Slashdot Mirror

You seriously have to be joking. If you want to read http://mediamatters.org/ then go there, if you want to read http://foxnewslies.net/, if you want to read http://www.politifact.com/ then go there, if you want to read http://crooksandliars.com/ then go there. Don't waffle on about Fox not-News and demand people provide examples of Fox not-News blatant propaganda on slashdot, just bloody google it yourself there are thousands of examples, a regular daily act of corporate propaganda.

The reality here Fox not-News dresses up opinion as news whilst the other news channels are clear about what is opinion and what is news.

Here is a couple of links, just so can can go a bit rabid, http://rt.com/ and http://www.aljazeera.com/, go for it ;D.

I believe it's a reference to his 2008 campaign statements regarding new coal-fired power plants.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/14/ohio-coal-association/ohio-coal-industry-says-obama-promised-bankrupt-co/

Obama Treasury dude Jack Lew knows where to hide his cash

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows where to hide hers

Obama's pal and advisor Valerie Jarrett seems to like Bermuda for her cash

Nancy Pelosi Seems to like hiding her money in asia (see: Matthews International Capital Management LLC)

And then Obama himself seems to like parking cash in the Cayman Islands

The truth is that the political class lives by a very different set of rules than the rest of us and if you think Democrats are any more "for the people" than Republicans then you're just another "useful idiot". Many of the richest politicians in the US who hide cash offshore to avoid taxes are Democrats.... and it's worse when they do it because they are being hypocrites; Republicans at least call for everybody to have lower, flatter taxes...... but Democrats are always trying to fool the public into liking them by yelling "Tax the Rich!" while quietly hiding their personal fortunes from those very taxes they endorsed.

I agree with you on the tribalism issue. And I agree that Obama has not lived up to many of his promises. However, you're not living in reality if you think nothing good has changed. Take a look at PolitiFact's Obama promise meter - certainly he hasn't kept his promises, but (a) he's not a dictator and (b) I think its fine if he gets to office and finds things are different than they looked before he got there, due to secret intelligence, etc.: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

In 2011, 85% of college students moved back in with their parents.

Politifact disagrees

That's just not true any more in the US. It's true for the top 10 colleges, and maybe the top 50, but as you go further down, the return on investment of a college degree goes negative now

Please provide a source on this. I'll provide one showing a nice table the level of educational attainment is a more significant factor for median income.

My SO and I graduated from two well known public universities. On ranks in the 100-200 range according to Forbes, the other in the 200-300 range. We currently are in the top 5% income bracket. I would beg to differ that our combined ~$100,000 "investment" over 4 years (read: $12.5k per year per person) has resulted in a negative return.

I don't see it. Here's one...

"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.

Biden -- rated mostly false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/

They ~interpret~ Biden's statement, to determine what he could have meant a number of groups by "we".

They acknowledge It could very well be true that he and Obama weren't personally told Libya had

And then decide its 'mostly false' because even if by 'we' he meant potus and vpotus the statedepartment knew, and that it was misleading to imply otherwise.
requested more security.

How about true is true and false is false. Why do we need all these gray areas of falseness or misleading? It just encourages people to not be truthful.

Not really, check out http://www.politifact.com/, they don't just put the truth-o-meter next to a statement and leave it at that. They provide a factual reason as to why the rating is given. Take a look at the examples on the link I've given and then try to tell me that 'if you were a politician' you would want anything other than 'true' next to a statement of yours.

