Breaking!!!! Lie Of The Year That Wasn’t!!!! Romney Vindicated!! Pulitzer Prize Winning Politifact Now Politihack!!!


Well, well, well……… The lie of the year turns out to be the truth of the year and the liars are the ones who called team Romney liars. 

You’ll never guess who’s opening a production plant in China……. well, okay, it isn’t a hard question to ask aware, mentally cogent people.  We already knew this was in the works.

Team Romney came out with an ad during the presidential campaign …

The ad simply states nothing but truth.  Obama took Chrysler to bankruptcy and demanded that it be sold to the Italians (Fiat), and they would build JEEPs in China. 

Politifact, to ever be known as Politihack called this the Lie of the Year for 2012.  It’s strange that a leftist rag would trust business executives when it serves their purposes.  Fiat execs had denied they were planning to move anything to China.  It’s likely they did this because Romney probably wasn’t going to give them any US taxpayer money to send back to Italy.  But, Obama likes to throw our money away, so Fiat and Politihack moved to help tank the Romney campaign.  And later did a little jig by naming the ad “Lie of the Year”. 

But, I’ve been watching and waiting, because I figured that Fiat would quietly announce a Jeep plant opening in China soon.  Well, they haven’t opened, yet.  But they will.

From Reuters in Milan…….

Fiat, Chrysler to produce Jeep in China: paper

MILAN (Reuters) – Italian carmaker Fiat <FIA.MI> and its U.S. unit Chrysler are set to sign a new agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group Co <601238.SS> to produce the Jeep vehicle for the Chinese market, Il Corriere della Sera said on Sunday.

In an unsourced article, the Corriere said the head of Fiat and Chrysler Sergio Marchionne could announce the agreement at the Detroit auto show, which kicks off on Monday.

Under the agreement, off-road vehicles under the Jeep brand will be produced at GAC’s Canton factory, the paper said.

Fiat, which declined to comment the report, already has a joint venture with GAC.

The agreement does not envisage moving any jobs from Chrysler’s main Jeep factory in Toledo, Ohio, the Corriere said.

In October, Marchionne said Jeep production would not be moved from the United States to China.

Fiat is betting on strong demand for its Jeep not just in the United States but also in foreign markets such as Russia, India and China.

(Reporting by Stephen Jewkes; Editing by Catherine Evans)

LOL I love the verbiage…… “does not envisage” which is equal to “hasn’t ruled out”. 

I reached out to the author of the “Lie of the Year” article for a reaction, and asked if they had the courage to print a retraction, but as of this posting we haven’t received a response. 

I guess to win a Pulitzer, one has to be an unashamed politically motivated group intent on deceiving the American public. 

This entry was posted in Economics, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Breaking!!!! Lie Of The Year That Wasn’t!!!! Romney Vindicated!! Pulitzer Prize Winning Politifact Now Politihack!!!

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    The agreement does not envisage moving any jobs from Chrysler’s main Jeep factory in Toledo, Ohio, the Corriere said.

    Cause we plan to omit those Ohio Jobs

  2. leftinbrooklyn says:

    In the end, it’s not about being Republican or Democrat. Or Liberal or Conservative. Those are really just subset labels of the overriding characteristic: fantasy-based or reality-based. And in the end, reality is always going to be reality, no matter how many times you try to vote it away with fantasy.

  3. jimash1 says:

    I am reminded of a song .
    For politihack and Candy Crowley

  4. Tony Duncan says:


    Interesting because I still consider this to be the lie of the year. it is the main fact I used when calling people to vote against Romney and the republicans this year leading up to the elections (oh and climate change of course).
    I know of NO source that said that Jeep was NOT going to build a factory in China. In fact I read numerous sources that specifically acknowledged the fact. the KEY issue is that Romney said that Jeep was going to MOVE production of jeep to China, implying that ALL Jeep employees would lose their jobs. Again I know of NO acknowledgement from Romney or his team that corrected that statement. I also remember that Chrysler and Jeep made pubic statements calling Romney a liar, that he had absolutely NO valid source for that claim, and that they had to send emails to their employees to reassure them that Romny’s statment was a flat out lie and that they were NOT moving production to China.
    Now if you beleive that corporations do not have a right to make a profit by building plants in foreign countires producing products for those citizens to buy, I can well understand your outrage.
    I was outraged that Romeny was so desperate to win that he was willing to tell a blatant lie to voters in a swing state that has a large number of workers whose jobs depend on that industry.
    Yes, there was nothing that was an outright lie in the commercial, but as most commentators pointed out, it suplemented his speech, and it again implied that jeep workers would be losing their jobs. What other POSSIBLE reason could his team have had in making the commercial and airing it In Ohio?
    Do you REALLY believe that Romeny wanted people to know that Jeep would be expanding and possibly be making a larger profit under Obama? Did the ad say that while no jobs were being “moved” overseas there was a possibility that jobs MIGHT be lost here. No, of course not. That is not effective politicking. Yet that is the defense you are making for the ad, as you ignore the statement, widely broadcast that the ad was supporting.

    • suyts says:

      Tony! How nice to hear from you, again!

      Tony, the ad is in the post. Give it a listen. There’s nothing in there but the truth. Recall, that Obama made much political hay in noting that Bain capital had businesses making products in China….. implying that Romney, by being tied to Bain was moving jobs overseas. This was an effective ad, highlighting the hypocrisy and stating nothing but truth.

      How is it that truth, regardless of the implications can be considered the “Lie of the Year” when so many blatant actual lies were told?

      I’m not outraged at companies making money overseas, you know I encourage this. I’m outraged at the hypocrisy and duplicity of the opponents of Romney who would say implications are a lie when they’re the truth all the while the opposition would state demonstrable lies and yet still maintain the support of so many condemning Romney for “implications”.

      Does honesty matter to you or not?

    • DirkH says:

      Wasn’t by far the biggest lie of the year what the WH said about Benghazi? Or rather a firework of neverending biggest lies. Even after Benghazi you still remember this inconsequential ad as being a bigger lie than all the lies about Benghazi?

      • suyts says:

        Apparently, they don’t recognize their lies as lies…. or as even implications or something. Romney tells the truth, is vindicated by the people disputing what he said. Benghazi, the imaginary protest over a film no one ever heard of….. but even if we’re only talking campaign…. what about Romney killing ex-steel worker spouses?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I am not sure of this nad I coubt we will ever know, but an issue that seems to be ignored in this case is the fact that this was a location of covert CIA operations. I find it odd that supposed right wing patriots have been so adamament about publicizing the workings of our secret intelligence services. As for it being a series of outrageous lies. I am nopt convinced of that. RThere certainly were many lies told about Obama somehow Wanting our people to be killed for some as yet bizarrely unexplained reason. the official explanations of the situation sound quite resonable to me. there was incompetence, bad communication and bureaucratic confusion. No steps were taken specificall yby the Obama admoinistration to prevent help from coming. it is quite possible that the State department did not provide sufficient security, and being a known unstable area with known islamic terrorists, I see that as potentially a serious mistake that deserves condemnation maybe up to the president. But I have a sneaking suspicion that clandestine agendas were in opperation that will never allow the truth to come out.

        • DirkH says:

          Rationalize, rationalize… yeah… Romney’s campaign ad was THE lie of the year… sure… Oh I got another one if Benghazi won’t do, repeated by all Democrats the entire year… that the US is in an economic recovery.

