Rubio got Jindal'd. Thanks for playing. Better pray for Chris Christie's aorta and hope he doesn't yell at too many Repubs along the way.
I love that Mr. Bigot here went from semi-rational arguments during election season and has slowly descended back into "blah blah obama insult LOL exclamation point!". As far as that fact-checking article. It certainly is strange that everything that they checked turned out to be false. If you wanted to make an article to call him out on the things he was spinning, fine, but don't say you're fact checking.
You seem to not understand what fact checking is. It is part of the normal editing and revision process to make sure things written or said are factual. So the writer did his job and reported what things were not, in fact, factual.
Thanks bud, but I fully understand what fact checking is. I understand that fact checking is a two sided coin and when presented with only one side of the coin, it makes the article seem like more of an attack job. I don't know why you are bringing up editing and revision fact checking which is what you do after you wright a paper, it is not the same thing as fact checking a speech. The person who wrote the speech is not the creator of the article.
This isn't fact-checking, so much as perspective checking. If the most you can come out of SOTU was---his numbers were right, but they lacked context---it's SOTU, not a lecture on American economics or a Fed policy speech. Of course he's going to try to make himself look as good as possible in that context. I don't hold out much hope in any case for most Americans to go beyond first-level economic analysis. For example, "fact-checking" your fact-checker yields the insight that he is guilty of the same sin the President committed. Your fact checker's "context" is grievously missing many factors---such as the demand-pull decrease in oil prices in 2008 brought by both commodities traders and consumers in conjunction (which given the right conditions and demand elasticity, would adjust for the effect of "lowered demand" automatically---and in fact, consumption has risen quarter-on-quarter, to the point where high oil prices cannot drive them down), the collapse of the modern financial market and credit lines in 2008, and the effects of a balance sheet recession on the American economy. Part of the reason why women work fewer hours then men in a year is because of wage discrimination---employers are not as willing to hire women for the long-term for the fact that they might pop a baby, and also possibly because they have a vagina. Women consequently don't make optimal human capital decisions, as their return on education is lower than that of men---this leads to a sub-optimal equilibrium across the board, because women do have less "skills"---thanks to a working arrangement that discourages them from getting these skills. The economic literature on this, in any case, seems to suggest that there is an "unexplained differential" indicating discrimination of some kind, even on an hourly basis---though the "explained version of this differential" based on "unobserved skill levels" is not in my view tenable, so it might be larger than that claimed. Basically, the fight you're fighting over is the scale of the unexplained differential versus the explained differential by non-discriminatory factors. Depending on what you define as a non-discriminatory factor, you will get different results---the Fed paper from St. Louis I'd have to examine in-depth, but I've seen papers where larger proportions of the wage gap are attributed to discrimination than that for sure. If you for example, define the number of hours worked in a year as non-discriminatory---well, part of the reason women do work less hours in a year is because they are women. It's somewhat tricky to make these things into discrete categories. The Oaxaca Decomposition is how the Fed and other institutions determine discrimination as a percentage of the wage gap, for those curious. http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/nfortin/econ351/Oaxaca1.PDF Your fact-checker forgot to mention these facts. He is clearly pants on fire lying and needs some fact-checking on his own, because he hasn't published a Fed policy paper or a white paper on Economics.
By the way, this is why wage discrimination of any amount or kind must be crushed from an economic point of view. I applaud the President's initiative. This isn't just about "feminism" or women, it's about making sure people are properly rewarded for the work they put in.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23GOPResponse">#GOPResponse</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23SOTU">#SOTU</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23gop">#gop</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23tcot">#tcot</a> <a href="http://t.co/3hxtgdbP" title="http://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/301541052949614593/photo/1">twitter.com/marcorubio/sta…</a></p>— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/301541052949614593">February 13, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
scoreboard broheme quatro anos mas PPP: 67 Percent Of SOTU Viewers Approve Of Obama’s Speech Tom Kludt 12:56 PM EST, Wednesday February 13, 2013 The overwhelming majority of those who tuned in to the State of the Union address approved of the speech delivered by President Barack Obama, according to the findings of a snap poll that was released Wednesday. The automated survey, conducted Tuesday night by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling on behalf of the National Resources Defense Council, showed that 67 percent of those who said they watched the State of the Union approved of Obama's speech while 33 percent disapproved. Seventy-two percent of women and 62 percent of men said they approved of the address. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ppp-67-percent-of-sotu-viewers-approve-of
I would imagine a majority of people watching last night were Obama voters. I didn't watch it last night, but watched it this morning. People have busy lives and for someone to take time out to watch I would suggest have a lean toward the person speaking.
As funny as it was to see and as much fun SNL can have with the swig-of-water thing, I wanted to see Rubio taken down on the merits of his ideas and record instead of presentation. It has to be tough for Republicans to present fresh ideas when Obama keeps claiming them! How do you credibly oppose the guy whose proposals are about 50% composed of policies advocated by your own party leaders? As we have repeatedly seen, the Republican Party will not let facts get in their way. They will dismiss this by claiming these must have been Obama voters or claim that these were "takers" or just flat out ignore it. Doesn't matter if or what polls show strong public support for whatever policies (something the President kept stating to demonstrate the policies weren't radical). So long as the policy is attached to a guy from the wrong team of plutocrats, it must be opposed! (Even if the policy is from the Republican Party platform!) It is party before country. Team before patriotism. Onward march to the next manufactured crisis....
I could care less about Party. And the last time I checked we live in a representative Republic. Sometimes the things that a majority want are just plain wrong.
Just like slavery. Where was all this representative republic talk when Bush was in office? Then it was all about how we live in a democracy and the majority of voters had spoken, given a mandate, we must honor the wishes of the public even if we disagree, etc.... ----------- This ish is just too predictable now. Obama is pre-compromising the **** out of every major policy proposal, often putting him at odds with liberals. Yet still, as republican party leadership has admitted, the primary focus is ensuring democratic defeats over actually helping the country. The obstruction is prolonging the crisis. In the end, this nation gets what it deserves.... Onward to next manufactured crisis.... (It will make for great ratings!!)
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Last time I checked you've been around here quite a bit. Last time I cared was never, present post excepted. Go jump in a sea, boberto. Or have fun with the dupes around here, god knows there's enuff of 'em. ))))
I voted for Bush yes, but I didn't agree with the way he handled some things. So much so, that I voted for Obama the first time. Then I saw he was about politics as usual and I switched my vote over to Romney who lost. Now I am waiting to see what happens in four years.
Just because I wanted to vote for Romney doesn't mean I follow only party lines. Yes I was vocal during the last election. I grew tired of the guy I voted for. Sam, sometimes I wonder about you.
