PolitiFact Awards 'Lie Of The Year' To Romney Jeep Ad

[Lakhota]

It is a well-established fact that wingnuts can't distinguish fact from fiction - especially the religious ones.

Which is why you are the one calling the biggest lie of the year a statement that is completely accurate.

Please explain to us, with "credible" facts, that what Romney said was true.

 

[blackhawk]

Topic is.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Obama gonna cut the deficit...in half!!

He could have with a little help from the elephants.

thats a bigger lie than the romney lie. the kenyan said he would cut it in half the first 2 years. The dems controlled the house, the senate, and the wh and you're saying the elephants could have done something about it....

hilarious.

 

[Lakhota]

Obama gonna cut the deficit...in half!!

He could have with a little help from the elephants.

thats a bigger lie than the romney lie. the kenyan said he would cut it in half the first 2 years. The dems controlled the house, the senate, and the wh and you're saying the elephants could have done something about it....

hilarious.

2 years? Dems only controlled the House for about 133 days during Obama's presidency.

President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit

FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

 

[Avatar4321]

It is a well-established fact that wingnuts can't distinguish fact from fiction - especially the religious ones.

Which is why you are the one calling the biggest lie of the year a statement that is completely accurate.

Please explain to us, with "credible" facts, that what Romney said was true.

What your pieces say Romney said:

[Obama] "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China"

Let's see.

The government forced the Chrysler sale to Fiat by threatening to withhold bail out money from them if they didn't agree to it. Fiat is an Italian company.

And from your own link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/dec/12/lie-year-2012-Romney-Jeeps-China/

But Chrysler was thinking of reviving the Jeep brand in key foreign markets, and like other American automakers, Chrysler preferred to build cars in the countries where it intended to sell them -- a common strategy to reduce tariffs and transport costs.

China, of course, being one of these foreign markets. So instead of making cars in America, they were looking to build them in China to avoid tarriffs and transport costs.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. They are going to build Jeeps in China to sell to a Chinese market. It just completely destroys your argument that the statement was a lie.

And despite the fact that the politifact article added to the quote "at the cost of American jobs," something, I might add, they wouldn't have to do if they believed they were being honest, building Jeeps in China and Reviving & Expanding plants in China rather than expanding new plants in the United States does cost Americans jobs.

Personally, I don't care if they do expand in China. If it's smart business for them great. Of course, I'd prefer it if they did it without American Tax money. And I would prefer if you propagandists would pretend they weren't trying to do it when even in the article you are trying to use to show it's a lie, they admit they are doing it.

But then, I get the feeling you didn't bother reading the article.

 

[Lakhota]

Which is why you are the one calling the biggest lie of the year a statement that is completely accurate.

Please explain to us, with "credible" facts, that what Romney said was true.

What your pieces say Romney said:

[Obama] "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China"

Let's see.

The government forced the Chrysler sale to Fiat by threatening to withhold bail out money from them if they didn't agree to it. Fiat is an Italian company.

And from your own link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/dec/12/lie-year-2012-Romney-Jeeps-China/

But Chrysler was thinking of reviving the Jeep brand in key foreign markets, and like other American automakers, Chrysler preferred to build cars in the countries where it intended to sell them -- a common strategy to reduce tariffs and transport costs.

China, of course, being one of these foreign markets. So instead of making cars in America, they were looking to build them in China to avoid tarriffs and transport costs.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. They are going to build Jeeps in China to sell to a Chinese market. It just completely destroys your argument that the statement was a lie.

And despite the fact that the politifact article added to the quote "at the cost of American jobs," something, I might add, they wouldn't have to do if they believed they were being honest, building Jeeps in China and Reviving & Expanding plants in China rather than expanding new plants in the United States does cost Americans jobs.

Personally, I don't care if they do expand in China. If it's smart business for them great. Of course, I'd prefer it if they did it without American Tax money. And I would prefer if you propagandists would pretend they weren't trying to do it when even in the article you are trying to use to show it's a lie, they admit they are doing it.

But then, I get the feeling you didn't bother reading the article.

Wow, you really should contact PolitiFact and explain your "logic" to them. I look forward to their revision...

