• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Barrack Obama, liar.

gnome said:
There is a difference between a statement which is untrue and a lie...
Click to expand...


Yes -- and that's an important distinction to keep in mind. But that's not the distinction I'm drawing here.

There's a difference between someone saying something which is factually wrong (Superman was created in 1945 as a secret tribute to Adolf Hitler) and someone putting forward an argumentative claim which can be argued either way (the comic book character Superman is invulnerable).

[On the one hand, invulnerability is one of Superman's abilities, so one can argue the statement is true. On the other hand, he's vulnerable to Kryptonite, magic, red sun radiation, and various other things, so one can argue the claim is false. And originally he simply had very tough skin; his power of invulnerability, like many of his other abilities such as the power to fly, was something he acquired as the strip went along.

I would have no problem with a fact-checking group which looked at the statement The comic book character Superman is invulnerable and declared it factually correct. That's taking the statement the way most people would understand it. But if a fact-checking group were to declare the statement false, based on the possible quibbles that can be raised, then I do have a problem. And that's what it appears to me Politifact is doing when it judges Obama's statement that preventive care saves money and declares it false.]

I think it would be more useful of fact-checking groups restricted themselves to fact-checking -- rather than setting themselves up as debate judges.

If Romney says he has specific proposals to trim 1.5 billion from the budget, and an examination shows he only has proposals to trim $575, that's something that can be fact-checked. If Romney says his policies will be better for the US than Obama's, that's not something that can be fact-checked. It's an argument he's making. Fact check the statements Romney makes in support of that argument, yes; claim to fact check the argument itself, no.

But that's what some of these fact-checking groups seem to be doing. It allows them to appear more balanced; if one side makes a lot of factual misstatements and the other side doesn't, they can balance things by finding argumentative statements by the other side to disagree with. But I don't want that kind of balance. All I want is honest fact-checking.
 
Last edited:
Nova Land said:
Now, I can understand reasonable people disagreeing on whether preventive care saves money, and if so how much. But there's a difference between something which reasonable people can argue over and something which is flat-out false.

Calling Barack Obama a liar because he says preventive care saves money is nonsense. But unless you restrict the PolitiFact listings strictly to Pants-On-Fire ratings, that's what winds up happening.
Click to expand...

As was discussed in the thread to which you refer, Obama may have just been mistaken rather than outright lying. Aside from that, are you suggesting that it's a matter of opinion as to whether preventive care saves money? It's not. There is significant evidence that the vast majority of preventive care doesn't save money. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it -- preventive care saves lives. But it doesn't save money.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Cain, that's a good point. Post #19. This remains a perception juggling game. Who is keeping most balls in the air, and how artfully?
 
Bri said:
A... are you suggesting that it's a matter of opinion as to whether preventive care saves money?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not saying it's a matter of opinion. I'm saying it's a matter which is open to debate.

There are many topics suitable for debate, where a good case can be made for both sides. The question of whether preventive care saves money is one of them.

Under some circumstances preventive care does not save money. Under some circumstances it does. So declaring the statement preventive care saves money to be false as a matter of fact -- as PolitiFact and you seem inclined to do -- strikes me as foolish.

Yes, there are ways that the statement preventive care saves money saves money can be seen as false; there are instances where it doesn't. But similarly there are ways that the statement preventive care does not save money is false; there are instances where it does.

There are some things we can be reasonably certain are factually false. The assertion that Barack Obama has been actively involved since childhood in a conspiracy to take over the US and establish a Marxist dictatorship is false.

There are some things we can be reasonably certain are factually true. The assertion that the moon ranges from about 220,000 miles to 250,000 miles from the earth is true.

And there are some things which are arguable and which reasonable people may disagree on. The assertion that preventive medicine saves money falls in that category.
 
Nova Land said:
No, I'm not saying it's a matter of opinion. I'm saying it's a matter which is open to debate.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "a matter of opinion" and "open to debate."

There are many topics suitable for debate, where a good case can be made for both sides. The question of whether preventive care saves money is one of them.
Click to expand...

Except that in this case, a good case cannot be made for both sides. The evidence is pretty clear that the vast majority of preventive procedures cost more money than they save.

Under some circumstances preventive care does not save money. Under some circumstances it does. So declaring the statement preventive care saves money to be false as a matter of fact -- as PolitiFact and you seem inclined to do -- strikes me as foolish.
Click to expand...

A few preventive procedures save money, but very few. Preventive care in general doesn't save money. It saves lives, but not money. Obama's context was the preventive measures that were included in his proposal for health care reform, and those preventive measures would not save money overall. He wasn't only talking about the few procedures that are cost-effective.

