Questions About "The Truth" for Romney Supporters

Fisher said:

You assume that he has to tell the truth or that he is not telling the truth and that swing voters really care. People better off will vote Obama; people worse off will vote Romney and a little sliver right in the middle will just vote for the person they think will most likely win because they want to be on the winning side.

Click to expand...

What you say makes me cringe. It sends a chill down my spine that the country I love so much, is so brainwashed with political ideology, that it can no longer see the forest for the trees, nor make good, clear, rational, logical, coherent decisions about its elected officials.

I cannot argue with anything you've just wrote. Your post speaks volumes about just how irrational we are, when it comes to putting somebody in the White House. How narrow minded the electorate has become and how it ignores reality in favor of the "truth" that it wants to believe, even when that "truth" simply does not exist.

I agree with you 100%. It is just that cut and dry - but my question is: WHY?

How did we get to be so shallow, so inept, so disconnected from reality, so blind and so unable to make good decisions based on real facts? There is actually 27% of the country that believes this President caused the 2008 economic implosion. I mean, come on! How did we reach a point where we are so blinded by political ideologues and their penchant for lies, that are willing to toss out common sense in broad daylight, when all the world knows better? We don't like to admit that we are a brainwashed culture - but the way we go about electing governing officials, clearly proves otherwise.

Trickle Down failed under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. Yet, you still have half the nation willing to support that failed economic postulate. The most balanced fiscal approach under Clinton, generated the biggest economic expansion in U.S. history, produced a projected multi-hundred billion budget surplus and created 20 million new jobs. What does the country decide to do? Go straight back to the failed theory of Trickle Down, only this time, with the Policy of Preemption leading the way into two wars that were never paid for and completely off the books.

We then found ourselves economically strained to the point of meltdown in the span of eight (8) years and we create negative economic momentum that will last for years after its point of instantiation. What do we do then? We attack the notion of full recovery, by threatening to go right back to the exact same economic theory that got us into this mess to begin with - all because we've become so politically myopic that we cannot see straight enough to make wise decisions.

At this point, I am of the frame of mind that we will get exactly what we deserve to get.

I agree with a lot of things Obama has done however I feel the healthcare mandate is soooooo dangerous a precedent to set in law, I don't see how I could vote for him. To me, that is far more important to guard against than trickle in any directions economics.

PW4000 said:

As if you've actually read my posts.





False - Bush, did not sign them. Another Romney'ism for you. The trade deals were sitting UN-signed by the President. How on earth can President Obama, sign that which has already been signed? No wonder Bush 43, made it into the White House. He literally had people voting that can't even tie their own shoelaces.

It was Romney, who lied and said the President never signed a single trade deal - period. He made made no qualifications and he provided his audience with contextual substrate. President Obama, had to bring the trade deals before the Congress, to get the legislative process moving. Why would he need to do that, if President Bush, had already signed them?

You Romney, characters just can't level with the American People long enough to save your lives, can you?




Apparently, you don't even know what's going on here. How can President Obama, put his name on something that had already been Signed by Bush 43, and approved by Congress? Answer: He can't.

Obama gets win as Congress passes free-trade agreements - The Washington Post




Pretending to be ignorant is one thing - but being ignorant is quite another thing altogether.

Romney, declared that the President never signed a single Trade Agreement. Period. You can flop around and act like he never said that with tons of Video and News Paper evidence all over the net showing that he did, all you want. It won't alter the facts, but it will continue to make you look rather bizarre in your conclusion that Romney, said something different than that.

Second, splitting hairs is precisely what Romney, did in this case - yet again. He knew that Obama, had signed three (3) Trade Agreements that had been hanging around and held-up by the Bush Administration. Yet, he did what Romney, always does. He made the conscious decision to LIE about the facts that he knew were already out in the public domain. This is his MO. This is how Romney, operates and he's done it on a wide range of issues and topics as this thread will attest and as many other sites on the net will attest.




Which is a question that you have yet to address without flipping and flopping all over the place, pretending that President Obama, did not sign three (3) Trade Agreements. And, you have also ignored the reason why those trade agreements got modified by President Obama. They did not contain Workers Rights Protections, until President Obama, forced the issue and got those rights embedded into the agreements. He did not sign them until those agreements were amended. That's something that George W. Bush, did not do and could have cared less about, as he was off blowing $3 trillion on illegal wars and Profit Sharing Agreements for Foreign National Oil Barons that supported his war efforts in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.




