"What does he think he's running for, fabricator in chief?"Well somebody needs to take BHO's place.
Shaun,Why not start with the Government and see what it says about
Obama and Obamacare? Why not start with the BLS and see how Obama has
"changed" the way that unemployment is measured since he took office?
Why not question how less than 150,000 "jobs" can swing the unemployment
figures by 0.5% one month before the election when many more jobs did not swing
the unemployment figures last month? Why not see what the CBO has said about
Obama's "projections" on costs? Why not ask the IRS whether Obama
had the "right" to give G.M. $39 billion in tax credits? Why not ask a
lawyer whether Obama had the "right" to seize personal property from the
G.M. bond holders and transfer that property to the unions WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT
(contrary to the 5th Amendment)?If you can't trust the
"government", whom can you trust - Obama's assertations
Hey, if the media are saying romney 'won', issues don't matter a
lick in utah. The chosen one has succeeded to put one in the win column.
Where does someone find the facts mike? And aren't facts just lies and
opinions when it comes politics?
A debate shows which candidate has answers. Obama had no answers. He thought
that his position was the answer. Obama has had no answers. He has never had
any answers. He still has no answers. Even today, he claimed a 0.5% drop in
unemployment, as if no one had lost a job in the last month. Do thethe math
yourself. Obama lies. That is a fact. Anyone can check that out. Romney had
facts that are supportable, Obama did not. Check the facts, not the
"facts" supplied by Obama, because he is a proven liar, but the FACTS.
@Kent C. DeForrest:"...I didn't say anything about Obama.
He also has a very loose relationship with the truth, but he's an amateur
fabricator compared to Romney."Obama doesn't necessarily
lie all that much... He just promises things to get elected than never
implements or follows through... such as closing Gitmo, for example.
There's much much more. Which is all common practice f0or politicians.Also, manipulating facts to make you look good is not lying... such as
the unemployment numbers that just came out. First, who provided the numbers?
Obama's Labor Department, that's who. Undoubtedly tweaked to show a
reduction in unemployment to make Obama look good as we near the elections.
And, of course, timed to come out just after the first debate in case Eye Candy
didn't do so well. This is corruption of the highest order... not lying,
just plain ol' corruption.
@joe5, I happen to know the letter writer. Go read what he wrote one more time.
He's arguing in favor of a Romney presidency. He would indeed have had the
same sentiments if Obama had been declared the winner.Regardless of
the side the letter writer supports, his point is a good one: we ought to
support candidates based on their positions on the issues, not based on whether
their rhetorical skills are superior to their opponents'.
Obviously Romney must have lied, flip-flopped, or just deceived people because
the man everyone saw on the debate stage was completely different than the
caricature that liberals have painted him as.He wasn't the rich
snob who is clueless, incompetent, and couldn't care less about everyday
folks that everyone on the left (including most of the press) says he is. So
that couldn't have been the "Real Romney". Right??
joe5, to answer another of your questions, I didn't say anything about
Obama. He also has a very loose relationship with the truth, but he's an
amateur fabricator compared to Rmoney.Also, it is not possible for
his lies to "jive" with my version of the truth. It is possible for them
to "jibe" with my version, but they don't.
joe5, they are fabrications because the numbers don't add up, because the
half-dozen fact checkers I follow agree that he's talking out of both sides
of his mouth, and because his words contradict what he has said before. So which
Rmoney am I supposed to believe? He's so all over the board, I can't
keep track of where he is. This man is as slippery as greased lightning.
The candidate who can come up with the most quotable zinger is the winner.
Kent: So are those actual lies? Or are they lies merely because they don't
happen to jive with your version of "truth?"It would be
impossible for you to have first-person knowledge of the claims of either
candidate. You had to rely on other sources to forumulate your opinion. The
questions that raises in my mind are:- What makes you trust those sources
to the extent that you dismiss other sources that might provide contradictory
information?- Do you pick your sources simply because they reaffirms what
you already want to believe?- Do you believe both candidates lie or just
the one you happen to oppose?- What makes Romney's lied more
egregious than Obama's lies?Sports pundits make predictions the
same way you assess candidate. They choose, then go looking for data. And guess
what? The find data that validates their choices. Data that contradicts their
choices goes unnoticed or ignored. In sports, it's all in good fun since
the outcome is really insignificant. But is that really the best decision-making
process for something as important as choosing our president?
The media treated this debate as if it were the Academy Awards. Who had the best
"performance"? Who cares who had the best performance. If this were the
Timpanogos Storytelling Festival, I would give Rmoney high marks. But I'd
really like to hear something other than fiction from someone running for the
highest office in the land. What does he think he's running for, fabricator
Would the letter writer have the same sentiments is Obama had been declared the
winner. I can't help but think this is sour grapes after the fact. Why
wasn't this letter submitted prior to the debate when the winner was still
undetermined?On message boards all over the internet (including
DesNews), I've been reading comments by Obama apologists who either claim
he really won the debate, that Romney didn't play fair during the debate,
or that the debates don't really matter. Since virtually every pundit on
both sides of the political spectrum disagree with those assertions, aren't
those comments a reflection of the writer's personal biases and blind
adherence instead of a truthful and honest commentary?I find it
ironic that, for years, Democrats and leftists have accused the righties of
political blindness for voting Republican. Rather than acknowledge that there
might be honest disagreement over issues, they fall back on this claim when they
run out of other arguments. But the response to this debate has reaffirmed that
ovine (sheep-like) behavior is very prevalent on the left.