The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 25    Average: 2.6/5]
57 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6512
Rating: 2.6
Category:
Date: 11/03/12 12:18 PM

57 Responses to All False Statements Involving Mitt Romney

  1. Profile photo of Vimto
    Vimto Male 40-49
    2853 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    Link: All False Statements Involving Mitt Romney - Not being in the US I`m not voting, but I find this interesting. Less here than i would have thought.
  2. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    Oh, don`t worry, Vimto, the regulars will be here any minute to inform you that PolitiFact.com is a liberal-run site that`s designed specifically to re-elect the president. No data is ever valid to them (conservatives) unless it`s blaming the president for everything from assassinating Abraham Lincoln to Clint Eastwood talking to a chair to the future, and sadly inevitable cloning of Carrot Top. It`s sad, really, but, such is life in their world, I guess.
  3. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    Yup, what SmagBoy1 said!
  4. Profile photo of Roland
    Roland Male 30-39
    298 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Well said SmagBoy.
  5. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    Damn, that`s a long list! But you forgot to add his "Pants on Fire!" statements.
    Romney Pants on Fire!
  6. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    Eliminating "Obamacare" ... "saves $95 billion a year."

    Politifact`s ruling on this statement is only valid if the law is executed and interpreted to the letter. That is UNLIKELY to happen.
  7. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    So - "false" statements on a website that doesn`t know what a "fact" is.

    Politifact is well known for its left-wing bias, declaring facts as not if they are said by Republicans an lies as truth if said by Democrats. It`s junk.

    On the first page I count 5 statements I know to be true, and a few that are a matter of opinion or not yet confirmed.

    So basically this is partisan junk.
  8. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    "Obama has stayed pretty close to campaign goals"

    Hahahaha. That is Politifact`s ridiculous reasoning for claiming that Romney was incorrect when he pointed out three areas where Obama had not followed policy he had declared in 2008. Politifact i a joke, far more political than factual.
  9. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    Thank you, randomxnp! It only took five folks before you thoroughly and completely proved my point! Bravo!
  10. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    `Politifact is well known for its left-wing bias`

    Then how do you account for this? False Statements by Obama
  11. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    #2 Not Fisker? BZZZT! Fisker GOT Obama-money, it`s a fact.

    Oh the fails, they`re so... liberal!

    #3 YES Obama Doubled it! Take the average over 8 years from Bush, compare to the average over 4 years for Obama: Deficit = doubled!
    Bush: +5 trillion over 8 years = 625 billion pr year.
    Obama: 5.2 trillion over 4 years = 1,300 billion per year!
    Not `exact` numbers, it may be off by a billion +/- but lookie! DOUBLED the annual DEFICIT!
    Source = Debt To The Penny and a little math.

    They repeat themselves, they take quotes entirely out of context... don`t the IAB Libtard Crew OBJECT to that? Oh, yeah! Only if it relates to Obama!

    Liberals: One rule for righties... NO rules for lefties!
  12. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    Politicrap is not impartial, it`s bought and paid for by the Annenberg trust, Chicago cronies of Obama and Bill Ayers.
  13. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 4:44 pm
    Can`t say I trust anything this guy says, frankly I`m dumbfounded he made it this far. Not for or against Obama in any way, but I sure hope he wins over this nutter.
  14. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    `Politicrap is not impartial`

    Politifact has faced criticism from conservatives and liberals alike. I`d say that`s the very definition of impartial.

    Reception of Politifact
  15. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    @FoolsPrussia: I thank you for the "Obama Lies" link! I`m not about to cruise that site looking for stuff...

    But to claim they are "neutral" because a large group of LEFTIST publications say so? idk about that...

    ...and on top of that, YOUR OWN link says Politifact finds Repubs 3.5X as often to lie than Dems... yeah right! Not biased at all!
    If y`all believe THAT one...
  16. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    If I lived in the US this would be a pretty easy choice for me.

    Which one looks like a crazy person?
  17. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    `YOUR OWN link says Politifact finds Repubs 3.5X as often to lie than Dems`

    Perhaps that`s because Republicans say things like, "We won`t let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
  18. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    FoolsPrussia: The so-called `fact checkers` are liberal owned sites masquerading as `fact checkers` to push public opinion. This list is leftist opinion rag, nothing more.
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 7:33 pm
  20. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    PolitiFact is nothing but a liberal opinion site. There credibility is no better than MoveOn or BSDNC.
  21. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm
    `The so-called `fact checkers` are liberal owned sites masquerading as `fact checkers` to push public opinion. This list is leftist opinion rag, nothing more.`

    So what does that make the four pages of false statements by Obama that I linked to earlier? Seriously, grow up guys.
  22. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6781 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 12:41 am
    Holy s.hit guys.

    Politifact and factcheck are both liberally biased shill sites?

    What sites are we allowed to post here that you guys won`t complain about?