You walk in here and proclaim that a Trade Deal was signed by President Bush, when NONE of the trade deals had even made it to Congress, and you insinuate that you've somehow proven something? You don't even understand the question, let alone have anything that you can debunk with.

You post a single FACT showing that Bush 43, had already signed what President Obama, signed and the congress approved, and THEN you will have debunked something inside this thread.

Until then, you are doing nothing more than what Romney, does all the time on the campaign trail, which is make stuff up out of whole cloth in broad daylight and hope that nobody catches him doing it. That's called outright LYING to the American People, and Romney, has been doing this since before he began running for the Presidency.

You've just been caught lying, just like Rommey. Now, how do you explain Bush 43 signing something that he NEVER signed?

Click to expand...

Holy sh*t that's a lot of response for what I wrote! I must have ruffled a feather?

Like it or not, you've established a very distinct MO for yourself around here. You take statements made by Romney, bring forth evidence that they are less than 100% true, and then go off on some holier-than-thou crusade as if we should all be as outraged as you PRETEND to be. That's pretty much it. You must have spent 20 hours alone just on one of the post debate threads doing exactly what I just described. You try to manufacture outrage where none rightfully exists. The fact is that the exact same MO could be used to assail the President and it would be every bit as truthful as the sh*t that you're shoveling. The difference is that I'm not naive enough to believe that people here aren't smart enough to see right through it... just as they see right through you.

But continue, it's entertaining... in a train wreck kind of way.

Jack Fabulous said:

The one who needs to get his facts straight is you. I never claimed that "I" smashed his facts into smithereens. Someone else did the smashing. I merely pointed it out.

Click to expand...

Who did the smashing of facts? Is this a General Republican Mode of Operation? Pretend that you've done something that you never did and walk away hoping that nobody finds out you never did it?

Where is the post that smashed my facts?

Jack Fabulous said:

As far as the rest of this thread goes, I can sum it up in two words... ho hum.

Click to expand...

That's more telling than you know.

You can take a thread, that clearly shows Mitt Romney, in full back-peddle mode (please note how I spelled "pedal") to pander to whatever audience he happens to be standing in front of at the time, or whatever camera he happens to be posing for at the time, that catches him in telling outright lies, or catches him flip-flopping on extremely serious issues that face the country, and your best retort is "ho hum."

That just about sums up the entire Romney, campaign - does it not? Ho Hum?

Jack Fabulous said:

Romney claims Obama hasn't scored any trade deals, Obama's name is on a few that were previously negotiated by Bush. Who cares?

Click to expand...

Who cares? Hello! He LIED about it. He could have said that the President signed Trade Legislation that the United States Congress blocked President Bush, from signing. But, no. Instead, Romeny, exposed the kind of leader he would be by outright lying to the American People in broad daylight - hoping to never get called on the carpet for it.

This thread is not about merely one of Romney's lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations and misguided statements. This thread is about an entire an entire Presidential Campaign that has been going on for nearly two (2) years, where this Candidate has intentionally mislead the American People and where there is PLENTY of evidence for that fact, all over the place - written, audio, and video.

This is about a man who is seeking the White House, but who CANNOT level with the American People long enough for anyone to know his true positions on a whole host of important issues.

Ho Hum? Indeed!

Jack Fabulous said:

Romney's claim isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% false, either and it certainly doesn't rise to level of outrage it was made out to be by the OP. This thread crashed and burned on page one but if you feel you must continue, by all means...

Click to expand...

Yes, by all means - I will continue.

Due to his support for Hugo Chavez he stalled on the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia as long as he could.

Jack Fabulous said:

Holy sh*t that's a lot of response for what I wrote! I must have ruffled a feather?

Click to expand...

LOL! Is that your way of saying: I really don't have a substantive rebuttal to the point being mat the Mitt Romney, is a chronic liar on the campaign trail? Because, that's clearly what this thread demonstrates - unless you can post a counter that disproves it.

Jack Fabulous said:

Like it or not, you've established a very distinct MO for yourself around here.

