PDA

View Full Version : Fact Checking Republican LIES



Gayle in MD
03-24-2011, 10:56 AM
January 27, 2011


Summary
We fact-checked President Obama’s State of the Union address, but what about the Republican response speeches? We found two new claims that we haven’t covered before:
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
In the official response, Rep. Paul Ryan said that "trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high." He’s wrong on both counts. Trust has been lower, and government has been larger, in the past.
In her own rebuttal to Obama, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that the bailout cost "$700 billion." The net cost actually is estimated to be much less — $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the two Republicans repeated several false and misleading charges we’ve already written about. Our readers will be familiar with many of them, such as claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs (it did), that the health care law hurts job growth (experts say the impact will be small), and that "16,500 IRS agents" will enforce that law (that’s based on a flawed, partisan analysis).

Analysis

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin gave the official Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 25. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota also gave a response speech that night to Tea Party Express activists. We found factual issues with both of their remarks.



Not So ‘All-Time’ After All

Ryan was off the mark with his claims about "all-time" highs and lows in the size and distrust of government:

Ryan, Jan. 25: When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

Ryan spokesman Kevin Seifert said that the congressman was measuring size of government by spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. In that case, Ryan’s "all-time high" claim is off by more than 60 years.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>According to historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget, federal spending as a percent of GDP was 24.7 percent in 2009, and estimated to reach 25.4 percent in 2010. Neither of those figures even comes close to the real "all-time high" figure of 43.6 percent in 1943 and 1944</span>.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ryan was closer with his claim about public skepticism of government, but still not quite right.</span>


Only 22 percent of those surveyed said they trusted the federal government "almost always or most of the time," according to an April 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press — the source for Ryan’s claim. That’s indeed "among the lowest measures in half a century," the report noted. But the Pew report highlighted other polls conducted over the years — by other organizations — with slightly lower percentages. Case in point, polls conducted by CBS News and the New York Times in October 2008, and by Gallup in June 1994, found that just 17 percent of respondents said they trusted the government most or all of the time.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ryan’s suggestion that the level of government trust and size of government are somehow connected was also undercut somewhat by Pew’s research. "The current survey and previous research have found that there is no single factor that drives general public distrust in government," the report said.</span>Stimulating Falsehoods

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus program, was a target for both Ryan and Bachmann. Ryan repeated a claim that we already debunked about the increase in domestic spending under Obama.

Ryan: The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies — an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

It’s true that domestic spending has increased, but not nearly as much as Ryan claims. As we’ve written before, the 84 percent figure is the result of a flawed analysis by the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee.

The partisan Republican report claimed that “domestic discretionary spending” increased 84 percent from 2008 to 2010 when including the stimulus. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report this month that shows (on table E-7) that domestic discretionary spending rose from $485.1 billion in 2008 to $614.2 billion in 2010, an increase of $129.1 billion or 27 percent. The CBO figures include all discretionary spending, including stimulus funds in 2009 and 2010.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Also, Ryan said the stimulus "failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs." As we wrote during the midterm elections, it’s just wrong to say that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Ryan can say — as Bachmann did — that the program failed to keep unemployment at 8 percent, as projected in a January 2009 report by the administration when it was lobbying for the bill. But the nonpartisan CBO says the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people in the third quarter of 2010, compared with what would have happened without it.</span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Exaggerations by the Billions

Bachmann also resorted to exaggeration to make partisan points about spending.

Bachmann, Jan. 25: After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money that we don’t have.

Let’s take the most egregious exaggeration: "the $700 billion bailout." That figure is grossly outdated. Bachmann is referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which President Bush signed into law in October 2008. As the CBO explained in a November 2010 report, the "authority for the Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally set at a maximum of $700 billion; however, that total was reduced to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act." But the estimated net cost to taxpayers will be $25 billion after the government sells its stocks and the companies repay the money, as CBO estimated in its report.

As for her figures on earmarks and the stimulus, Bachmann is essentially correct — although she likes to round up. A trillion dollars is a nice round number, but that’s not how much the stimulus will cost. The CBO initially estimated it would cost $787 billion and now says it will cost $814 billion over 10 years. As for the "9,000 earmarks," Bachmann is referring to the 2009 omnibus spending bill signed by Obama in March 2009. That bill had 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Close enough.