        • philjourdan says:

          A shame. But the truth is out there, forever buried by a willing press that seeks to subvert the news, not publish it. What we already know shows either gross incompetence on the part of Obama (that is a given in any event), or malfeasance (the more logical conclusion given the data available.

          The only ones that say “doubt we will ever know” (allowing for your gross typo) are those that cannot connect the dots. A charge made 11 years ago that still has traction.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I have listened to the ad a number of times, as well as the text of Romney’s speech. There is nothing in the politifact article that I see to be in any way incorrect. And apparently you see nothing in my comment that is factually incorrect.
      I know you are not outraged by companies making money overseas, but the ONLY reasonable justification for the ad was exactly that, which makes absolutely no sense. WHY did Romney make that ad. there is nothing about Jeep making cars in China that hurts the US economy. In fact it potentially decreases the profits of other nations companies making more profit there. Th ONLY reaosn for the ad was to follow up on the Romney speec and the lies in the right wing blogosphere as accurately explained in the politifact article. And the article exactly conforms to my understanding of the way the whole episode went down as it happend, and how it stoked my outrage at the total disregard for reality that the romeny campaign engaged in at the last minute in hopes of not losing Ohio.
      You are focusing on ONLY the camapaign commercial and not the whole series of events. If it was ONLY the commercial i would just say it was a brazen piece of manipulative advertizing using selected facts in order to give the impression of something that was a lie. By itself I would not give it the “Lie of the year” but the politifact article is describing the entire event, form the Blloburg article to the distortion by Drudge and otehrs and then to Romney Blatantly lying at a campaign event. the fac tthat they THEN released the commercial and NEVER corrected their lie is rather despicable, and i think it seriously hurt them in Ohio.
      if you can show me the Romeny camps correction of the statement that Jeep was moving all production to China, I will consider that it is not quite as horrific a lie.

      • suyts says:

        “There is nothing in the politifact article that I see to be in any way incorrect. “

        BS, the article calls the ad a “lie”. But, the ad is entirely factual. We’re not having a discussion about what the word “is” means. You are rationalizing lying.

        I know you are not outraged by companies making money overseas, but the ONLY reasonable justification for the ad was exactly that, which makes absolutely no sense.

        Tony, I know you’re a sharp guy and can figure this out. This ad was a counter to the many senseless ads Obama made criticizing Romney for once being tied to a company that made money overseas. Or, do you not see the hypocrisy and duplicity in the ads Obama made, and yet, criticized Romney for the Jeep ad? It makes perfect sense. Is companies producing overseas a good thing or a bad thing? You can’t attack one without the other. Wait….. only rational people would see that. Most Dems, obviously don’t qualify in the regard.

        “You are focusing on ONLY the camapaign commercial and not the whole series of events.” —— Yes, because politifact called the ad a lie. It isn’t. It was the truth. The truth is not a lie except in the Orwellian minds of the left.

        That politicians lie on the campaign trail isn’t all that remarkable. I’ve documented probably hundreds of lies from Team Obama. Heck, they never acknowledged their obvious violation of election laws, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

        Lie of the year? You can’t tie a truthful ad to a political speech that contained untruths and then call the ad a lie. The ad itself was not a lie but statements of fact.

        All the while, you manage to look the other way while Obama continues to claim no tax increases for the middle class even though we all knew that was a lie in the campaign trail? Now it has come to fruition and still crickets…. but when Jeep starts production in China it’s still a lie even though the ad said exactly and only that. …. what ever.

      • DirkH says:

        There’s also nothing wrong with funding a Finnish car factory with your US tax money, right? You know I’m not American, I just watch that cesspool of corruption in the WH and I’m just glad that this time the US doesn’t build up a Nazi operation in Germany like the Ford foundation, GE and Standard Oil did in the 30ies.

        Your progressives have become slightly less murderous over the years.

      • Jim Masterson says:

        Boeing opened a 787 production line in South Carolina. Even though the Washington state production lines are at full capacity and the South Carolina production line is supplemental, the Washington state unions are opposed to the “production move.” Boeing’s moving production out of Washington state.


      • Tony Duncan says:


        I completely disagree with your interpretation. The politifact article almost exactly confirms my understanding as the events unfolded. there is no information you have supplied that, in my views changes those facts.
        The lie is that Romney said “”I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China,” he said, to boos from the audience. There was absolutely no evidence given to support his blatant lie. The lie was immediately condemned by the press in Ohio, and the companies whose employees. Neither Romney nor his camp corrected the blatant lie. YOu can try to spin it all you want, and you are certyainly able to say it is not an important or the biggest lie of the year.. But until you can show me a retraction or admission that it was a mistake, all the spin, and ignroing what really happened is ony going to play to the choir.
        As I wrote above the ONLY possible purpose fo the ad was to make people belive that jobs were going to be lost in Ohio. If it had ONLY been the ad, and if the ad had not come out after all the right wing distortion of the truth, I might agree that it was your typical misleading political ad. Something both sides are quite adept at.
        Phil squirming that moving doesn’t mean moving is pretty silly however, and Seattle workers compalining about Boeing in SC has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Romeny lied. it was a lie that was already being spread through the right wing blogosphere. the lie was designed to be a last ditch effort to try to turn a state they were losing. And ad was part of that last ditch effort to win an election through fraudulent means.
        you can argue all you want about whatever you want that Obama has done that is worse, but trying to paint this as anything other than reality just makes you appear incapable of rational discussion on these matters

        • suyts says:

          Tony, then the ad wasn’t the lie, the speech would be the lie. And, this is what I’m incredulous about.

          Tony, do you not understand the dangers of labeling truths lies and lies truths? It can’t be the “Lie of the Year” when team Obama engaged in much more egregious behavior….. which none was ever retracted. It can’t be the “Lie of the Year” when it was nothing but factual statements.

          Why can’t you call things for what they are instead of inventing some Orwellian world where facts are lies and lies are facts?

          Incapable of rational discussion? How could I possibly have a rational discussion with a person who insists facts are lies?

          You are obsessing over an untruth Romney stated once in a speech and then equating and conflating that with a factual ad. Then supporting the label that the factual ad was the “Lie of the Year”.

          How about an ad that told an actual lie for “Lie of the Year”? Or is it that lies don’t rise to the level of lying that facts rise to in the world of an Obama supporter?

          I don’t have a problem identifying the misstatements made in a speech as a lie. I’m a bit incredulous about the reasons you give that makes it the “Lie of the Year” when team Obama, for the entire duration of the election campaign, kept implying stating that Bain Capital, thus Romney by proxy, was moving jobs to China.

          How do you reconcile this in your mind? If the factual ad was the “Lie of the Year”, then what was tying Romney to Bain’s actions in China well after Romney quit running Bain? Lie of the Century? What was the ad insinuating Romney was killing people? What was the assertion there was a protest in Benghazi? …… You know, actual lies.

          Do you not understand the distinction between a speech and an ad? A lie and a statement of fact? And you say I’m incapable of a rational discussion?