Stop.. In manufacturing there's a lot of integration, third party suppliers or outsourcing as it can also be called. All of those have various degrees of risk associated with them. When you're talking about the scale of what Boeing did on the 787, I think it created new management challenges that they weren't fully expecting and the result was cost overruns and schedule delays. They've always integrated and outsourced with partners. For example I know that they don't make their own nuts and bolts, or rivets or engines for their planes. These come, and have for many many decades, from suppliers who were given specifications and who worked with Boeing. Some of the components such as engines were developed in close partnership, meaning teams from engine manufacturer X at Boeing etc. It's been long since proven that doing it all yourself doesn't get you ahead, you do have more control ala Henry Ford and the River Rouge plant where he didn't have to rely on anybody, or that was his thinking anyway but that went out in the 40s when he couldn't keep up with his contracts for the US government. He even made his own steel. And it eventually became very cumbersome for Ford to maintain this. This was an industry lesson learned and it clearly demonstrated that no manufacturer can exist and create everything on their own and within each business there are associated risks and supply chains that have to be monitored, preserved and nurtured to make it all happen. Do suppliers fail? Yes, but that is one of the risks associated with modern manufacturing and it's up to your business management models to help manage that risk. Obviously in that case Boeing gets a "C-" for the 787 and with the current electrical system woes, they get an "I" for incomplete. They do get an "A" for effort in trying to build something new that hasn't been done before. If you read the stories from people and the press about how their experiences are on the 787, then you'll see what I'm talking about. LCD window shades, quiet cabins.. As somebody who flies, weekly, this is long overdue and it's innovative and yes, with all new innovations there are teething problems. As for the supply chain issues, they'll get settled and yes there may be a "labor" component involved here especially since there have been problems for them getting things manufactured here in the US. If you want a root cause for "outsourcing" look to the US government that in "some" cases goes way out of its way to make things hard for businesses and also creates nice big loopholes in legislation that allow H1-B visas to be used for "Kindergarten Teachers."

Let's say your numbers are correct and 40% of guns sold in the US don't involve a background check (though I'd be curious in seeing some citation for that number).

Citation: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

If facts have a liberal bias then they must be worthless and full of lies.
For just one example http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/ could go through your whole "facts" by why waste the time since they are the standard lies of liberals.

Once again we have a liberal OUTRIGHT LYING to give a free pass to the jackass that is Harry Reid. Lets check Politifact and see what they say. As of Sept 12, 2012 it was said "We haven’t passed a budget in more than three years and not a single appropriations bill has been brought to the floor this year." and that statement was rated as absolutely true.

I'm constantly amazed at how often liberals outright lie and assume no one calls them on it. That's right, you are a liar and are part of the problem this country faces. We would be in a better position if people like you didn't express statements that were lies because so much has to be done to fight the lie that we can't make any progress afterwards.

Are you talking about these profits that were reduced at the end to about 5 million after tax reductions?

Even the far left Polti-"fact" says you are full of shit.

I have often thought something similar. Really, I see Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street as a grid of left/right and corporate/public. Generally, people see OWS and Dems as "left" while TP and GOP as "right" (columns of the grid). However, Dem and GOP represent corporate America, and in turn OWS and TP represent public America (rows of the grid).

I want both OWS and TP to succeed at the expense of corporate parties. I think that public America needs more support right now. One great way that they can synergize is the focus on small businesses; fewer CEOs with massive compensation, not too big to fail, profit stays in the local economy instead of being shipped out-of-state, smaller companies have a harder time buying politicians...I mean what's not to like about e.g. patronizing your local grocery store instead of Wal-Mart? (case in point: the owners of Wal-Mart have as much combined wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans)

I can identify with the best parts of each camp, but I also cringe at the worst parts of each camp, people calling for free shit (come on guys this shit costs real money) or people trying to enforce their religious views on me. These worst parts are then exploited by corporate parties to get the public fighting amongst themselves because when it really comes down to it, most people will be more offended by one camp's worst than the other's and this fact will be exploited by corporate parties to keep the public camps from realizing what they have in common.

I do have strong feelings about gun laws but I do not think that this is the time to air them

With an average of 35 homicides per day committed in the USA with firearms, I would say the window for airing those strong feelings is pretty damned small.

1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record: He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many.
2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January.
3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.
4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.
5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.
6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead, so his goals are reasonable enough.

Sorry Mr. Slippery, but Fox News is indeed a news channel that also provides commentary.

Fox News viewers overall are about equally informed as other networks, and viewers of particular shows are better informed.

Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge

High
Knowledge / Source

44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News

Why does this sort of disparity in outcomes exist?
Jon Stewart Slams Fox Viewers as Most Misinformed, But He's the Ignorant One
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Perhaps someday we will live in a world where Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers are as well informed as Rush Limbaugh listeners, but not today.

Believing that Fox News makes you stupid or misinformed is a comforting lie backed by cooked polls that people tell themselves to reassure themselves of their superiority. It may in some fashion be comforting, but it isn't true.

Payroll taxes were cut from 6% to 4%, back in '09 I think. They're due to expire next year. The Bush tax cuts were extended but they've been in place since before Obama took office.

