Did McCain-Palin lie this much? All I remember is the Bridge to Nowhere stuff and then the incendiary "palling around with terrorism" stuff ... but for some reason I can't recall a similar daily stream of lies.
Nah, McCain tried to keep a clean campaign in 2008.
Did McCain-Palin lie this much? All I remember is the Bridge to Nowhere stuff and then the incendiary "palling around with terrorism" stuff ... but for some reason I can't recall a similar daily stream of lies.
Do the words Kenyan or Muslim ring any bells? Granted McCain at least distanced himself from it and even admonished his own supporters for chanting it once (after doing a "raise the roof" dance and pumping his fist in time with said chant), but Palin's favorite hobby was egging on the crazies.
As for the stuff coming out of his actual mouth? Lots of misrepresentation, lots of twisting the facts, but at least there was truth in there, even if it was just the thread stitching his Frankenstein Monster together. Romney's Frankenlie is stitched together with awkward laughing.
So they're accusing Obama of shuttering that plant before he took office?
Am I the only one that sees the irony in Mitt "Bain Capital" Romney's campaign criticizing plant closings as part of a process that returned the industry to viability?
So they're accusing Obama of shuttering that plant before he took office?
Am I the only one that sees the irony in Mitt "Bain Capital" Romney's campaign criticizing plant closings as part of a process that returned the industry to viability?
No Steve Bennen also thought it was odd that Ryan would go after Obama for a plant closing, especially one where its a little dubious if Obama could be held responsible...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Actually, come to think of it, that "hidden camera" stunt on Acorn is probably a more insidious lie than most of Romney's. Romney's lies are all cut from whole cloth, but that one was specifically staged to look real. They lied to attempt to commit entrapment against workers of the organization, and then lied about what happened as a result (the worker wasn't helping, but getting information the police would need to step in).
Paul Ryan slammed President Obama on Thursday for failing to rescue an auto factory in his Wisconsin district — one that closed in 2008, under President George W. Bush.
The latest attack highlights the complicated politics of the auto rescue for Ryan, who was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote in favor of the 2008 bailout that President Bush signed as a stopgap measure to prevent the industry from going under.
“I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open,” Ryan said in Ohio Thursday, describing the shuttered GM factory in Janesville, Wis. “One more broken promise.”
Romney blamed rising gas prices under Obama for the closing. He echoed the complaint in an interview with a local ABC affiliate, suggesting it showed that Obama’s auto rescue was a sham.
“It didn’t help Janesville,” he said. “They shut our plant down. It didn’t help Kenosha. I represent there; they shut down the Chrysler plant.”
The Detroit News noted that Obama said during a visit in early 2008 that government help and some restructuring could keep the plant open. But after the financial crisis and a collapse in demand for the SUVs the factory produced, it shut down in December 2008 in the waning days of Bush’s second term. It’s still owned by GM, but has been closed ever since.
Both Ryan and Romney have unconventional positions on the auto bailout, although they reached them from different directions. In 2008, Ryan supported the Bush loans that Romney famously opposed in an editorial titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”
“What I voted for was to prevent a worse bailout,” Ryan told ABC9, claiming that he was afraid the president would use TARP money to go through with the plan if Congress didn’t direct funding itself. It was a view that few of his fellow Republicans in districts that didn’t include auto plants shared at the time — 150 Republicans voted against the bill, while 32 Republicans, mostly in similar auto-dependent districts, voted in favor of it.
Obama used the time bought by the bill to craft his own 2009 rescue plan, which industry leaders have hailed as the start of their successful turnaround. The president has since made their return to profitability a central theme of his re-election campaign.
But if Ryan’s newest take seems to be that the rescue failed, Romney has offered vague hints that he’d have acted similarly to rescue car companies from liquidation if necessary. He has also attacked Obama for not going far enough in aiding car dealerships.
Womp, womp, womp.
I don't even!
Just, what the fuck!?
There's no way to not know when that plant closed, and I pray to God that someone, be it the media (unlikely) or some SuperPAC, points out that it was closed before Obama took office. Hell, they could probably make a whole couple ads about Romney blaming things for what Bush, Clinton, and Reagan had done. It's just frustrating that rarely will mainstream media ever call him out on this, despite the blatant, blatant lying about some of this.
