If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Politifact says "pants on fire" doesn't mean "lied". We rate that "Pantaloons Ablaze"   (dailykos.com) divider line 219
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5170 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 8:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 09:13:30 PM
Doesn't Romney's last tax return show he paid around 3 million bucks to the fed?
 
2012-08-07 09:13:46 PM
Politifact =

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-08-07 09:14:50 PM

Dinki: Of course politifact is a bunch of idiots. Once they decided to not simply verify the accuracy of a statement and started to try and parse what those statements might have been construed to mean, they lost all credibility.

Reid said someone told him that Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years. Now that could mean he actually paid no taxes for each of the ten years, or that he paid a net of 0 (or less) taxes for the ten years.

Either way, politifact has not dis-proven that Reid was told what he says he was told.

They should rescind this, and apologize to the world.


Better yet, Reid can:

a) give us his source so it can be verified
b) shut up, stop lying, and apologize for lying to us. Then resign for such a blatant lie on the floor of the Senate.
 
2012-08-07 09:15:01 PM

quartercomma:

I have noticed that Romney very carefully parses his words about taxes, saying things like "I've paid a lot of taxes" without saying "Federal Income" ever. His parsing is getting practically lawyer-ey, which is quite revealing.


what? does anyone ever say "Federal Income Taxes"?
Geesh. How many people here say that the rich should get taxed more, but so carefully parse their sentence (just like Romney!) and don't say the rich should have a higher Federal Income tax rate??
 
2012-08-07 09:15:01 PM
Unsubstantiated claims: Democrats - 1; Republicans - Over 9000

I also like how Romney told Reid to put up or shut up. No Mittens, When someone makes an objective claim that is easily refutable with proof, the onus does not belongs person making the claim to produce more credible accusers.
 
2012-08-07 09:15:18 PM

sprawl15: MFAWG: I recall the quote as 'didn't pay income taxes' and Romneys response as 'paid lots of taxes'.

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Romney said a lot of different things against Reid, including a categorical denial. There was a lot of weird hollow bluster, but he did come right out and say, ""Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong, [...] It's untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It's wrong."


Romney also full on lied in 2002 about paying taxes in Massachusetts, but this time I'm sure he's totally telling the truth right?
 
2012-08-07 09:15:45 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: Can't support Reid's behavior (don't claim what you can't prove)


What can't he prove? that the person that told him about Romneys taxes exists? I'm pretty sure he could prove that if need be.
 
2012-08-07 09:15:47 PM
no matter how hard you spin you'll always be part of the liberal media conspiracy if you say 1 negative thing about republicans so why try to appease them at all with your both sides are badding?
 
2012-08-07 09:16:59 PM

shotglasss: give us his source so it can be verified


Um, I think the only person that can do that is a guy named Mitt.
 
2012-08-07 09:17:00 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

That's why I figure Reid is correct on this. Think about it. Reid isn't Bachmann. He doesn't say stuff like this unless he really means it.

I think it's much more a case where the downside of being wrong grossly overweighs the upside. If Romney released the returns and proved Reid wrong by showing that he paid about five bucks a year on average, nobody would care that Reid is technically wrong. Same if there were donations or investments into things that would absolutely destroy his cred in the GOP, like donating millions to Planned Parenthood. Or possibly Reid is pretty much solidly wrong, but Romney's only paying 5% in taxes and the returns would let people nationally examine how the rules don't apply to the rich. That alone could do huge amounts to change the political landscape, and Reid could see that as worth the risk.

There's a lot of different angles I can see in this game.


Yeah, I could see all of those scenarios being the case, and frankly I don't even want to wager a guess as to which one is the truth.

I just love watching it all play out. Romney's stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the longer he delays releasing his taxes, the more suspicious he looks even to Republicans. As things stand now, those tax returns will get A LOT more scrutiny than if he had just released them at the beginning of his campaign, and every day the pressure to release them grows. Whatever's in there must be REALLY bad for him to stall for this long, possibly even some things that could cost him the election.

Reid? At worst, this incident becomes a footnote near the end of his biography, a very small blotch on an otherwise honorable and enviable career. Honestly, I'd probably fall on my sword in the same way if it meant helping take down a scumbag like Romney.
 
2012-08-07 09:17:36 PM

shotglasss: Doesn't Romney's last tax return show he paid around 3 million bucks to the fed?


