All False Statements Involving Mitt Romney

Submitted by: Vimto 4 years ago
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

Not being in the US I"m not voting, but I find this interesting. Less here than i would have thought.
There are 57 comments:
Male 7,585
nageki, it is because what happens in the US affects the rest of the world.
0
Reply
Male 110
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...
0
Reply
Male 7,585
tl;dr: Facts > Interpretation in "my" humble opinion, because I don`t believe interpretation should be delivered as fact.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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 [in many cases loosely] 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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 36,543
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?)
0
Reply
Male 36,543
[quote]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.[/quote]
@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..
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]but that generalization doesn`t hurt anybody personally. That`s the difference.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cobra: Almost forgot, Apology accepted. :-)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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 [and I swear I am not being a d*ck, but actually curious], 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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Only one more day and four more versions of Mitt Romney to go!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]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.[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 14,775
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.
0
Reply
Male 559
That just the false ones.

Here are the "Pants on fire" statements.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I find it interesting that "regulations haven`t increased that much" under Obama. Isn`t that what Obama supporters like about him?
0
Reply
Male 36,543
[quote]5cats, that just untrue. Not every source shows bias, some just show facts.[/quote]
@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...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cobra: Challenge accepted.

Right here

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

Waiting for retraction.....
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cobra: [quote]every time I see you post on a link you dont agree with you claim liberal bias[/quote]

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`.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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.
0
Reply
Male 36,543
@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)
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`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.
0
Reply
Male 7,926
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.
0
Reply
Male 36,543
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!
0
Reply
Male 36,543
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 "
0
Reply
Male 36,543
@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.

[quote]Maybe it means one guy said more things that weren`t true.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,926
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
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cobra: [quote]Every time somebody posts something you do not agree with, you put it down as a biased liberal source[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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.
0
Reply
Male 36,543
@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?

[quote]Data is not biased, context is.[/quote]
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
0
Reply
Male 36,543
@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...
0
Reply
Male 7,926
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?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`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.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
PolitiFact is nothing but a liberal opinion site. There credibility is no better than MoveOn or BSDNC.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`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."
0
Reply
Male 2,516
If I lived in the US this would be a pretty easy choice for me.

Which one looks like a crazy person?
0
Reply
Male 36,543
@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...
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`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
0
Reply
Male 1,737
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Politicrap is not impartial, it`s bought and paid for by the Annenberg trust, Chicago cronies of Obama and Bill Ayers.
0
Reply
Male 36,543
#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!
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`Politifact is well known for its left-wing bias`

Then how do you account for this? False Statements by Obama
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Thank you, randomxnp! It only took five folks before you thoroughly and completely proved my point! Bravo!
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"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.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Eliminating "Obamacare" ... "saves $95 billion a year."[/quote]

Politifact`s ruling on this statement is only valid if the law is executed and interpreted to the letter. That is UNLIKELY to happen.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Damn, that`s a long list! But you forgot to add his "Pants on Fire!" statements.
Romney Pants on Fire!
0
Reply
Male 312
Well said SmagBoy.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Yup, what SmagBoy1 said!
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,859
Link: All False Statements Involving Mitt Romney [Rate Link] - Not being in the US I`m not voting, but I find this interesting. Less here than i would have thought.
0
Reply