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

[JimH52]

One of the reasons that Obama seemed speechless in the first debate was Romney's lies, his falsehoods, and his denials. I really think he was startled that Willard had the balls to deny his own stated policies. I cannot remember any candidate, Dem or GOP who has strayed as far from the truth on matters as Willard did. It is a daunting task to chose from the many false statements.

 

[Avatar4321]

One of the reasons that Obama seemed speechless in the first debate was Romney's lies, his falsehoods, and his denials. I really think he was startled that Willard had the balls to deny his own stated policies. I cannot remember any candidate, Dem or GOP who has strayed as far from the truth on matters as Willard did. It is a daunting task to chose from the many false statements.

Yeah. keep telling yourself that.

You should probably go with Al Gore's explanation. It's actually much better than yours.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

I provided TWO links. Show me with "credible" facts where they are wrong.

 

[JimH52]

One of the reasons that Obama seemed speechless in the first debate was Romney's lies, his falsehoods, and his denials. I really think he was startled that Willard had the balls to deny his own stated policies. I cannot remember any candidate, Dem or GOP who has strayed as far from the truth on matters as Willard did. It is a daunting task to chose from the many false statements.

Yeah. keep telling yourself that.

You should probably go with Al Gore's explanation. It's actually much better than yours.

Obviously, 47% of the voters agreed with my assessment. Now where have I heard that number before?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

I provided TWO links. Show me with "credible" facts where they are wrong.

So what's uncredible about the fact that Democrats controlled the House for two years? Was there some mid term election we are unaware of?

 

[Avatar4321]

One of the reasons that Obama seemed speechless in the first debate was Romney's lies, his falsehoods, and his denials. I really think he was startled that Willard had the balls to deny his own stated policies. I cannot remember any candidate, Dem or GOP who has strayed as far from the truth on matters as Willard did. It is a daunting task to chose from the many false statements.

Yeah. keep telling yourself that.

You should probably go with Al Gore's explanation. It's actually much better than yours.

Obviously, 47% of the voters agreed with my assessment. Now where have I heard that number before?

I dont remember the people voting on why Romney crushed Obama in the First Debate.

 

[Lakhota]

Obama clearly won the first debate. All Romney did was lie and flip-flop.

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama clearly won the first debate. All Romney did was lie and flip-flop.

Are you drinking tonight or something?

 

[Lakhota]

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:



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.

I provided TWO links. Show me with "credible" facts where they are wrong.

So what's uncredible about the fact that Democrats controlled the House for two years? Was there some mid term election we are unaware of?

I made a mistake by saying House - I meant Senate. However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama only controlled Congress (House & Senate) for 133 days. Here are my links again if you wish to prove them wrong...

Apparently everyone forgot the President needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. I heard a Latino news reporter say they felt if the President could pass healthcare, he could have passed immigration reform. Newsflash!! The healthcare bill was passed using "reconciliation", because there were not 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Immigration, Gay Rights could not be passed with the same process because it is reserved for budgetary matters. You'd think a reporter would know this stuff. The Stimulus was hijacked by the Republicans and job-creating measures were traded for tax cuts because...there were not 60 Democratic votes to pass it.

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

The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

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

 

[Avatar4321]

I provided TWO links. Show me with "credible" facts where they are wrong.

So what's uncredible about the fact that Democrats controlled the House for two years? Was there some mid term election we are unaware of?

I made a mistake by saying House - I meant Senate. However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama only controlled Congress (House & Senate) for 133 days. Here are my links again if you wish to prove them wrong...

Apparently everyone forgot the President needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. I heard a Latino news reporter say they felt if the President could pass healthcare, he could have passed immigration reform. Newsflash!! The healthcare bill was passed using "reconciliation", because there were not 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Immigration, Gay Rights could not be passed with the same process because it is reserved for budgetary matters. You'd think a reporter would know this stuff. The Stimulus was hijacked by the Republicans and job-creating measures were traded for tax cuts because...there were not 60 Democratic votes to pass it.

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

The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

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

Um actually, he did control Congress for two years. Heck, there hasnt been a day of his administration he hasnt had control of the Senate.