Click to expand...

Sure. One of remaining intellectually honest long enough to admit bad policy coming form either side, including the current President - but I doubt seriously that you've read one shred of my criticisms of this sitting President.

Jack Fabulous said:

You take statements made by Romney, bring forth evidence that they are less than 100% true, and then go off on some holier-than-thou crusade as if we should all be as outraged as you PRETEND to be. That's pretty much it.

Click to expand...

You mean you have no eyes and no ears of your own? You mean to tell me that you cannot see the videos posted were of Romney, speaking in his own words? You can't ear Romney's own voice? Do you mean to tell me that you are so up rabbit hole yourself, that you are unwilling to call a lie a lie?

Holier than though crusade? So, calling Romney and his Supporters, out on the floor for chronic lies that he's been telling and that the entire world can see for itself, turns my thread into a Holy War against Romney? So, everybody should just back-off and allow Romney, to tell one lie after another lie - never once asking him to make good with the American People?

Is that what you call a Presidential Campaign you can believe in?

Jack Fabulous said:

You must have spent 20 hours alone just on one of the post debate threads doing exactly what I just described.

Click to expand...

And, you must have pulled that 20 hours alone statement right out of thin air. Another Romney'ism, no doubt. Just make up the facts as you go along and hope some of it will stick.

Jack Fabulous said:

You try to manufacture outrage where none rightfully exists.

Click to expand...

LOL! We now live in a country where a Candidate for President, can make as his Campaign Strategy the outright lying about his position, or the outright lying about the position of opponent, and that's considered outrage being manufactured?

No wonder Romney, has increased his Pew Research Poll numbers. When facts don't matter and when telling the truth no longer matters - the better you look when you tell your lies, is the determining factor for whether or not you get support from voters. So, you can excuse an entire campaign of lies, shape shifting, mistreatment of the facts, and flip-flopping, as just par for the course?

That must be very comfortable for you.

Jack Fabulous said:

The fact is that the exact same MO could be used to assail the President and it would be every bit as truthful as the sh*t that you're shoveling.

Click to expand...

Can you NAME them? Can you walk me through the way in which you turn this MO around and pin it on the President? Can you tell me:

- How many times has the Romney lied about Social Security Privatization?
- How many times has the Romney lied about liking School Teachers and wanting to support them?
- How many times has the Romney lied about School Vouchers?
- How many times has the Romney lied about Medicare Vouchers?
- How many times has the Romney lied about not having a $5 trillion tax cut?
- How many times has the Romney lied about Trade Agreements?
- How many times has the Romney lied about Cap & Trade?
- How many times has the Romney lied about laying off people through Bain Capital?
- How many times has the Romney lied about his tenure at Bain Capital? (a possible Felony)
- How many times has the Romney lied about not having a Lobbyist running his Campaign?
- How many times has the Romney lied about being 47th out of 50th in Job Growth in Massachusetts as its Governor
- How many times has the Romney lied about Obama dropping Welfare to Work?
- How many times has the Romney lied about Obama stealing $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare? [716 billion Romney lies]
- How many times has the Romney lied about NEVER supporting President Obama's Stimulus Initiative?
- How many times has the Romney lied about being tough on Pro-Gun Control? [now a card carrying lifetime Member of the NRA]
- How many times has the Romney lied about Obama's initiative to Save the Banks from Collapse [reversing his own statements multiple times]
- How many times has the Romney lied about "Liking Individual Mandates" [then claiming that the constitution does not allow mandates]


And, you say that I'm "shoveling" something here?

This man is a Manchurian Liar of epic proportions and somehow, you just want to let him get away with it?

Jack Fabulous said:

The difference is that I'm not naive enough to believe that people here aren't smart enough to see right through it... just as they see right through you.

Click to expand...

The difference is that you are either part of the problem, or you are a total neophyte who should really go out and educate himself BEFORE ever walking into a Voting Booth! I mean, come on! At what point are you people going to stop making excuse after excuse for Romney's Lies?

Jack Fabulous said:

But continue, it's entertaining... in a train wreck kind of way.

Click to expand...

That train wreck is Romney's Compaign imploded onto itself due to the overwhelming weight of all the lies it told during a two (2) year leave of absence from Planet Earth.