=================

and a $100 million IRA .when the limit is $6,000 a year

/it would take the average "non job creater" only 16.666 years to do that
 
2012-08-07 09:18:04 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Unsubstantiated claims: Democrats - 1; Republicans - Over 9000

I also like how Romney told Reid to put up or shut up. No Mittens, When someone makes an objective claim that is easily refutable with proof, the onus does not belongs person making the claim to produce more credible accusers.


Oh that's how it works?

You just have to make a claim based on anonymous sources (who by the way would have NO information about Romney's personal taxes, unless they were his tax accountant) and the other person has to provide information? That is what you really believe?
 
2012-08-07 09:18:06 PM
Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

Why is zero so hard to believe? He owned 100% of Bain, and was their CEO. Why would he pay himself a salary?
 
2012-08-07 09:18:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: quartercomma:

I have noticed that Romney very carefully parses his words about taxes, saying things like "I've paid a lot of taxes" without saying "Federal Income" ever. His parsing is getting practically lawyer-ey, which is quite revealing.

what? does anyone ever say "Federal Income Taxes"?
Geesh. How many people here say that the rich should get taxed more, but so carefully parse their sentence (just like Romney!) and don't say the rich should have a higher Federal Income tax rate??


quartercomma's theory is necessarily true but I'm assuming someone who was both a State Governor and running for POTUS might be comfortable with the distinction of different taxes.
 
2012-08-07 09:18:48 PM
FTFPolitifact: Reid has said Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. It was no slip of the tongue. He repeated the claim on at least two more occasions, at one point saying that "the word is out" when in fact it was only Reid who put that "word" out.

Reid has produced no evidence to back up his claim other than attribution to a shadowy anonymous source. Romney has denied the claim, and tax experts back him up, saying that the nature of Romney's investments in Bain make it highly unlikely he would have been able to avoid paying taxes altogether -- especially for 10 years.

Reid has made an extreme claim with nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!


They really did just say that he had no evidence, not that he was lying. They can't rate something as "mostly true" or "partially true" if there's zero evidence to support it.
 
2012-08-07 09:19:35 PM
16.666 = 16,666

16 thousand six hundred and sixty six years
 
2012-08-07 09:21:05 PM

Zoomaster: shotglasss: Doesn't Romney's last tax return show he paid around 3 million bucks to the fed?

=================

and a $100 million IRA .when the limit is $6,000 a year

/it would take the average "non job creater" only 16.666 years to do that


yeah, if you are average.

If you are extraordinary and build a really successful business and put founder's shares (.01 cent each) in the IRA and the company was really successful, the IRA would be worth a lot. (what do you think the IRAs of google and facebook founders look like if they put shares in their IRA?)

By the way, it is a lie to say that he has a $100M IRA.

His IRA has a value UP TO $100M. That includes $22M. So lame effort with the lib talking points.
 
2012-08-07 09:21:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Oh that's how it works?


You aren't bright. I don't need a better accuser to make that a fact.
 
2012-08-07 09:21:26 PM

imontheinternet: FTFPolitifact: Reid has said Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. It was no slip of the tongue. He repeated the claim on at least two more occasions, at one point saying that "the word is out" when in fact it was only Reid who put that "word" out.

Reid has produced no evidence to back up his claim other than attribution to a shadowy anonymous source. Romney has denied the claim, and tax experts back him up, saying that the nature of Romney's investments in Bain make it highly unlikely he would have been able to avoid paying taxes altogether -- especially for 10 years.

Reid has made an extreme claim with nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!

They really did just say that he had no evidence, not that he was lying. They can't rate something as "mostly true" or "partially true" if there's zero evidence to support it.


Don't they have an "inconclusive" rating?
 
2012-08-07 09:22:25 PM

magusdevil: Romney also full on lied in 2002 about paying taxes in Massachusetts, but this time I'm sure he's totally telling the truth right?


Sure.

Britney Spear's Speculum: No Mittens, When someone makes an objective claim that is easily refutable with proof, the onus does not belongs person making the claim to produce more credible accusers.


Eh, on the one hand it's entirely up to Reid to prove his assertion, from a formal debate perspective. On the other hand, it puts Romney in such a ridiculously advantageous place that were his tax returns kosher (and he didn't want to release them Just Because), he could land his first serious punch on the Democrats. His failure to release basically means one of three things: Reid is right, Reid is wrong but Romney has too much uncool shiat in his returns to ever let them see the light of day, or the Romney campaign is too stupid to figure out how good a move it would be to release a few of the better looking years.