That does make me think about Soledad, who I don't think was trying to to be that hard-lined at first about the CBO $716 billon thing. It seems to me she just got ticked at being called a liar and a shill and as such wanted to prove how much full of shit she was. I know I've felt that way before, not being very involved in an argument until someone vehemently denies and insults me for pointing out how wrong I am. I did love her rebuttal later though, which was calm, cool, and collected and all of the clips showed how much more impassioned and vitriol spitting the people claiming she was wrong were. And then T-Paw insulting her reading ability?
I think I am getting tired of the double talk, and starting to realize why people get tired of politics. You can only see someone and a group of people (Repubs and Tea Partiers) be insulting, racist, and continually fighting, sabotaging, and arguing inane points about Obama (death panels fucking, raping, and killing grandma; secret mooslim illegitimate Obama that was a serious position by some of the Republican primary candidates; saying Obama was attacking Christianity; calling him a secret socialist fascist(lol); etc.) and then having the gall to say that Obama is the one lowering the discourse, lying, and just being dirty-as-fuck before you just have to step away for awhile. I'm not even saying Obama is squeaky clean, we've had debates on hear about is ads, but at least they almost always stay on the side of the truth.
The other sad part is that I have an irrational feeling that some Republican groups already have plans to try and impeach Obama if they lose. I know its irrational, I have nothing to back it up, but damn if I don't feel that way.
Edit: and what I mean by staying on the side of the truth is that Obama uses actual factual information for the basis of his attacks a large percentage of the time, while Romney completely makes things up, or takes something and makes it look like the exact opposite of what it actually is.
Did McCain-Palin lie this much? All I remember is the Bridge to Nowhere stuff and then the incendiary "palling around with terrorism" stuff ... but for some reason I can't recall a similar daily stream of lies.
Nah, McCain tried to keep a clean campaign in 2008.
He tried for the first couple months, but after the bump from Palin ran out he went pretty negative (Ayers, Wright etc) out of desperation.
Considering how badly Bush-Rove fucked his '00 primary campaign over with dirty campaigning I can understand why he didn't want to keep kid gloves on this time around. (esp. since Hillary had already broached most of it in the Dem primary)
Did McCain-Palin lie this much? All I remember is the Bridge to Nowhere stuff and then the incendiary "palling around with terrorism" stuff ... but for some reason I can't recall a similar daily stream of lies.
Nah, McCain tried to keep a clean campaign in 2008.
He tried for the first couple months, but after the bump from Palin ran out he went pretty negative (Ayers, Wright etc) out of desperation.
Considering how badly Bush-Rove fucked his '00 primary campaign over with dirty campaigning I can understand why he didn't want to keep kid gloves on this time around. (esp. since Hillary had already broached most of it in the Dem primary)
Amusingly enough, part of me thinks the Obama campaign is actually a good example all of your negative shit out in the primary season, as stuff such as Ayers and Wright were brought up in the primary when less people were watching but played enough that by the time McCain brought it up it was old news and didn't get as much traction as it could have. Otherwise they might have been much more harmful to his campaign.
Did McCain-Palin lie this much? All I remember is the Bridge to Nowhere stuff and then the incendiary "palling around with terrorism" stuff ... but for some reason I can't recall a similar daily stream of lies.
Nah, McCain tried to keep a clean campaign in 2008.
He tried for the first couple months, but after the bump from Palin ran out he went pretty negative (Ayers, Wright etc) out of desperation.
Considering how badly Bush-Rove fucked his '00 primary campaign over with dirty campaigning I can understand why he didn't want to keep kid gloves on this time around. (esp. since Hillary had already broached most of it in the Dem primary)
McCain didnt spin anything out of whole cloth, I think he only used the dirt that Hillary used, and for me most notably when confronted with pure crazy he called it out.
He was a sad old man who got beat down by turd blossom and really really wanted to be president, but had integrity.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
This is where I think Politifact actually comes in handy. Whatever qualms ye may have about its need to appear balanced or nitpicks or whatever. It's a very big data set.
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
The funny thing about this is it seems more of an attack on that local news station than Obama. That ad is just completely incoherent in message and focus. It starts off with Obama avoiding the hard questions apparently, and then shows the softball questions of a radio station, and then asks what the jobs are. It just doesn't seem to work.
(though I agree with Obama, I would love to be able to fly. The only thing that comes close is telekinesis.)