You bet, I'm going to continue...

Doubt me? Then bet me $10,000.00 right here and right now that Romney, not only loses the election - but he loses BIG because his lies eventually catch up with him at the voting polls, when people make that final decision about whether or not they can trust this guy.

AdamT said:

In that case it should be pretty easy for you to list the parts of Obama's record that he's running away from. opcorn2:

Click to expand...

I keep asking for somebody to do that, and they refuse.

Why do they refuse? Because, outside of GITMO (which I am really ticked-off about), there really has been no substantive failure on the part of the President, given the massive undercut in the economy that he was forced to deal with upon inauguration.

They can talk about not reducing the deficit, which was a campaign promise broken - but they won't talk about the fact that the economy imploded well after he began making that campaign pledge and the fact that the meltdown in the economy forced many of Obama's domestic agenda items either to the back-burner or completely off the stove altogether.

They will continually bring up the campaign promise on the deficit, but they never join that criticism with any real substantive analysis on why cleaning up TARP I and establishing TARP II and Stimulus was necessary to prevent further crisis short-term, while at the same time being the cause for driving up the debt and deficit long-term. Or, how preventing further economic collapse would see a U.S. Economy more prepared to generate revenues sooner than not preventing that same collapse.

They basically refuse to get honest about the massive crisis that this President had to deal with upon entering office, and how the economic component of that crises had not become known to anyone until 2008, very late in the campaign. That forced both Obama and McCain, to change a lot about their respective campaign strategies.

PW4000 said:

LOL! Is that your way of saying: I really don't have a substantive rebuttal to the point being mat the Mitt Romney, is a chronic liar on the campaign trail? Because, that's clearly what this thread demonstrates - unless you can post a counter that disproves it.

Click to expand...

This thread is all about Mitt being a chronic liar on the campaign trail? No, this thread is all about you using the term "chronic liar" to describe Mitt's behavior on the campaign trail. The problem isn't whether or not Mitt has made claims that aren't 100% accurate or, in some cases, not accurate at all. Sure he has. The problem is that we have a sitting president that has utterly failed to fulfill anything that he promised to do 4 years ago AND IN ADDITION is conducting his campaign in exactly the same manner as what you're accusing Romney of. So what are we left with, then?

We're left with Obama's record, that's what.

Slinky is going to keep moving along with blurb after blurb after blurb. He is mistakenly relying on the fact that for the most part he has not put anyting firm in writing and figures that way he doesn't have to keep to one position. the problem is there is enough tape of him being slinky it could circle the world a couple of times.

Jack Fabulous said:

Someone else did the smashing.

Click to expand...

Heh. "You didn't smash that! Somebody else ... made that happen."

As far as the rest of this thread goes, I can sum it up in two words... ho hum.

Click to expand...

Agree. Obama did basically nothing. Sure he gutted a few elements of the trade agreement by making it easier to gerrymander nationalistic restrictions into "labour rights", but for the pro-Obama crowd that's enough to make romney a liar. Since of course anyone who says anything that contradicts something Obama says or casts Obama in a bad light is a liar, cause Obama is always right and he could never be cast in a bad light.

Romney claims Obama hasn't scored any trade deals, Obama's name is on a few that were previously negotiated by Bush. Who cares? Romney's claim isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% false, either and it certainly doesn't rise to level of outrage it was made out to be by the OP. This thread crashed and burned on page one but if you feel you must continue, by all means...

Click to expand...

It's more right than it is wrong, unless you want to conclude that it's wrong. That's the problem with real life. There is just so much nuance in it, that the people on the wrong side of an issue can make it seem like they are on the right side. In this case, the Obama team is on the wrong side, though it isn't always that way. I mean, it's totally awesome that they like big bird and elmo. Critical to the future of your country and our civilization, they are. Though of course they would be just fine without any government subsidy, but clearly Romney's entire campaign is about euthanizing big bird and putting snuffy out to pasture...

AdamT said:

Yes, you've pretty much summed it up. Romney lies ALL - THE - TIME and his supporters really just don't give a **** -- or at least they hate Obama so much that they claim not to give a ****. It's really disturbing.

Click to expand...

