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.

(Rolling Stone)   Mitt Romney's five biggest lies. Missing from the list: his hair   (rollingstone.com) divider line 87
    More: PSA, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

5322 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2012 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-05 09:04:15 AM
It's real. He just uses "Just for Mor-Men" gel.
 
2012-10-05 09:41:10 AM
His side of the debate consisted of:

1) Lies
2) Vague concepts without substance
3) Whining that it should be his turn to speak
 
2012-10-05 10:08:55 AM

Diogenes: It's real. He just uses "Just for Mor-Men" gel.


I LOL'd

thank you I need that this morning
 
2012-10-05 11:54:51 AM
Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.
 
2012-10-05 12:32:58 PM
They forgot one

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-05 12:34:33 PM
Mitts own advisers admitted they were lies after the debate.
 
2012-10-05 12:36:24 PM
What all of you don't realize, is that Mitt Romney has a magic job-creator wand. Apparently he must hold the Presidency before it will work right. I don't know why it didn't work in his previous elected capacities.
 
2012-10-05 12:37:28 PM

karmaceutical: What all of you don't realize, is that Mitt Romney has a magic job-creator wand. Apparently he must hold the Presidency before it will work right. I don't know why it didn't work in his previous elected capacities.


To be fair, he's only had 1 chance. You can't judge him based off such a small sample size
 
2012-10-05 12:37:52 PM
Just five? shiat, there was a whole thread about how he set a new record for number of lies per minute.
Link
 
2012-10-05 12:38:33 PM
No 5 I noticed when he said it. I have no clue as to why we can't look at ourselves saving money LONG TERM not having to pay for people any damn way when they get ill and show up at the hospital with something that could have been prevented. It's ludicrous how we like to put the onus on the person who gets sick instead of just dealing with it.
 
2012-10-05 12:39:44 PM

slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.


Enlighten us then. Why is Rolling Stone wrong? Or are you just tossing shiat into this thread because you've got nothing.
 
2012-10-05 12:41:57 PM
How about "Hey Republicans and Tea Partiers! I'm just like you! I'm a fiscal and social conservative, I swear! Don't mind the neocons sneaking in the door behind me. They're just here to...decorate. Yeah, that's it, decorate."

If Romney wins we'll be returning to the neocon policies of spending, not taxing, and waging war. I guess that's really what the GOP wants at heart. That, or they just got totally duped.
 
2012-10-05 12:46:12 PM

TimonC346: No 5 I noticed when he said it.


Same here. I made a joke about it in the debate thread.

slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.


The source was Mitt Romney. Feel free to substantiate any of the claims he made that are listed in TFA. We'll wait for as long as it takes you because we find the sound of crickets to be very soothing.
 
2012-10-05 12:47:00 PM
It's not so much lies as the contrast between what Mitt wants and what his controllers want.
He was trying to go Rogue.
 
2012-10-05 12:50:17 PM
"Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade."

And if you look at it over a century or a millennium, it's even worse.
 
2012-10-05 12:52:17 PM

slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust.


You could always post something that contradicts them...

But no, just keep attacking the source rather than the arguments.
 
MFL
2012-10-05 12:55:28 PM
Obama didn't lose the debate....it was just a spontaneous protest from a youtube video that got out of hand.
 
2012-10-05 12:57:34 PM
Hasn't Ronmey's strategy since spring been "Blizzard O'Lies"
 
2012-10-05 12:57:46 PM
That Romney has support in excess of the weirdly consistent 20% shows, I think, more than the desperation of the Republicans. I think it indicates the depth of their hatred for Obama. It doesn't make sense that rational people would support a sleazy liar, unless their hatred for Obama is greater than their own self interests. That, or they watch Fox News and the propaganda works.
 
2012-10-05 12:58:23 PM
Romney is the monkey fighter.

Sure, he gets in a few good hits, and even scores a surprise early victory.

But we all know what happens to monkey fighter.
 
2012-10-05 12:58:36 PM

rufus-t-firefly: slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust.

You could always post something that contradicts them...

But no, just keep attacking the source rather than the arguments.


I won't take away that Mitt won the debate--he completely did. He also did more than stretch the truth though--much of what he said were blatant lies that almost any ill informed frequenter of the Fark politics forum could identify as BS.

Sadly, he still won the debate. Fact checkers can do what they want--this one is in the books as far as the public is concerned.
 
