So, tell me Sooner: Obama's debate lies and stretches of the truth don't bother you?
What lies are you talking about? I've posted a plethora of sources in the forums highlighting Romney falsehoods.
Keep in mind, Politifact just ruled a Romney claim about 20 million less people insured as 'false', even though they admit the report does actually use the 20 million figure.
On the other end of the claim, Obama citing a study that only looks at the tax cuts Romney is proposing, and doesn't look at reduced deductions, is called 'half true'.
So just keep that bias in mind.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ness-deba/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … er-any-ti/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -retirees/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -trillion/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … n-tax-cut/
Also, what about Obama saying that allowing the states to work individually to solve education problems worked well, but allowing states to work individually to solve healthcare problems won't work well.
What about Obama saying that private healthcare won't be able to match costs of government, but that private healthcare has been able to innovate and provide the best care for lower costs.
What about Obama saying the oil industry gets $4 billion per year?
Health care isn't education. It's a human right all people have a right to access.
Both candidates suck on health care, but Obamacare makes an attempt a universal coverage, whereas Romney does no such thing, and Romney lied about pre-existing conditions, which his adviser later admitted he had no intention of covering.
I'd be okay with states experimenting as long as universal care was still provided. Obama explained that block granting Medicaid to the states would lead to lower care for all, because states wouldn't have the same funding the feds do. It's pretty obvious what the intention is behind doing such a thing.
Obama was attacking oil subsidies, saying we should end them. I'm not sure why you even brought this up? You could attack him for not ending them when he had a Democratic congress, and I would agree. Yet, that isn't the criticism. Romney DEFENDED oil subsidies.
Furthermore, the tax policy center is non-partisan. Politifact is off on the deduction point. Romney is the one keeping the fuel alive by refusing to be specific. Why are you putting your faith in a politician who refuses to say how his plan is supported to work? I don't trust the government that much! To each their own though.
Where did Obama explicitly lie? He said he would cut the deficit in half, and he didn't. Romney was correct on that point.
Jon Stewart sums it up nicely- http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/04/j … o-minutes/
That doesn't matter. The point is, states are better equipped to deal with their problems on an individual level, than trying to craft a one-size-fits-all federal solution for 50 unique situations.
Education is a perfect example. States know better what they need individually, and they have been improving. Why don't you think states know what they need in regards to healthcare?
If you have 50 states working to solve their problems, you have 50 unique viewpoints and competitors. It will be pretty clear if something works well in one state compared to anohter state's approach. Competition and all that.
I say let the states make their own decisions. I believe in the Constitution, but we ignore the 10th Amendment.
My point is, Obama lied about the figure. I'm sure it doesn't matter at all to you, because only Romney's mistakes matter, right?
Second, Romney didn't defend the subsidy, he put it in perspective, and said that it is on the table. Putting it in perspective was important to show the hypocrisy of Obama. Obama brought it up like it is a big, bad subsidy for the big, evil oil companies, and he wants to get rid of it. Romney deftly showed that Obama had no problem with giving 50 years' worth of oil subsidies to green-energy companies, many of which went bankrupt.
So, if Obama doesn't approve of oil subsidies, why should he approve of 50x more green-subsidies?
He has said how his plan is supposed to work. He said every deduction is on the table. Every one. Isn't that just as effective as listing 'x' number of deductions individually? It's more effective.
Plus, Romney's record shows that he is willing to make those hard choices. He raised revenues as Governor, and he cut spending. People didn't like it, but he did what had to be done. So, based on his history, and based on his plan, there is no reason not to trust him.
He worked with a D-legislation to balance the budget and make compromises on getting things done. Now he is saying he will do the same thing, but you don't think you can trust him? Why?
Didn't you read the links? Or do you want me to go through the transcript line-by-line?
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de … larations/
They both stated falsehoods, Sooner, but only Romney's seem to bother you.
Both of them bother me. I wish we had another choice or the ability to vote none of the above. Now that would send a message. Can you imagine a couple of elections where none of the above won the election.
I really don't like either of them and will vote for the Green Party.
I can't believe the way the game of politics is played in America. They cause fighting between groups of Americans and then laugh all the way to the bank. It would be so nice if all the American people would wake up and refuse to play their political spin game anymore.
But if it's any con 'sell' ation... It is a worldwide problem and one that effects most countries...
Our PM is currently touring the Movie Moguls in Hollywood, while he hides from the NZ public and his denial that he knew anything about the FBI - NZ Police spying and subsequent raid on Kim Dotcom the founder of Megaupload, who was put on the hit list by US Politicians, Movie companies and others with vested interest in controlling the Internet!
The whole affair has been ruled by a NZ High Court Judge as being an illegal action... I've seen crabs on the beach scurry and sidestep better than our leader, over his involvement!
I suspect neither of these 2 candidates would care to publicly debate/discuss the potential lawsuits that will shortly (within the next term) follow the taking down of Megaupload and their getting caught for cheating!
I would vote Green if they were on the ballot in Oklahoma; however, in terms of the debate itself, one side was clearly making it up as he went along.