This is where I think Politifact actually comes in handy. Whatever qualms ye may have about its need to appear balanced or nitpicks or whatever. It's a very big data set.
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
I think the even bigger take-away from that is that 46% (184 total) of Obama's statements have been at least "mostly true" while only 29% (44 total) of Romney's have been at least "mostly true".
The White House press meetings are a combination of retarded questions and questions that are always going to receive a standard talking point that the person memorized.
This is where I think Politifact actually comes in handy. Whatever qualms ye may have about its need to appear balanced or nitpicks or whatever. It's a very big data set.
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
I think the even bigger take-away from that is that 46% (184 total) of Obama's statements have been at least "mostly true" while only 29% (44 total) of Romney's have been at least "mostly true".
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Do you really trust the presidency with personable and humorous humanoids? Should the button be in the sweaty hands of a meaty fleshbot? This fall, make the logical choice. Vote for ERROR ERROR SHRIMP FORKS AND EGGPLANTS OUT OF CHEESE ERROR ERROR
This is where I think Politifact actually comes in handy. Whatever qualms ye may have about its need to appear balanced or nitpicks or whatever. It's a very big data set.
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
I think the even bigger take-away from that is that 46% (184 total) of Obama's statements have been at least "mostly true" while only 29% (44 total) of Romney's have been at least "mostly true".
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
True, but when you put that comparison in the context of their desire to look non-biased by any lying means necessary, that's even more impressive.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I honestly don't get the Politifact hate by liberals.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
The White House press meetings are a combination of retarded questions and questions that are always going to receive a standard talking point that the person memorized.
I've always been partial to either super speed or teleportation. But that's mostly because I'm lazy and want to use all the time I'd gain from removing travel time for being more lazy.
This is where I think Politifact actually comes in handy. Whatever qualms ye may have about its need to appear balanced or nitpicks or whatever. It's a very big data set.
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
I think the even bigger take-away from that is that 46% (184 total) of Obama's statements have been at least "mostly true" while only 29% (44 total) of Romney's have been at least "mostly true".
And that is using Pants on Fire, and not mostly false things such as the $716 Billion medicare cuts thing, which Politifact said was mostly false and not pants on fire because the $716 Billion figure is a real number that shows up when the numbers are crunched, but the claims that is a cut or anything else that Romney claims is a lie.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I honestly don't get the Politifact hate by liberals.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
Because the only reason it's not even more ridiculously lopsided is because they feel the need to lie in order to appear more non-partisan.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I honestly don't get the Politifact hate by liberals.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
There's always the media thread if you want more details. The short answer is that we're accusing Politifact of being idiot-centrist and caring more about appearing neutral than being correct.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I honestly don't get the Politifact hate by liberals.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
I honestly don't get the Politifact hate by liberals.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
The big thing right now for liberals is Politifact's choice for Biggest Lie of 2011 I think. Somehow saying that the Paul Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it ranked as their biggest lie of the year.
The big thing right now for liberals is Politifact's choice for Biggest Lie of 2011 I think. Somehow saying that the Paul Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it ranked as their biggest lie of the year.
I thought they were okay with saying "end Medicare as we know it." Just not "end Medicare," since you know old folks would still get vouchers. (Plus isn't there something about ensuring coverage for old people in the Ryan plan? I remember being outraged initially but then after reading their explanation thinking that they were just being nitpicky.)
I guess I shouldn't derail the thread with this though.
So I was wondering this earlier after my rant: how do we decide in which order the conventions are? Do they just rotate which is first and which is second, or is there some other way of deciding it?
So I was wondering this earlier after my rant: how do we decide in which order the conventions are? Do they just rotate which is first and which is second, or is there some other way of deciding it?
There is no rule dictating the order, but since 1956 the incumbent party has held its convention second. Between 1864 and 1952, the Democrats went second every year (except for 1888). In 1956, when Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was the incumbent, the Democrats went first, and the party out of power has gone first ever since. (Between 1936 and 1952, the Democrats were the incumbent party and went second, but it is unclear whether they went second because they held the White House or because they had always gone second.) Since 1952, all major party conventions have been held in the months of July, August or (for the first time in 2004), early September. (Election laws in some states would likely prevent conventions from moving into mid-September). In the last half of the 20th century, conventions were mostly scheduled about one month apart, often with the Summer Olympics in between, each with four days of business scheduled, with the exception of the 1972 GOP convention which was three days. Since 2008, the Democratic and Republican conventions have instead been held in back-to-back weeks following the conclusion of the Olympics.