You do realize you don't need 60 Senate seats to control the Senate, just 51.

 

[Article 15]

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 are confusing the House with the so-called "Supermajority" in the Senate.

RW hacks love to claim that they had one for two years when in reality it was only for a small handful of months.

 

[Article 15]

You do realize you don't need 60 Senate seats to control the Senate, just 51.

You do when your "loyal" (sorry, the thought of the GOP being loyal to America cracks me up) opposition defaults to a filibuster for every piece of legislation.

 

[Lakhota]

So what's uncredible about the fact that Democrats controlled the House for two years? Was there some mid term election we are unaware of?

I made a mistake by saying House - I meant Senate. However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama only controlled Congress (House & Senate) for 133 days. Here are my links again if you wish to prove them wrong...



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

The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

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

Um actually, he did control Congress for two years. Heck, there hasnt been a day of his administration he hasnt had control of the Senate.

You do realize you don't need 60 Senate seats to control the Senate, just 51.

Really? If that is true, how can Republicans prevent Susan Rice from becoming Secretary of State?

 

[Polk]

So what's uncredible about the fact that Democrats controlled the House for two years? Was there some mid term election we are unaware of?

I made a mistake by saying House - I meant Senate. However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama only controlled Congress (House & Senate) for 133 days. Here are my links again if you wish to prove them wrong...



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

The actual fact is Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, a far cry from the over 700 days that Wallace gleefully interjected.

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

Um actually, he did control Congress for two years. Heck, there hasnt been a day of his administration he hasnt had control of the Senate.

You do realize you don't need 60 Senate seats to control the Senate, just 51.

You technically have control with less than 60 seats, but as a practical matter, you need 60+ to have anything that looks like what a rational person would call control.

 

[Claudette]

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

LMAO Lie of the Year??

How bout Benghazi was all about "Spontaneous Demonstration" in reference to a video??

Rice lied her ass off on orders from the administration about an attack on the US Consulate.

A much bigger lie than a ******* Jeep.

 

[Polk]

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

LMAO Lie of the Year??

How bout Benghazi was all about "Spontaneous Demonstration" in reference to a video??

Rice lied her ass off on orders from the administration about an attack on the US Consulate.

A much bigger lie than a ******* Jeep.

Rice was reading from the talking points the CIA gave her. Petraeus testified the references to terrorism were removed from the initial draft because they didn't want to tip off the terrorists that we have embedded intelligence assets gathering data on them.
So, yes, the administration was engaging in a massive conspiracy... to catch the terrorists.

 

[Stephanie]

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!!

OH YAWN yawn yawn yawn
when you all admit your Dear leaders lies to your faces every single day we'll think about admitting something

 

[Stephanie]

left this little tidbit out

SNIP:

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.

Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production.

tsk tsk I don't remember Romney saying they were "shuttering" Amercian Production
but don't let the facts get your all's way..Politifact should be ashamed for becoming just another DNC mouthpeice, they used to be somewhat non-biased

 

[Polk]

left this little tidbit out

SNIP:

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.

Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production.

tsk tsk I don't remember Romney saying they were "shuttering" Amercian Production
but don't let the facts get your all's way..Politifact should be ashamed for becoming just another DNC mouthpeice, they used to be somewhat non-biased

You don't remember it because you don't want to remember it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lv5hfx0fXA]Mitt Romney Speech in Defiance, Ohio - 10/25/12 - YouTube[/ame]

Go to 10:34 in that video. Romney says he read an article saying "Jeep, which is now owned by Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China".

 

[Stephanie]

left this little tidbit out

SNIP:

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.

Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production.

tsk tsk I don't remember Romney saying they were "shuttering" Amercian Production
but don't let the facts get your all's way..Politifact should be ashamed for becoming just another DNC mouthpeice, they used to be somewhat non-biased

You don't remember it because you don't want to remember it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lv5hfx0fXA]Mitt Romney Speech in Defiance, Ohio - 10/25/12 - YouTube[/ame]

Go to 10:34 in that video. Romney says he read an article saying "Jeep, which is now owned by Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China".

when you people start worrying over all the lies this President has told then I'll get back to worrying over Romney
I won't hold my breath though