This may be the one case in recorded history where the "I'm rubber and you're glue" and/or the "I know you are but what am I" argument could carry the day. Every single word you say is far, far more true about Obama and his camp than it is about Romney's.

Jack Fabulous said:

This thread is all about Mitt being a chronic liar on the campaign trail? No, this thread is all about you using the term "chronic liar" to describe Mitt's behavior on the campaign trail. The problem isn't whether or not Mitt has made claims that aren't 100% accurate or, in some cases, not accurate at all. Sure he has. The problem is that we have a sitting president that has utterly failed to fulfill anything that he promised to do 4 years ago AND IN ADDITION is conducting his campaign in exactly the same manner as what you're accusing Romney of. So what are we left with, then?

We're left with Obama's record, that's what.

Click to expand...

And big bird. This election is about big bird, plain and simple.

You are with big bird, or you are with the devil/Romney.

For Obama, this is election is about little things. Tax returns. public funding for PBS. $10 contraception. Whatever "shiny bauble" will do the job of distracting from the big issues. For Romney, it's about convincing people the big issues should be addressed and that he has a plan to address them. Obama, meanwhile, just fixates on little irrelevant footnotes, while trying to cast Romney as an evil monied cancer murderer corporate raider tax cheat lying liar who lies.

Though he very well may still win, Obama is spent. he has no plans, no ideas. he has not demonstrated that he has any awareness of the real substantive issues or has any sort of policy - or political philosophy - that can address the issues he tries to avoid while demonzing Romney's approach to them.

But there are enough people driven by fear of republicasns and fear of Romney to propel Obama to victory. That is what Obama is hanging his campaign hopes on.

Jack Fabulous said:

This thread is all about Mitt being a chronic liar on the campaign trail? No, this thread is all about you using the term "chronic liar" to describe Mitt's behavior on the campaign trail. The problem isn't whether or not Mitt has made claims that aren't 100% accurate or, in some cases, not accurate at all. Sure he has. The problem is that we have a sitting president that has utterly failed to fulfill anything that he promised to do 4 years ago AND IN ADDITION is conducting his campaign in exactly the same manner as what you're accusing Romney of. So what are we left with, then?

Click to expand...

Jack, you are not even close to stating what this thread is all about. This thread simply makes it abundantly clear that Mitt Romney, has a serious problem with telling and sticking to, the truth - regardless of who is audience might be.

Jack Fabulous said:

We're left with Obama's record, that's what.

Click to expand...

I'm very glad you asked that question: ...

This is the difference between merely saying something that is not true, and proving something that is true.

CJ 2.0 said:

Heh. "You didn't smash that! Somebody else ... made that happen."

Click to expand...

Insinuating another lie. Obama, was referring to the fact that Private Business did not build Americas Bridges, Rail Roads, Airports, Sea Ports, Libraries, Public Schools, with its own capital. That's a fact. But, of course, when you twisted it and then misuse it in an insinuation that you actually think is cute, it only demonstrates where you fail.

CJ 2.0 said:

Agree. Obama did basically nothing.

Click to expand...

Which has been the Republican Lie being told since Day 90 of the Presidents term in office. Number #1: Classify anything he has accomplished as a failure. Number #2: Classify the obvious successes he's had as destructive for the country. Number #3: Blame all else on Obama. When in doubt, refer to Number #1. This has been the strategy of the Republican party from Day 90 and counting.

However, this thread says otherwise:

CJ 2.0 said:

Sure he gutted a few elements of the trade agreement by making it easier to gerrymander nationalistic restrictions into "labour rights",

Click to expand...

Can you speak English for the rest of us 'labour' rights challenged folk, and explain what you mean in clear terms that are no so ambiguous that you need a United Nations Interpreter just to read the preamble of your statement?

How does making sure that Workers Rights are Protected, a "gerrymandering of nationalistic restrictions?"

LOL! You guys take the cake in your non-sequitur rhetoric.

CJ 2.0 said:

...but for the pro-Obama crowd that's enough to make romney a liar. Since of course anyone who says anything that contradicts something Obama says or casts Obama in a bad light is a liar, cause Obama is always right and he could never be cast in a bad light.

Click to expand...

What do videos showing Mitt Romney lying, have to do with whether or not someone supports President Obama's re-election? That's one heck of a leap in logic. To the point of being holistically illogical to the core.