        • Tony Duncan says:


          you need to reread the politifact article. not much more point in discussing this if we cannot agree on what the reality actually is. You will keep poinnting to the ad, and I will keep pointing to the lies that spawned the ad. politifact was citing the whole deliberate falsified framework, and you are using the fact of a deliberate decpetion designed specifically to reinfroce the lie as if it is somehow an isolated thing that has no context. zyou have yet to show that anhting I have wirtten is incorrect. , and you are bringing up other issues that are tangential.
          Since you and no one else on here has show anything I have written to be incorrect and I see no flaws in my logic. Since you have pointed out nothing in the politifact article that is in error, and my understadning was reached independant of the politifact article before it was written. And since my understanding coincides with both completley accepted understanding of the usage of the english language, I cannot change my mind about this just becuase you and your supporters are insisting that the question be looked at in a very distorted way.
          The fact that people like Phil have to totally mangle english definitions in order to try to paint the exact opposite picutre and that you have to contend that the fact Jeep did not absolutely say no jobs would ever be lost in Ohio as somehow are rationaizations for a blatant easily disproved lie that was immediataly discredited by the company that he was accusing, and that has the source of the lie easily be shown as NOT saying what Romney, Drude and others said it said, make your further support of this unsupportable
          the fact is that bain capitoll CAN be shown to have been engaged in practices that resulted in jobs going to China. you can certainly argue that there is nothing wrong with that, and you can argue that it is one sided, but it coems nowhere close to being a blatant lie.
          As I said you can argue agaisnt this all you want, but barring some evidence that Romney’s statment was NOT a lie. i.e. Jeep shuts down production in the US, or evidence that Romeny’s campaign EVER said anything that conceded this was innacurate, I will continue to believe it was a lie, and it was calculated as part of a broad strategy to completely lie to the americna public about soemthing easily shown to be a lie, because they were desperate and thought that if they won, the lie would not matter and if they lost the lie would not matter. I considet that as qualifying for lie of the year.

        • philjourdan says:

          Prestidigitation! The hobby of choice of democrats. Do not look at what I do, look at what the hands say! An ad is a speech and a speech is an ad, Up is down and down is up!

          Tony, you contradict yourself. You stated earlier that words have meanings. Then you deny it. An ad is not a speech. Period. Poltifact lied. And your lies are even more pathetic.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, I have easily refuted both yours and Politifact’s positions. Any rational person could see this.

          It was the “ad”, not the speech, which was labeled as the “Lie of the Year”. The ad can’t be a lie because it stated nothing but truths. I don’t know why this is hard for you or anyone else to understand. As far as not demonstrating anything you’ve stated as incorrect, your whole premise is incorrect!

          You talk to me about context, but here, your placing context above actual words in meaning. It’s a distortion of the English language and basic concepts of honesty. Did Romney lie? Yes, and perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. Did the ad lie? Nope.

          But, that’s not what this post or conversation is about. Again, that our politicians lie to us isn’t earth shattering. I’ve probably hundreds of documented lies from team Obama.

          The thing I find most objectionable is the willingness to condemn without confronting one’s own advocacy, actions, and words. Even today, you, you are engaged in exactly the same tact you are accusing team Romney of doing.
          You say Bain can be shown moving jobs from the US to China? Okay, that could be factual, you don’t give details so I can’t know for sure. But, what you’re not saying, what you’re not correcting, is the lie that Romney had anything to do with it. Why? I couldn’t possibly know. The election is over and team Obama’s lies, obviously, were much more powerful than the Romney lie in the speech. But, somehow, in your mind Romney’s lie was “Lie of the Year”. How do you reconcile this? Because Romney wanted to win Ohio? Okay. What about the lies team Obama told in order to win? Those can’t be “Lies of the Year” because they were more effective? But, that’s only comparing election campaigning which isn’t what Politifact confines themselves to. Supposedly, they look at all sorts of lies, and yet, the ad, which contained no lies, is labeled “Lie of the Year.”

          Look, if Politifact wishes to quit pretending to be unbiased, then I’m good with that. I was an advocate for Romney. I’m partisan. No apologies there. Poltifact, and you are partisan, only you both are engaged in pretending that you’re objective in this case when, clearly, neither of you are. Which, in and of itself is a lie to other people or yourselves. How’s that for some “reality”?

          I suppose the lesson here is that the left embraces brazen lies as truths and if a Repub is to win any of the left’s votes in an election, he’s going to have to be able to lie with more brazen dishonesty, rather than leave a factual ad to implications. God knows an ad factually stating China is going to open a Jeep factory is much worse than implying that Romney was killing people’s spouses…… and then having the Obama campaign brazenly and openly lie about violating election laws. Or, is the context of the several lies told about that whole debacle simply ignored because …..?????? Lie of the Year? Yes, it is way worse than lying about an imaginary protest in which Americans died. It’s a way worse lie than blaming the imaginary protest on an exercise of free speech, a film that no one ever heard of. Lie of the Year? And you have the audacity to talk to me about reality, deception, falsified frameworks, and blatant lies and most of all the English language? You’re a hoot!

          Four words. Duplicity, double standards, hypocrisy.

          Tony, you should reconsider your position in this discussion. It is untenable. Please understand what this untenable position encourages and accepts.

          Tell me, what is the criteria for “Lie of the Year”, in your mind? Better yet, maybe you should simply ask yourself that question and think on it for a bit.

        • Me says:

          Me, I say “Lie of the Year” is this, “well, I would not only eat my hat, but I would be happy to start believing that the media was absolutely willing to do anything underhanded to defeat Romney.”

        • suyts says:

          No doubt. Given the ample evidence that the media would and did just about anything and everything underhanded to defeat Romney, I’m not sure if Word from On High came down and personally addressed Tony that he’d believe it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Uh, Tony – the Poltifact lie of the year was not on Romney’s mis-statement, but on the ad. Try again, Even your spin is broken. Next time. leave the scare crow at home.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I think you all need to reread the politifat article again, and see waht it actually says. they are taking the position I take that the lie was Romney’s speech, that was never retracted, and that the Ad’s SOLE purpose was to maintain the same lie. there is nothing in the ad that is of ANY value to the campaign unless that is the point. As Ihave said that is propaganda, which uses limited truth to maintain a lie.
          Agian i don;t have time to address all these details. You make some valid points, and you are now at least acknowldeging that Romey lied.
          I certainly have no great love of ANY politician’s campaigns, they all lie and manipulate and distort and create false frameworks. One has to look at many different sources and make judgements of lesser evil.
          JAmes, neither you nor any one here has refuted ANY of my positions. In fact no one has countered any of the facts or logical positions that come from those facts. And I take comfort in the fact that a majority of americans did not buy into your one sided perspective. the title of your post is itself a piece of progoganda. As I said no one ever questioned that Jeep was opening a factory in China, your trumpeting that never questioned fact is propaganda and completely at odds with the reality of the issue. You continually ignore what the politifact article actually said. it was quite comprehensive and did not ignore any relevant facts that I am aware of and no one here has raised any relevant facts about the article.
          You are quite entitled to consider it partisan to pick that as the lie of the year, but at least you acknowledge that Romeny outright lied and likely he did so purposefully as pure opportunism.
          Something you certainly would not have done had I not written over a thosand words sticking to the facts and realtity

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, get a spell checker, or get off the dope.

          And of course they are in CYA. That does not mean you have to be in KTA. Try having an original thought of your own.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, that’s entirely wrong. Politifact called the ad that stated Jeep was going to open a plant in China a lie. You can rationalize, justify, wordsmith, contextualize, and any other way you want to view it, but this is what Politifact stated. It is in their headline. They called the ad a lie. It has now been proven that the ad was not a lie. End of story.