 

[Avatar4321]

Wow, you really should contact PolitiFact and explain your "logic" to them. I look forward to their revision...

I'm going to take a wild guess that at the speed of the response, you didn't actually bother reading anything I said or even take another look at the thread you posted.

And I don't expect them to revise anything any more than I expect a hack like you to.

 

[Lakhota]

Wow, you really should contact PolitiFact and explain your "logic" to them. I look forward to their revision...

I'm going to take a wild guess that at the speed of the response, you didn't actually bother reading anything I said or even take another look at the thread you posted.

And I don't expect them to revise anything any more than I expect a hack like you to.

Yes, I read it. You are blinded by political and religious ignorance.

 

[jillian]

I don't usually defend you Jillian, so your question is meaningless.

that's funny coming from you.

The key to humor is to have it based in truth.

you wouldn't know truth if it bit you.

i think i'll go with politifact... they aren't delusional like you are.

 

[blackhawk]

He could have with a little help from the elephants.

thats a bigger lie than the romney lie. the kenyan said he would cut it in half the first 2 years. The dems controlled the house, the senate, and the wh and you're saying the elephants could have done something about it....

hilarious.

2 years? Dems only controlled the House for about 133 days during Obama's presidency.

President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit

FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

The Dems only controlled the House for 133 days Really lets check that shall we the 111th Congress which came as a result of the 2008 election was sworn in on January 6th 2009 the 2010 midterms were held on November 2nd so that means right there that the Dems controlled the House from at least January 6th 2009 through January 6th 2010 which would be 365 day's not 133. The 112th Congress which came as a result of the 2010 midterms was sworn in on January 3rd 2011 so that would mean the Democrats controlled the House from January 6th 2009 till January 3rd 2011. Now to be fair the Dems were three days short of controlling the House for two years however they controlled it far far longer than 133 days.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wow, you really should contact PolitiFact and explain your "logic" to them. I look forward to their revision...

I'm going to take a wild guess that at the speed of the response, you didn't actually bother reading anything I said or even take another look at the thread you posted.

And I don't expect them to revise anything any more than I expect a hack like you to.

Yes, I read it. You are blinded by political and religious ignorance.

So did the administration not threaten to withold stimulus funds if Chrysler wasn't sold to Fiat? Is Fiat not an Italian company? Was Chrysler not planning to revive and expand Jeep Production in China to avoid Tarriff and transport costs? Could they not have expanded in the United States instead, if they so chose?

Which part of the statement is the lie? Even your articles verify what I am saying. Even with it adding to the quote, there is nothing in it that is a lie.

 

[Avatar4321]

that's funny coming from you.

The key to humor is to have it based in truth.

you wouldn't know truth if it bit you.

i think i'll go with politifact... they aren't delusional like you are.

And yet, i just cited them showing how it's true.

I know you guys prefer to just be told what you think than actually looking at evidence. But you really need to stop doing this.

The problem with our society is there are so many intelligent people walking around thinking they are right who don't have a clue how to think. This is a perfect example. You look at the headline. Parrot it as if that somehow proves it's true. But when you actually break down the quote and look at the facts, don't see the disconnect with the headline.

 

[Avatar4321]

thats a bigger lie than the romney lie. the kenyan said he would cut it in half the first 2 years. The dems controlled the house, the senate, and the wh and you're saying the elephants could have done something about it....

hilarious.

2 years? Dems only controlled the House for about 133 days during Obama's presidency.

President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit

FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

The Dems only controlled the House for 133 days Really lets check that shall we the 111th Congress which came as a result of the 2008 election was sworn in on January 6th 2009 the 2010 midterms were held on November 2nd so that means right there that the Dems controlled the House from at least January 6th 2009 through January 6th 2010 which would be 365 day's not 133. The 112th Congress which came as a result of the 2010 midterms was sworn in on January 3rd 2011 so that would mean the Democrats controlled the House from January 6th 2009 till January 3rd 2011. Now to be fair the Dems were three days short of controlling the House for two years however they controlled it far far longer than 133 days.

But that doesn't help their argument. So it can't possible be true. Looking at facts isn't going to solve anything.

 

[Doc91678]

Gee, Romney had sooo many to choose from. How do you pick just one...?

PolitiFact Awards 'Lie Of The Year' To Romney Jeep Ad

Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign's ad on Jeeps made in China - PolitiFact

 

[blackhawk]

2 years? Dems only controlled the House for about 133 days during Obama's presidency.

President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit

FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

The Dems only controlled the House for 133 days Really lets check that shall we the 111th Congress which came as a result of the 2008 election was sworn in on January 6th 2009 the 2010 midterms were held on November 2nd so that means right there that the Dems controlled the House from at least January 6th 2009 through January 6th 2010 which would be 365 day's not 133. The 112th Congress which came as a result of the 2010 midterms was sworn in on January 3rd 2011 so that would mean the Democrats controlled the House from January 6th 2009 till January 3rd 2011. Now to be fair the Dems were three days short of controlling the House for two years however they controlled it far far longer than 133 days.

But that doesn't help their argument. So it can't possible be true. Looking at facts isn't going to solve anything.

I know but to actually post the Democrats only controlled the House for 133 days during Obama's Presidency I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know but to actually post the Democrats only controlled the House for 133 days during Obama's Presidency I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.

Heck, they held the Senate even longer.

I can't imagine what is going on in their heads to say such blatantly false things and yet expect 1) No one to notice, 2) to actually believe it, & 3) to not understand why people disagree.

 

[Trajan]

The very best part of this story is that not one single rightwinger on USMB has admitted that the story was a lie.

That's because Rush, FOX and their party leader Mitt Romney haven't admitted it was a big fat lie. Once that happens these RW'ers will fall right in line!!

Look who finally checked in after the Wisconsin debacle

Shouldn't you be in Lansing tearing down tents btw

 

[Lakhota]

I know but to actually post the Democrats only controlled the House for 133 days during Obama's Presidency I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.

Heck, they held the Senate even longer.

I can't imagine what is going on in their heads to say such blatantly false things and yet expect 1) No one to notice, 2) to actually believe it, & 3) to not understand why people disagree.

Using the links I provided, along with your "credible" rebuttal, please PROVE how the Democrats controlled the House for more than 133 days during Obama's presidency.

 

[blackhawk]

I know but to actually post the Democrats only controlled the House for 133 days during Obama's Presidency I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.

Heck, they held the Senate even longer.

I can't imagine what is going on in their heads to say such blatantly false things and yet expect 1) No one to notice, 2) to actually believe it, & 3) to not understand why people disagree.

Using the links I provided, along with your "credible" rebuttal, please PROVE how the Democrats controlled the House for more than 133 days during Obama's presidency.

Uh basic math the Dems took control in January of 2009 they lost control in January of 2011 that adds up to more than 133 days. You can post links saying Obama is Jesus Christ Reborn or the Democrats never controlled the House during his Presidency if you want it does not change the numbers. If you really want to keep pushing that 133 days idiocy knock yourself out it's your delusion.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know but to actually post the Democrats only controlled the House for 133 days during Obama's Presidency I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.

Heck, they held the Senate even longer.

I can't imagine what is going on in their heads to say such blatantly false things and yet expect 1) No one to notice, 2) to actually believe it, & 3) to not understand why people disagree.

Using the links I provided, along with your "credible" rebuttal, please PROVE how the Democrats controlled the House for more than 133 days during Obama's presidency.

You know, I really thought you'd recognize your mistake and acknowledge that you are incorrect about the Democrats only controlling the House of Representatives for 133 days. Because I know you say stupid things sometimes, but I really didn't think you intended to double down on that obviously stupid claim. Especially after blackhawk told you exactly how many days Democrats have controlled the House. But if you insist on having a link. Here: 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ill even quote the very clear part that refutes you, with emphasis:

In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.

Now a year consists of 365 days. I seriously hope you know that much and are not expecting me to post a link proving that as well. Two years would be 730 days. Now as blackhawk pointed out, it was actually 3 days less than 730. So that would be 727 days.

Now tell me. If the Democrats clearly controlled the House of Representatives for 727 days as they did, how could they have only controlled it for 133? Why would you even make such a ridiculous claim? And moreover why would you double down on it when it's obvious you are wrong. I don't even think the most hardcore lefty on this board would agree with your claim here.