You are shown a video of Romney, lying about what the President did. You then conclude that because that video is shown, someone is "trying" to prove that Romney, has lied. No one has to "prove" Romney, lied. The video coupled to the historical facts prove that Romney, lied.

I don't understand the thought process of some of you guys. You take something so incredibly obvious, and you STILL sit here and pretend as though it ain't true.

Unreal.

CJ 2.0 said:

It's more right than it is wrong, unless you want to conclude that it's wrong.

Click to expand...

Huh? What! A lie is wrong, no matter how you attempt to couch the terms of its definition. He clearly said that the President has not signed one Trade Deal. Period. That was not the truth. Not telling the truth when you know what the truth is - is called telling a lie.

What part of this are you guys not understanding? He lied - get over it.

CJ 2.0 said:

That's the problem with real life. There is just so much nuance in it, that the people on the wrong side of an issue can make it seem like they are on the right side.

Click to expand...

Oh, come on! Now, you really are showing your true colors. "Nuance?" Are you serious? The man flat out lied, how much "nuance" can you glean from that? He told a campaign trail lie and you want to white wash that lie out of existence. Why? What are you hiding? What are you afraid of? The lie has been told already - do you actually think that you can now undo the lie and nuance a new definition for what lying means?

Unbelievable.

CJ 2.0 said:

In this case, the Obama team is on the wrong side, though it isn't always that way. I mean, it's totally awesome that they like big bird and elmo. Critical to the future of your country and our civilization, they are. Though of course they would be just fine without any government subsidy, but clearly Romney's entire campaign is about euthanizing big bird and putting snuffy out to pasture...

Click to expand...

Well, if Romney, would come clean about how he plans to pay for his $5 trillion tax reduction primarily for the wealthy (of which, I am one of them btw.), then maybe Romney, would have a better comeback than his Love/Hate relationship with Bid Bird, and the President would not have to tour the country pointing out the fact that Romney's plan has no clothes, and seeks to make Big Bird Homeless instead.

You guys really fascinate me - you really do. Your post, is one of the prime reasons why I come to this forum. I am utterly fascinated by the ability of some people to look history and facts squarely in the eyes and still refuse to accept them for what they are. Blaming the entire economy on Obama. Blaming the lack of jobs entirely on Obama. Blaming the unemployment rate entirely on Obama. Blaming the negative consequences of the Arab Spring on Obama. Blaming Syria for lobbing mortars into Turkey and viece-versa on Obama. Blaming the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on Obama. Blaming high gas prices on Obama.

Blaming anything and everything that is negative on Obama, while completely ignoring HOW we got there, WHY we got there and always not telling the truth about YOUR party and its direct involvement and total neglect for eight (8) long years of anything domestic, its illegal wars for oil and its total abandonment of anything related to economic growth and sustainability long BEFORE President Obama, ever took office.

But, yeah - its Obama's fault.

Geeeeepers. :roll: LOL! Hilarious. Absolutely, hilarious.

CJ 2.0 said:

And big bird. This election is about big bird, plain and simple.

You are with big bird, or you are with the devil/Romney.

For Obama, this is election is about little things. Tax returns. public funding for PBS. $10 contraception. Whatever "shiny bauble" will do the job of distracting from the big issues. For Romney, it's about convincing people the big issues should be addressed and that he has a plan to address them. Obama, meanwhile, just fixates on little irrelevant footnotes, while trying to cast Romney as an evil monied cancer murderer corporate raider tax cheat lying liar who lies.

Though he very well may still win, Obama is spent. he has no plans, no ideas. he has not demonstrated that he has any awareness of the real substantive issues or has any sort of policy - or political philosophy - that can address the issues he tries to avoid while demonzing Romney's approach to them.

But there are enough people driven by fear of republicasns and fear of Romney to propel Obama to victory. That is what Obama is hanging his campaign hopes on.

Click to expand...

That has got to be some of the most epic drivel I've read on this forum. To conclude that Romney, is even remotely coming close to talking about the "issues" is staggering example of the fact that you simply don't get it.