I can't see any other possibility.

cameroncrazy1984: Interesting that he can say that and then continue to refuse to release the information.


I'm really interested to know who the Reid source is (assuming this isn't just some crazy gambit).
 
2012-08-07 09:22:44 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

Why is zero so hard to believe? He owned 100% of Bain, and was their CEO. Why would he pay himself a salary?


He also took no salary as Gov and paid his own travel expenses.

I doubt he took a salary for the olympics.
 
2012-08-07 09:24:06 PM
Democrats: Sky is blue

Politifact: sinclairwatch.files.wordpress.com

Republicans: REVEAL YOUR SOURCES YOU EVIL SOHSHALEST
 
2012-08-07 09:24:12 PM

imontheinternet: hey really did just say that he had no evidence, not that he was lying. They can't rate something as "mostly true" or "partially true" if there's zero evidence to support it.


Then they need to create a new category in that rating system of theirs to account for cases like this. If nothing more than the release of more information can render a statement true, then it certainly doesn't deserve the classification of "Pants on Fire".
 
2012-08-07 09:24:31 PM
Well if only there was someway that Romney could prove that he actually paid taxes, some proof like a signed document that he could release.
 
2012-08-07 09:25:25 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Unsubstantiated claims: Democrats - 1; Republicans - Over 9000

I also like how Romney told Reid to put up or shut up. No Mittens, When someone makes an objective claim that is easily refutable with proof, the onus does not belongs person making the claim to produce more credible accusers.


Okay, so when someone makes a claim that is not easily refuted, where does the onus lie?

Does the ease of refutation determine who has the onus? Why?
 
2012-08-07 09:26:41 PM

sprawl15: magusdevil: Romney also full on lied in 2002 about paying taxes in Massachusetts, but this time I'm sure he's totally telling the truth right?

Sure.

Britney Spear's Speculum: No Mittens, When someone makes an objective claim that is easily refutable with proof, the onus does not belongs person making the claim to produce more credible accusers.

Eh, on the one hand it's entirely up to Reid to prove his assertion, from a formal debate perspective. On the other hand, it puts Romney in such a ridiculously advantageous place that were his tax returns kosher (and he didn't want to release them Just Because), he could land his first serious punch on the Democrats. His failure to release basically means one of three things: Reid is right, Reid is wrong but Romney has too much uncool shiat in his returns to ever let them see the light of day, or the Romney campaign is too stupid to figure out how good a move it would be to release a few of the better looking years.

I can't see any other possibility.

cameroncrazy1984: Interesting that he can say that and then continue to refuse to release the information.

I'm really interested to know who the Reid source is (assuming this isn't just some crazy gambit).


Actually we have a simple he said he said situation. On the one hand we have Harry Reid who has a pretty solid record as a truth teller on the other we have Mitt Romney who has a history of lying about what is and isn't in his taxes when running for office.
 
2012-08-07 09:28:07 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Interesting that he can say that and then continue to refuse to release the information.

I'm really interested to know who the Reid source is (assuming this isn't just some crazy gambit).


He claimed that his source was an investor in Bain.

I have no idea why an investor would have any verifiable knowledge of what Romney's personal taxes were or why the press never asked Reid how his source would have that information (nevermind, I know why the press never asked).
 
2012-08-07 09:29:37 PM

magusdevil: Actually we have a simple he said he said situation. On the one hand we have Harry Reid who has a pretty solid record as a truth teller on the other we have Mitt Romney who has a history of lying about what is and isn't in his taxes when running for office.


Cool story, bro.
 
2012-08-07 09:30:18 PM

sprawl15: Eh, on the one hand it's entirely up to Reid to prove his assertion, from a formal debate perspective. On the other hand, it puts Romney in such a ridiculously advantageous place that were his tax returns kosher (and he didn't want to release them Just Because), he could land his first serious punch on the Democrats. His failure to release basically means one of three things: Reid is right, Reid is wrong but Romney has too much uncool shiat in his returns to ever let them see the light of day, or the Romney campaign is too stupid to figure out how good a move it would be to release a few of the better looking years.

I can't see any other possibility.