The big liar's biggest lies:
“It’s not easy to debate a liar,” complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate – and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life, thanks to the inviolable taboo in the mainstream media against calling out a liar (unless, of course, he lies about sex).
Yes, President Obama ought to have been better prepared for Romney’s barrage of blather and bull. The Republican’s own chief advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, had glibly described the “Etch-a-Sketch” strategy they would deploy in the general election, to make swing voters forget the “severe conservative” of the primaries. Romney executed that pivot on Wednesday night, but he could do so only by spouting literally dozens of provably fraudulent assertions — which various diligent fact-checkers proceeded to debunk.
Knowing that he is vulnerable on taxation and the budget for many reasons, including his own peculiar and secretive tax history, Romney made several contradictory claims regarding his economic plan. He has no plan to lavish $5 trillion in tax breaks on the wealthy. He won’t cut taxes for the rich at all. He vowed to provide tax relief to the middle class and won’t increase their tax burden. He swore that his tax cuts would not increase the deficit.
Finally, he said that with all of that, he would grow the economy enough to shrink and eventually eliminate the deficit — without raising taxes on anyone. And he claimed that there are several studies proving he can fulfill all of these conflicting promises — even though he refuses to provide any specific tax proposals beyond a broad tax cut.
There is no study proving that Romney can do what he promised – and among his lies is his description of editorials in Tthe Wall Street Journal as “studies” of his plan. The most complete and unrefuted study of his claims remains the Tax Policy Center’s bipartisan report on the Romney plan, which shows that there is simply no way to pay for his $5 trillion, across-the-board tax cut without raising taxes on the middle class. None of the alternative studies he has cited proves otherwise – and some of them actually amass additional evidence that he is wrong.
Undoubtedly he knows all that. He knows that eliminating the estate tax, a mainstay of his plan, will benefit the rich enormously and almost nobody else.
He also knows that when he claims economic growth alone will erase the deficit, without raising taxes, he is inventing impossible numbers. As The National Memo’s Howard Hill demonstrated yesterday, the assumptions behind his claims are ridiculous. For the numbers to work, he would have to create not 12 million jobs, as he promised to do by 2016, but 162 million — more than the total current U.S. workforce. Or else the jobs created would have to pay more than $443,000 per year on average — which is even less likely than Rafalca winning the dressage medal at the next Summer Olympics.
At the same time, Romney accused the president of increasing the federal debt by an amount that is “almost as much…as all prior presidents combined.” This charge, which he leveled before, is patently false. The prior debt, mostly run up by George W. Bush and his Republican congressional cronies, stood above $10 trillion when Obama took office. That is another churlish lie that Romney must know is false. The debt is now just over $16 trillion, mostly due to costs incurred by Bush and by Obama’s successful effort to prevent a Depression.
Having essentially disavowed the health care reforms that were his sole significant achievement in his single term in elected office, the former Massachusetts Governor suddenly claimed ownership of Romneycare. Presumably, this will make him more appealing to swing voters, too. But he still wants to do away with Obamacare, except for the parts that are popular.
For this maneuver, he must misrepresent his own proposed federal health care overhaul. He says there will be no change to Medicare for current beneficiaries, but repealing the Affordable Care Act will deprive them of free preventive care, increase their costs for prescription drugs, and do irreparable harm to Medicaid, which provides assisted care for nine million destitute Medicare patients.
But Romney has been lying about the Affordable Care Act for years, according to his own former advisor Jonathan Gruber, the chief intellectual architect of Romneycare. Nearly a year ago, Gruber complained that Romney’s attempt to draw a sharp distinction between the Massachusetts legislation and Obamacare was phony. He told Capital New York in November 2011 that “they’re the same fucking bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying.”
Lying again? Indeed, the falsehoods flowed on every conceivable subject. Concerning energy, Romney claimed that “about half” of the renewable energy firms that received federal assistance under Obama administration programs went bankrupt — a claim that cannot be justified by any measure. Of the 28 firms that got federal loans or loan guarantees, three went under, representing under 11 percent — and less than 5 percent of the funds committed. (This assertion was so blatantly untrue that the Romney campaign withdrew it the next day.)
The examples cited above hardly exhaust the deep well of dishonesty in the Republican campaign. What Romney has done presents a fundamental challenge to the American political media. Will news outlets hold him accountable for baldly misleading voters? Are they capable of confronting his continuous mendacity with basic facts? Some have made a beginning, while others have scarcely tried. If that isn’t their responsibility, then they no longer have any purpose at all.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/highly-deba … gest-lies/
Ralph, just let me point out one thing to show that your source isn't trustworthy.
Romney said Obama increased the debt held by the public almost as much as every other president. Your article uses the total gross federal debt, which is a different figure.
So who is lying now?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by Susie Lehto3 months ago
Trey Gowdy posted this article link on Facebook minutes ago. It is the beginning of the end of Obamacare and a legacy.* http://thirdestatenewsgroup.com/breakin … d-to-know/The repeal legislation will go to...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
Just thought I'd get a jump on the MSM. Many right-leaning reporters are already saying if Obama shows up tonight, the left will declare him as the ultimate, supreme, audacious, awesome, comeback winner. lol
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 … lp00000009Um...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.