    Even if you post drudgereport or breitbart with their clear, obvious, and unapologetic bias I`ll still read it. If the post contains data and I can verify the data I`ll take it. Data is not biased, context is. Politifact gives clear breakdowns of it`s responses using verifiable facts. It also calls liberals on errors as well, so how is it biased?
  23. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 12:56 am
    @FoolsPrussia:
    Smokescreen?
    False Flag?
    Decoy?
    Pseudo-attacks?
    Attempt to garner sympathy FOR BHO?

    If I were cynical, any of those ideas would easily explain the "coverage" of Obama.

    fyi, your own link to prove PF`s neutrality points out MANY bullshiite "pro Obama" fact-checks... claiming Obama was truthful while the facts dictate otherwise...
  24. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:07 am
    @HG: Politifact CLAIMS to be neutral, so ANY deviation from that (right OR left) cuts their believability.

    Breitbart makes NO SUCH CLAIM! His site (rest his soul) is OPENLY GAY! I mean right-wing.

    So how is it biased? By DEGREE!
    It quietly finds MORE "lies" against one side, while overlooking lies from the other!
    Easy-peasy!
    The FAULT is their FALSE claim of NEUTRALITY!
    GET IT?

    You can prove Brietbart`s site is "right leaning"? WHoop-de-freaking-doo! They SAY IT IS!

    If I can demonstrate ANY bias (either way) at PF? They LOSE ALL credibility.

    How about now? You get it now?

    Data is not biased, context is.
    Yes! And PF offers contex! Not data! "pants on fire" is NOT A SCIENTIFIC TERM OK? PF "interprets" the data FOR YOU. They offer a source? Is that source left-biased too? Then WOW! It agrees with PF`s opinion!
    ffs
  25. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:20 am
    5cats, Crakr, Oldollie, can you guys please tell me of a single site or source that you see as unbiased. Some source that you see as completely neutral. Every time somebody posts something you do not agree with, you put it down as a biased liberal source. So, please give us some sources that you deem unbiased in either direction.
  26. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 8:25 am
    HG: I go out of my way to find liberal sources of news just so liberals won`t question the source. Failing that I look for mainstream media, failing that, then look for the original source from a conservative site.

    Yes I have linked to blogs, when all else fails, Such as Dr. Roy Spencers`s site. But at least his data is so detailed and scientific it`s very hard to impeach it.
  27. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 8:31 am
    Cobra: Every time somebody posts something you do not agree with, you put it down as a biased liberal source

    Every time? As I`ve said before, nobody `Ever`, `Always` or `Never` says or does anything. People that resort to accusations of that nature are being hyperbolic, and exaggerating. Those 3 words are not good to use in the context of another human being. They weaken your argument, because than all that person has to do is find one exception and you`ve lost.
  28. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6781 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 9:37 am
    5Cats

    "It quietly finds MORE "lies" against one side, while overlooking lies from the other!
    Easy-peasy!
    The FAULT is their FALSE claim of NEUTRALITY!
    GET IT?"

    If there is a debate and factcheckers fact check the debate and they find one guy said 12 things that weren`t true while the other guy said 7 that doesn`t automatically mean they are biased to one guy. Maybe it means one guy said more things that weren`t true.

    GET IT?

    "You can prove Brietbart`s site is "right leaning"? WHoop-de-freaking-doo! They SAY IT IS! "

    Why are you repeating what I already said? I said "their clear, obvious, and unapologetic bias". They don`t attempt to hide it and I respect that. My point was even if you think (or know) a source IS biased that doesn`t mean what they report, or at least everything they report, is untrue.

    "If I can demonstrate ANY bias (either way) at PF? They LOSE ALL c
  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:57 am
    @cobrakiller: ALL sources are biased, every single one. Of course, that depends on who you ask, eh?
    If I say site-x is completely neutral, I doubt @FoolsPrussia would agree with me. Why? Because from HIS VIEWPOINT it leans to the right!
    But remember: both statements are true! It`s neutral (in MY opinion) AND it`s right-leaning (in @FP`s opinion). Both!

    So any site which claims "perfect neutrality" is either:
    -Attempting to walk a very fine tightrope
    -90% of the time: a liberal site with heavy liberal bias, CLAIMING neutrality.

    If even the "evidence of neutrality" offered by it`s defenders is sprinkled with BIASED information? It`s likely a biased site.

    Maybe it means one guy said more things that weren`t true.
    Sure, @HG, that`s a possibility. But then again, it`s NOT PROOF, it`s a "might-be" scenario. Since the other theory also allows for the data, it`s not "disproven" at all.
  30. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 11:07 am
    I`ll explain further (since I`m hopped up on coffee and avoiding my cleaning chores...)

    Event -> Medium -> Sensor -> Observer

    When an event happens, information (See: Marshall McLuhan) travels through a Medium before it reaches the Sensory aparatus of the Observer.