2012-10-05 01:02:17 PM
Romney: "If you vote for me, I promise you the cake."
 
2012-10-05 01:03:21 PM

TimonC346: Sadly, he still won the debate. Fact checkers can do what they want--this one is in the books as far as the public is concerned.


Just like all the other election losers that "won" debates.
 
2012-10-05 01:03:49 PM

Wyalt Derp: "Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade."

And if you look at it over a century or a millennium, it's even worse.


Yeah, it sucks but its become the standard that we talk about taxes/etc in terms of 10 years. I guess for many thing its more accurate because the first and last year often have skewed numbers so it gives you a better average over 10 years.
 
2012-10-05 01:04:15 PM

slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.


Oddly enough, everybody else is pointing out the same lies. Just because it's Tolling Stone that's saying "2+2=4" doesn't make it any less true.
 
2012-10-05 01:04:29 PM
It's 2012, and farking Mitt Romney got up in front of the entire American public and repeated Sarah farking Palin's farking "death panels" lie.
 
2012-10-05 01:07:58 PM
Who doesn't want a President who's willing to lie to win?
 
2012-10-05 01:08:04 PM

Lost Thought 00: Mitts own advisers admitted they were lies after the debate.


See? They're so honest!
 
2012-10-05 01:08:45 PM

TimonC346: I won't take away that Mitt won the debate--he completely did. He also did more than stretch the truth though--much of what he said were blatant lies that almost any ill informed frequenter of the Fark politics forum could identify as BS.

Sadly, he still won the debate. Fact checkers can do what they want--this one is in the books as far as the public is concerned



When watching debates I usually just comment on style and their tactics. Basically for this one I was mostly saying, "that's complete BS" and "not another anecdote."
 
2012-10-05 01:11:38 PM
I watched the debate with a friend and our verdict was this: if we had known nothing else about the candidates, we'd have declared Romney the winner; however, we _have_ been paying attention these past months and know that Romney is a used-car salesman who will say whatever he needs to say to make the sale, no matter how untruthful.
 
2012-10-05 01:12:05 PM

12349876: slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.

Enlighten us then. Why is Rolling Stone wrong? Or are you just tossing shiat into this thread because you've got nothing.

 

Come on Slayer199, prove them wrong. Oh, I get it, you're just another lying sack of shiat anxiously waiting to have the glorious wealth of your betters shower down upon you like the urine from the gods.
 
2012-10-05 01:12:38 PM

slayer199: Yes, because the Rolling Stone is an unbiased source I could trust. When Kerrang starts doing political commentary, maybe I'll pay attention.


Is it time to play Spot The Logical Fallacy?

Rolling Stone has actually always had serious political commentary. If you have counter arguments to the article, they'll have to be better than attacking the source.
 
2012-10-05 01:15:03 PM

MFL: Obama didn't lose the debate....it was just a spontaneous protest from a youtube video that got out of hand.


Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?
 
MFL
2012-10-05 01:16:13 PM
Jackson Herring
It's 2012, and farking Mitt Romney got up in front of the entire American public and repeated Sarah farking Palin's farking "death panels" lie.

So the Independent Payment Advisory Board is just a figment of our imagination.
 
2012-10-05 01:18:51 PM
The $90 Billion 'Into Wind and Solar' whopper was pretty big.
 
2012-10-05 01:19:09 PM
Rolling Stones source:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown- g ale-looney

Interesting read. Right from the top they drop this this in:

We make the following assumptions:

Any reductions in revenue due to the lower corporate rate would be offset by reducing corporate tax preferences. As a result, we examine only changes to the individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. We ignore the effect of the proposal to reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.

Well okay then.
 
2012-10-05 01:20:18 PM

MFL: Jackson Herring
It's 2012, and farking Mitt Romney got up in front of the entire American public and repeated Sarah farking Palin's farking "death panels" lie.

So the Independent Payment Advisory Board is just a figment of our imagination.


To think it's a death panel is sheer lunacy. From the very thing you linked.

The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions through supermajority vote.

With regard to IPAB's recommendations, the law says "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."[12]
 
2012-10-05 01:27:23 PM

12349876:

The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions through supermajority vote.


That's our safeguard? One of those Congressional Supermajority Votes?

yeah . . .
 
2012-10-05 01:27:49 PM
It's 2012, and prolific shiposter MFL just got up in front of all of Fark and repeated Mitt Romney's farking "death panels" lie.
 