The big thing right now for liberals is Politifact's choice for Biggest Lie of 2011 I think. Somehow saying that the Paul Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it ranked as their biggest lie of the year.
I thought they were okay with saying "end Medicare as we know it." Just not "end Medicare," since you know old folks would still get vouchers. (Plus isn't there something about ensuring coverage for old people in the Ryan plan? I remember being outraged initially but then after reading their explanation thinking that they were just being nitpicky.)
I guess I shouldn't derail the thread with this though.
Giving old people vouchers that don't pace with inflation so they can buy private insurance IS destroying Medicare, not just as we know it. I can call my apple a banana, but that doesn't make it a banana.
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Look guys, Obama and Romney both lie and keep secrets. Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim who lies about not hating America, and Romney lies about things to get elected so he can save America with his secret tax and budget plan. Both parties lie, vote for the man with so much US pride he saved the Olympics and owns an Olympian.
Posts
Florida might be vital for Romney but it isn't 50 % seniors.
Nah, McCain tried to keep a clean campaign in 2008.
Do the words Kenyan or Muslim ring any bells? Granted McCain at least distanced himself from it and even admonished his own supporters for chanting it once (after doing a "raise the roof" dance and pumping his fist in time with said chant), but Palin's favorite hobby was egging on the crazies.
As for the stuff coming out of his actual mouth? Lots of misrepresentation, lots of twisting the facts, but at least there was truth in there, even if it was just the thread stitching his Frankenstein Monster together. Romney's Frankenlie is stitched together with awkward laughing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Am I the only one that sees the irony in Mitt "Bain Capital" Romney's campaign criticizing plant closings as part of a process that returned the industry to viability?
No Steve Bennen also thought it was odd that Ryan would go after Obama for a plant closing, especially one where its a little dubious if Obama could be held responsible...
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't even!
Just, what the fuck!?
There's no way to not know when that plant closed, and I pray to God that someone, be it the media (unlikely) or some SuperPAC, points out that it was closed before Obama took office. Hell, they could probably make a whole couple ads about Romney blaming things for what Bush, Clinton, and Reagan had done. It's just frustrating that rarely will mainstream media ever call him out on this, despite the blatant, blatant lying about some of this.
That does make me think about Soledad, who I don't think was trying to to be that hard-lined at first about the CBO $716 billon thing. It seems to me she just got ticked at being called a liar and a shill and as such wanted to prove how much full of shit she was. I know I've felt that way before, not being very involved in an argument until someone vehemently denies and insults me for pointing out how wrong I am. I did love her rebuttal later though, which was calm, cool, and collected and all of the clips showed how much more impassioned and vitriol spitting the people claiming she was wrong were. And then T-Paw insulting her reading ability?
I think I am getting tired of the double talk, and starting to realize why people get tired of politics. You can only see someone and a group of people (Repubs and Tea Partiers) be insulting, racist, and continually fighting, sabotaging, and arguing inane points about Obama (death panels fucking, raping, and killing grandma; secret mooslim illegitimate Obama that was a serious position by some of the Republican primary candidates; saying Obama was attacking Christianity; calling him a secret socialist fascist(lol); etc.) and then having the gall to say that Obama is the one lowering the discourse, lying, and just being dirty-as-fuck before you just have to step away for awhile. I'm not even saying Obama is squeaky clean, we've had debates on hear about is ads, but at least they almost always stay on the side of the truth.
The other sad part is that I have an irrational feeling that some Republican groups already have plans to try and impeach Obama if they lose. I know its irrational, I have nothing to back it up, but damn if I don't feel that way.
Edit: and what I mean by staying on the side of the truth is that Obama uses actual factual information for the basis of his attacks a large percentage of the time, while Romney completely makes things up, or takes something and makes it look like the exact opposite of what it actually is.
He tried for the first couple months, but after the bump from Palin ran out he went pretty negative (Ayers, Wright etc) out of desperation.