        • Tony Duncan says:


          you are wrongg. READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE. You posted the link to it. The lie of the year was the entire sordid desperate attempt to get the electorate in Ohio to believe that jeep was closing production in the US and MOVING it all to CHINA. the article very clearly and accurately gives the timeline and explains what actually happened. there is nothing that you or anyone has written that gives any facts or information of any sort that contradicts waht the article wrote.
          Your post is a lie in saying that Romey is vindicated. he is shown to be a blatnat liar and one unwilling to retract that lie, becuase it was his last desperate hope to win Ohio. if he acknowledged the lie it would have doomed his campaign there. By NOt acknowledging the lie he made it possible for fanatic haters of Obama to pretend he did not lie and people like you to pist completely worng posts like this one.
          the fact that there were no outright lies in the ad was acknowledged by every one. in fact it was repeatedly pointed out that technically the facts were ture but the ad was completely false in it’s message “PolitiFact and other fact-checkers weighed in and said the ad was inaccurate. As they said themselves and pointed out what otehr people said about the ad in isolation “PolitiFact rated it Pants on Fire because it “strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.”” You are just supporting propoganda by maintaining otherwise. the Politifact article contains no misinformation and includes all the relevant information about this issue. Read it again. the lie fo the year was about the whole sordid way the campaing played out the lie not just the isolated ad. Your attempts to whitewash the events are entertaining but meaningless.
          Again if the ad had been made in isolation without romney’s lie and the corresponding right wing lies that Romeny based it on (which i am pretty confident his handlers knew were lies themselves, though they could have been just scrambling in desperation and didn;t care so didn’t bother to check) it owuld hav ebeen typical political distortion that all politician’s do> it would ahve been condemned and shown to be totally misleading, and i would have been mildly outraged, but it would not have been nearly such a big deal.

        • philjourdan says:

          The lie of the year was the Romney killing spouse when we know:
          #1 – Romney was running the Salt Lake Olympics at the time
          #2 – The woman had insurance at the time
          #3 – Stephanie Cutter coordinated the lie
          #4 – Stephanie cutter directly reported to Obama

          That is the lie of the year. Politifact has only proven that it is Poltihack. And you have proven that you lack integrity as, unlike myself, you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. And no one here believes you to be omniscient.

        • suyts says:

          I only got half-way through your diatribe before I had to evacuate the content of my stomach.

          Let me try a new concept on you. “It is what it is”

          There is nothing you can say or write, nor it there anything Politfact can say or write which makes the Romney ad false. It simply can’t be done. Every assertion in the ad is true.

          I’ve read the article. I understand context. Because I understand context I know the verbiage of the ad is true. There is nothing you can say nor Politifact can say to make it untrue.

          Worse, it is probably prophetic. I’m willing to bet that in 10 years there will be no JEEPs produced in the US. You think it was a lie to state the truth? Let’s get it. You know, and i know what’s going on with JEEP, or rather, you should know. Romney knows. Heck, Obama knows. Tell me about a lie.

          Here’s a truth. We lose production every day. What are you going to do about it? Defend a indefensible contextual argument? That should feel real good when your grand babies are starving and oppressed.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          once again you point out nothing in the politifact articel that is incorrect or ever misleading. it is compeltely factual as are my statements.But the “factual patf my statments in not important. What is important is that I understand what Romeny was doing. i understand why he lied and I understand why he put out that ad, in exactly the way he did. You cannot allow yourself to see that, which i understand, but the intensity of your refusal has no imapct on my ability to see what actually was going on.
          that is why I enjoy these back and forths, because while i am open to facts that will force me to change my view, since I am actually interested in reality. I am always interested in rationalizatins when they are completely untenable. that is why I psot on very selective topics. i only do so on ones where i underestand very clearly what the issue are
          Let us Say that Goebles posted an ad in Berlin. telling jews that there were openings to a living area in Buchenwald. that the transportation was free, that food and lodging were taken care of. that there would be a lot of exercise, and the german government would even provide free delousing. this would then fit your definition of a truthful ad because no “facts” in it were incorrect. You will of course howl in outrage that I am making a “nazi” analogy. In fact I am making “Romney” analogy. this is nowehre near anyhting like that scenario. But it IS propoganda. that is why i keep using that word. I am NOt saying that the Romeny ad is like that ad. i am saying that if you saw the german ad you would not defend it as being truthful. THAT is what politifact is doing. they are very clearly explaining the context, pointing out the lies that generated the ad, and then clearly explaining what it all means.
          Since there is nothing incorrect in the politifact article then according to your argument it HAS to be true. Your ignoring what the article actually is saying becuase in tying in the “whole sordid affair” it is making your aguments meaningless. You refuse to acknowledge what actually was happening, which was blatant propoganda. Propoganda that was started by a deliberate lie that was fueled by repititon on the right wing press . I have asked you about 8 times to give me a reason for the ad other than that and you have yet to provide anything that makes any sense.
          We can keep arguing about this, but we have covered every point and while you have finally admitted that Romney lied (not something one would ever guess from your post), you continue to harp on the question of “facts”. Well,I think if there had been a politifact to check the NAZI ad they would ahve called it the lie of the year as well.unequivocally and with perfect reasoning

        • philjourdan says:

          You still lie. it cannot be completely factual, if it calls the truth a lie. Period. There is no way to spin that. Throw out all the spin and lies. Get to the nub. And that is the nub. So you lied when you made your opening statement. There is no way to spin it. The first lie is the article itself.

          Facts are still facts. There is no Hansen here to fudge the meaning of the word fact or lie.

        • suyts says:

          Read the first two sentences and ignored the rest.

          The ad was factual. Again, there’s nothing you nor politihack can say or do to change that. Deal with it or embrace lying about people and ads. Never mind, you already have. Liars are liars. There’s nothing I can do about it other than call them out when they lie.

          The Romney ad was factual. This is indisputable. Anyone saying otherwise is, themselves, a liar.

          But, here it is. The Italians are opening a Jeep production plant. Just like the ad said. Chrysler went into bankruptcy, just like the ad said. This was done at the insistence of Obama, just like the ad said. Chrysler was sold to the Italians, at the insistence of Obama, just like the ad stated. A Jeep production plant is opening in China, just like the ad said.

          In your delusional world, the ad was a lie. But, that’s only because opening a plant in China isn’t a bad thing. All you have to do is convince your brethren an it’s sweet! Smelling the duplicitous hypocrisy from here!!!

    • philjourdan says:

      And that is the #2 lie of the year. Romney never said they were moving. He said they were building. But of course you have to spin your lie into some semblance of the truth.

      Every lie should have a mate. and tony obligingly provides the mate. They have to lie about what was said so the big lie can then be made.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        “I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.” of course this could be a lie itself. it might be paraphrasing something that did not mean that. It could be out of context in a way that completely changes it’s meaning. I will GLADLY change my mind and attack the politifact article and conclusio if he did not actually say that. If he clearly meant something else and is deliberately being misconstrued in that speech, I will both condemn the accusation and apologize for believing a deiberate lie ABOUT Romney.
        Just as the quote of Obama’s. “You didn’t build that” was deliberately distorted and tunred into a lie by the republican party and the right wing, when he very clearly was talking about infrastructure, maybe there is something n the context that makes it clear Romney was NOT repeating this lie. I have not seen a transcript of the speech. If Romney finished the quote with. “Now my advisors have checked this story and found out it is an exaggeration, and if I am elected president I will never act on rumors, but make sure I have the most accurate facts”, well, I would not only eat my hat, but I would be happy to start believing that the media was absolutely willing to do anything underhanded to defeat Romney.

        • philjourdan says:

          English 101:

          Bridges and roads – plural. Referencing article would be “those”

          Business – singular. Referencing article would be “that”.

          Quote: “you did not build that”. For a complete moron, we could easily excuse the mixing of the referencing article. But not for the smartest man in the world. “that” cannot refer to bridges and roads as it is the wrong article. That can only refer to business.