No, it's not. It's a red herring to ask someone to produce their sources when the claim is of someone else's tax returns. A concrete example of this would be demanding Reid to produce the definition of the words "I", "have", "proof", "that", "Romney", "paid", "no", "taxes" before he can even begin saying the phrase "I have proof that Romney paid no taxes." and republicans debating the definition of single word he defined before letting him speak.
 
2012-08-07 09:31:00 PM

NewportBarGuy: Politifact is a great idea in theory, but the execution blows.


They've definitely been in a spiral for a few years

spongeboob: cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

citation?


Pants on fire
 
2012-08-07 09:31:55 PM

sprawl15: Eh, on the one hand it's entirely up to Reid to prove his assertion, from a formal debate perspective. On the other hand, it puts Romney in such a ridiculously advantageous place that were his tax returns kosher (and he didn't want to release them Just Because), he could land his first serious punch on the Democrats. His failure to release basically means one of three things: Reid is right, Reid is wrong but Romney has too much uncool shiat in his returns to ever let them see the light of day, or the Romney campaign is too stupid to figure out how good a move it would be to release a few of the better looking years.

I can't see any other possibility.


one simple possibility.
0bama's entire campaign is about this.
Let it play out.
Let 0bama get confident that he can win on this rather than running on his record.
Release the returns end of October. Then 0bama has built up momentum on nothing.

If he diffuses it now, 0bama just has to go after something else (Mitt's gardener doesn't use eco-friendly pesticide!)
 
2012-08-07 09:32:25 PM

StewPie: I don't see any liberals throwing tantrums. I do see a lot of right wingers trying to put out a wildfire that continues to spread.


When a news paper fact checked some things being said about Romney and Bain, and found them to be bogus, the author got such a shiat storm of angry liberals throwing a fit that he actually wrote an article where, predictably, fark liberals picked up on it and continued the nonsense.

Now we have Factcheck which calls out Reid on his crap, and once again... "WAAAAAH! WAAAAH! Stop it! You're not suppose to do that! You're no longer credible!"

This pattern will repeat over and over again. I figure when the facts about the "totally not connected to Obama but run by one of his people" SuperPAC ad against Romney has its pack of bald faced lies and misrepresentations blown away we will, once again, see the temper tantrums.
 
2012-08-07 09:33:30 PM
You gotta love Republicans. Obama needs to release two birth certificates to prove he was born in the US, but all Mitt Romney has to do is say "Nope, I paid taxes" and that's enough for you.
 
2012-08-07 09:35:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: one simple possibility.
0bama's entire campaign is about this.
Let it play out.
Let 0bama get confident that he can win on this rather than running on his record.


I like the assumption that Obama can only run on one single issue at a time. Unlike you, he can multitask. And he has, during the campaign, hit Romney on a wide variety of lies and flip-flops.
 
2012-08-07 09:35:33 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: No, it's not. It's a red herring to ask someone to produce their sources when the claim is of someone else's tax returns. A concrete example of this would be demanding Reid to document when he stopped beating his wife. Same level of journalism and debate. By they way, you do know that Reid hasn't released his tax returns after he made a big deal out of it when running for Senate.


Reid can not even state that he has a credible source. How would an investor in the Bain funds know the details of Mitt's tax returns over 10 years?
 
2012-08-07 09:35:43 PM

spongeboob: MFAWG: sprawl15: Paul Baumer: So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

I'd be floored, but laugh my ass off.

Satanic_Hamster: There's a difference between "no proof" and "lied."

Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

I recall the quote as 'didn't pay income taxes' and Romneys response as 'paid lots of taxes'.

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

But I thought the Income Tax is the only tax, you know half of Americans pay no taxes because they don't pay income tax.


Hoisted on their own petard and screaming about the injustice of it all.

'Skin in the game' and whatnot.
 
2012-08-07 09:35:47 PM
"Lyre, lyre, pants on fire" was a common phrase in the Middle Ages shouted whenever bards would sing songs of great deeds which defied believability. Nothing about telling a lie there, just the townsfolk needed evidence.
 
2012-08-07 09:37:17 PM

Vangor: "Lyre, lyre, pants on fire" was a common phrase in the Middle Ages shouted whenever bards would sing songs of great deeds which defied believability. Nothing about telling a lie there, just the townsfolk needed evidence.


