chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Fact check, Obama not truthful either..Debate Fact Check: The Third Presidential Debate Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney By Josh Smith, Sophie Quinton and Olga Belogolova | National Journal – 4 hrs ago....EmailShare .......President Obama and Mitt Romney focused on foreign policy in their third and final presidential debate, held Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. Here is a look at some of their statements and how firmly they are grounded in fact. Obama on Romney's stance on Russia: During Monday’s debate, Obama accused Romney of having a foreign policy that is stuck in the 1980s, saying: "A few months ago, when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia." While Romney has said this, he soon after followed the comment with an assurance that Iran is truly “the greatest threat.” In a March interview with CNN, Romney said, "Russia, this is, without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe.” When pressed, however, Romney conceded that “Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.” As a result, Politifact has ruled Romney calling Russia our No. 1 enemy as “mostly true.” Since that interview, Romney has repeatedly commented on Russia being a geopolitical adversary. But during the debate on Monday, Romney countered Obama’s claims that his foreign policy is stuck in the '80s. "I have clear eyes, no rose-colored glasses," he said. Romney on Massachusetts college scholarships: Romney described the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship program in Massachusetts as an example of his concern for promoting education. He accurately explained that the scholarship covered full in-state tuition for Massachusetts students who score in the top 25 percent on standardized tests in their school districts. What he left out was that the scholarship doesn’t cover fees, which in the Massachusetts state university system are greater than tuition. At the flagship University of Massachusetts (Amherst), one semester of in-state tuition is $857. Fees each semester, meanwhile, can total more than $5,700. And that doesn’t include one-time fees. Obama and Romney on Status of Forces agreement: Obama denied he tried to reach a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq that would have left more troops there. His Pentagon did try to reach such a deal, but it broke down over Iraqi insistence that troops be subject to Iraqi justice. According to Time, President George W. Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement that called for complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by 2012 unless a new agreement was signed. FactCheck.org notes that Obama wanted to leave several thousand troops in Iraq, but the Iraqis would have none of it. Romney strongly criticized the Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government, saying at a roundtable discussion in November 2011, “It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake.” Romney told Fox News that Obama should have left “10-, 20- 30 thousand personnel there.” Romney and Obama on Syria: Romney said Obama should have coordinated Syrian opposition and formed a “council of some kind.” The administration did help to form just that, the Syrian National Council, although it has been somewhat hapless in coordinating the various Syrian rebel factions. Obama and Romney on Bush economic policies: Obama said Romney had praised President George W. Bush’s economic policies. In March, Romney did credit Bush, not Obama, with avoiding a depression. "I keep hearing the president [Obama] say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression," Romney said at a campaign event in Maryland. "No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and [then Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening." < style="display:none;"> </div> Romney on Obama's 'promise' to bring down unemployment: Romney’s claim that Obama promised to bring unemployment down to 5.4 percent by the fall of 2012 stretches the truth. “The president said by now we would be at 5.4 percent unemployment,” Romney said. Romney gets the number from a 2009 report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which forecast that unemployment would drop to 5.4 percent by the third quarter of 2012 if the stimulus package were passed, Factcheck.org has reported. The president himself never made this claim. And the report itself “was highly speculative,” Factcheck reports. It was a forecast, not a promise, and it underestimated the size of the hole in the economy. Obama on Romney's record on job creation: The Obama campaign has frequently rolled out the statistic that Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation under Romney’s watch. Obama mangled the talking point slightly in the debate, saying, “In Massachusetts, small-business development ranked about 48th out of 50 states” under Romney. Obama’s debate-night claim appeared to confuse employment statistics with small-business development. Under Romney, Massachusetts did indeed rank 47th out of 50 states in job growth, according to Politifact. But Romney inherited a poor jobs picture, and job growth occurred under his tenure. And in any case, there’s not a whole lot that state governors can do to change the overall economic picture, Politifact has noted, which means it’s hard to pin all the blame for Massachusetts’ jobs numbers on Romney. Obama on military spending: Obama accurately said that the United States spends more on defense than any other nation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2012, U.S. defense spending dwarfs that of the rest of the world, including four of the top five largest military spenders: China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France. Obama also added accurately that spending has gone up every year since he has been in office. But U.S. defense spending has surged in all the years since 9/11, and spending itself isn’t necessarily an indicator of effectiveness. Romney on Obama's 'apology tour': Romney’s well-worn accusation that Obama began his presidency with an “apology tour” won a “Pants-on-fire” rating from Politifact. The definition of apology is somewhat subjective. For example, in a 2009 speech in France, Obama said, “There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” But Politifact asserts that while Obama criticized some U.S. actions, he “did not offer one apology.” That verdict was echoed by FactCheck.org and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker. Romney on Obama saying he would meet with 'world's worst actors': Romney revived a 2008 