About 30% of Obama's stimulus bill was tax cuts.. From the linked page:

Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.

Just how much are you willing to wager on that?

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2010/03/31/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending/
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/

Here, go fuck yourself.

No they did not. Water boarding was listed as activities supporting torture but none of them were convicted for water boarding anyone. You will not find one charge of water boarding against any of the japs or germans convicted of post facto laws

I'm not sure if you are arguing some technicality (such as the technique being referred to as "water torture" rather than "water boarding" at the time, despite being the same practice)... but in any case, Politifact disagrees with you.

What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

Lessee...

1. 4 More years of bowing down to other powers in the world, and likely "Apology Tour II: This time we're REALLY Sorry".

Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/

2. Dragging the US down to the same socialistic level so many others in the world are mired in....misery loves company you know.

Like Canada for example? You know the country everyone is currently ass kissing because we're in better fiscal shape than most? (Thanks Liberal Party)

3. Even less of the American "We're #1" groupthink by the country.....so we can just become more meek, less competitive, and just follow the lead of the UN.

I don't know about you but I don't think that if you're the best you need to pat yourself on the back about it all the time. That is called bragging and it gets kind of annoying.

4. An even lower level standard of living for the US...meaning we consume less, leaving more oil for China.

Probably true.. we're in a race to the bottom in the first world because the playing field isn't level. How is that Obama's fault again?

5. The US 4 years closer to financial failure...and rebirth as God knows what...I didn't study as far into Saul Alinsky as those in the Obama administration has, but I think this likely is their early goals they are currently in the midst of establishing:

It has been a long time coming. Sooner or later someone will be left holding the bag and be forced to use their political capital to make the cuts needed or at least rein things in to let growth make up the gap. Again, nothing to do with Obama unless you're going to blame the financial meltdown of the world on him personally.

And I'm not even saying that Obama has done a great job but I think anyone who is reasonable has to agree he came into a heck of a situation.

The government is not in charge of your healthcare and never has been. Your doctor is in charge of your healthcare. The government put itself in charge of paying for it for a big chunk of the population, but you can always say no and pay for it yourself if you please.

Politifiact called the claim that the ACA was a "government takeover of healthcare" as "Lie of the Year"

Bullshit. Oh, and you forgot Mitt Romney's actions-that-speak-louder-than-lies position on coal plants in your rush to make this a Democrat-only political football.

Coal is taking a hammering because they compete in exactly the same areas a natural gas. Natural Gas is at an all-time low in price and an all-time high in availability.

Two independent financial firms say the Marcellus isnâ(TM)t just the biggest natural gas field in the country â" itâ(TM)s the cheapest place for energy companies to drill.

The Marcellus could contain "almost half of the current proven natural gas reserves in the U.S," a report from Standard & Poorâ(TM)s issued last week said.

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/reports-marcellus-shale-reserves-larger-and-cheaper-to-develop-1.344086

Geology.com has reports of super-sized fields that are turning up there.

Output from the Marcellus - a rich seam of gas-bearing rock that straddles Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia - has jumped nearly ten fold since 2009, flooding pipelines and playing a central role in pushing futures prices to ten-year lows earlier this year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-energy-natgas-marcellus-idUSBRE89E12B20121015

Local radio up in the Eastern West Virginia Panhandle has run stories about the switch from coal to natgas and the jobs issue. It starts with people who've been in the coal business for generations complaining about losing jobs -- then finishes with THOSE SAME PEOPLE saying they moved over to natgas jobs that PAY MORE and ARE SAFER. They just had an emotional tie to the coal, which has employed their families for generations which took some getting over.

People may bitch about fracking, but it doesn't hold a candle to the environmental damage caused by mountaintop removal and coal mining. Coal mining is also one of the single most dangerous jobs in the country.

The coal isn't going anywhere. It'll still be there if we ever need it. But pure economics is driving the industry to natural gas and coal is the primary loser -- and rightfully so. It is more expensive to produce, more dangerous to both the producers (miners) and end users (people who breathe), more difficult to transport in quantity (can't use pipelines), cleaner (natgas doesn't leave coal dust messes in homes that use it for heat) and all-around substandard to natural gas.

This is capitalism and the free market at work, baby. Or are you one of those planned-economy socialists longing for the good-old days of Marx, Lenin and Mao?

Florida has lower standards now than Tombstone.