That said, Obama has 5 "pants on fire" ratings, and quite a few "false" statements. Even if you feel that all "false" statements are "open to debate" (whatever that means), Obama has still been guilty of making incorrect statements.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
I don't understand the distinction you're making between "a matter of opinion" and "open to debate."
Click to expand...


Collard greens taste better than turnip greens is a matter of opinion. Doctor Who is more fun to watch then House is a matter of opinion. We can improve education in the US by funding charter schools is open to debate.

There is no right answer to the first two propositions. There is a right answer to the third proposition, but finding out what it is calls for more than one side simply declaring we're right, you're wrong.

There are many questions which are open to debate. Each of us may have strong opinions on what the right answers to these questions are; but simply declaring we know we're right, and our opponents are wrong, is not a good way to deal with such questions.

Reasonable people can believe (as you do) that preventive measures do not save money. Reasonable people can believe (as Obama does) that preventive measures do save money. Both sides have merit.

A blanket statement that preventive measures always save money would be false. But that's not the statement which was made.

A blanket statement preventive measures never save money would also be false. But it would be as wrong for me to attribute that statement to you, and dismiss you as hopelessly wrong for believing that, as would be to attribute the statement preventive measures always save money to Obama and dismiss his statement as wrong.

Preventive measures can and sometimes do save money. That is a fact. When, how much, under what circumstances, whether there are better ways to save money, and how important saving money is when it comes to medical matters, are all policy questions worth considering. But attempting to dismiss the fact that preventive measures sometimes save money because you are fixated on the fact they sometimes don't save money is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”​

When Obama said this, was he lying?

​
Click to expand...


No, he was not. But whoever fed you that out-of-context snippet was if they said or implied that this was an example of Obama lying.

That snippet comes from Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, February 24 2009. It's very easy to find; I'm surprised you didn't look it up for yourself to see the deception that was being played on you.

Barack Obama said:
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut – that’s right, a tax cut – for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way.
Click to expand...


Obama did not say that taxes would never increase on people earning less than $250,000. What he said was that ending specific tax cuts would not have that effect.

Republicans refused to let him end those tax cuts. They are again due to expire this year; we'll see if once again Republicans insist on maintaining them. But if those tax cuts are ended, that will not increase the taxes of people earning less than $250,000.
 
Nova Land said:
That snippet comes from Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, February 24 2009. It's very easy to find; I'm surprised you didn't look it up for yourself to see the deception that was being played on you.
Click to expand...
No need to be surprised, then. I watched that section of the speech on YouTube before I made the post.



Obama did not say that taxes would never increase on people earning less than $250,000. What he said was that ending specific tax cuts would not have that effect.
Click to expand...
Then somewhere along the line he failed to mention tax increases for those who make less than $250,000 through other taxes, like the largest tax increase in history through ObamaCare.

I'll put some words into Mr. Obama's mouth. "Your taxes won't increase through this proposal, but they will through others." Sneaky.
 
Dumb All Over said:
No need to be surprised, then. I watched that section of the speech on YouTube before I made the post.
Click to expand...


Oh. So you were aware that what Obama said was that ending a particular tax cut would not increase taxes on folks earning under $250,000, and you were aware that taking that sentence out of context to imply he was saying something else was dishonest.

If your point was to illustrate that some of the examples being put forward of Obama lying are actually lies, and that people should check the examples out before believing them -- especially if the example is being put forward by a partisan source -- then thank you. You've illustrated that nicely.
 
RandFan said:
Source?

And, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Allow me to concede the point for argument's sake only. In fact, percentage of GDP is one viable way to look at this issue, and I will. When examined that way, it becomes the tenth largest tax increase in American history. Might you concede the point that when looking at dollar amount only, and not adjusting for inflation and dollar values of years past (again, I'm not saying those things are not important nor germane), it is the largest increase ever?
Do you have any evidence that this is so?
Click to expand...
Are you saying the taxes incurred through ObamaCare are not taxes?
 
Nova Land said:
Oh. So you were aware that what Obama said was that ending a particular tax cut would not increase taxes on folks earning under $250,000, and you were aware that taking that sentence out of context to imply he was saying something else was dishonest.

If your point was to illustrate that some of the examples being put forward of Obama lying are actually lies, and that people should check the examples out before believing them -- especially if the example is being put forward by a partisan source -- then thank you. You've illustrated that nicely.
Click to expand...
Fair warning- for this reply I will not review Mr. Obama's entire speech.

I will make a guess, though. I'm going to guess that not once in his speech to Congress did Mr. Obama ever mention a tax increase. Am I right? I will further venture to guess that the only times he did mention taxes were to highlight the fact that nobody making less than $250,000/year would receive a tax increase. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom