## Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:19 pm

Ex-Governor Romney gave a speech today, in which he succeeded, once again, to distort and lie about President Obama. If this is the best the Republicans can do, this country is in deep trouble.
This article is from the Think Progress website, a progressive blog. It is backed up by PolitiFact, an organization dedicated to exposing lies and distortions such as these.
Mendacious Mitt
While the media rushed to declare the Republican presidential primary effectively over after last night’s victories for Mitt Romney in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, they have been considerably less eager to call out Romney’s numerous and oft-repeated distortions, half-truths, and outright lies.
Here’s the rundown of Romney’s top ten lies from just today’s big speech alone.
1. The president has been “apologizing for America abroad.”
Romney, who has absolutely no foreign policy experience, levels this charge almost daily with regard to the president’s efforts to repair America’s image and alliances, which were of course both badly damaged by the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. This accusation is an outright lie, with PolitiFact rating it “Pants on Fire” way back in September. After Romney once again leveled this baseless charge today, PolitiFact tweeted a reminder that they have rated it Pants on Fire “over and over.”
2. ”As I have said many times before, the President did not cause the economic crisis, but he made it worse.”
Last July, Romney went so far as to deny that he’d ever even said that the president made the economy “worse.” Romney then of course went back to alleging just that, just as he did in today’s speech.
After the very same policies that Romney is now advocating a return to caused our economy to collapse, President Obama and his policies saved the country from another Great Depression and have created millions of jobs since, including a million in just the past five months alone. By no objective measure can anyone credibly claim that the president somehow made the economic crisis worse.
3. “[President Obama] is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare.”
This charge is false in several ways. First, as we’ve documented before, presidents of both parties have made changes, sometimes extensive, to Medicare over the years. Second, Obamacare achieves its Medicare savings mostly by eliminating unnecessary overpayments to insurance companies. Third, the Ryan Republican budget that Mitt Romney has fully and repeatedly embraced includes the same $500 BILLION in “cuts” to Medicare as Obamacare, except the money is used to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate special interests rather than for strengthening Medicare and expanding health insurance coverage to 31 MILLION Americans.
4. The president “has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.”
This is another common Republican accusation that is simply an outright lie. Last September, after months of fruitless negotiations with unreliable Republican congressional leaders, the president did in fact propose a serious plan to deal with entitlements and our debt and deficit. It would reduce the deficit by $4.4 TRILLION and achieve an additional $320 BILLION in savings to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs.
5. The president “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.”
In an effort to distract from the Republican plan to actually end Medicare as we know it, Romney and other Republicans have begun leveling this charge. It too is an outright lie and was rated Pants on Fire by PolitiFact last month. Far from ending Medicare, Obamacare strengthened it and extended the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by eight years. As ThinkProgress Health Editor Igor Volsky put it today, “if the question is, which candidate ends Medicare for seniors, it’s hard to see how Romney’s plan to push future retirees into private insurance doesn’t fit the bill.”
6. The president is “destroying the Medicare Advantage program, eliminating the coverage that millions of seniors depend on.”
Far from “destroying” Medicare Advantage (the optional privately-administered insurance plans seniors can choose instead of traditional Medicare), Obamacare has resulted in increased enrollment and decreased premiums.
7. The president has “delayed the development of our oil.”
Domestic oil production is at an 8-year high, the number of oil drilling rigs is at a record high and has quadrupled in the past three years, and we recently became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since 1949.
8. The president has “added regulations at a staggering rate.”
The Obama administration has put in place new regulations at a slower rate than the Bush administration.
9. “I have already proposed a plan that will save and strengthen Medicare and Social Security for future generations.”
Romney’s plan would neither save nor strengthen Medicare or Social Security; it would destroy them both. His plan would explicitly end Medicare as we know it and Romney’s proposal for trillions of dollars in new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increased defense spending — coupled with an unrealistically low spending cap — would require draconian, program-ending cuts to both Medicare and Social Security.
10. The president has instituted a “government takeover of healthcare.”
As was extensively discussed at the Supreme Court last week, Obamacare goes out of its way to preserve the private health insurance system in this country through market-based reforms. PolitiFact gave this Tea Party-inspired claim by Romney a Pants on Fire rating way back in May of 2011.
Romney did include two sentences in his speech that are undeniably true:
Given the number and scale of our nation’s current challenges, the November election will have particular consequence. It will be a defining event. President Obama and I have very different visions for America, both of what it means to be an American today and what it will mean in the future.
IN ONE SENTENCE: Mitt Romney is entitled to wage a campaign based on his own opinions, but he’s not entitled to wage one based on his own facts, many of which happen to be blatantly untrue.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:19 pm

>>>It is backed up by PolitiFact,<<<
That says it all. PolitiFact is a combined arm of the Miami Herald and the Tampa Bay (formerly the St. Petersburg) Times, both notorious left wing publications.
Try and find sources that are somewhat less biased.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:11 pm

Labels, labels, labels--you are so quick to label someone and so slow to examine facts. Typical conservative--haha!

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Chase Ricks » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:22 pm

Are there other sources for this same article Mr. Roper then the ones you have used?
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:54 pm

Perhaps you should check out PolitiFacts site; they appear to be unbiased to me, regardless what aspersions Drawscore wishes to make. You'll note that he did not refute anything, just slammed the evidence without responding to the issues at hand. Here is a breakdown of Mitt Romney's statements as checked by PolitiFact.
Romney's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Romney's statements for that ruling.
True23(23)
Mostly True18(18)
Half True32(32)
Mostly False17(17)
False19(19)
Pants on Fire13(13)
PS: Obama gets some negative ratings on here too.
Obama's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Obama's statements for that ruling.
True84(84)
Mostly True82(82)
Half True87(87)
Mostly False43(43)
False54(54)
Pants on Fire5(5)
The Washington Post also has a Fact check site. But, of course, Drawscore will jump to the immediate conclusion that they too cannot be trusted as it is known as a liberal newspaper.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:42 pm

You're probably right, but I note you did not answer Chase Ricks' question about additional sources, other than to say that the Washington Post has a fact check site. No mention of the claims you made, or attributed to PolitiFact, appearing on that site.
But just as I am distrustful of left wing outlets, I also don't put too much stock in the right wing outlets, either. I do have some confidence in The Drudge Report. Matt Drudge must be doing something right, because he seems to be a equal opportunity offender, pissing off both the left and the right.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:58 pm

Newser; FactCheck.org; ABC News; CNN; Buzz Feed; Mother Jones--all have fact checking. The Drudge Report is great for looking up other sources (as is the Huffington Post) but, having read Drudge for a while now, I detect a decidedly slanted approach to the news. In fact, their headlines are often only vaguely related to the actual articles they are sourcing.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:51 pm

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, although I do regard FactCheck.org as being somewhat more objective than PolitiFact. Most of the others you mention, I wouldn't trust them if they said water was wet.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Chris12 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:32 am

I don't really know enough about Romney to either like or dislike him but i do think he lacks the ''personality'' to beat Obama. He doesn't seem like a future leader to me, je just seems....there.
He's still a LOT! better then Santorum though! I've only seen one interview of the guy but that was enough for me to realise he was both a liar and an asshole.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:21 am

Here is a new story (from the Huffington Post) where Mr. Romney critcizes Pres. Obama for going to Harvard University. Such logic eludes me completely.
Mitt Romney: Obama 'Spent Too Much Time At Harvard,' Also A Year Less Than I Did
04/ 5/2012 11:21 am Updated: 04/ 5/2012 11:33 am
Mitt Romney continued his verbal assault on President Obama on Thursday, accusing him of spending "too much time at Harvard" while speaking at a rooftop event in Harrisburg, Penn.
It's an odd attack coming from a fellow Harvard graduate, especially considering Romney spent more time at the Ivy League institution than Obama did.
Romney enrolled in a four-year program at Harvard in 1971, eventually earning a joint JD and MBA and graduating cum laude in 1975. In 1988, Obama began attending Harvard Law School. He spent three years there, eventually becoming president of the Harvard Law Review before graduating magna cum laude and receiving his JD in 1991. That's four years for Romney, three for Obama.
While Romney has frequently tried to attack Obama on his Harvard tenure in an attempt to paint him as an ivory tower elitist, this appears to be the first time he's gone as far as to focus on the duration of his time at the university.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:49 pm

Funny you should mention Obama's college years. Perhaps you can enlighten us on why he went to such great lengths to get his transcripts and other college records from Columbia and Harvard, sealed.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:25 pm

Perhaps it is the same reason President Bush sealed his records, and Ronald Reagan's too. Embarrassment?
Here is someone's response to your argument. which has been going on now for quite some time.
"Because those records are not supposed to be for public eyes; the only ones to me that Joe Q. Public should have to see are the Harvard Law School articles and the University of Chicago articles.
IL state senator records that are public information can be garnered via an FOIA request.
The rest is protected by privacy laws for good reason, and any reasonable employer will only want to know proof of conferral of a degree.
If your claim is that you need to see these records as an employer, since when are school records other than conferral of degree and articles written for public publications relevant information?"
As for the thesis at Columbia University, it likely doesn't exist because undergraduate programs do not require thesis papers to be written. Only post-baccalaureate programs (except for usually law and medical programs) require a thesis." from A. E. Moreira 2 years ago, on Yahoo.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Chris12 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:37 am

So having a high education at Harvard has suddenly become a bad thing? Where's the logic in that? Aren't leaders supposed to be smart?

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:15 am

>>>Perhaps it is the same reason President Bush sealed his records, and Ronald Reagan's too. Embarrassment?<<<
What makes you think Reagan's and Bush's college records/transcripts were sealed? Got a link?
And it has been a common practice for candidates to release college records, as evidenced in this article from the New York Sun, which indicates Bush's records were released in 1999. And no, the NY Sun is not part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire. That's the New York Post.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-ye ... ery/85015/
>>>"Because those records are not supposed to be for public eyes; the only ones to me that Joe Q. Public should have to see are the Harvard Law School articles and the University of Chicago articles.<<<
Hmmm, he never attended the University of Chicago as a student, but was a "law professor" there, after graduating from Harvard. I can't remember hearing about any "scholarly articles" he wrote while in that position. I don't think he had many at Harvard, either, despite being the president of the Harvard Law Review.
>>>The rest is protected by privacy laws for good reason, and any reasonable employer will only want to know proof of conferral of a degree. The rest is protected by privacy laws for good reason, and any reasonable employer will only want to know proof of conferral of a degree.<<<
That might be true if you're trying to get hired at Wal Mart, or even as a GS-12 Director of Environmental Services at the Camp Swampy Army base, but if you aspire to the highest office in the land, and to be the leader of the free world, I damn well want to know who you are, what you did, what your grades were, and what qualifies you to be president. I want to know what you think, and why you think it; who your friends and mentors were in college and graduate school, and what courses you took. Did you take "remedial math," and "underwater basket weaving," or were you taking "practical logic," and "advanced calculus?" How did you do in "freshman comp," "public speaking and debate," and "intro to public relations?"
>>>As for the thesis at Columbia University, it likely doesn't exist because undergraduate programs do not require thesis papers to be written. Only post-baccalaureate programs (except for usually law and medical programs) require a thesis." from A. E. Moreira 2 years ago, on Yahoo.<<<
True. But then, I never asked for a thesis from Columbia; just his records/transcripts. If a thesis was not a requirement for a BA/BS degree, fine. If he had to write one to graduate, I'd like to see it.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:24 am

This post of yours is what I would call getting into the weeds by dredging up the past to divert attention from what is happening now. Everyone does it and it is a great diversion. If Obama graduated from all of the colleges and high schools (which he did) and managed to get elected without divulging every little thing that folks like Drawscore want to nit pick, that's ok by me. Incidentally, what Bush did was more serious: he sealed his Presidential records four years into his Presidency. That's what I meant by hiding a present day embarrassment, as opposed to looking for Obama's kindergarten grades and long-form birth certificate.
However, we have empirical evidence that Obama is a brilliant person, and he has been President now for slightly over three years and has made no significant blunder having been handed a shitload of misery upon assuming office: ie. an extreme economic meltdown--verging on a Great Depression, two intractable wars, countries hating American foreign policy arrogance, a Republican opposition that could best be summed up with Rush Limbaugh's words on Obama's inauguration: "I hope he fails," etc.
The magazine The Onion had a headline in November 2008 that summed it up quite well: "Black Man Given Worst Job in the World."
Now, getting back to what this original post was about (notice the diversion trick played by Drawscore?), here is another article from Think Progress about Mitt Romney's plans for himself, er, I mean America.
Mitt Romney, Part 1: Of, By, and For the 1 Percent
No matter how hard he shakes his Etch A Sketch over the next seven months, Mitt Romney won’t be able to erase the fact the he and his policies are of, by, and for the wealthiest one percent of Americans — policies that will come at the expense of the other 99 Percent.
Here’s the rundown on millionaire Mitt Romney, Mr. 1 Percent.
Millionaire Mitt Romney Would Slash Taxes for the 1 Percent, Raise Them on the Poorest Americans
Romney’s first tax plan was bad enough. It proposed $6.6 TRILLION in tax cuts, heavily weighted toward the wealthy and corporations. Each of the Koch Brothers alone would net at least $8.7 BILLION from just one part of the plan. It cut Romney’s own taxes nearly in half, but raised taxes on nearly half of middle class families with children.
Romney’s current tax plan is even worse. It cuts taxes on the wealthiest Americans another 20 percent on top of the Bush tax cuts — that’s an additional $264,000 tax cut for each and every one of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans. In total, each of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans would get more than a $1.1 MILLION annual tax cut under the Romney plan. Shockingly, the poorest 20 percent of Americans would actually receive a tax increase under Romney’s plan.
By any objective measure, the plan — which is four times costlier than the Bush tax cuts — would add TRILLIONS (around $10 TRILLION in total) to the deficit, despite ending Medicare, slashing Social Security, and implementing draconian cuts to everything else except defense spending in order to offset some of the cost of trillions in tax giveaways to the wealthy.
Millionaire Mitt Romney Gives up His Medicare, Wants to End it For Everyone Else
Mitt Romney recently turned 65, but he declined to enroll in Medicare because he says he can afford his own health care. Unfortunately, Romney thinks the rest of us can afford to pay more for our own health care as well. His plan to end Medicare as we know it would not only eliminate the guarantee of Medicare benefits, it would shift thousands of dollars in annual health care costs off the government’s books and onto seniors. The Republican budget plan that Romney eagerly embraced doesn’t reduce health care costs, it just doubles the costs of the tab seniors have to pay each year.
Millionaire Mitt Romney’s Campaign Complains About His $100 Million Retirement Account, Wants to Slash Social Security for Everyone Else
Through special deals available to only an elite few in the already-elite financial industry, Mitt Romney was able to amass an Individual Retirement Account worth $100 MILLION. (The average working person in their sixties has $144,000 in their 401k.) While most people would be very, very glad to have $100 MILLION socked away, a Romney campaign official actually complained to the Wall Street Journal that all of this money had created a “tax problem” for Romney, adding, “Who wants to have $100 million in an IRA?”
The “problem,” according to the Romney campaign, is that Romney will have to pay regular income rates on this money when he withdraws it, rather than the ultra-low 13.9 percent tax rate he currently pays thanks to various unfair tax loopholes. Romney’s tax plan, of course, would help solve the “problem” of him having to pay his fair share by slashing income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans by another 20 percent on top of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Meanwhile, Romney’s fiscal plan would slash Social Security by hundreds of billions of dollars, resulting in dramatic benefit cuts for those who can least afford it.
Millionaire Mitt Romney Amassed His Quarter-Billion Dollar Fortune by Closing Factories, Laying Off Thousands of Workers
As has been well-publicized during the primary, Romney amassed his quarter-billion dollar fortune through his work at Bain Capital. Under Romney’s leadership, Bain walked away with billions in profits while workers were often left with nothing after Bain closed their factory or bankrupted their company.
Romney’s confidentiality agreements with Bain allow him to hide where much of his fortune is currently invested, though we do know he’s profited from companies in China (including those involved in the government’s extensive surveillance apparatus) and from banks foreclosing on homeowners. We also know that he’s socked away some of his fortune in a range of notorious tax havens like the Cayman Islands and, until recently, had a previously undisclosed Swiss bank account.
Millionaire Mitt Romney Uses Special Tax Loopholes to Pay a Lower Tax Rate Than Millions of Middle Class Workers
Romney kept his tax returns hidden for the better part of two decades and when he finally released just one year’s worth of full returns (breaking with the precedent set by his own father, just one additional year will be released in two weeks), it was clear why he’d kept them under wraps.
Romney takes advantage of a variety of unfair tax loopholes, including some available only to hedge fund and private equity manages, to pay the shockingly low tax rate of just 13.9 percent — a rate lower than that of millions of middle class workers. For example, a typical worker making $60,000 in wages in 2011 would have paid a tax rate of 29.9 percent — more than double that of Romney’s.
Naturally, Romney strongly opposes the Buffett Rule — a plan the Senate will vote on in two weeks that guarantees that millionaires like Mitt Romney and the billionaires bankrolling his campaign pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent. Romney dismissed the Buffett Rule as “class warfare” and told the 99 Percent to stop being jealous, as wealth and income inequality are only to be discussed in “quiet rooms.”
IN ONE SENTENCE: Millionaire Mitt Romney and his policies are of, by, and for the wealthiest 1 Percent.