You turn-around Romney's own words, and made them something that Obama, created on his own. Do you realize that? Where do you think Big Bird came frame? Was that something that Obama, or Romney, brought up during the debates? Romney, because he had no idea at all about how to answer the question of how he would pay for his $5 trillion tax lap-dance for the wealthy, came up with the most bizarre diversion I've ever heard during a Presidential campaign, regarding how he "liked Big Bird."

Seriously? You are asked to explain how you plan to not regress the economy at time when we least need it, by explaining what loop-holes you would close to reach your $5 trillion tax gap, and the best you can come up with the National Endowment for the Arts cut-backs, that represent $441 million, out of a $5 trillion deficit in your own budget claims?

And, you conclude that the election is about something other than Mitt Romney's ducking and dodging on the serious issues and the multiple hard-turns he continues to make on his own policy statements?

:2wave:

PW4000 said:

Candidate Romney, just announced (again) in front of a small crowed that same refrain that he's altered several times on the campaign trail. Romney, said:

"The president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years."
​

Source: CNN Romney's foreign policy twilight zone - CNN.com


Fact:

The President actually signed three (3) trade deals.

US-Korea Trade Agreement: #1
U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement: #2
U.S.-Panama Trade Agreement: #3

Click to expand...

#1: Signed in 2007.
#2: Signed in 2006.
#3: Signed in 2007.

Question:

Was Obama President in those years?

Harshaw said:

#1: Signed in 2007.
#2: Signed in 2006.
#3: Signed in 2007.

Question:

Was Obama President in those years?

Click to expand...

The trade laws that went into effect were not the ones signed by Bush (obviously). Obama renegotiated them to make them more favorable to the US.

AdamT said:

The trade laws that went into effect were not the ones signed by Bush (obviously). Obama renegotiated them to make them more favorable to the US.

Click to expand...

Hardly. There were minor tweaks made; the agreements remained substantially the same. You make it sound like they were discarded and entirely new ones negotiated.

PW4000 said:

I keep asking for somebody to do that, and they refuse.

Click to expand...

Lie - post #19. Heck I even predicts you won't see it due to your blinders. And here you confirm. The only question I have is, do you work for the campaign, get paid for post, or do you have that much of a hard-on for Romney?

We get it, you hate the guy. I don't feel that way about Obama, but I don't bow to him either.

Man, dems are really nasty when they think they may be losing. :mrgreen:

Harshaw said:

#1: Signed in 2007.
#2: Signed in 2006.
#3: Signed in 2007.

Question:

Was Obama President in those years?

Click to expand...

Ahh more right wing distortions.

#1 was signed by Bush, but never came into effect before it was renegotiated during Obama who then signed the renegotiated version into law in 2011.

South Korea

#2 was negotiated under Bush, but never approved by Congress and signed by Obama before 2011.

United States

#3 was negotiated under Bush, but never implemented. It was not until 2011 under Obama that it was signed by Obama and became official.

Panama

So in all cases, the free trade agreements were signed into law and passed under... the Obama administration. So another Romney fail x 3.

But let me guess, you going to attack me on the source material right? Wikipedia is not good enough?

PeteEU said:

Ahh more right wing distortions.

#1 was signed by Bush, but never came into effect before it was renegotiated during Obama who then signed the renegotiated version into law in 2011.

South Korea

#2 was negotiated under Bush, but never approved by Congress and signed by Obama before 2011.

United States

#3 was negotiated under Bush, but never implemented. It was not until 2011 under Obama that it was signed by Obama and became official.

Panama

So in all cases, the free trade agreements were signed into law and passed under... the Obama administration. So another Romney fail x 3.

But let me guess, you going to attack me on the source material right? Wikipedia is not good enough?

Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong about most of this, or you said meaningless things, but it's largely because you don't know how the treaty process works per the US Constitution. If you did, you wouldn't have said most of this.

Romney chose his words carefully. He didn't say "implemented" or "ratified" or "put into effect." He said "signed."

Harshaw said:

Actually, you're wrong about most of this, or you said meaningless things, but it's largely because you don't know how the treaty process works per the US Constitution. If you did, you wouldn't have said most of this.

Romney chose his words carefully. He didn't say "implemented" or "ratified" or "put into effect." He said "signed."

Click to expand...