Considering how badly Bush-Rove fucked his '00 primary campaign over with dirty campaigning I can understand why he didn't want to keep kid gloves on this time around. (esp. since Hillary had already broached most of it in the Dem primary)
Amusingly enough, part of me thinks the Obama campaign is actually a good example all of your negative shit out in the primary season, as stuff such as Ayers and Wright were brought up in the primary when less people were watching but played enough that by the time McCain brought it up it was old news and didn't get as much traction as it could have. Otherwise they might have been much more harmful to his campaign.
I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be a serious ad at first. I am not sure any person gives any fucks about this.
McCain didnt spin anything out of whole cloth, I think he only used the dirt that Hillary used, and for me most notably when confronted with pure crazy he called it out.
He was a sad old man who got beat down by turd blossom and really really wanted to be president, but had integrity.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
So I see that Mitt Romney has made 14 "Pants on Fire!" statements—9% of his total record.
John McCain made 8 "Pants on Fire!" statements—5% of his record.
Lord Obama has made 6 "Pants on Fire!"s—2% of his record.
A while ago I put together a spreadsheet of all of Politifact's Pants on Fire ratings and separated them by party affiliation ... the result was that Republicans lied 3 times as often as Democrats; 5 times as often if you include chain e-mails. But that was before the presidential campaign! I'd love to see the breakdown now.
Edit: Romney's figure might be a bit inflated because Politifact gives him three separate PoF! ratings for repeating "We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy" three times. But still, F that guy, lying bastard.
The biggest mistake is that Obama chose flight over super speed.
Even Rasumussen has Obama +1.
The funny thing about this is it seems more of an attack on that local news station than Obama. That ad is just completely incoherent in message and focus. It starts off with Obama avoiding the hard questions apparently, and then shows the softball questions of a radio station, and then asks what the jobs are. It just doesn't seem to work.
(though I agree with Obama, I would love to be able to fly. The only thing that comes close is telekinesis.)
I think the even bigger take-away from that is that 46% (184 total) of Obama's statements have been at least "mostly true" while only 29% (44 total) of Romney's have been at least "mostly true".
The White House press meetings are a combination of retarded questions and questions that are always going to receive a standard talking point that the person memorized.
I'd really caution against using politifact as anything but a bad example.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I am Romney. I approve message."
True, but when you put that comparison in the context of their desire to look non-biased by any lying means necessary, that's even more impressive.
Yes, they have rated some Democratic claims more harshly than is warranted by the facts. But if you look at all of their ratings, they always tend towards harshness and nitpicking. Sometimes they're inconsistent, but that's impossible to avoid. And in any case, the sum total of their ratings does show that Democrats are much more honest—not that this should be an apriori assumption of course, but it just makes liberal complaints about the site seem somewhat counterproductive to me.
Seriously?
That man is the walking epitome of "cry me a river!"
send his Kleenex-clutching orange self out to Oklahoma and be done with it
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
I've always been partial to either super speed or teleportation. But that's mostly because I'm lazy and want to use all the time I'd gain from removing travel time for being more lazy.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And that is using Pants on Fire, and not mostly false things such as the $716 Billion medicare cuts thing, which Politifact said was mostly false and not pants on fire because the $716 Billion figure is a real number that shows up when the numbers are crunched, but the claims that is a cut or anything else that Romney claims is a lie.
Because the only reason it's not even more ridiculously lopsided is because they feel the need to lie in order to appear more non-partisan.
There's always the media thread if you want more details. The short answer is that we're accusing Politifact of being idiot-centrist and caring more about appearing neutral than being correct.
The 2011 Lie of the Year
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The big thing right now for liberals is Politifact's choice for Biggest Lie of 2011 I think. Somehow saying that the Paul Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it ranked as their biggest lie of the year.
This is why Liberals hate Politifact, and this is just one segment of a series by maddow.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure, they err on the side of neutrality a lot but they still give Democrats a lot more "true" ratings than Republicans
I guess I shouldn't derail the thread with this though.
BECAUSE DEMOCRATS TELL THE TRUTH MORE THAN REPUBLICANS! WHY IS THIS EVEN A THING?!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Romney camp's greatest fear is that they might have to actually put real policy on the table. Calling it "Suicidal."
pleasepaypreacher.net
There's erring on the side of neutrality, and then there's calling the truth a lie.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Giving old people vouchers that don't pace with inflation so they can buy private insurance IS destroying Medicare, not just as we know it. I can call my apple a banana, but that doesn't make it a banana.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126