          I never realized that part of the qualifications for becoming a democrat was to remove all knowledge of language. But you have convinced me Tony.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, and your slavish devotion to minutiae in an effort to keep you form reading what he actually said is again impressive. but no person interested in reality could take what Obama said an not know with complete confidence taht he was talking about infrastructure. Since that is what the entire paragraph was about.
          your continued attempts to paint this as the opposite of what it actually is just points out your inability to consider anything outside of your ideology. Obama is evil therefore anything that he says or does that can in any way, no matter how outlandish beportrayed as evil must be adhered to.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, you lie about your own crimes, not mine. I have read EXACTLY what was said. If he had used 2 singular antecedents then there would be room for interpretation (saying roads only for example). That you are totally ignorant of English Grammar is a given. But that does not change the facts, nor make your lies any more valid.

          You are trying to spin based upon a wish, and no facts. I gave you the facts. You have yet to state a single fact about the speech, other than to quote parts of it.

          Facts win every time. You can call it minutiae, but the real world calls them facts. Your ignorance is duly noted.

          And it makes me laugh. Obama is making people claim to be stupid in order to defend him.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          And Phil i have told you I am no democrat. I have no love for Obama. In fact he has done numerous things taht are quite destructive. Strangely I think James has called him out on his unconsitutional usurping of the 5th amendment. A rather horrific thought. the fact that Bush paved the way for it, and i predicted this sort of thing would happen, warnrning conservatives that it would, does not mitigate the danger tht htis poses to all of us. I would be happy to impeach obama just over this, as long as we prosecuted Bush. Cheney, and another handful for treason

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, I do not care if you are Episcopalian. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and swim like a duck, you are going to be called a duck. Whether you are democrat or not is irrelevant. That you love Obama is obvious. If you do not, why are you claiming stupidity in order to defend him? That is the only explanation for anyone that is so ignorant of English Grammar.

          Or if you truly are that ignorant of English Grammar, take a class in it before making a bigger fool of yourself.

          Sorry, if I appear curt. I really have a low tolerance of fools. And since you are doubling down on ignorance, and NOT debating the facts I presented, that makes you a fool. You have yet to offer one shred of credible evidence for what I stated, instead merely parroting the talking points given to you which is to repeat the same lie over and over and ignore the facts presented in rebuttal.

          That is your choice. You made you bed, now you have to live with the title of stupid. You chose it for yourself.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, you can’t undo what happened. You’re for impeaching Obama only if? How do you justify that? Is Obama right or wrong? How sad that is to be contingent upon someone else. That’s wrong thinking. And, you know it.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Because impeaching Obama for offenses that are much less in scope and consequence than Obamas would be a purely political act. if we are going to drag the country into it, we need to do it for all those responsible. Impeachment is a political process, and only should be done in cases of clear unconstitutional behavior. that it was not done for Bush raises the bar impossibly high. yet I would be happy to lower that bar again if it would cleanse the country of all those who brought us to this place

        • philjourdan says:

          And what was Bush’s impeachable offenses? I would love to listen to these talking points.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I am sure you will make much of thios but I meant to write Bush, not Obama, in context I am sure you can figure it out

        • suyts says:

          Could, and did. But, you’re telling me……… ? You should figure that out as well. Because one is wrong two should be. Tony, that’s not rule of law, that’s worse than anarchy.

          How about dealing with the here and now? No, wait, we can’t until there’s a Repub to sacrifice first!!!! How sad. How telling about your convictions. You’ve none.

          Personally, and I’ve stated on other blogs, I’m for prosecuting Jr. But, it was never contingent upon someone else being prosecuted. It is contingent about right and wrong. What sort of scumbag thinks it should be based upon ideology? Would they send an innocent man to the chair because we need to be equal? Disgusting!

      • suyts says:

        “I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”

        It could be that Romney actually did see a story that said that. In which case, even that statement would not have been a lie.

        “You didn’t build that” was deliberately distorted ……

        Uhmm, no, it wasn’t distorted Tony. It goes to the heart of the ideological divide. Only the people on the left are a bit dense to understand this. I’ll try to clear this up for you.

        We built every bit of it. It is through the industry of people which not only builds individual businesses and enterprises, but, also, we built this nation. Where do you think the money comes from to build infrastructure? The magic money fairy? Every bit of infrastructure built comes from the well spring of business and the economy and jobs they create. Government isn’t an automatic entity unto itself. It exists only because of enterprise and business. So yes, we built that.

        How is it that an entertainer doesn’t understand where government gets its money?

        • Tony Duncan says:


          it is still a lie even if his team did not fact check it. It is a lie that is based on desperation, I understand that. they may not have had time to fact check it, but ran with it because of desperation. I understand that. I don’t particulalry care or think badly of them for that. I even inderstand them not correcting it once they knew it to be a lie. they were desperate, and admitting a mistake when you are losing is not a very effective strategy. Stll it was a lie that went uncorrected and led to an ad that suppoerted that lie. That was balatantly outrageous,and i used that in talking to people just before the election. it made other people hopping mad too.
          “You diodn’t biild that” only goes tot he heart of the ideological divide is that divide is based on disregrad for reality and demonizing a true statement by twisitng it to mean the opposite of what it means.
          There is no rational ideological divide with this speech becuase both republicans and democrats agree that infrastructure is necesary for economic success and well being and the inniovation and business initiative that take advantage of the opportunities offfered by that infrastructure are both necesary. that was what Obama was saying and the republicna party decided to twist it into the false narrative that Obama was saying that Business owneres are in no way responsible for their success/
          your last pearagraph is absolutely correct and is in full agreement wiith the content of Obama’s speech. nd I don;t think there is anything in your last paragraph that either I or Obama would disagree with.
          So I will finish my last comment agreeing wioth you 100% on that last paragraph.
          As alwaysIt has been a pleasure, and I do hope my directness and honesty in response has not damaged your perception of my character. I have a great respect for you, and there are many things I don’t comment on for which you have great insight and bring up important facts and points. Even if i rarely agree with your conclusions. good day!

        • philjourdan says:

          The only lie tony is yours. Everyone else has documented facts. Some of us have even quoted the actual text (not the spin). You have done neither. You have merely lied some more. And no one is believing you because they now see that no matter how many times you are proven wrong, you never admit it. You are the most ideologically blind here. You are the one trying to say the truth is a lie, that is those, and we is the.

          Only you.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, come back any time.

  5. Latitude says:

    When a product is made here…and the company builds another factory to make that product in another country……they are moving production

    ” the KEY issue is that Romney said that Jeep was going to MOVE production of jeep to China,”

    …and that’s exactly what they did

    • suyts says:

      Exactly. Currently, all Jeeps are made in the US. That won’t be true very soon.

      • Latitude says:

        If you move any part of production….you are moving production

        If they move 50% of production to China……even new production….even for a Chinese/Euro/African etc market……they are moving production to China

        …if all of those car were made here….they did not move production

        ..Tony is not that thick….he’s blind

      • suyts says:

        Tony knows I enjoy his participation. I wouldn’t if I thought he was that thick.

        The point I was trying to make is the label “Lie of the Year” is misapplied. We’ve been given nothing but 4 years of lies, deception and falsehoods. That politifact would label an ad as the “Lie of the Year” because of an implication in contrast to what has recently occurred is beyond the pale.

        Benghazi, Romney killing spouses, tax cuts for the middle class, imaginary protests, Al Queda on its heels….. It’s just astounding.