2012-10-05 01:28:07 PM

Hickory-smoked: Rolling Stone has actually always had serious political commentary. If you have counter arguments to the article, they'll have to be better than attacking the source.


Perhaps you missed my points.

First off, Rolling Stone is biased left and always has been. Secondly, they're a music magazine...they should stick with that (hence my comment about Kerrang).

Finally, I don't care as I hate both the Democrats and Republicans and vote 3rd party like I have the last 20 years.
 
2012-10-05 01:34:53 PM
An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs.

So those people are what exactly?
 
2012-10-05 01:35:36 PM

Dr_luckyz: His side of the debate consisted of:

1) Lies
2) Vague concepts without substance
3) Whining that it should be his turn to speak


Don't forget:
4) Accusing Obama of lying whenever he pointed out something bad about Romney's plans.
("$5 trillion tax cuts" and "no deductions for outsourcing" come to mind)
 
2012-10-05 01:36:40 PM

azazyel: TimonC346: I won't take away that Mitt won the debate--he completely did. He also did more than stretch the truth though--much of what he said were blatant lies that almost any ill informed frequenter of the Fark politics forum could identify as BS.

Sadly, he still won the debate. Fact checkers can do what they want--this one is in the books as far as the public is concerned


When watching debates I usually just comment on style and their tactics. Basically for this one I was mostly saying, "that's complete BS" and "not another anecdote."


Me too. I also noticed the great lack of real failed policies for either candidate. While I think Mittens is a hack, his governing record isn't too shabby. You can call Obama's "failed economic policies" out all you want, but as today's projections have it, you would be wrong.

They basically sat there and attacked one anothers' downsides to their political policies, and honestly it was a little weak, even with Mitt winning that round. Furthermore, I had to remind myself how much easier it must be to tell everyone what you would have done different vs. explaining what you have done currently. I'd rather have been Romney for that debate.
 
2012-10-05 01:36:48 PM

slayer199: Hickory-smoked: Rolling Stone has actually always had serious political commentary. If you have counter arguments to the article, they'll have to be better than attacking the source.

Perhaps you missed my points.

First off, Rolling Stone is biased left and always has been. Secondly, they're a music magazine...they should stick with that (hence my comment about Kerrang).


I underlined the part where he dealt with your first point and bolded the part where he dealt with your second. Take an English class.
 
2012-10-05 01:40:13 PM

slayer199: Hickory-smoked: Rolling Stone has actually always had serious political commentary. If you have counter arguments to the article, they'll have to be better than attacking the source.

Perhaps you missed my points.

First off, Rolling Stone is biased left and always has been. Secondly, they're a music magazine...they should stick with that (hence my comment about Kerrang).

Finally, I don't care as I hate both the Democrats and Republicans and vote 3rd party like I have the last 20 years.


They do lean left. It doesn't mean when they report on things that are factually correct you get to see them as wrong.

I was speaking with a friend of mine about "Obama's America", that crap propaganda film. She is convinced I'm brainwashed by the left wing media. However, she did like to tell me how that movie began to show her how "it all made sense" with Obama and his "far left" policies. When I posted an article a linked article from the AP linked through Yahoo News basically tearing the facts in there apart, she went with the same excuse you just did "(it's) left and it always has been." and went about her day believing how I was the moron.

I repeat--even if it favors a left wing point of view, a fact is a fact. You don't have to like that, but that frankly doesn't change anything.

/csb
 
MFL
2012-10-05 01:40:27 PM
that was my nickname in highschool
Romney is the monkey fighter.

That's racism.

Hickory-smoked Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?

Really don't care. Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. But here's something to chew on.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." President Obama to a joint session of congress 2009.
www.theblaze.com

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" President Obama 2008
www.investors.com 

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya


The Obama administration is one big farking lie after another.

But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.
 
2012-10-05 01:43:26 PM

MFL: But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.


Are lemmings known to be eager to eat dog vomit? I can't say I've ever heard that.
 
2012-10-05 01:43:43 PM

slayer199: Finally, I don't care as I hate both the Democrats and Republicans and vote 3rd party like I have the last 20 years.


Then go away and stop dropping pointless turds in the thread.
 
2012-10-05 01:44:57 PM

MFL: Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on.


You're a liar and everything you say can now be dismissed out of hand as you are not a credible person.
 
2012-10-05 01:46:23 PM

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Romney: "If you vote for me, I promise you the cake."