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:35 pm

>>>This post of yours is what I would call getting into the weeds by dredging up the past to divert attention from what is happening now.<<<
And you did not bring up the past when you referred to Bush sealing his college records (when, in fact, they were released during his campaign in 1999), and to Reagan, whose college records were never an issue?
>>>Incidentally, what Bush did was more serious: he sealed his Presidential records four years into his Presidency. That's what I meant by hiding a present day embarrassment, as opposed to looking for Obama's kindergarten grades and long-form birth certificate.<<<
Ahh, it would seem like locking the barn after the horse was stolen, for Bush to seal his college records after they had been out there for five years. And, by the way, when did I ever mention a thing about a long form birth certificate, or records going back to kindergarten? High school, maybe. College, definitely. But nothing from before that. It appears you have a weak argument, and are throwing out "red herrings" to divert attention from it. (Remember, I did take debate in college, and I am well-versed in spotting diversionary tactics. And one other note: I spent many years in public relations, so here's a hint: Have your your facts together, and don't try to bullshit a bullshitter.)
>>>However, we have empirical evidence that Obama is a brilliant person, and he has been President now for slightly over three years and has made no significant blunder having been handed a shitload of misery upon assuming office: ie. an extreme economic meltdown--verging on a Great Depression . . . .<<<
A person can be "smart," but have the common sense of a doorknob. Obama graduated cum laude from Harvard, but that does not mean he has "street smarts." And a "shitload of misery?" Let's see, gas was $1.79 a gallon; gold was under $1000 an ounce, etc. He took the "misery" he "inherited," and spread it around to the rest of the country.
So what if Romney is a millionaire? All the presidents back to at least FDR had net worths of a million or more. And you say you blame the "1%" for a lot of the nation's ills. Does that include people like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and Bill Gates, all of whom have significant wealth, and who are big time Obama supporters?
And what would be the result of cutting taxes on the so-called rich? You talk like they would jut put it in their pockets, and give the middle finger to the rest of us. Well, maybe a couple would, but the vast majority are going to use that money to improve their existing businesses, and start new ones, thereby reducing unemployment, and creating more taxpayers, which would then regain the revenue given up in the tax breaks.
And finally, you put all this blather out there without attribution, or attribution to sources that are little more than thinly disguised fronts for the DNC and/or the Obama campaign. You misleadingly put out >>>Romney takes advantage of a variety of unfair tax loopholes, including some available only to hedge fund and private equity manages, to pay the shockingly low tax rate of just 13.9 percent — a rate lower than that of millions of middle class workers. For example, a typical worker making $60,000 in wages in 2011 would have paid a tax rate of 29.9 percent — more than double that of Romney’s.<<< without bothering to mention that earned income and interest income are taxed under different rates; that many of Obama's millionaire supporters take advantage of the same laws; and have been doing it for a long time. And I guess you missed the facts that revenue bills must originate in the House, and that the House was under Democrat control for 40 years (1955-1995).
The other area in which you fail, is adhering to the KISS principle.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:48 pm