Nonsense. Even now, Florida has something like 40 justifiable homicides a year by civilians. That's roughly 1 such death per 400,000-500,000 people. It's just not significant for a problem that is supposedly "running amok".

Even at Tombstone's peak population of something like 14,000 people, that would have been a justifiable homicide every three decades.

"No actual substance, just sound bites and hot air."

If you ignore the substance of what the candidates say, and only barely notice that they each said the other lied, then I suppose you could argue that there was no actual substance.

If you pay attention to the actual words they said, they outlined very different positions on a range of issues. And when they claimed different facts, those facts are objectively verifiable. So you can be lazy and say that they both accused the other of lying, or you can do a little research (e.g. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/16/fact-checking-town-hall-debate/) and see that some things that they said (e.g. "President Obama began his presidency with an apology tour") were simply not true, and other things (e.g. "Romney refuses to say whether he would have signed the Lily Ledbetter Act") were true. And if you do a little more digging (or remember history) you can assess for yourself what was true and not true.

If you think this debate had no actual substance, you weren't paying attention.

Please educate yourself... You need to expand beyond rhetoric and 30 second political commercials for your information.

Romney paid 14% in federal taxes. That was just over 3 million dollars.

Here is what the average american pays in federal taxes as a percentage of their income..

Bottom fifth of earners: -12.3 percent
Second-to-bottom fifth: -4.2 percent
Middle fifth: 4.1 percent
Second-highest fifth: 8.2 percent
Highest fifth: 17.3 percent

Do you know who paid a higher federal tax % then Romney? Not the bottom 80% of earners, the top 20% did. Who is sucking the juice? The bottom 80% of earners. Look at the negative percentages too.

Total payroll taxes instead of federal taxes s a little different but not much.

Here is the raw data:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3277

Here is a story with an explanation of that data
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/09/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-most-americans-pay-higher-tax-ra/

Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them

Fact-check time.

Over half of the campaign promises tracked on PolitiFact have been kept or resulted in a compromise. Only 17% have actually been "broken".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.

I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.

So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.

This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.

We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.

Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.

I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.

So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.

This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.

We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.

I'd settle for five days of public comment before signing bills. This was a simple proposal that costs almost nothing to implement and would give some value, if only in name, to public comment.

p.s., this source,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/, indicates that substitutes for current incandescents that meet the requirements and use halogen are being produced. My fault for not reading your statement more closely, though the "if the effect..." still stands: of course, it appears it is not, so cool. : )

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

For the one thousandth time - they did NOT issue a "ban" - stop drinking the FUD! The Govt. simply legislated efficiency standards after FIRST having worked with industry to create them. The result is that inefficient bulbs are being phased out.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

Halogen incandescent bulbs in addition to LED and CFL are applicable under the new regulations.

The tax wouldn't be as effective as the ban. The ban was needed to push the industry forward and enable them to be profitable making the newer, more efficient bulbs. The tax would need to be exorbitantly high for cheap-to-produce incandescent bulbs to be as expensive as the more efficient bulbs. If the price isn't adjusted enough for competition then no manufacturer could invest in the infrastructure to produce the new bulb, it would be too risky, and thus adoption would be slowed. The most telling part of this: this legislation was drafted with the help of the industry.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

Moorhead said industry representatives were closely involved in the legislative process to develop the new efficiency standards and would never have supported a ban of incandescent bulbs. The companies, as well as the legislators who drafted the bill, were keenly aware that the new standards could be met through the development of halogen incandescent light bulbs, he said.

It's also worth noting that, while current opposition to the "ban" is primarily from Republicans, the bill was passed by a Democratic Congress but signed by a Republican President. So, the bill is not anti-consumer. It isn't anti-industry. It isn't particularly partisan, either. Now if we're lobbing complaints around we should perhaps worry about the mercury content of the CFL bulbs that are now making their way in larger quantities to landfills, at least there's some small amount of legitimate concern to that.

Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."

I'm pretty sure that is a misquote since googling it only turns up anti-obama sites. That's poor form if you want to show something actually hypocritical and not just more fauxbama stuff.

Best I can make out, it refers to his promise to increase access to government records by putting lots of stuff into an internet database. I remember when it went online as the Open Government Initiative. You will see the word "Transparency" is the first ont he sub-heading of that page.

If you want to get a more grounded list of broken promises, try the Obameter. But, I want to point out that broken campaign promises aren't quite the same thing as "flip-flopping" which, in the GP's context of daily show clips, refers to taking up contradictory positions in public statements -- campaign promises are goals that may not be achieved due to circumstances beyond the candidate's control, flip-flops are 100% willful decisions to simply say different things.

Gee, that's real interesting. There sure are a lot of pretty pictures in those articles, and a lot of Democrats-did kind of verbage. You'd almost think someone created those articles on purpose!

To quote Tom Hanks, I bet that's a coinke-dinkie.

And then to look at the budget articles from the mid-2000's...why, there's almost nothing there!

I'm sure it's just another big coinke-dinke. No one ever manipulates Wikipedia! Why, it's the gold standard for truth and objectivity!

I guess I should ignore the New York times (that bastion of hard-core right-wingers)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html

And Politifact, they're clearly clueless:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/buddy-roemer/obama-submitted-budgets/

The Hill is totally wrong.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

In fact, even that RWNJ hotbed, the Huffington Post, acknowledges it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/house-gop-budget-plan-senate_n_1522393.html
"Democrats haven't passed a budget since 2009, opting against weeklong floor debates that would have exposed party members to dozens of politically difficult votes or put themselves on record in favor of tax hikes or huge deficits."

But hey, enjoy your wikipedia edits. Propagandist.

Go ahead, keep regurgitating garbage you hear without basic fact checking first:

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-romney-campaigns-repeated-errors-on-the-cairo-embassy-statement/2012/09/13/978a6be6-fdf0-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html#pagebreak

and just in case you suspect I'm a liberal (I am), lets run down some of the conservative roll call (as pulled from http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/13/even-as-experts-gop-figures-criticize-romneys-e/189862):

Bill O'Reilly: "I'm Not Sure [Romney] Is Correct On That. The Embassy Was Trying To Head Off The Violence" With Statement. During the September 12 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly played video of Romney's remarks from his September 12 press conference and said, "I'm not sure the governor is correct on that. The embassy was trying to head off the violence" with their statement. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/12/12]

Former McCain Adviser: Pointing Out "That We Reject Vile Attacks On Muslims...Does Not Constitute Sympathy For The People Besieging Our Embassy As Gov. Romney Alleged." Longtime John McCain adviser Mark Salter responded to Romney's remarks on the embassy's statement on the website RealClearPolitics:
"
        [T]here is nothing wrong in principle with making clear to people, who have yet to embrace the categorical right to free speech, that Americans and their government deplore the deplorable, that we reject vile attacks on Muslims as vigorously as we reject vile anti-Semitic attacks.

        To do so does not constitute sympathy for the people besieging our embassy, as Gov. Romney alleged. Nor is at an apology for America, as some Obama critics have claimed. It's an expression of our decency. [RealClearPolitics, 9/12/12]
"

Noonan: Romney Isn't "Doing Himself Any Favors," "When Hot Things Happen, Cool Words -- Or No Words -- Is The Way To Go." Former Ronald Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan commented on Romney's remarks on Fox News, a Wall Street Journal blog reported:
"
        Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan who writes a column for The Wall Street Journal's opinion pages, said on Fox News that he had opened himself up to accusations that he was "trying to exploit things politically."

        "I belong to the old school of thinking in times of great drama and heightened crisis, and at times when something violent is happening to your people, I always think discretion is the better way to go," she said. "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors.... When hot things happen, cool words- or no words- is the way to go." [Washington Wire, The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/12]
" ... (it continues, but my point is made)...

- Toast

If we cut the military and paid off the debt, and didn't cut any pork or welfare, we'd have a surplus. Your numbers don't work.

We have been cutting the military...for about 60 years running: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/

Now whose numbers aren't working?

All sardonic social commentary aside, tax rates, at least on the wealthiest of Americans (that's not you nor I, BTW), is the lowest it's been in over half a century.

Yet those rich pay the vast majority of income taxes, well more than their share of the total income. How much is enough?

Well we all can't be NPR listeners I guess... But Daily Show viewers did rank right under them for answering the most questions regarding domestic and international issues correctly..

Always happy to go a round: The Truth-O-Meter Says: False

or two: Rush, ‘H&C’ Audiences Smarter Than ‘Daily Show’ Viewers

when I have time.