Bachmann not only exaggerates but is flat-out wrong when she repeats the oft-stated false claim about the need to hire "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill." As we reported previously, the figure of 16,500 originated from a House Republican report that relies on false assumptions and outright misrepresentation. The CBO estimated in March 2010 that the health care law would increase IRS administrative costs by $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. But that money will not be going for "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing" health care mandates. The IRS is mostly responsible under the new law for administering tax credit programs, not collecting penalties.</span>

Health Care Misrepresentations

Ryan made several criticisms of the health care law, saying:

Ryan: What we already know about the president’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
The long list includes false, misleading and not entirely true statements.

As we’ve written before, rising medical costs are the primary driver of increasing premiums, and that’s according to insurance companies and state insurance commissions. In fact, the CBO has said the law won’t have much of an impact on premium costs for most Americans, compared with what premiums would have been without the law. (Premiums have been rising well before the law, and were expected to rise without it.) Those on the individual market — persons who buy their own insurance — will see an average increase of 10 percent to 13 percent, but more than half of those individuals will get subsidies that reduce their out-of-pocket costs substantially. And the increase in premiums will be due to an increase in benefits in those plans.

Ryan spokesman Seifert pointed us to a Wall Street Journal article about some insurers claiming they were raising premium rates substantially — primarily in the individual market — because of the new benefit requirements in the health care law. But experts told us they would estimate a 1 percent to 3 percent increase attributable to the law, possibly more if the insurer offered stripped-down, minimal plans. Ryan’s office also cites a report from CBO on the impact of the law on Medicare Advantage — that’s the version of Medicare offered by private insurers. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare, and the law will slowly change that over time. As a result, Advantage plans won’t offer the extra benefits they now do, such as vision plans or gym memberships. CBO estimates that 4.8 million fewer seniors will choose to be on an Advantage plan by 2019, than CBO projected without the health care law. And the loss of extra benefits is valued at an average $67 per month per person. One could consider this an increase in cost for those seniors who use the extra benefits and then decide to pay for them on their own. At the same time, the change in Advantage plans saves the government $117 billion over 10 years.

Health care spending overall is expected to rise a bit — by less than 1 percent over a decade. That’s because about 34 million more Americans will gain coverage, according to the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

As for "millions" losing their current coverage, there’s truth to that, but context is required. The CBO estimated that 8 million to 9 million people who would normally have employer-sponsored coverage won’t get such an offer from their employers. The reason is that these are mostly low-income workers who will get subsidies to go buy their own insurance in state-based exchanges. (We’d note that it’s not clear that all of these workers have coverage now, but would be expected to have it by 2019.) Also, whether the law had been enacted or not, employers would be free to drop coverage.

Ryan reiterated the GOP claim that the law kills jobs. This time, he said it stifles job creation, but he again pointed to a CBO report that Republicans have badly misrepresented. CBO said the law would have a small impact on the labor supply, and that would be mostly due to workers retiring early or working less because they would have more secure health care options. Other experts have said the law would have a minimal impact on jobs.</span>Ryan also claimed: "Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the president’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." That claim was echoed by Bachmann, who said the law "could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come." But both politicians are wrong to make such claims.

The law is actually expected to reduce the deficit, according to the CBO, over the next two decades and beyond. It remains to be seen whether all of the cost-cutting measures will be fully implemented. But we went through various Republican claims about the supposed flaws in CBO’s analysis and found the GOP assertions to be mostly bogus.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bachmann also wrongly said this about the law:

Bachmann: "[U]nless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world’s finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage.

First, as we’ve said many times, the law doesn’t create a government-run system. Instead, it builds on our current system and adds a lot of new business for private insurers. Second, some studies on the quality of care worldwide have not put the U.S. at the top. A 2010 Commonwealth Fund study ranked the U.S. last among seven countries in health system performance. In other health outcome measures, the U.S. ranks 49th in life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook, and plenty of other countries have lower rates of infant mortality.

– by D’Angelo Gore, Eugene Kiely and Lori Robertson, with Michael Morse and Lauren Hitt </span>


About President Obama's SOTU ADDRESS....