1. I never said Bush sealed his college records--he sealed his Presidential records, and Reagans.
2. Sorry if you feel I linked you with the Birthers; just that your list seemed to overlap with a lot of the screeds I read on-line against Obama;
3. I ask any reasonable person out there: would you rather be where we are today as a country or where Bush & Co. had us in late 2008--veering into a Depression? We are over 3 million jobs better now than at the worst part of the Bush recession. And gas was, on average $4.25 a gallon almost four years ago--before Obama took office.
4. Millionaires use their money for different reasons, some for philantropy, some for extraordinarily selfish ends. By the way, when did I "blame the 1% for a lot of the nation's ills"?
5. We tried giving the rich big tax breaks under Bush--and what did we get? An economic meltdown. Some trickle down that was!
6. The original articles on Romney, from Think Progress, has multiple attributions but this site bars any more than five URL's--so I eliminated them of necessity. If you are really interested in seeing the sources you'll have to enter enemy territory and look them up. I'll wait.
7. If by KISS you are referring to some part of your anatomy, I'll pass. You seem like you may be contagious picking up so many right-wing memes along the way.
Have a nice night anyway.
God speed and Aloha,
Jack

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:51 pm

>>>1. I never said Bush sealed his college records--he sealed his Presidential records, and Reagans.<<<
It's common for exiting presidents to seal some presidential records that relate to sensitive negotiations or national security. Bush would have had no authority to seal Reagan's records.
>>>2. Sorry if you feel I linked you with the Birthers; just that your list seemed to overlap with a lot of the screeds I read on-line against Obama;<<<
Apology accepted.
>>>3. I ask any reasonable person out there: would you rather be where we are today as a country or where Bush & Co. had us in late 2008--veering into a Depression? We are over 3 million jobs better now than at the worst part of the Bush recession. And gas was, on average $4.25 a gallon almost four years ago--before Obama took office.<<<
That's pretty close to the same question Ronald Reagan asked in his debates with Jimmy Carter - "Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?" Obviously that answer then, was "No." Carter lost in a landslide. And, you need to revisit history. In late 2008, gas was at or under $2.00 a gallon, and the national average was $1.79 - $1.84 on January 20, 2009. Yes, gas was close to $4.00 a gallon in the summer of 2008, but dropped rapidly after July 4, 2008. As for jobs, I would question your figures. If we added 3 million jobs, why is the unemployment rate higher now, than it was when Obama took office?
>>>4. Millionaires use their money for different reasons, some for philantropy, some for extraordinarily selfish ends. By the way, when did I "blame the 1% for a lot of the nation's ills"?<<<
Usually any time the terms "1%" and "99%" are mentioned, it's to berate and blame the "mean, nasty rich," who want to keep their boots on everyone else's throats. You don't have to say it in so many words, but the implication is there. Just like Bill Clinton never really said he "loathed the military," but it was certainly implied.
>>>5. We tried giving the rich big tax breaks under Bush--and what did we get? An economic meltdown. Some trickle down that was! <<<
We tried something else under Obama, and look what we got.
>>>6. The original articles on Romney, from Think Progress, has multiple attributions but this site bars any more than five URL's--so I eliminated them of necessity. If you are really interested in seeing the sources you'll have to enter enemy territory and look them up. I'll wait.<<<
One or two would have been sufficient.
>>>7. If by KISS you are referring to some part of your anatomy, I'll pass. You seem like you may be contagious picking up so many right-wing memes along the way.<<<
KISS is an acronym meaning "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Basically, it means that if you write overly long posts, they usually will not be read, but rather scanned over, or just ignored. If you are told that you are ignoring the KISS principle, it's a caution that you are also ignoring all or part of the ABC's of written debate: Accuracy, Brevity, and Clarity. If you are told to remember the KISS principle, it means to keep it short, concise, and correct.
Drawscore

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by Jack Roper » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:54 am

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/th ... udget-lie/
Is this short enough?

### Re: Mitt Romney's pants on fire

Post by drawscore » Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:18 pm

Like any other column or publication, one must consider the source. Naturally, you will gravitate toward sources that agree with/support your own views. But I would do the same. If you want budget comments, check out http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1633 ... ama-budget
When Obama's party has a majority in the senate, and his proposed budget is rejected 97-0, what does that say?
The difference, is that I will admit to seeking out compatible sources. There are many on both sides who will throw up a source and proclaim it to be the gospel truth. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify."
Drawscore