    If one changes the Medium? The viewer`s information changes, BUT the event itself IS STILL THE SAME! It didn`t change, but what you`ve observed has, and your conclusions will be different because of that.
    Clear like mud, right? lolz!

    Event -> liberal newspaper -> reading -> Your opinion

    Change the "liberal newspaper" to "right wing blog" and your INFORMATION, your opinion, will also change!
    But the event is exactly the same.

    KNOWING the Medium is flawed = able to adjust your Sensors. Remember the "
  31. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Remember the "hubble bubble" when the mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope was `off` by 1/1,000 of an inch? They had to put a "contact lens" on it to get more accurate (less blurry!) information.

    (Ok, my Hubble example has a flawed sensor, but it`s the same thing, eh?)

    OR they could have simply concluded that the universe was a very blurry place indeed! lolz!

    Ugh, stinky catboxes await!

    26 seconds of Ren & Stimpy so funny it`s painful!
  32. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6781 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 11:21 am
    5Cats

    "KNOWING the Medium is flawed = able to adjust your Sensors. Remember the "

    HERE is something we can agree on 5Cats. IAB randomly cutting off comments that fall within the stated 1000 character limit is F.UCKING BULLS.HIT.
  33. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    `IAB randomly cutting off comments that fall within the stated 1000 character limit is F.UCKING BULLS.HIT.`

    I`ve found that the 1000 character limit is an overstatement. If you get over roughly 950 it will cut off the end.
  34. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    @FP and @HG: I recall being cut off at 839, it p*ssed me off so much it`s burned into my memory!

    It`s because the counter doesn`t count certain things, but the display DOES count them...
    ... or something.

    Anyhow: close to 900 = time to "Post Reply"

    Glad you liked my long-winded explaination! McLuhan = Genius! (A little Robert A Wilson mixed in there too)
  35. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 5:28 pm
    Crakr, okay, how about "every time I see you post on a link you dont agree with you claim liberal bias". Although its very telling that instead of giving an answer, you just decided to be kind of a d*ck about it.

    5cats, that just untrue. Not every source shows bias, some just show facts. It is just that people see bias when it shows facts that someone doesnt want to be correct.
  36. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm
    Cobra: every time I see you post on a link you dont agree with you claim liberal bias

    Then your recollection is selective and incorrect. This is the problem, you see what you want to see and filter out the rest. So even though you have seen times that I haven`t called `liberal bias`, you only remember the times that I have. Thus you believe it`s been `every time`.
  37. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    crakr, now you are the one judging incorrectly. It is very possible that every time i see you disagree with a source, you claim liberal bias. Are you saying that there is no possible way that this is true? if you can find one time that you know I have seen you disagree with a political post and not claim liberal bias, I will retract my statement.
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    Cobra: Challenge accepted.

    Right here

    You Commented - Check
    I Disagreed - Check
    Political Subject - Check
    Liberal Bias Claim - Nope

    Waiting for retraction.....
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 12:26 am
    5cats, that just untrue. Not every source shows bias, some just show facts.
    @cobrakiller: Um, no? It IS true? It`s human nature?

    What is the "truth"? Is mine the same as yours?

    Aside from that, there`s this:
    "Some just show facts"
    ALL the facts? Or the facts which support you cause (and not those "other" facts)
    Example: One can show nothing but facts, yet by NOT showing facts which DIS-prove your case, is it "unbiased"? No!

    Whose facts? Mine or yours? Who decides which facts are true? Is THAT person biased? Who decides which facts to put in and which to leave out?

    NO ONE is truely neutral on EVERY issue. Outside of math and science, there`s very few "indisputable facts" that exist!
    Are they verifiable facts? Disputable facts? How solid is the evidence? Is the source for the evidence biased?

    I got more, but the counter says 877...
  40. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 4:01 am
    I find it interesting that "regulations haven`t increased that much" under Obama. Isn`t that what Obama supporters like about him?
  41. Profile photo of trippyhippy9
    trippyhippy9 Male 18-29
    559 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 4:51 am
    That just the false ones.

    Here are the "Pants on fire" statements.
  42. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14628 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 5:49 am
    If Spitt sait it, it must be a lie. You wait till Dickwad is president and is expected to lie to the nation 24/7.
  43. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
    Every time? As I`ve said before, nobody `Ever`, `Always` or `Never` says or does anything. People that resort to accusations of that nature are being hyperbolic, and exaggerating. Those 3 words are not good to use in the context of another human being. They weaken your argument, because than all that person has to do is find one exception and you`ve lost.
    Yeah, it reminds me of that time you said that the private sector always runs things better than government, seems so long ago....no wait it was last week. I mean I knew you had a big mouth, but both feet?
  44. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 5:53 am
    Only one more day and four more versions of Mitt Romney to go!
  45. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:09 am
    Crackr, I tip my hat to you, and sincerely apologize. I will do my best in the future to steer clear of those three little words you pointed out.

