Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies

[Doktor]

So is it covered or not?

[Chunder]

I am not following, but guess you and Ben are right, so, add lies by omission, too.

Damn, this is so not fair, for one that actually bothers to answer my question

You can hide facts by lying outright, you can hide facts by changing the question via an answer, or you can hide by not telling the whole truth.

Follow me now? :).

[Doktor]

No Mate, you've heared the oath many times before "Tell, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
the whole truth bit covers lies by omission, and often helps fool those willing to believe.

I am not following, but guess you and Ben are right, so, add lies by omission, too.

Damn, this is so not fair, for one that actually bothers to answer my question

JAD as per your suggestion, I'm inclined to disagree. WAB is a predominantly right leaning board, and TBH, it's good the Romney is being cast in the spotlight. Answering a lie with another lie from the other side, isn't shining a light on the subject. Anyone is free to start a thread WRT Obama. This election, it would be good if WAB could mix it up a little bit. I think it's fine as is.

This might be predominantly right leaning board, but as far as I remember, I have read more Bush bashing, then Obama bashing. Could be only my impression.

[Chunder]

Won't that fit under "hiding facts"?

No Mate, you've heared the oath many times before "Tell, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

the whole truth bit covers lies by omission, and often helps fool those willing to believe.



JAD as per your suggestion, I'm inclined to disagree. WAB is a predominantly right leaning board, and TBH, it's good the Romney is being cast in the spotlight. Answering a lie with another lie from the other side, isn't shining a light on the subject. Anyone is free to start a thread WRT Obama. This election, it would be good if WAB could mix it up a little bit. I think it's fine as is.

[Doktor]

Won't that fit under "hiding facts"?

[bigross86]

Let's not forget the ever popular lying by omission

[Doktor]

To be honest i don't believe politicians in general are scumbags. Virtually impossible to not lie when in the profession, but scumbags, no.
...

Name me few politicians who tried not to lie.

Note: not telling the whole truth or hiding facts is lying in my village.

[tbm3fan]

To be honest i don't believe politicians in general are scumbags. Virtually impossible to not lie when in the profession, but scumbags, no.
Both Romney and Obama are honest men by nature, the question is who has the better philosophy and plan.

I didn't see anything from Obama but vague generalities, a call to the faithful and the usual 'we are all one and everyone is equal except those bastards over there'.

Did I miss something?

I felt the same about Mitt (silver spoon) Romney. He is going to create 12,000,000 jobs? Really! I would reeeeeally like to hear the specifics on that one. Until then my best guess would say about 2/3 are created outside the U.S.

All politicians lie and fudge the truth to some extent so one of the few things left to go on is their general philosophy about their fellow Americans across the whole economic spectrum. The more one is I "got mine and screw you", forgetting all the advantages they were born with, is the one who turns me off.

[Parihaka]

To be honest i don't believe politicians in general are scumbags. Virtually impossible to not lie when in the profession, but scumbags, no.
Both Romney and Obama are honest men by nature, the question is who has the better philosophy and plan.

I didn't see anything from Obama but vague generalities, a call to the faithful and the usual 'we are all one and everyone is equal except those bastards over there'.

Did I miss something?

[bigross86]

Why not change it to "Politicians Are Lying Scumbags"? You can add a poll at the top, the question being "Do You Agree?" with the options being "Yes" and "Hell, yes!"

[dalem]

Let me see a show of hands for changing the thread title from "Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies" to "Chronicling Romey and Obama Lies".

We seem to be moving from Romney to Obama. Might as well make the title conform.

Sure. Sounds reasonable.

-dale

[Doktor]

I'm certainly not going to hire the arsonist!

What arsonist?

[JAD_333]

Let me see a show of hands for changing the thread title from "Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies" to "Chronicling Romey and Obama Lies".

We seem to be moving from Romney to Obama. Might as well make the title conform.

[JAD_333]

bigross86,

I still can’t quite get to the 4.5 mn jobs number, either, even working from Jan 2010 to June 2012.

Aside from government, the numbers are all up, but I still can’t get to the 4.5 mn figure.

Did you start at the deepest point of the recession? Obama also counted the jobs lost and regained under his admin.

FACT CHECK: Biden cites that 4.5 million job claim again, a misleading portrait - The Washington Post

BIDEN: “After the worst job loss since the Great Depression, we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs in the past 29 months.”

THE FACTS: This seems to be a favorite statistic, because many speakers at the convention cited it. But it’s misleading — a cherry-picked figure that counts jobs from when the recession reached its trough and employment began to grow again. It excludes jobs lost earlier in Obama’s term, and masks the facts that joblessness overall has risen over his term so far.

As well, in the same 29 months that private sector jobs grew by 4.5 million, jobs in the public sector declined by about 500,000, making the net gain in that period about 4 million.

Overall, some 2 million jobs were lost during the recession that began in December 2007 in President George W. Bush’s term and ended officially in June 2009 with Obama as president.

Never since World War II has the economy been so slow to recover all the jobs lost in a downturn.

[JAD_333]

romney has promised several things; extend the bush tax cuts, then go one further by eliminating capital gains for taxpayers below 200K AGI, 20% cuts in marginal rates, lower corporate tax rate to 25%, eliminate death tax and repeal the AMT.

then he calls for defense spending to be tagged at 4% of GDP, which is another $2 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.

he wants to put back the $700 billion in medicare cuts, and promises no changes for SS or medicare for the next 10 years.

Romney's critics speak as if his plan is an all-at-once package deal and that conditions today will always be as they are now. They don't consider whether implementing just one or two part of the plan to begin with will alter conditions and make them ripe for the next part.

Anyway, there isn't hardly one person in a million who can plot all the permutations an economic plan will go through on its way to success or failure. That's why most of the debate among columnists and politicians is about the past and statistics.
But I believe Romney sees the dynamic internal workings of the economy and Obama doesn't. Sure, Obama is well-versed and well coached in economic issues, but he's like the rest of us, taking our cues from experts, who themselves may simply be orthodox believers in one school of economics.

So, for me, which side is right is less important than which side will put an end to gradually increasing government control of my life.