        • Latitude says:


        • Tony Duncan says:

          Of course Benghazie we are going to disagre on. As I posted befroe, i think the fact of CIA involvement muddies the issue too much to make any informed judgement. But barring that, I find the official report to be quite compelling and fiting with the facts as I know them. There is no evidence that th Obama Administration purposefully withheld support from the “consulate”. I think it quite likely that officials were negligently responsible for lack of security. How much blame to give to Clinton or Obama am am not sure of. – serious issue.
          Romney killing spouses was a third party and was disavowed by the Obama campaign as well other supporters of Obama- non isssue.
          imaginary protests. Are you trying to say that all those protests throughout the Middle East about the film were just made up by the media in order to cover up the Benghazi killings? or are you saying that thoes protests did not happen in Benghazi as initially reported? if the first, i won’t even bother, because that conspiracy is too enticing to ever convince a believer out of. If the latter, the fact that there WERE protests about the movie around the middle east , is, i beleive a valid reason for thinking that there was confusion about what actually happened in Benghazi. I do not doubt that the administration was caught in a poitical fix that they handled stupidly, knowing that anything they did or said would be used against them. If this had occurred when Qaddafi was in power during the revolution I owuld consider the idea that these people were sacrificed to give the US an excuse to attack, just as Bush used nonexistant WMD’s to attack Iraq. However in this case there could be absolutely no political advantage to allowing US ambassador to be killed. Incompetence and bureaucratic mismanagement, as the report suggests are the likely culprits. Agian this is if you ignore the fact that it was a CIA base, and we just publicized that fact to our enemies in ordr to try to discredit the president.
          tax cuts for middle class, rather typical posturing on both sides about this. non issue.

          Al Qaeda on it’s heels. I imagine it is, both form Us Attacks form US forces under both Bush and Obama. Of course Bush’s war in Iraq, and othr hideously stupid and incompetent actions, probably created a generation of extremists that would never have been, but the fact that Al Qaida is not completely extinguished does not mean it is not on it’s heels.- either this is an accurate statemnet in which case it cannot be a lie or we don’t really have enough info to know.
          So in reasonable analysis none of these things is astounding and none are anywhere nearly comparable to the Romeny lie. Since we know it is, in fact, a blatant lie. (unless of course Phil comes up with an verifiable transcript or video proving that the media invented it and Romney and company were too pathetically stupid to expalin the truth to the American people directly and through FOX news and all their other media outlets.)

        • philjourdan says:

          “fiting with the facts as I know them” – That should be “as I want them to be”. Clearly all you “know” is the whitewash. Whether the whitewash is accurate or not, we will never know because of the opaqueness of the administration and their refusal to allow any investigation into the matter.

          You had a ton of typos and this misspeak. Perhaps you are tired.

          “Romney killing spouses was a third party and was disavowed by the Obama campaign as well other supporters of Obama- non issue.” – It was never disavowed. And since Stephanie Cutter worked on it, and was never fired by the campaign, there is no evidence of distance or disavowal.

          “or are you saying that thoes protests did not happen in Benghazi as initially reported? ” – They were never reported. Obama and crew claimed such an occurrence, but even the MSM was not reporting it until the meme started.

          “they handled stupidly” – An Obamabot to the end. You even use his grammar.

          ” just as Bush used nonexistant WMD’s to attack Iraq” – Bush gave 5 reasons. Without googling, name them. If you are honest, you will basically say you do not know because they are not in the talking points.

          ” but the fact that Al Qaida is not completely extinguished does not mean it is not on it’s heels.” From 9-11 until 9-11-12, there were no successful Al Qaeda attacks on US soil. That indicates Bush did better than Obama. I doubt they are on their heels. As Benghazi demonstrated.

        • suyts says:

          “Romney killing spouses was a third party and was disavowed by the Obama campaign as well other supporters of Obama- non isssue.”

          I don’t know where you get your information from but, that’s entirely inaccurate. Give me a minute to find it.

        • Me says:

          You are truly a real bonified juggling assclown, probably has a PhD In assclownery hung on yer wall too to prove your a feeb.

        • suyts says:

          Well, I covered this a few times, but, my search is crap, so here…

          At this link, there’s an audio of a conference call in which you’ll hear Stephanie Cutter, and Joe Soptic telling his story. We see Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign director, coordinating with the PAC that ran the ads, then lie about her involvement and knowledge of this. We also see that Soptic had been featured in prior Obama campaign ads. All of this was lied about and a clear violation of campaign laws. But, who are you going to believe? Cutter or your own lying eyes and ears?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I saw on TV, I am pretty sure it was Axelrod say that the administration did not condone the ad. i know there was the typical slimy mishmash of denials of co-ordiantion, and I don;t realy know if there was or not. I do not doubt that Obama HOPED it would have some positive effect and maybe they did not really check the facts, so when it blew up as being grossly exaggerated they tired to massage their way out of saying anything. Biut that is VERY differnt form the actual candidate telling an outright lie that is immediately pointed out as such, and then the actual campaign putting out a commercial based on that lie, and having neither the candidate nor the campaing ever acknowledge the lie as being a mistake.

        • philjourdan says:

          ROFL! I saw on TV space aliens invading the earth! Must be true because it was on TV!

          Axelrod equivocated, and did not speak for the campaign. Stephanie cutter lied and did speak for the campaign.

          I think you need a new solenoid – your spin is out of whack.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          thanks for that link. I posted before I saw your repsonse. Yes, i agree that was unethical, and uncalled for and stupid, and it is similar to waht I remember at the time. but my view is still that this pales in comparison to what Romney did.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, it wasn’t just unethical, it was illegal. I guess lies covering up illegal activity don’t rise to a campaign distortion?

        • philjourdan says:

          If you ever admit any type of stain on a liberal, that will be the day I die of a heart attack. Your lame whimper is not unexpected.

        • suyts says:

          As to the protests …… Tony there were never any protests in Benghazi. This has been well documented here and thousands of other places on the web. It was known well before Rice came out with her lies about the protests. A Libyan convalescing from his wounds in the UK stated such. The Libyan president stated such. Subsequently, it became known that the survivors stated such. It was known by the CIA and State within hours of the attack. It was known by the Brits who were there at the consulate 15-30 prior to the attack. It was, apparently known to everyone except Susan Rice, if you’re willing to believe she wasn’t deliberately lying, which I’m not willing to believe.

          As far as the rest of the protests, they never occurred until after the administration kept bringing the stupid film up. I won’t ascribe malfeasance, because it could just be utter and complete stupidity as if apologizing for our free speech would appease the lunatics. More to come on the rest ……

        • suyts says:

          Tony, the consulate wasn’t the CIA base, the annex a mile away was the CIA base. You know, the place where the two fellows expecting help got themselves killed on the roof by the motors.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          suyts says:
          January 15, 2013 at 1:05 am

          . . . the two fellows expecting help got themselves killed on the roof by the motors.