    I do have to ask, however , did you already have this one in mind, or did you actually go back through the passed three weeks of posts to find one. If so, I also have to give you credit for dedication.

    This proves that it doesnt happen all of the time, but "much" of the time on both sides I hear this BS, and it just gets annoying.

    5Cats, sorry, but if what you say about politics and it being impossible for facts to be unbiased, that is just sad. I work in the science and research field, and from work and years of schooling I have been trained that facts are facts, and they should be shared as such. Any deviation from this is no longer a fact, but an opinion based on those facts.
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:29 am
    Cobra: No I didn`t have it in mind, nor did a search through 3 weeks of posts. What I did is look at liberals, in this post, click on their nicknames, and peruse their posts. On the third name `Smagboy`, I found it. Took about 10 minutes or so.

    patchgrabber: I said, "Those 3 words are not good to use in the context of another human being." Please note the "Human Being" part.

    Human beings have feelings, human beings can be fallible without being considered a `failure` and vice versa.

    You can generalize non-human entities without harm. For instance saying, "All puppies are cute" is a generalization. Of course there are non-cute puppies, but that generalization doesn`t hurt anybody personally. That`s the difference.
  47. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:31 am
    Cobra: Almost forgot, Apology accepted. :-)
  48. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:48 am
    but that generalization doesn`t hurt anybody personally. That`s the difference.
    LOL! So now it`s ok and doesn`t weaken your argument...unless it`s about a specific person. You are just the height of too-muchery. So then by your logic, by saying the word "all" in "all puppies are cute" somehow *doesn`t* weaken your argument that puppies are cute? For that matter, what are corporations and governments made of? People. Just another heap paradox. And since your previous statement that the private sector always runs things better than government is indeed false, you look doubly the fool. Weasle and play your semantic gymnastics all you want, but your key point was that it weakens your argument. Whether it`s about a person, a group of people, dogs or inanimate objects, it doesn`t strengthen your argument to use one of those words, and it still doesn`t make you any less wrong.
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 10:14 am
    I have been trained that facts are facts, and they should be shared as such. Any deviation from this is no longer a fact, but an opinion based on those facts.
    @cobrakiller: Without context, what good is a fact? I don`t say there`s "no such thing" as facts, DUH! I say that once the "human equation" enters the picture, things usually get "muddy" real fast.

    It`s a Fact: Joe Smith got 5,000 votes this election!
    >What does that MEAN? Did he win? Is that better or worse than expected? Do only 4,000 people live in his riding?
    Interpritation > facts (In My Humble Opinion of course!)

    @patchy: We`re on a chat-site, not handing in a PHD paper. We have a character counter, we have to "cut corners" all the time.
    If @crakrJak was pedantic over word use too, the this applies to him as well.
    95% = close enough to "always" ffs! We can`t say X and then spend 3 paragraphs itemizing what we mean..
  50. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 10:25 am
    It`s A Fact! 24 seconds of Kids In The Hall being parodied.

    The Real "It`s A Fact" Girl From Kids In The Hall.

    Every time I hear those three words I think of the "It`s A Fact" girl... and laugh my arse off!

    (be QUIET @patchy! I said every, and I... mean... every!) (lolz, eh?)
  51. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 10:55 am
    patchgrabber: No, use of those words may still weaken the argument, because as I said before only one exception is needed to prove it untrue. However, as I just did, people can claim that it`s just a generalization and get away pretty much unscathed.

    Btw, I don`t recall saying, "The private sector always runs things better than government". If I did it was meant as a generalization. There are certainly things that only the government can do so there would be no way to compare those aspects.

    These are no "semantic gymnastics", these are just wise rules to follow when arguing. If you wish to be unwise in your arguing, go right ahead.
  52. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    5cats, we seem to partially agree here. The amount of votes someone gets is a fact. Whether or not that won is a separate yet related fact. There is no interpretation really needed upon delivering these points. Where things get muddy is when you have many different people looking at the different opinions that are based on the facts instead of the facts themselves. This causes arguing using the opinions rather than the facts, and this is just misinformation being flung in all directions while the facts are completely disregarded. I have seen this done by one here frequently by those suffering from different cases of severe polarization.
  53. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    tl;dr: Facts > Interpretation in "my" humble opinion, because I don`t believe interpretation should be delivered as fact.
  54. Profile photo of Nageki
    Nageki Male 30-39
    110 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    I`m just gonna keep posting it until someone quotes me or something I guess... Why does a Canadian (5Cats specifically... but others out there as well) care about American politics at all? It`s a valid question I want answered, so please quit deleting my posts about it...
  55. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    nageki, it is because what happens in the US affects the rest of the world.

Leave a Reply