Obviously, after reading this article, we have to conclude that the cake is a lie.
 
2012-10-05 01:47:54 PM

MFL: that was my nickname in highschool
Romney is the monkey fighter.

That's racism.

Hickory-smoked Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?

Really don't care. Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. But here's something to chew on.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." President Obama to a joint session of congress 2009.
[www.theblaze.com image 620x454]

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" President Obama 2008
[www.investors.com image 194x266] 

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya


The Obama administration is one big farking lie after another.

But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.


Obama made the deficit go down? HOW DARE HE!! Obama should be like Bush and cause the country to go into deficit, then grow that deficit to $1 Trillion.


From the BOMBSHELL email article

"No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August."

Keep pointing at shiat you don't understand, or even read.
 
2012-10-05 01:51:06 PM

MFL: that was my nickname in highschool
Romney is the monkey fighter.

That's racism.

Hickory-smoked Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?

Really don't care. Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. But here's something to chew on.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." President Obama to a joint session of congress 2009.
[www.theblaze.com image 620x454]

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" President Obama 2008
[www.investors.com image 194x266] 

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya


The Obama administration is one big farking lie after another.

But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.


Look--uh--you just went after the credibility of Rolling Stone, then you published an graph prepared by Republican opposition groups to Obamacare.

It probably will cost money. I'm smart and honest enough to say this: I don't know yet. You might want to take a page from that playbook, because you don't either.

As far as an infrastructure improvement, investing in the health of our citizens is at least a noble principle, something to which I can't say about the previous administrations overseas conflicts or tax cuts.

Lemmings eat dog vomit?
 
2012-10-05 01:56:04 PM

slayer199: Perhaps you missed my points.

First off, Rolling Stone is biased left and always has been I don't have one. Secondly, they're a music magazine...they should stick with that (hence my comment about Kerrang) I've never heard of Hunter S. Thompson.


FTFY
 
2012-10-05 01:58:14 PM
americans are too dumb/lazy to care about facts.. all they know is romeny was aggressive like a pit bull and obama just got run over

+1 romeny, +1 for alpha's
 
2012-10-05 02:01:01 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: That's our safeguard? One of those Congressional Supermajority Votes?

yeah . . .



Did you completely fail to read the very next farking line?
 
2012-10-05 02:05:59 PM
I'm not so sure the tactics that have worked in past elections are as effective this time around. Either voters have heard so many obvious lies about Obama for so long now, or they are skeptical about everyone to the point that they do at least some research into the claims. Virginia has been blanketed with attack ads on both Obama and Kaine, all full of obvious untruths or half-truths, but they both have healthy leads in the polls now. I guess another possibility is that the quantity of ads (and mailings, and robocalls) is so great that they obstinately support the opposite position.
 
2012-10-05 02:45:12 PM

MFL: that was my nickname in highschool
Romney is the monkey fighter.

That's racism.

Hickory-smoked Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?

Really don't care. Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. But here's something to chew on.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." President Obama to a joint session of congress 2009.
[www.theblaze.com image 620x454]

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" President Obama 2008
[www.investors.com image 194x266] 

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya


The Obama administration is one big farking lie after another.

But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.


Wait wait wait...you're blathering on about media bias, and then you post a hypothetical projection graph made by Republicans that is hosted on The Blaze, a right wing site owned by Glenn Beck?
 
2012-10-05 02:49:14 PM

readymix: MFL: that was my nickname in highschool
Romney is the monkey fighter.

That's racism.

Hickory-smoked Yeah, that's great. So what do you think about points made in the article?

Really don't care. Rolling stone political commentary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. But here's something to chew on.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." President Obama to a joint session of congress 2009.
[www.theblaze.com image 620x454]

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" President Obama 2008
[www.investors.com image 194x266] 

Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya


The Obama administration is one big farking lie after another.

But you lemmings eat it up like dog vomit.

Wait wait wait...you're blathering on about media bias, and then you post a hypothetical projection graph made by Republicans that is hosted on The Blaze, a right wing site owned by Glenn Beck?


I'll take Cognitive Disconnect for $500, Alex.
 
2012-10-05 02:59:23 PM

DoctorCal: The $90 Billion 'Into Wind and Solar' whopper was pretty big.


I think Obama took this one on the chin during the debate which is sad because it should have been one to easily reveal as a bullshiat claim by Romney.