Right, in this case Romney was just being deceptive – not telling an outright lie. I guess he deserves a gold star for that, eh?

AdamT said:

Right, in this case Romney was just being deceptive – not telling an outright lie. I guess he deserves a gold star for that, eh?

Click to expand...

Even accepting this at face value, considering the OP calls it slam-dunk lie, what it does is invalidate his premise.

PW4000 said:

Insinuating another lie. Obama, was referring to the fact that Private Business did not build Americas Bridges, Rail Roads, Airports, Sea Ports, Libraries, Public Schools, with its own capital. That's a fact. But, of course, when you twisted it and then misuse it in an insinuation that you actually think is cute, it only demonstrates where you fail.

Click to expand...

not even remotely a lie, and a perfect illustration of how you make the word "lie" meaningless. I understand the quote. And I agree with you about its interpretation. I just don't think it makes it any better. Cause Obama is saying since you can't wholly claim credit for anything because there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a lot of people who work hard", and you didn't build the roads and bridges (though your tax money did), that since you are a part of that system you OWE the govenrment as much money as it deems fit to take so that it can give that money to other people. THAT is the context in which Obama intended the quote to be used and THAT is the right interpretation. He was using this idea of "you didn't build that" to demean the achievements of successful people, lay an unlimited claim to the wealth that they generated, and to tell those who seek to benefit from government distribution not only that they shouldn't feel bad about taking the wealth generated by others, but actually those others OWE it to them because, hey, those rich folks didn't build the roads and bridges.

What is a "lie", if you want to use your definition of the term which includes any possible degree of interpretation, is that Obama's speech in that case was anything other than what I wrote above, or that it was anything other than a continued pander to his base that the rich are what cause their lives to such rather than his policies and that the rich owe them as much as Obama sees fit to take for them.

Which has been the Republican Lie being told since Day 90 of the Presidents term in office. Number #1: Classify anything he has accomplished as a failure. Number #2: Classify the obvious successes he's had as destructive for the country. Number #3: Blame all else on Obama. When in doubt, refer to Number #1. This has been the strategy of the Republican party from Day 90 and counting.

Click to expand...

that's fine and good. I don't care about the republicans. I don't even get a vote. But his policies HAVE been a failure. His foreign policy has been a disaster, his stimulous was a wasted boondoggle, his Obamacare is a dysfunctional mess, and on and on and on. He has no real successes to point to, and the overwhelming results of his governannce (if you could call it that) has been disaster.

Can you speak English for the rest of us 'labour' rights challenged folk, and explain what you mean in clear terms that are no so ambiguous that you need a United Nations Interpreter just to read the preamble of your statement?

Click to expand...

I mean protectionists looking to weaken free trade agreements look to insert labour and environmental "protections" that are simply mechanisms that can be exploited as loopholes to push for protectionism.

Not that complicated.

What do videos showing Mitt Romney lying, have to do with whether or not someone supports President Obama's re-election? That's one heck of a leap in logic. To the point of being holistically illogical to the core.

Click to expand...

Cause the essence of what he said was right, he just over-reached in making his point. Obama has done nothing to advance free trade. He didn't promote trade. he didn't seek out new opportunities. He didn't reciprocate when new opportunities were advanced to him. He did nothing, other than shunting along some completed deals and signed them only when the free trade element of the agreements was tempered by other considerations.

So you can say he lied all you like. But his point, which is ultimately what matters, is a valid one.

I don't understand the thought process of some of you guys. You take something so incredibly obvious, and you STILL sit here and pretend as though it ain't true.

Click to expand...

You mean like Obama has been a complete disaster with bad policy vision, bad managerial skills, and bad policies, and has domonestrated he is completely unqualified for this job?

Cause you still seem to be pretending that this obvious reality is not true.

Well, if Romney, would come clean about how he plans to pay for his $5 trillion tax reduction primarily for the wealthy (of which, I am one of them btw.), then maybe Romney, would have a better comeback than his Love/Hate relationship with Bid Bird, and the President would not have to tour the country pointing out the fact that Romney's plan has no clothes, and seeks to make Big Bird Homeless instead.

Click to expand...

You want to talk about "lying", you would do well to look in the mirror. This whole line of argument is ridiculous and a construct of the Obama disinformation campaign.