          Depending on the size of the motors, that could be as painful as mortar fire. 😉


        • suyts says:

          Ackkk!!! Stupid spell check should have known what I meant!!! 🙂

        • philjourdan says:

          Motors are more deadly. How many are killed by mortars versus how many are killed by cars?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I don’t have time to respond to all posted here. I certainly acknowledge benghazi was a disaster, and there is blame for that possibly up to the white house.
          I acknowledge that the third party ad may have been illegal in terms of campaing laws. But it was a third party. Obama never used that in a speech as far as I know, and the obama campaing never made an ad using that info. it was roundly condemned by almost all news sources and was not an issue. The cmapaign totally backed away from that third party ad as soon as the issue was brought up.
          Romney took a lie from the right wing, repeated it, then made an ad supporting it, and never said anything, nor did his campaign ever release anything that retracted the lie.
          I never said there were protests in Benghazi during th attack, What i SAID was that there were protests throughout the middle east, so it is not hard to imagine that one or two or three day after huge protests, this was used as an excuse for the attack in Benghazi. Maybe it was done so innocently, maybe it was done so for some foolish reason on purpose. You of course will allways mainatin anythiung in the worst possible light, and connot consider any other possibility no matter how likely or unlikely
          On the other hand there is absolutely no qiuestion about the Rpmney Speech (I am still waiting for Phil to provide a transcript that he apparently thinks shows Romney never said what he is quoted as saying).
          Romney’s campaing made the speech SOLELY to scare Ohio voters into beleiving a farbricated fact that would have disastrous consequences for many of those voters. Neither he nor his campaign retracted the claim in th speech, even after it was shown to be a lie, and even after the company he lied about publicly called it a lie. His campaing then went on o make an ad based on that lie, that was technically factual but did not include the relevant facts that completely undermine the point of the ad itself.
          As I have said repeatedly here, and no one has given any explanation that makes any sense. What POSSIBLE purpose cpuld the ad have other than to support that stated and never retracted lie. The “facts” only indicate that Jeep is doing well enough to open NEW factories. for automobiles desogned for local purchase, with no negative impact on workers in that company in the US. WHY would any politician running for office place an ad that does not support the position they are taking that the their opponent is damaging the economy.
          As I said this was pure propaganda, it was at the end of the campaign when they new they were losing Ohio, and were willing to lie about a vital issue and then make an ad supporting that lie because whether they won or lost the consequences would be minimal
          You can all go on all you want about the other issues, and ignroe that I actually think there is validity to your attacks, but it does not change the facts about what this post is about

        • philjourdan says:

          #1 – When you direct the ad to be made, you do not have to speak it. You authorized it. Cutter was his, not an independent.
          #2 – Sorry, if you have a problem with the English language, I suggest ESL. The title was given to an Ad that is 100% factual. If the pope was Jewish, we would all be abstaining from pork. Yea, that is how it works.
          #3 – I misspoke on the Romney issue. I meant that the ad never stated it, not that Romney had not. That is why I did not answer your challenge. I conceded.

          About time for you to do the same. Your logic in excusing a blatant lie and demonizing the blatant truth is worthy of the best contortionist. In other words, you have not met a lie you did not love – as long as it was a liberal lie.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Holy Shit I got Phil to say he “mispoke” and “conceded”. Maybe there is hope for rational discussion after all.
          But I have already wasted too much time today, as fun as this is.

        • philjourdan says:

          Your sarcasm is duly noted. However, it is not the first time, nor the last. Unlike a liberal, I am not perfect and admit my mistakes. You however……..

    • miked1947 says:

      Lat and James: That is the EXACT point!

    • Tony Duncan says:

      as i explained above, this is a totally untenable spin. the English language in this case is clear enough that anyone knows what you are attempting is pure spin. NO one says they are moving something to another place and maintain that they aren’t moving it FROM somewhere. To do that you use the works. OPENING or ADDING not MOVING.
      moving means not occupying two spaces at one time. Except in very arcance quantum applications two objects cannot be in the same place at one time, so if one is moved that means it is no longer in the place it once was. And fortunately the cvast majority of Americans are just interestd in the comon usage of words and not silly linguistic arguments
      I appreciate your attempts to torture the English language to support the candidate that you probably never wanted to be nominated anyway, but I also appreciate how parasitic wasps use live caterpillars as food for their larvae.

      • Latitude says:

        Tony that’s pure BS on your part….
        First you said “move” production…..then you said “move all production”
        That’s your spin……just because you are confused about what was said doesn’t mean everyone else is
        Romney said “move production”….he did not say “move all production”

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Even Phil will not be able to save you from that incorrect statement. Unless his internet connection is VERY slow but workls fine when commenting here. You must not have noticed that I posted the video, since the rest of you had such a hard time finding it. But the quote is actually at 26:06 min not 26 minutes.
        Of course once you listen to it, you might be able to hear the splice where the evil socialist television media company “ADDED” the word “all” in order to doom Romney’s candidacy. I think Orly Taites is already on this.

        • philjourdan says:

          Still living in your head. I am honored that you have allowed me the residency, but I really do not like the company.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Of course Phil,

          In some ways you are the most ideologically blinded perosn on her, so I think about you more than the others for that reason

        • philjourdan says:

          #1 – learn to respond properly or quote the item you are responding to.
          #2 – I am not on “her”
          #3 – The title of the most blind is the clown who thinks he is omniscient and clairvoyant. Can anyone guess who fits that description? Sorry, I admit when I am wrong, and I have. You just double down on lies.

          and #4 – Spell checker? You are known by your writing and right now you look like a 3 year old.

        • Latitude says:

          Tony, you have me at a disadvantage……I can only go why what you said…..first you said “move”…then you said “move all”
          ..I’m deaf, I can’t hear videos….unless they are closed captioned

        • philjourdan says:

          Neither can Tony apparently, unless the Romper Room lady is translating it for him.

  6. philjourdan says:

    As soon as Polti-hack came out with that, everyone knew. The Ad said that Chrysler was “planning”, which anyone with half a brain knows the CEO is kind of the one in the know and he said it. So there was no lie. Polti-hack knew it. That they now ARE going to build them is simply more egg on the face of the illiterate voter.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Of course the fact that every report I read on htis issue at the time acknowledged that They were planning on building a plant in China, so this was never at issue at all. the lie was very clearly explained and reported on at the time and the way the ad was made so as to imply that Romeny’s and the other’s who lied about jeep were talling the truth. it is waht is known as propaganda, and is often effective at influencing people who are not interested in understanding the entire reality of a question.

      • philjourdan says:

        There was no lie. You cannot point to a lie. You can point to a misconception on perhaps your part. But not on a lie of the Ad. Period. I would expect Obama to yell like a stuck pig. But I would also expect any organization “claiming” to be unbiased to report the truth – and not a lie. Poltifact lied. Plain and simple. And no amount of spin is going to change that fact.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, it is alwasy fun to argue with you when you are so completely incapable of any sort of rational discussion. if you read the article you will see that they focus on the actual lie that romeny made in his speech and that he never retracted that lie and that the ad came put just after that lie and the ad did not mention any of the facts that show Romney’s lie to be a lie. It is propaganda pure and simple and a desperate attempt by the Romney campaign to try to do ANYTHING to keep from losing Ohio. There is nothing in the facts of the ad that in any way cast a negative light on OBama, so the ONLY possible purpsoe was to have people listend to the ad and beleive it was someying something that was not true. Romeny lied in the speec and never retracted it, and they then made a totally misleading ad based on that lie. It was borught up in the media the company he lied about had to send emails telling their employees Romeny lied and the media in Ohio pointed out the lie. It is all very clear and blatant. Romney was desperate and lying was at least a tiny hope that they could get away with it and maybe not lose Ohio..
          You have provided me with no evidence that Romeny didn’t lie. Please do so and i will apologize profusely.
          I actually have much more important things to attend to and my typos are not significant enough to cause my meaning to be lost. I am certainly not going to waste time to keep from offending anyones sense of grammar or spelling

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony I cannot argue with you if you refuse to accept facts. Poltifact did not claim that Romney’s statement was the biggest lie – they claimed the ad was. Sorry if you are incapable of understanding a fact. But the ad is factual. You are merely trying to excuse a boner on their part, and they are of course doubling down on stupid to hide their incompetence (and you supporting the doubling down on stupid makes you????).