I thought the same thing about the rationed care nonsense, too. And the $700 billion from medicare.

Just where the fark was Obama during this debate?
 
2012-10-05 02:59:39 PM
Lies. Little. White.
 
2012-10-05 03:00:13 PM
What "lies?" I thought he stomped Obama in the debate and his wife has already signed off on the White House decor.

He's practically walking in the front door. God the things I do for Fark.
 
2012-10-05 03:02:34 PM
And here I thought lying through your teeth in a debate was akin to a forfeit.

Silly me.
 
2012-10-05 03:02:41 PM

slayer199: Hickory-smoked: Rolling Stone has actually always had serious political commentary. If you have counter arguments to the article, they'll have to be better than attacking the source.

Perhaps you missed my points.

You didn't make any. You just unzipped and (after searching around for awhile) whipped it out and started waving it around.

First off, Rolling Stone is biased left and always has been. Secondly, they're a music magazine...they should stick with that (hence my comment about Kerrang).

Finally, I don't care as I hate both the Democrats and Republicans and vote 3rd party like I have the last 20 years.


Still waiting for the answer - how are they wrong? *Are* they wrong? 'Cause if your answer is still "It's Rolling Stone, Y'all!" then

bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
 
2012-10-05 03:05:03 PM

Cinaed: And here I thought lying through your teeth in a debate was akin to a forfeit.

Silly me.


This was a "get to know you" debate. Still, it's clear Obama clearly lost, and the liberal media is scrambling to find out "why."

/derp
 
2012-10-05 03:05:59 PM
Zeb Hesselgresser (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 806134
Account created: 2012-08-07 11:56:45


Welcome to Fark, election year troll alt. See you in 2016!
 
2012-10-05 03:07:59 PM
 
2012-10-05 03:19:07 PM

Jyster: Mitt Romney style


When he slaps the "47%" sign on the servant's back, I lol'd.
 
2012-10-05 03:30:28 PM

thurstonxhowell: I underlined the part where he dealt with your first point and bolded the part where he dealt with your second. Take an English class.


Lighten up Francis.

The point I was making is that I don't go to the Rolling Stone for political commentary. I read Rolling Stone for MUSIC commentary. My comment about Kerrang doing political commentary was deliberately meant as a hyperbole...which apparently escaped you.

I'm sure I can go to a right-leaning magazine and find "Facts" as well. It's political season...facts found are designed to fit a narrative. Remember the line: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" --Mark Twain. I didn't read TFA, nor do I need to. Did Romney lie? Sure. Did Obama lie? Sure. They're farking politicians and that's what they do. The point is that if anyone believes "their guy" is above that kind of nonsense, they're either being naive or deliberately blinded by their own bias.

I have no skin in this game as I haven't voted Democrat or Republican in 20 years and hold both parties in disdain. I'm just pointing out that if you believe Rolling Stone or DailyKos to be the sources of "factual" and "serious" commentary, it says more about your personal bias, than it does Rolling Stone magazine.
 
2012-10-05 03:31:50 PM

CheapEngineer: Still waiting for the answer - how are they wrong? *Are* they wrong? 'Cause if your answer is still "It's Rolling Stone, Y'all!" then


Hey, actually working here...

Did I actually say they were wrong? No.
 
2012-10-05 03:37:00 PM

JusticeandIndependence: They forgot one

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]


What was up with Romney's mouth during the debate? It looked like he had his lip waxed because it was beet red during the entire debate.
 
2012-10-05 03:37:04 PM

Diogenes: It's real. He just uses "Just for Mor-Men" gel.


Done in one. Well done, everybody.
 
2012-10-05 03:38:22 PM

slayer199: I'm just pointing out that if you believe Rolling Stone or DailyKos to be the sources of "factual" and "serious" commentary, it says more about your personal bias, than it does Rolling Stone magazine.


slayer199: Did I actually say they were wrong? No.


They aren't wrong, but can't be trusted as a source of facts.

Got it.
 
2012-10-05 03:41:26 PM

Soup4Bonnie: They aren't wrong, but can't be trusted as a source of facts.

Got it.


Call me cynical, but I don't trust most of what is passed off as "factual" during election season.
 
2012-10-05 03:54:43 PM

Soup4Bonnie: DoctorCal: The $90 Billion 'Into Wind and Solar' whopper was pretty big.

I think Obama took this one on the chin during the debate which is sad because it should have been one to easily reveal as a bullshiat claim by Romney.