By the way, if you like NPR, you might find this program interesting. Host is a law professor, author, worked in public broadcasting for 10 years, and hosted his own national NPR series. Lots of interesting guests. Poetry segments are on Fridays. Nationally syndicated program.

It seems equally absurd that 50% of americans don't pay any taxes at all, and a good chunk of those actually get money back.

You probably mean "income tax" and even then that's one of those technically true but misleading facts.

When you include payroll tax, that number goes down to 18.1%. Technically payroll tax is not income tax - only because it is taken out before the money is "yours," otherwise it is the same thing - it wouldn't be paid if you weren't earning an income.

Then when you rule out the retired, the number drops down below 8%.

What's left? 7% who have incomes less than $20K/yr and 1% of who-knows-what.
Include in those other taxes like property taxes (auto and real-estate, which renters indirectly pay) and sales taxes and it is much closer to the truth to say that 0% of the population pays no taxes.

Nearly everything our government does is important to someone but it's clear from our high taxes and massive deficit that we just can't afford it all.

What're you, poor or middle class?

All sardonic social commentary aside, tax rates, at least on the wealthiest of Americans (that's not you nor I, BTW), is the lowest it's been in over half a century.

Not to say the government of today isn't chock-full of waste and bloat, just pointing out facts.

Of course, having passed more of his budgets through Congress than Obama has (who can't even get Congressional Democrats to vote for his ideas in bill form), Ryan has had to be the adult in the room and actually consider the effects of things on the deficit and future entitlements.

Sigh, no.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote

From both articles:

White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.
"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

He’s right about the rejection. After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, House Republicans put it up for a floor vote.

The result: 414-0 against.

The same thing happened a year earlier in the Senate. That vote: 97-0 against. Democrats didn’t support the plan because it has been supplanted by another deficit-reduction plan Obama had later outlined. Republican leaders demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint, according to The Hill.

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it," he said.

Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: "That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points."

Basically the votes were taken to score gotchas against the president. The one in the house by erasing all the details and just "basing" it on his big numbers. Of course no one would vote for that.

This VP pick shows that Romney is more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than he is interested in short-term political gain from a couple of poll points in a swing state or two. Ryan was by far the best serious candidate for the VP job.

Paul Ryan:
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
VVoted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011
)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Just f'ing great. Just as the US is going down the tubes, let's all base our choice on politicians NOT by the policies they espouse [1], but by gossip someone posted just like they were in high school. (clap clap clap)Good job Internet, you brought out the best of humanity for voting.

[1] As if they won't change 180 deg. when they get into office anyways

It would be nice if there were a running tally on each politician for how many times they distorted or lied about something

Well, there is!

Stride on over to politifact, which gives the claims, rates them (true ==> pants-on-fire), and gives a referenced analysis why. They even analyse internet chain letters and other such claptrap.

fact-checks are cross-referenced to the person who made the claim, so you can see, for example, the truthiness of Obama, and Romney, or, if you prefer bat-shit-insane, Palin, and Bachmann.

It would be nice if there were a running tally on each politician for how many times they distorted or lied about something

Well, there is!

Stride on over to politifact, which gives the claims, rates them (true ==> pants-on-fire), and gives a referenced analysis why. They even analyse internet chain letters and other such claptrap.

fact-checks are cross-referenced to the person who made the claim, so you can see, for example, the truthiness of Obama, and Romney, or, if you prefer bat-shit-insane, Palin, and Bachmann.

It would be nice if there were a running tally on each politician for how many times they distorted or lied about something

Well, there is!

Stride on over to politifact, which gives the claims, rates them (true ==> pants-on-fire), and gives a referenced analysis why. They even analyse internet chain letters and other such claptrap.

fact-checks are cross-referenced to the person who made the claim, so you can see, for example, the truthiness of Obama, and Romney, or, if you prefer bat-shit-insane, Palin, and Bachmann.

It would be nice if there were a running tally on each politician for how many times they distorted or lied about something

Well, there is!

Stride on over to politifact, which gives the claims, rates them (true ==> pants-on-fire), and gives a referenced analysis why. They even analyse internet chain letters and other such claptrap.

fact-checks are cross-referenced to the person who made the claim, so you can see, for example, the truthiness of Obama, and Romney, or, if you prefer bat-shit-insane, Palin, and Bachmann.