free to quote my post that you claim is fantasy if you have any credibility.

 

Why hasn't Politifact reviewed more of his statements (what's stopping them?) What we do know is that of the statements reviewed, Bush is more honest than Obama.

Pity there are so many that would support a pathological liar like Obama, I guess democrats couldn't care less than they are being lied to regularly, as long as the messages comports with their political ideology. As long as the message is the one they want to hear, it appears that they don't care if it is honest and accurate or not.

 

Politifact wasn't operating when Bush was president.

They don't go back and rate historical statements. Maybe they should.

Given the Republican candidates were far bigger liars using the OP methodology, why do you think that is a pity? Did you want a bigger liar in the WH? Or is it you couldn't care less than you are being lied to regularly, as long as the messages comports with your political ideology? And as long as the message is the one you want to hear, you don't care if it is honest and accurate or not?

 

nm.....

 

What we do know is that of the statements reviewed, Bush is more honest than Obama.

It's a pity that Democrats will still support the pathological liar after his "Lie of Year", nothing to do with anyone else. I guess democrats couldn't care less than they are being lied to, as long as the messages comports with their political ideology. As long as the message is the one they want to hear, it appears that they don't care if it is honest and accurate or not.

 

Since none of the many whoppers he told campaigning and in office were reviewed, we don't know much.

You've already expressed you pity.

Why did you dodge my question?

Given the Republican candidates were far bigger liars using the OP methodology, why do you think that is a pity? Did you want a bigger liar in the WH? Or is it you couldn't care less than you are being lied to regularly, as long as the messages comports with your political ideology? And as long as the message is the one you want to hear, you don't care if it is honest and accurate or not?

 

what a joke

False pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq

By Charles LewisMark Reading-Smith - January 23, 2008 Updated: May 15, 2013

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney [with 48], and McClellan [with 14].

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/01/23/5641/false-pretenses

 

Geez... American Crossroads told no truths:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/american-crossroads/

Boehner and McConnel didn't do so well either.

 

A little late to the game aren't you? But just for you I'll repost this;
"I guess the question is, have we become so entrenched in bias, staunch political patronage, we're willing to accept such blatant disregard for honesty by leadership we deem to be "on our side" or are we just too lazily content to confront it?"

 

I know. According to PolitiFact, Americans for Prosperity did little better, though it was guilty of some half-truths.

 

Still waiting to see that.

 

I can also think of a few whoppers that Obama told that weren't rated. But we both can agree that of what was reviewed Bush is more honest.

No, I didn't want a bigger liar in the WH, that's why I don't support and defend the one who told the biggest lie (you seem to avoid his "Lie of the Year", I wonder why?). But you couldn't care less, as long as the messages comports with your political ideology? And as long as the message is the one you want to hear, you don't care if it is honest and accurate or not?

Since Rand Paul has been shown to be more honest than Hillary Clinton using the OP methodology, I'm sure you will be throwing him your support. LOL

 

that's already been debunked

 

Interesting. Is that because the name might happen to sound Muslim or is it unrelated to his actual name and simply because he's a "black" man or a moderate liberal politician?

How the intergrity of a person can be determined based upon what their parents named them as a child seems to be a rather absurd criteria so there must be something more to this because it isn't based upon the facts related to statements President Obama has made or how honest he is related to other politicians.

 

There is noting interesting about racists or racist projections at all. I find your continued racism offensive and entirely off off topic. Feel free to take your racism to another thread.

 

And his mostly true is also at 25% so that's nearly half the time he's being mostly honest. His pants on fire is at 9% and his false is at 18%. The statistics were put together from over 400 checks.

Now compare this to several prominent republicans:
John Boehner:
True17 (27%)
Mostly True3 (5%)
Half True9 (15%)
Mostly False (21%)
False (29%)
Pants on Fire (3%)
Statistics from 62 checks.

Mitch McConnel:

True (13%)
Mostly True (25%)
Half True (19%)
Mostly False (19%)
False (25%)
Pants on Fire0(0)
Statistics from 16 checks.

I'd also like to point to the 'Promises' page for Obama, where only a few of them were absolutely not followed through for one reason or another.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/?page=1

See, you can spin anything you want. Isn't it fun being a journalist these days? Either way, I'd say Obama is about average on the lying scale. No better or worse than any other mainstream politicians.