FactChecking Obama’s Address
We find some debatable claims and ambitious promises in his State of the Union address.
January 26, 2011



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Summary
We found no outright false factual claims in Obama’s State of the Union address, </span>but we did note some that were arguable, and some promises that may prove unrealistic.

He called his Race to the Top initiative “the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation.” That’s debatable. Some independent experts say Bush’s No Child Left Behind program had a greater impact.
The president set a goal of generating 80 percent of the nation’s electricity from “clean” sources by 2035. That’s ambitious. The first large-scale “clean coal” plant has yet to begin operation. And Obama counts nuclear energy as a “clean” source, despite the unresolved waste issue.
He set a goal of giving 80 percent of the U.S. population access to high-speed rail in the next 25 years. But the U.S. only has one high-speed rail line in operation now.
He said his new health care law will slow rising health care costs. But the office of Medicare’s chief actuary estimates the law won’t have much impact on costs, and there will be a slight rise in total spending as more people gain coverage under the law.
He said “exports are up” since he set a goal of doubling them in five years, which is true. But the rise so far falls short of the pace required to meet his goal.
On other factual matters we found the president’s statements to be accurate, or reasonably so. He said the U.S. subjects businesses to “one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world,” which is borne out by the World Bank and other studies. He said U.S. engineers gave the nation’s infrastructure a grade of “D,” which is true. That rating was issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. And he said U.S. workers are unexcelled in productivity, which is true according to one ranking and nearly true by other measures.

Analysis
It should come as no surprise that President Barack Obama set some very ambitious goals in his second State of the Union address Jan. 25, calling for bipartisan cooperation to "win the future." Setting the mark high — sometimes impossibly high — is something presidents tend to do. For example, in his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said “the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” And a year later, Bush backed a return to the moon as early as 2015 and an eventual manned mission to Mars. We can’t say that Obama’s goals for high-speed rail, green energy or export promotion will fare any better or worse than those. But we can give a few facts that will provide context and a basis for our readers to draw their own judgments.

Schools Go Racing

On education, Obama declared his program, Race to the Top, "the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation." That is his opinion, of course, but it is debatable. Education experts we consulted said it is premature to judge the law.

Race to the Top is a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states that seeks to encourage public schools to develop new ways to raise standards and measure achievement for both teachers and students in elementary and secondary schools. Not all states received funding. They had to compete for the money, and, in the end, 11 states and the District of Columbia were the winners in two rounds of competition. The Department of Education has requested an additional $1.35 billion to continue the program, but Congress must approve it.

Although the majority of states did not receive funding, the Obama administration takes the position that the competition for the funding alone resulted in sweeping education changes in most states. In announcing the second phase of funding in August, the Department of Education said in competing for federal funding "35 states and the District of Columbia have adopted rigorous common, college- and career-ready standards in reading and math, and 34 states have changed laws or policies to improve education."

Jack Jennings, president of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy and a former top aide on the House Committee on Education and Labor, told us that Race to the Top has had an impact, but it’s too early to say just how.

"I think the president is overstating it," said Jennings, who was involved in nearly every national education reform effort from 1967 to 1994. "Race to the Top clearly had an effect and states did change their laws. But we don’t know the full effect yet. We don’t know the effect of the money yet. We don’t know the full effect yet of the changes in those state laws."

Grover “Russ” Whitehurst, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, agreed. "You have to have some anchor for a statement like that. He didn’t give one. [Education reforms] have to be tied to some measure of academic achievement and here we don’t have that. We have a bunch of states promising to do things.”

Jennings said President Bush’s No Child Left Behind has had a "greater impact than Race to the Top," and Whitehurst agreed that many education experts would cite No Child Left Behind as the most significant education reform effort of this generation.

‘Clean’ Energy

The president set a goal of obtaining 80 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, plus nuclear, natural gas and "clean" coal, by 2035. That’ll take some work, but with three nonrenewable sources in the mix, the goal isn’t unreachable.

The biggest conundrum is coal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal fueled 44.5 percent of electricity production in 2009, far more than any other source. But "clean" coal, which usually refers to coal burned in a way that allows its carbon dioxide emissions to be captured and stored underground, is far from ready to step in and provide such a large share of the mix. The first large-scale "clean" coal plant is still under development by a consortium of companies, with major funding from the Department of Energy. That means renewables like wind, solar and hydro will need to continue to expand their shares of the pie, as well as natural gas, which provided 23.3 percent of U.S. electric power in 2009 and has seen the fastest growth in recent years.

