cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

Looks like in the interest of being the most conservative, some get their facts a little mixed up.

 

Stuff happens, but I can't decide who gets the prize.....

 

http://factcheck.org/2011/09/fanciful-facts-at-fox-news-debate/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=fa...

18 Replies
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

Sadly, it seems all candidates fudge things sometimes.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

I suppose most here either like fudge, or they have no concerns. Maybe they are watching fotball?

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

What is the "Fact check" big deal?  The one Republican said "43¢ out of every dollar is borrowed".......OOOOO, here comes Fact check "It was ACTUALLY only 37¢ out of every government dollar is borrowed...Not the 43¢ that the lying Repubs said!!!"   Knapper, are you sure you guys really want to hang your hats on such penny ante, bellyaches?  Perry said "more people are living in poverty than at any other time", Fact check straightens it out ..."it`s the most people living in poverty since 1959! Not at any other time, the Liar!!!"  Really Fact check??? Now there are more living in poverty since 1959, huh?  In other words Obama is presiding over more poverty than George W Bush and that "Evil" Ronald Reagan.  Debates aren`t the place for absolute correction on dates and quotes, true it can be fact checked later.  The big question is, is the point that the candidate making a valid one?  You can go point by point that the Repubs were making and yes indeed everyone is valid, to nit pick is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  This has been a fairly recent Democrat trick, to take a small inconsequential error by a Republican then attempt to throw out the wholetrain of thought, that goofiness works everytime that is is allowed.  See, Democrats rarely discuss facts, their debates usually consist of superfluous nonsense of "Hope and change, climb to the top of the mountaintop and see the dream" that sort of baloney that contains no facts that can be "checked".     

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

Why not, BA? You guys want to hang Obama for 57 states, and the "intercontinental railroad"? You guys don't want a double standard? What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, where I come from. **bleep** for Tat, and all that good jazz!

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

I can`t speak for those that beat up Obama over "57 states", I suspect it`s retrobution over Quayle`s "potatoe" and W`s "mission accomplished".  I know Obama knows we have 50 states, I don`t judge for fear others would judge me for making similar mistakes.  57 states is way down on the list of problems I have with Obama, his blatant socialism being at the top.  I fear a 2nd term out of him, there would be no stopping him in going after guns, giving amnesty to 20 million new illegal Democrat voters, appointing communist judges that legislate from the bench and increasing the long arm of Obamacare.  I know Schnurrbart will say "You don`t knooooow that! You don`t know much!", with politics like buying a car you have to read between the lines.  If they poke fun at "Building a moat on the southern border filled with alligators"..they my friend are for amnesty, period end of discussion.  With debates the candidates need a snappy one-liner, if you ain`t got it you end up like Pawlenty, "Blaa too vanilla" and out of the race.  So as a consequence facts sometimes are thrown around, however I wouldn`t dismiss the point that they are making over a pitance.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

He has appointed two supreme court justices. Are they both Communist? What makes you think he is coming after your guns? Gross exaggeration does nothing to improve any speakers credibility.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Pharisees, Liberals, Fact Checkers

So are you saying `borrowing 43¢ out of EVERY government dollar is significantly a exaggeration over the actual 37¢`????  AND there by the one nickel mistatement  should lead us to conclude that the US government does NOT have a borrowing problem??? Alrighty then, good luck with that.  This reminds me of today`s sermon. Religious leaders criticized Jesus` disciples for picking wheat on the Sabath.  Jesus put them in their place by healing someone`s disfigured hand on the Sabath.  That is what you Democrats are trying to pull with your "fact checking".  Someone does not need to know exactly how to overhaul a transmission to be a very excellent driver, just as the mistatement of one nickel does not take away the fact our government has a borrowing problem.  In `09 Nancy Pelosi was asked about "meaningfull gun control" since Dems controlled everything, she replied in Obama`s 2nd term.  Obama is against so-called assault weapons, on record. If he wins a 2nd term he may not take you 12 gauge pheasant gun, but all other guns are on the table. Appointing justices is thee only reason that one should only consider voting for a Republican "behind curtain 3", over Obama.  Other than that go for the rock ribbed Conservative in the vein of Bachmann.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

Modern debates bring mostly ‘unsound bites’

The so-called “debates” among Republican presidential aspirants are classic examples of the media spreading misunderstanding instead of enlightenment.