criticism of Obama when he accused Obama of saying “he would meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year,” including Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During the summer of 2007, then-Sen. Obama was asked at a CNN/YouTube debate if he would be willing to meet “without precondition” the leaders of “Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.” Obama responded: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous." The 2008 Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, slammed Obama over the remark later in the campaign. Obama on Romney's statements on auto industry: Obama accused Romney of wanting to “liquidate” the auto industry. Obama has repeatedly said Romney would have “let Detroit go bankrupt” when the auto companies were in crisis in 2009. Politifact has rated this claim as half-true. It’s a matter of nuance: In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” (a headline he did not write), Romney suggested a “managed bankruptcy” for the auto industry. He emphasized in TV interviews that he was not advocating liquidation and that he was opposing government bailouts with no strings attached. He did not define “managed bankruptcy” in the op-ed, but he listed a string of desired outcomes, including new labor agreements, new management, and an end to such executive perks as corporate jets. Most of Romney’s desired outcomes did eventually occur, which may have led him to suggest in the last debate that Obama essentially did what he would have done. Obama on Romney helping to outsource jobs: The Obama campaign’s perennial claim that Romney helped other companies outsource jobs has been questioned by independent fact checkers. While the private-equity company Romney founded, Bain Capital, did invest in companies that helped other companies outsource jobs, many examples of outsourcing that the Obama campaign has linked to Romney took place while Romney was on leave and running the Salt Lake City Olympics, according to FactCheck.org Director Brooks Jackson. Romney may have remained the titular head of Bain during that period, but there’s little evidence that he was actively involved in management decisions, Jackson said. Obama on doubling of U.S. exports to China: Obama was slightly off when he said that exports to China have doubled since he came into office. U.S. exports to China last year rose above $100 billion for the first time, according to a report by the U.S. China Business Council. The report also shows that total U.S. exports to China rose to $103.9 billion in 2011 from $16.2 billion in 2000, making China the third-largest U.S. export market. Ten states have at least doubled their exports to China since 2009. Three of those states--South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont--have more than tripled their exports to China in the past two years. But the U.S. as a whole has not yet doubled its exports to the country. In 2009, U.S. exports to China were at $69.5 billion. In 2011, U.S. exports to China were at $103.9 billion. |
||||||
|
thats your fact checkers opinion. |
||||||
|
The source The magazine was established in 1969 by Thomas N. Schroth, who formed the publication after being fired from his post as editor of Congressional Quarterly, with many CQ staff defecting to the new publication.[1] National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders.[2] It is mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists. Most of the journal's content can be accessed only by subscribers. The yearly subscription rate is $1,160, or $525 for just the weekly hardcopy magazine. The magazine has received three National Magazine Awards.[3] Some of its best known current and former contributors have been: Richard E. Cohen Charlie Cook Clive Crook Jonathan Rauch[4] Stuart Taylor Jr.[5] Major Garrett [6] Susan Davis Matthew Cooper[7][8] Marc Ambinder Patrick Pexton Murray Waas[9][10] William Powers Yochi Dreazen[11] As of 2006, National Journal has an agreement with Washington Week which ensures that at least one National Journal reporter is on the show.[12] In 2010, buyouts were offered to the entire magazine's staff. The magazine was relaunched in October, along with a new, free website.[13] |
||||||
|
i will give ya a breck.. PS; POLITIFACT is a right-wing stooge operation so please don't wast my time with their smears |
||||||
|
brigadecommander 22-Oct-12, 23:16 |
Deleted by brigadecommander on 23-Oct-12, 00:48.
|
||||||
|
dmaestro 23-Oct-12, 02:08 |
|
||||||
|
most accurate characterization of a candidate yet: |
||||||
|
i love the title of this thread |
||||||
|
and........ |
||||||
|
bc you might want to learn the difference between their, they're, there etc. There are a bunch of other words you use also that sound the same but have completely different meanings. Did you go to public school and take English? I guess that I'm asking if you are a representative example of our public high school graduates? p.s. As a old White guy, I am smart enough to use proper English. (in most cases anyway) |
||||||
|
dmaestro 23-Oct-12, 13:34 |
|
||||||
|
WHEN THEY START CRITEQING YOUR ENGLISH... |
||||||
|
dm;Language is evolving. |
||||||
|
By NATE SILVER If only women voted, President Obama would be on track for a landslide re-election, equaling or exceeding his margin of victory over John McCain in 2008. Mr. Obama would be an overwhelming favorite in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and most every other place that is conventionally considered a swing state. The only question would be whether he could forge ahead into traditionally red states, like Georgia, Montana and Arizona. If only men voted, Mr. Obama would be biding his time until a crushing defeat at the hands of Mitt Romney, who might win by a similar margin to the one Ronald Reagan realized over Jimmy Carter in 1980. Only California, Illinois, Hawaii and a few states in the Northeast could be considered safely Democratic. Every other state would lean red, or would at least be a toss-up. Although polls disagree on the exact magnitude of the gender gap (and a couple of recent ones seemed to show Mitt Romney eliminating the president’s advantage with women voters), the consensus of surveys points to a large one this year — rivaling the biggest from past elections. The gender gap is nothing new in American politics. Since 1972, when exit polling became widespread, men and women split their votes in three elections: 1996, 2000, and 2004. They came close to doing so on several other occasions. In 2008, for example, Mr. Obama won resoundingly among women, beating Mr. McCain by 13 points, but only won by a single point among