As Sarah Palin went riding through the night, with her lyre, warning them British the Americans were coming...
 
2012-08-07 09:37:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You gotta love Republicans. Obama needs to release two birth certificates to prove he was born in the US, but all Mitt Romney has to do is say "Nope, I paid taxes" and that's enough for you.


i thought 0bama released 1 birth cert. Did the WH actually release 2?

paying taxes is not one of the legal requirements of being President.
 
2012-08-07 09:38:01 PM

Burn_The_Plows: Don't they have an "inconclusive" rating?


The Mythbusters have a much better rating system.
 
2012-08-07 09:38:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: one simple possibility.
0bama's entire campaign is about this.
Let it play out.
Let 0bama get confident that he can win on this rather than running on his record.
Release the returns end of October. Then 0bama has built up momentum on nothing.

If he diffuses it now, 0bama just has to go after something else (Mitt's gardener doesn't use eco-friendly pesticide!)


Great idea, release the returns at the end of October when the number of undecided voters is down in the low single digits. Very clever indeed.
 
2012-08-07 09:38:53 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: No, it's not. It's a red herring to ask someone to produce their sources when the claim is of someone else's tax returns. A concrete example of this would be demanding Reid to produce the definition of the words "I", "have", "proof", "that", "Romney", "paid", "no", "taxes" before he can even begin saying the phrase "I have proof that Romney paid no taxes." and republicans debating the definition of single word he defined before letting him speak.


What the fark are you babbling about?

What makes it a red herring, that it's tax returns? That it's a source instead of a direct assertion? That the question is to produce sources? If your boss comes up to you and says that someone told him you were wanted for child molestation charges in Malaysia, would the burden be on you to produce a clean bill of slate from the Malaysian police forces? Or would you ask who it was because it's probably that biatch in accounting who is still upset that you didn't buy 10 boxes of girl scout cookies from her kid?
 
2012-08-07 09:39:52 PM

Dinki: What can't he prove? that the person that told him about Romneys taxes exists? I'm pretty sure he could prove that if need be.


What *has* he proven? "Pretty sure" of proof isn't good enough for this citizen, I'd like the proof itself please.
 
2012-08-07 09:40:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: i thought 0bama released 1 birth cert. Did the WH actually release 2?


The fact that you claim to not know says a lot about you.
 
2012-08-07 09:41:20 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: sprawl15: Eh, on the one hand it's entirely up to Reid to prove his assertion, from a formal debate perspective. On the other hand, it puts Romney in such a ridiculously advantageous place that were his tax returns kosher (and he didn't want to release them Just Because), he could land his first serious punch on the Democrats. His failure to release basically means one of three things: Reid is right, Reid is wrong but Romney has too much uncool shiat in his returns to ever let them see the light of day, or the Romney campaign is too stupid to figure out how good a move it would be to release a few of the better looking years.

I can't see any other possibility.

one simple possibility.
0bama's entire campaign is about this.
Let it play out.
Let 0bama get confident that he can win on this rather than running on his record.
Release the returns end of October. Then 0bama has built up momentum on nothing.

If he diffuses it now, 0bama just has to go after something else (Mitt's gardener doesn't use eco-friendly pesticide!)


Are you kidding? Obama doesn't even have the ball past half court yet. This is all a little stutter step a good point guard would just before he gets the ball in the other teams zone.
 
2012-08-07 09:41:52 PM

Mad Tea Party: Burn_The_Plows: Don't they have an "inconclusive" rating?

The Mythbusters have a much better rating system.


Snopes.com is the best.
 
2012-08-07 09:42:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: i thought 0bama released 1 birth cert. Did the WH actually release 2?

The fact that you claim to not know says a lot about you.


yeah, it says I am not a birther and I never cared about this issue.

so you are saying the WH released 2 birth certificates. Interesting, I didn't know that.
 
2012-08-07 09:42:20 PM
I appreciate Reid playing Asshole Hardball. It's abringing king time the Dems stopped bringing neatly typed white papers on economic theory to gunfights.
 
2012-08-07 09:43:00 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: I appreciate Reid playing Asshole Hardball. It's abringing king time the Dems stopped bringing neatly typed white papers on economic theory to gunfights.


"about farking time"
 
2012-08-07 09:43:08 PM
these clowns lost all credibility 2ish years ago in the Stewart/misinformed fiasco

total assclowns
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report