I thought the same thing about the rationed care nonsense, too. And the $700 billion from medicare.

Just where the fark was Obama during this debate?


The best response to the "half of these green energy companies of gone bankrupt" claim:
Governor Romney seems to believe that 3 companies out of 26 is nearly half. Well, I guess that explains his budget numbers.
 
2012-10-05 03:56:24 PM

slayer199: Call me cynical, but I don't trust most of what is passed off as "factual" during election season.


Ok, you're a cynic. Since you're a libertarian, too, can I call you delusional, too?
 
2012-10-05 04:00:22 PM

slayer199: The point I was making is that I don't go to the Rolling Stone for political commentary. I read Rolling Stone for MUSIC commentary.


You read Rolling Stone for music commentary? Ouch. I'm sorry. That must be very embarrassing for you.
 
2012-10-05 04:02:18 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Ok, you're a cynic. Since you're a libertarian, too, can I call you delusional, too?


How is that delusional? Oh, because you disagree with the concept of libertarianism. Wow, you're so enlightened. I bow down to your willingness to maintain the status quo. Hooray for you.
 
2012-10-05 04:06:31 PM

thurstonxhowell: You read Rolling Stone for music commentary? Ouch. I'm sorry. That must be very embarrassing for you.


LOL. I'll confess...haven't read Rolling Stone as much as I did when I had a subscription 20+ years ago (along with Creem Magazine). I usually read Rolling Stone for the interviews (which are usually pretty good).
 
2012-10-05 04:10:21 PM

slayer199: Hooray for you.


I deserve three "hoorays" and a few "Hip-hip"s as well. Shoddy, but what can one expect from a cranky delusional cynic?
 
2012-10-05 04:12:30 PM

slayer199: Soup4Bonnie: Ok, you're a cynic. Since you're a libertarian, too, can I call you delusional, too?

How is that delusional? Oh, because you disagree with the concept of libertarianism. Wow, you're so enlightened. I bow down to your willingness to maintain the status quo. Hooray for you.


Boy Howdy!
 
2012-10-05 04:13:06 PM
*sigh*

slayer199: thurstonxhowell: You read Rolling Stone for music commentary? Ouch. I'm sorry. That must be very embarrassing for you.

LOL. I'll confess...haven't read Rolling Stone as much as I did when I had a subscription 20+ years ago (along with Creem Magazine). I usually read Rolling Stone for the interviews (which are usually pretty good).


Boy Howdy!
 
2012-10-05 04:39:03 PM

whidbey: This was a "get to know you" debate.


I'm sure Mitt will have to re-re-reintroduce himself to us, again, next week too.
And that doesn't preclude the 'not lying' part of a debate.
 
2012-10-05 06:35:12 PM

Cinaed: I'm sure Mitt will have to re-re-reintroduce himself to us, again, next week too.


Next time he will be Massachusetts-governor-candidate Mitt, favoring abortion, gay rights, and a ban on assault weapons.
 
2012-10-05 10:25:35 PM
So I did some rough number crunching based off of data I got from Politfact. This is how their truthiness turned out for me.

Obama:
True: 2/14.3%
Mostly True: 4/28.6%
Half True: 5/37.7%
Mostly False: 1/7.1%
False: 2/14.3%

Total Percent Truthfulness*: 54.4%


Romney:
True: 2/11.1%
Mostly True: 5/27.8%
Half True: 2/11.1%
Mostly False: 4/22.2%
False: 5/27.8%

Total Percent Truthfulness*: 42.5%

*The Total Percent Truthfulness was found by adding 100% the value of true, 75% of Mostly True, 50% of Half True, and 25% of Mostly True. False was ignored.
 
2012-10-06 12:50:16 AM

DoctorCal: Boy Howdy!


images.gibson.com

THAT was a Rock and Roll magazine.
 
2012-10-06 08:09:42 AM

beenjammin: *The Total Percent Truthfulness was found by adding 100% the value of true, 75% of Mostly True, 50% of Half True, and 25% of Mostly True. False was ignored.


A better method would be to deduct points for False and Mostly False statements (since lies shouldn't merely be ignored; they should be held against you).
 
2012-10-08 01:58:15 AM

Dr_luckyz: His side of the debate consisted of:

1) Lies
2) Vague concepts without substance
3) Whining that it should be his turn to speak


But enough about Obama
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report