Congressman to fact-check presidential address in real time


#1

Congressman to fact-check presidential address in real time - BizPac Review

“Obama will be giving this speech on Mardi Gras, so expect binge spending and a parade of excuses,” said Stockman.


#2

Call me old fashioned, but I think tweeting by a congressman during the speech is a bit tacky and disrespectful of both offices. Yes I realize the subject of the tweets and how much he lacks respect for his own office, but still…


#3

but it might even be a real hoot.

Odd, “hoot” was the extact word I was going use. Only I was going to use it to describe how childish and out of place Cong. Stockman’s idea is.


#4

Can he type 180 WPM?


#5

Most likely he will have aides do it for him while giving the appearance that it is him doing it. Like others before me, I find it disrespectful no matter how much I may despise the President. Show some class Stockman!!! Another point that we no longer have Statesmen in office anymore.


#6

This has been a pipe dream for a while, having fact-checkers work debates and stuff onscreen in real time. Not by a congressman, though, are you kidding me? He’s going to be incredibly biased. Now we’ll need a fact-checker for the fact-checking congressman.


#7

Its naive to think we ever did


#8

There have been a few Statemen before; Sam Rayburn was one of them.


#9

When I read the title of this thread, my first reaction was, “I hope he has a court reporter machine at his fingertips!” LOL
Okay, that woulda kinda been a “hoot.”

What this Congressman has in mind, however, is infantile, and so beneath his position that my heart sinks knowing that a once exhaulted position has sunk to such levels. Worse, that his consituents, et. al., will participate.

May we hope that enough of his constituents beg him not to do so.


#10

Now, now wait. tweeting is very much like old time steno shorthand [ a couple of us would remember that] Whether or not it is right and proper for this congressman to do so, it is about time Obama is called on his fabrications in real time, but at the same time this reminds me of political grandstanding. I do feel we are in an era of such mass corruption and governmental treachery with this administration, something drastic needs to be done, but once done------then what? Both republicans and democrats alike grandstand and posture to no avail. neither side does anything remotely suggesting followthrough. This guy will tweet, a republican will offer a rebuttal, and a ?Tea Party? member will offer a second rebuttle?


#11

Look who is joining Stockman for the occasion: Ted Nugent to be Rep. Steve Stockman’s guest at State of the Union


#12

I see what you are saying, BUT there are other ways. I wouldn’t let my kids text at the dinner table because it’s rude. Manners and decorum are sorely lacking in this country. Let his staff and Ted tweet away. The radio hosts are doing live feed and chat. I’m surprised Fox isn’t and we all know the rest of the MSM doesn’t have the balls to talk over Obama.


#13

There’s a time and a place for everything, and having a giggle fest over the SOTU address during the address, isn’t it.

I don’t recall anyone accusing Ted Nugent of being well-mannered. Not even Ted Nugent.

A steno-pad didn’t send out the messages, commenting back and forth on what was being said with cutesie high-five’s and the like.

No matter to me, personally, as I won’t be watching/listening to any of it.


#14

Obama claims to have created 6 million jobs when it’s really 1.5 million jobs.

And we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs.

Guns- 323 people in 2011 lost their lives by rifles. 496 were killed by hammers.

Green energy- Obama claims we’ve doubled the the mileage of cars, currently 27 mpg is the current average, by 2050 we will have cars that average 54 under agrements with auto manufactures. Obama’s taking credit for that. He forgot to add it’s 12 years away.


#15

Why the heck did you limit it to only rifles? I’m anti-gun control, but let’s be honest. What’s the homicide rate of hammers and guns?


#16

There were 323 rifle murders in 2011 but there were also 1,587 firearm murders in 2011 where the type of gun is not specified, and the 496 murders are from all blunt objects combined not just hammers.


#17

Has to do with “assault weapon” hysteria. The term “assault weapon” is an intentional corruption of “assault rifle” (a legitimate term, although also misused to describe most any combat-style semi-auto rifle; the real deal is select-fire). The focus on such types has to do with the Newtown shooting in which the shooter took a semi-auto assault-style rifle, but did not even use it. The point is that the left is focusing on banning these “nasty assault weapons” without regard to how little impact it would have on the murder rate (by private citizens; however, disarming private citizens would ultimately spike the murder rate by the government).


#18

Originally Posted by Trekky0623

Why the heck did you limit it to only rifles? I’m anti-gun control, but let’s be honest. What’s the homicide rate of hammers and guns?

From Fantasey chaser:
Has to do with “assault weapon” hysteria. The term “assault weapon” is an intentional corruption of “assault rifle” (a legitimate term, although also misused to describe most any combat-style semi-auto rifle; the real deal is select-fire). The focus on such types has to do with the Newtown shooting in which the shooter took a semi-auto assault-style rifle, but did not even use it. The point is that the left is focusing on banning these “nasty assault weapons” without regard to how little impact it would have on the murder rate (by private citizens; however, disarming private citizens would ultimately spike the murder rate by the government).

What he said…but didn’t you really already know that sir?


#19

And one thing not taken into account is that probably a very high percentage of gun murders are criminal on criminal. No amount of gun control will ever eliminate that. Even if the sale and manufacture of guns in this country were eliminated, we have wide unprotected borders where guns could easily come through.


#20

We can’t stop people, drugs, or much else from coming into inner city gangs and other criminals.
Why would anyone think taking the one thing that a law abiding citizen has to defend themselves would prevent crime?