Obama also counts nuclear plants as "clean" — but that’s a point that environmentalists debate. Nuclear power accounted for a little more than 20 percent of electricity generation in 2009, and it produces no carbon emissions as coal plants do. But nuclear’s "clean" credentials are disputed by many including the Sierra Club, particularly since the question of what to do with the resulting highly radioactive waste has yet to be resolved.

Ambitious Plan for High-Speed Trains

Obama repeated his optimistic goal of vastly expanding high-speed rail lines in the United States, saying:

Obama: Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

It’s true that routes in California and Illinois are underway, but the U.S. has a long way to go before 80 percent of Americans have access to high-speed rail. Right now, there’s only one high-speed line operating in the country: the Acela line between Boston, New York and Washington. The expansion Obama wants requires the cooperation of Congress and the states — and new Republican governors in a few states in the Midwest, one area Obama mentioned, aren’t too keen on the idea. Gov. John Kasich in Ohio and Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin both vowed to turn down federal funds for such projects when they were still on the campaign trail, and as a result, the Department of Transportation gave their funds to other states. That made Florida’s Tampa-Orlando line fully funded.

Is it feasible to have 80 percent of Americans with access to high-speed rail? Well, if there’s money and political will. About 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, according to the 2000 Census, so connecting major cities would do it. Is it feasible in 25 years? We can’t predict the future, but we’ll note that efforts to launch high-speed rail corridors first began in 1991, according to the Department of Transportation.

Slower-Rising Health Costs?

Obama has frequently promised that the health care law will lower the growth of medical costs, and he said it again last night:

Obama: The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs …

The truth is that this largely remains to be seen. Many of the cost-saving measures the president has touted are untested, such as changes in the way care is delivered, new payment models and pilot projects that some experts applaud, and others question.

The office of the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said last fall that the health care law would have only a moderate impact on spending growth. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects that for most Americans, who get their insurance through work, health insurance premium costs won’t change significantly from what they would have been without the law.

There are others who are more optimistic. A report from the liberal Center for American Progress and The Commonwealth Fund says that "the annual growth rate in national health expenditures could be slowed from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent." The lead author is former Obama health care adviser David Cutler. But that analysis acknowledges that "[t]he exact amount that will be saved from these provisions collectively is uncertain."

Cutler, et. al., May 21, 2010: Partly as a result of this uncertainty, CBO and the Office of the Actuary assume only minor savings. For example, CBO estimated that the major parts of the law including these provisions will cost $10 billion over the 2010–2019 period, while the Office of the Actuary determined savings of only $2 billion.

The Cutler report, however, estimates savings of $406 billion over 10 years through such measures as increasing the use of electronic medical records and better coordinating the care of patients. That’s a big difference compared with the nonpartisan reports. And it represents optimistic thinking about the impact of the law.

Overall, Medicare’s chief actuary expects total spending on health care to rise over 10 years — but that’s because about 34 million persons will gain health care coverage.

‘Exports Are Up’

The president noted that he had set a goal of doubling exports in five years and said: "Already, our exports are up." They are, quite a bit. Monthly figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce show that, as of November, exports of U.S. goods and services were running 10.5 percent higher than they were when Obama announced the goal last January.

But that’s still shy of the rate of improvement needed to achieve a doubling within the five years Obama promised, which would require an annual increase of nearly 15 percent, compounded. Furthermore, imports have also increased during the same period by a larger amount, resulting in a larger trade deficit.

High Corporate Tax Rates

Calling for a lower corporate tax rate, the president said:

Obama: [Corporations] with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

Here the president is exactly right. Of 31 industrialized nations tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the combined federal and state tax rate for U.S. corporations is 39.21 percent. (That’s an effective rate on all income after deductions are taken into account, not to be confused with the top marginal rate on the last dollar earned.) The U.S. rate is second among OECD member countries only to Japan’s, which was 39.54 percent.