men. The biggest gender gap to date in the exit polls came in 2000, when Al Gore won by 11 points among women, but George W. Bush won by 9 points among men — a 20-point difference. The numbers this year look very close to that. Since the first presidential debate in Denver, there have been 10 high-quality national polls that reported a breakout of results between men and women. (I define a “high-quality” poll as one that used live telephone interviews, and which called both landlines and cellphones. These polls will collect the most representative samples and should provide for the most reliable benchmarks of demographic trends.) The results in the polls were varied, with the gender gap ranging from 33 points (in a Zogby telephone poll for the Washington Times) to just 8 (in polls by Pew Research and by The Washington Post). On average, however, there was an 18-point gender gap, with Mr. Obama leading by an average of 9 points among women but trailing by 9 points among men. If that difference carries forward to the exit polls, it would reflect among the largest gender splits ever, rivaling the 20-point difference from 2000, and a 17-point difference in both 1980 and 1996. The gender gap has been growing over time. It was nearly absent, for instance, in 1972 and 1976, the first two years that the exit polls tested it. But after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, reproductive rights became a greater focus in presidential elections — particularly under Ronald Reagan in 1980, who was more willing to campaign on the issue of abortion than most of his predecessors. The gender gap jumped to 17 points that year, with men much more likely to vote for Mr. Reagan. The gender gap has sometimes been widest when there is a Democratic president running for re-election, as in 1980 or 1996 (or a Democratic vice president looking to ascend to the presidency, as in 2000). Women, apart from their tendency to vote Democratic, also seem slightly more inclined than men to give the incumbent party another chance. When the incumbent is a Republican, as in 1976 or 1992, this can mitigate the gender gap. When the incumbent is a Democrat instead, as for Mr. Obama this year, both trends operate in the same direction, making it wider. One area where gender politics is less important is in planning Electoral College strategy, since roughly equal numbers of men and women vote in each state. Nevertheless, the Electoral College can serve as a way to demonstrate to scope of the difference in how men and women vote. If the current FiveThirtyEight forecast were re-calibrated to show an overall 9-point lead for Mr. Obama — his lead among women in polls since the Denver debate — he would be a clear favorite in states totaling 347 electoral votes. Mr. Romney would be favored in states containing just 140 electoral votes. Another 51 electoral votes would be too close to call. About the opposite would happen if Mr. Romney led nationally by 9 points — his current advantage among men. He would be all but certain to win states with a total of 321 electoral votes, and would be highly competitive in traditionally blue-leaning states like New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. The large gender gap comes despite the fact that men and women’s economic roles are becoming more equal — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women represented 47 percent of the labor force as of September — and that women suffered at least as much as men in the recent economic downturn. The unemployment rate among women was 7.5 percent as of September — up from 7.0 percent when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. The unemployment rate among men is higher — 8.0 percent as of September — but it has declined rather than increased since Mr. Obama took office. It had been 8.6 percent in January 2009, and peaked at as high as 11.2 percent later that year. This suggests the gender gap instead has more to do with partisan ideology than with pocketbook voting; apart from their views on abortion, women also take more liberal stances than men on social issues ranging from same-sex marriage to gun control. Presidential candidates have faced increasing pressure to align with the bases of their parties on social issues. Mr. Obama reversed his previous position to support same-sex marriage this year. Mr. Romney has long since abandoned a number of moderate stances he took on social issues as governor of Massachusetts, when he said he supported abortion rights. So long as the ideological gap between the parties grows, the gender gap may grow as well. cool graphs here: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com |
||||||
|
sorry |
||||||
|
bc As smart as you are, I don't think that would be a good idea, do you? But, I am trying to be helpful here. Just a friendly tip. If you ever plan on writing a proposal for a grant to do your research, you better have a basic understanding of the English language... or your proposal will simply end up in the circular file. You should strive for excellence in all you do... not just looking at stars or for life in exotic places... but even in the mundane things such as your primary language. Or, you may not even get the opportunity to do those exotic things. (the real world has things called "standards" and if you don't measure up, you'll be out) Language is evolving will not cut it... that is a weak excuse for failure. |
||||||
|
thanks for the tip. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
bc For example, I just realized this is a good "learning opportunity" here for all of us, and a chance for me to make another point. You have DM who basically told you that it is not important for you to know and use proper English. that it isn't your fault if you made mistakes, and to not worry about it because "English is evolving"... NO BIG DEAL. I told you that you were making mistakes and that it will be important in your career for you to use proper English. Now, who do you consider to be more interested in your future, who really cares about you more, and who is your better friend? btw... I'm not looking for any answers here... this is just a thought experiment. |
||||||
|
good ol reasonable chaz... |
||||||
|
grammar persuasion requires eloquence and logic. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
poignant and off topic |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What are you talking about? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
no its about the reprobate romney |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
then please elaborate then. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