The ancient admonition, “With all you’re getting, get understanding” has been replaced in the media by, “With all you’re getting, get sound bites — and, if possible, ‘gotcha’ sound bites.”

After all the media hype over Gov. Rick Perry’s having called Social Security “a Ponzi scheme,” viewers are no more informed than before as to what specifically is a Ponzi scheme, what are the objections to such schemes, and whether those same objections apply to Social Security.

Even if such questions were answered, we would still not have weighed the alternatives to Social Security. Serious issues like that cannot be covered in sound bites or with “gotcha” questions from the media.

The whole “debate” format, with far more candidates than have any realistic chance of getting the nomination, means that serious issues cannot get serious attention, because there is just not enough time with so many people. Most of what we learn from those “debates” is who is glib and fast on his feet.

We already have a president who is glib and fast on his feet. But he is a disaster when it comes to the economy, among other things. Do we need more of the same from Republicans?

We need leaders who have thought through many complex issues facing the country, not leaders with flashy words and snappy comebacks.

A real debate between two candidates, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 19th century, could bring out what the fundamental differences between the candidates are — and in the process enlighten the public on issues that affect their lives. But the short attention span of today’s population means that something like the Lincoln-Douglas debates would have a very small audience.

What are called candidate “debates” today are questions from media journalists, with the time allotted for the answers being too short for anything other than quick and superficial responses. Yet, with so many aspiring candidates on stage and a fixed time limit on how long the program will be broadcast, it is hard to see how there could be a more thoughtful discussion within the confines of this particular format

What would be far more informative would be to have an hour-long interview with each of the candidates who has some serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. That would cut the number down to two or three, and allow us to get some real idea about how deeply those two or three have thought through the weighty issues facing this country.

Not all interviewers are like the media hosts who conducted the first two candidate “debates.” Interviewers like Brian Lamb or Charlie Rose — people who try to bring out what the person who is being interviewed has to say, rather than trying to trap them with “gotcha” questions — could get a lot of useful information out of a candidate in an hour.

That would leave the public with something to really think about, rather than just some catchy words and emotional phrases. We might even elect a president who knows what he is talking about, instead of someone with a talent for using rhetoric and striking poses.

How can we get away from the straitjacket of the current media “debate” format?

That format may serve the interests of the media by producing a fast-paced program, covering every candidate with even a remote chance of winning. But it does not serve the interest of the political party whose candidates are all diminished by being displayed in such large numbers, including many who are obviously just along for the ride, and in a setting where their attacks on each other turn them into a circular firing squad.

Either each political party can refuse to sanction “debates” in this format or the leading contenders can refuse to take part. Viable candidates are going to get covered in the media, whether they are part of a cattle show or not — and focussing on viable candidates can end the time-wasting distraction of the also-rans.

Thomas Sowell is an author, economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University.

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/statenationalcolumnists/modern-debates-bring-mostly-unsound-bit...


Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Fox Debate: Bags of "Facts"

Actually you have the answer hidden in there some where. The secret is to invite those so called candidates to give personal interviews To  Brian Lamb or other independent C-span moderators. Give them a forum to express their opinions in a serious conversation sans all the soundbites. Video record them on CD's and make them available to the public. Thus issue by issue could be dealt with without the chirping of fellow candidates. The ground rules are that no one is interested in what they think of someone elses character or agenda. We simply want to know what they thin and what they want to do.

 

Most of the time during debates is taking pot shots at other candidates. If you want to privatize Social security, say so and goive the reasons for it. If you want to cut benefits defend that position as well. If you wish to increase payroll taxes that could be another option, but tell us what you really think.

 

To avoid all the mud slinging toward anyone the moderator could use and on off switch. Any failure to stay within the parameters of the discussion rules would mean the tape would never see the light of day,

 

So after the discussions are finished and graded for compliance with the rules they could be broadcast on Cspan and copies of the dvd's could be marketed to subscribers on the Cspan channel. The idea is to get straight talk from the candidates and a serious interview. One the general public might be informed by.

 

The mass media or talk radio wants to cover these things like sporting events and they use the polls to determine the score. Such a waste of time for people expecting solid evidence of the candidate true agenda.