Other major trading partners have far lower rates. Mexico’s rate is 30 percent; Canada’s is 29.52 percent; and Korea’s is 24.2 percent, for example. Ireland’s was the lowest, at 12.5 percent. A separate ranking by the World Bank — which tracks more than 200 countries — found the top U.S. marginal tax rate of 40 percent on corporations (a combined state-federal rate) was tied for fourth highest, exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates (55 percent), Uganda (45 percent) and Japan (41 percent). The U.S. tied with Libya, which also has a 40 percent top rate. (The World Bank cited among other sources an annual study by KPMG, the big accounting firm.)

Some corporations do manage to pay less. A study by the University of North Carolina, quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek, found that U.S.-based multinational companies paid an average effective rate of 26 percent, only slightly more than the global average of 25 percent. But the same story noted that companies without overseas units pay higher rates.

Prosperous, Productive
The president claimed that the U.S. economy, its workers and companies, were all tops compared with the rest of the world:

Obama: America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours.

Yes, the U.S. economy, with an estimated gross domestic product of $14.7 trillion in 2010, currently outranks every other country, according to the CIA World Factbook. Only the economy of the European Union, which is actually a group of countries, ranks higher on the CIA’s list. The U.S. may not hold the top spot among individual nations for much longer, though, with some prognosticators saying that China could claim the crown in just 10 years.

We’ve looked into the president’s claim of U.S. superiority in productivity before. We are among the most productive workers in the world, but perhaps not the most productive. In 2008, the U.S. ranked first in labor productivity ahead of places like Hong Kong and Ireland, according to a report issued by the International Labour Organization of the United Nations. But the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics placed the U.S. behind Norway as measured by GDP per person in 2009. And the U.S. came in fourth, behind Luxembourg, Norway and Ireland, as measured by the GDP per hour worked, according to an analysis of 2009 economic data by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The China Card

The president was also right when he said that China is now "home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer."

NPR reported in late 2009 that Applied Materials, based in Santa Clara, Calif., opened the "world’s largest nongovernmental solar research center" in Xi’an, China. The 400,000 square foot facility reportedly cost more than $250 million. Construction began in 2006.

And the Tianhe-1A system at the National Supercomputer Center in Tianjin, China, recently eclipsed the Cray XT5 “Jaguar” system at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility in Tennessee as the fastest computer, according to the 36th edition of the TOP500 list, a ranking of the world’s super computers issued last fall.

U.S. Bridges, Falling Down

Obama also claimed that the U.S. was earning bad grades for its infrastructure:

Obama: … when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

That’s true. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. an overall grade of "D," — a "poor" rating — in its 2009 infrastructure report card. The nation’s grade remained unchanged from the last time ASCE issued its report card in 2005.

ASCE grades the country in 15 different categories. For 2009, the U.S. earned a "D-" — the lowest grade it received — for its drinking water, inland waterways, levees, roads and wastewater. Its highest mark, a "C+," was earned in the category of solid waste. The U.S. hasn’t received an overall grade higher than a "D+" since ASCE began issuing its report card in 1998.

– by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson and D’Angelo Gore

http://www.factcheck.org

ugotda7
03-24-2011, 02:44 PM
Still getting paid by the word huh?

PO.....................?

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 03:00 PM
Amazing that she can find all this info on the net, and then post it here for us to read and glean from it. I think in that sense, she is a real treasure, and whatever one's political preferences are, we are fortunate indeed, to have her as a contributing member....don't you agree?
While You do seem often at odds with her, I could still envision you both dining together, and having a lively exchange of thoughts and ideas
Sort of a:
"My Dinner With Andre" type conversation...say, what?

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 03:15 PM
Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve

LWW
03-24-2011, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve </div></div>

I'm wondering what the lies are.

Gee conveniently hides whenever I point out that Bachmann's source for the IRS hiring was Harry Reid ... and that the hiring has begun.

But ... you can't be a good agitprop if you trouble yourself with things like truth.

Entirely malleable party line "TRUTH" is so much easier from her perspective.

bobroberts
03-24-2011, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve </div></div>

I'm wondering what the lies are.

Gee conveniently hides whenever I point out that Bachmann's source for the IRS hiring was Harry Reid ... and that the hiring has begun.

But ... you can't be a good agitprop if you trouble yourself with things like truth.

Entirely malleable party line "TRUTH" is so much easier from her perspective. </div></div>

Larry i don't know or care why you were banned on AZ but you should ask to come back. These people over here are so ignorant to the facts and the truth, that if it hit them in the face they wouldn't believe it. Obama makes Bush look like a genius and thats saying a mouthful.
Stop wasting your time here.
Bob

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve </div></div>

Yes, she should stick to talking about booing from a year or two ago as LWW has in recent threads?

ugotda7
03-24-2011, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amazing that she can find all this info on the net, and then post it here for us to read and glean from it. I think in that sense, she is a real treasure, and whatever one's political preferences are, we are fortunate indeed, to have her as a contributing member....don't you agree?
While You do seem often at odds with her, I could still envision you both dining together, and having a lively exchange of thoughts and ideas
Sort of a:
"My Dinner With Andre" type conversation...say, what? </div></div>


Uhhhh, let me think about it.........no.

Treasure? More like fool's gold.

LWW
03-25-2011, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve </div></div>

I'm wondering what the lies are.

Gee conveniently hides whenever I point out that Bachmann's source for the IRS hiring was Harry Reid ... and that the hiring has begun.

But ... you can't be a good agitprop if you trouble yourself with things like truth.

Entirely malleable party line "TRUTH" is so much easier from her perspective. </div></div>

Larry i don't know or care why you were banned on AZ but you should ask to come back. These people over here are so ignorant to the facts and the truth, that if it hit them in the face they wouldn't believe it. Obama makes Bush look like a genius and thats saying a mouthful.
Stop wasting your time here.
Bob </div></div>

Thanks, but I won't behave like aitch, woofie, and gee.

The forum's owners made the decision and they own the forum.

The funny thing is that I spent time over here, because when I didn't the stalkers would follow me to AZB and troll that forum.

Yes ... aitch. woofoe, Mike the Bike, Superstar, and others, you know who you are.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Old news, Gayle. Maybe you should try to stay current.

Steve </div></div>

Yes, she should stick to talking about booing from a year or two ago as LWW has in recent threads? </div></div>

Actually ... that was me pointing out the hypocrisy of Gee posting a thread about a non democrook being booed.

Please, pay attention.

Qtec
03-26-2011, 03:59 AM
With the Republicans, there are very few facts to check! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif Instead of FactCheck, they should call it 'Find the Fact.'.

Q

LWW
03-26-2011, 04:31 AM
So, when do you think we'll hear what the lies are?

Qtec
03-26-2011, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when do you think we'll hear what the lies are? </div></div>

You are so dim!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when do you think we'll hear what the lies are? </div></div>

Answer. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Everytime a Republican opens his mouth.</span>

pooltchr
03-26-2011, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when do you think we'll hear what the lies are? </div></div>

We won't. They like to throw around their accusations, but when you try to pin them down to specific facts, they dodge and weave.

How many times have we heard "Bush lied"? How many lies have they actually proved?

Steve

LWW
03-26-2011, 06:44 AM
Troo dat.

Gayle in MD
03-26-2011, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the Republicans, there are very few facts to check! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif Instead of FactCheck, they should call it 'Find the Fact.'.

Q

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

So true! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
03-26-2011, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the Republicans, there are very few facts to check! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif Instead of FactCheck, they should call it 'Find the Fact.'.

Q

</div></div>

As you have demonstrated time and time again, the left refuse to recognize facts when they are placed squarely in front of their collective faces.

Steve

JohnnyD
03-26-2011, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when do you think we'll hear what the lies are? </div></div>Well professor once again you win a debate.Why do they even post? THEY are afraid of the truth that's why.The thruth will set them free.

JohnnyD
03-26-2011, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the Republicans, there are very few facts to check! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif Instead of FactCheck, they should call it 'Find the Fact.'.

Q

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif




So true! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>



LIAR!

JohnnyD
03-26-2011, 09:42 AM
Friend you should not lie.Why be like h and lie.Set yourself free and speak the truth.The truth will set you free.

JohnnyD
03-26-2011, 09:43 AM
Once again you fall to LWW.

The truth will set you free.

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:12 PM
I'd just like to know what the lies are?

As it stands right now, Gee is in fact calling senator Reid a liar.