          Sorry, you lost this one as soon as you abandoned all logic and picked up the spin machine. Politifact lied. They can try to justify their lie any way they want, but a lie is a lie. And they lied. The Ad did not. period.

          But Obama did – with the spousal death ad. He bought and paid for it. Just ask Cutter since she was his second in command, and she authorized it.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, yopu are of course worng on all of this. It is just propoganda now. Politifact ClEARLY worte a very accurate assessment of the ad and the lie. they expalined their reasoning and it is all quite valid. Neither politifact nor I are not accepting any facts. I have not once been shown in thiis post to have any facts wrong I think. We agree on the facts. the ad contaiend selected facts to support lies that ewere told by Romney and the right wiing media. Everyone agrees that the ad contained only facts. the reality is that the only purpsoe of the ad was to make people beleive a lie.
          your harping on tjhe fact that everyone acknowledges is pointless. If politifact said that the “facts” in the ad” were not facts, then they would be lying about it. They acknowledged the facts. Portrayed the events accurately as they occurred and analyzed them in the most reasonable way. That is reality and you are incapable of accepting that. i understand and don;t expect you to accept that. Sorry thtat you cannot accept that i prefer to look at reality and waht things actually mean

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, I know you think you are omniscient, but your typing is horrific. Get a effing spell checker or an education.

          Fact: Chrysler said they were going to open a plant in China
          Fact: The ad said that.
          Fact: Poltifact called it a lie
          Fact: Calling the truth a lie is a lie.

          Those are the facts. The rest of your ignorant diatribe is simply that, an ignorant diatribe. You mention NO FACTS relevant to the issue. Only lies.

          Try your clown routine at Poltifact. It is not working with intelligent people.

  7. Jim Masterson says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    January 14, 2013 at 11:57 pm

    I have not seen a transcript of the speech.

    Or heard the speech? That would mean you’re calling Romney a liar based on hearsay evidence.

    Failure to go to the horse’s mouth is liable to get you identified with the other end.


    • Tony Duncan says:

      I don’t ahve time to go back to the video or transcript. Since this is such an important issue for you guys, I am SHOCKED That none of you have produced the source proving all these media spurces as liars and fabricators or misinterpreters.
      Franlkly having seen the quote numeorus times and Not having heard Limbaugh, Counlter, the national review or Commentary. or Human Events provide a :correct” quote. I am pretty confiendent that all those sources are not idiotic enough NOT to check that. |
      But I will totally change my mind of you show me that he did not say what he ws quoted as saying, or that in context it means something else form what it clearlt shows him saying.
      hearing lots of crickets at this simple request

      • philjourdan says:

        Your laziness or lack of ability to do your own research does not absolve you of being wrong. The context was given, the quote is accurate. Your spin is the only lame part. That does not refer to multiple things, but to a single thing.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, fortunately most people don’t just accept whatever Phil or James or Latitude say becuase they say it so vehemently But a significant number actually look at reality and thereby come to reasonable concusions.
          As soon as Obama’s quote was put in context it ws obvious that the right wing adoption of this red herring was another opportunistic attempt to nurture the Obama hates America meme, by pretending obama was saying that free enterprise and entrepenuership was bad. Any rationa person reading waht he wrote immediately understands that is just propaganda. He was saying what is unquestionably true that economic success is dependant on infrastructure, and he went on to credit jsut the innovation and entrepenuership that repubs wee decrying him for attacking.
          It still amazes me how people like you can take such clear cut issues and turn them on their head. that si why I commented on this post because it was so clearly turning the isue on it’s head. the hallmark of good propaganda. Just as the revenge remark was turned on its head, and jsut as my reasoable explanations here are turned on their heads. It is fortunate that I do have some extremely right wing friends who i can engage in rational discussion and can agree on reality with and still have honest disagreements about values and effective policy. yet here it is all but impossible

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, your refusal to even read what I wrote is evident. I put it in context. I explained (not spun) the context. Your very lame attempt is believed by no one because it is not plausible unless you first assume Obama and his speech writers are totally ignorant of basic English Grammar. A gross assumption that some on the right love to state, but few believe. Obama’s sole claim to fame according to his VP is he is an articulate black man. So such a gross and simple error would never be made in a prepared speech (extemporaneously is another matter).

          In context – in the ENTIRE context, he offered 2 subjects preceding the statement. One singular, and one plural. Then he used a referencing article that was singular, so it could only refer to the single subject preceding it. If he had meant the others, he would have used a plural article, not a singular.

          IN CONTEXT. Your spin is as lame as your claims of omniscience. But you cannot admit you are wrong because your existence is based upon your lies. You lost this one. We all gave you the speech in context. There is no world where your interpretation is the correct one except in your delusions. It cannot be because your interpretation is neither grammatically correct, nor contextually correct.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          My goodness. have done you all a favor and found you the link to Romney’s blatant lie.
          too bad none of you were able to show this to Phil in his “mispeak”

        • philjourdan says:

          An error is an error. It is not multiple errors just because you thump your chest several times and state it is an error. Your glomming onto this error reveals that you do know you lost the debate on the “build that” issue as well as the debate on the Poltifact lie.

          I have stated it was an error. I will not continue to sate your ego by stating it any longer. You have abused your stay.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, I’m going to do another post. I’m going to take bets. How many years before Jeep production in the US entirely shuts down? Good money is 5. I’m saying 10. Then, we’ll see. Who’s a liar?

        I know how it is going to go. You should know how it is going to go. It is going to go how it always goes. And you’re still gong to cling to some stupid facetious label of a lie.

        I’ll make another bet. … Most of the Jeep production won’t be in China nor the US in 7 years. Selling to the Italians are good things!!

        • Tony Duncan says:

          and you should make that post. And f Romey had said Obama’s policies are goin to lead to Jeep closing production in the US in the next 5 to ten years, you would be absolutely correct in claiming there was no lie, and I have no idea what is going to happen to Jeep, and if it does close if that will be the policies of Obama that caused it. Quite plausible if it comes to pass.
          Yet that has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. I have no where said that Romney;s analysis of Obama’s economic policies were wrong> jsut that he lied, he lied blatantly in desperation because lying was the only strategy they had left in an election they were losing. I keep repeating those facts because they are the pertinent ones to this post. You have admitted that he lied, and that is again the pertinant issue. I am glad you have admitted that.

        • philjourdan says:

          RIF – I suggest you go back and try to understand what he wrote. Your response clearly shows you did not. That is probably part of your problem. A second grade education living in an adult body.

        • suyts says:

          I suppose that’s the difference between you and I. You see, I’ve no problem calling things for what they are. I don’t feel the need to invent things nor extrapolate implications.

          Throughout this entire discussion it has become quite clear that there was no lie in the ad. You, politihack, nor anyone else can point to any untruths in the ad. But, you label the ad as a lie. A dog isn’t a cat. It doesn’t matter how many times you or politihack insist otherwise. Facts are stubborn things.

          It seems to me, that if you want to call someone a liar, you’d actually point to the lie as opposed to the truths the person told. But, that’s just me. In your world, and politifact’s, you call truths lies and lies truths. In this world everything is a lie and everything is truth. I feel sorry for you, Tony. Your mind and rationalizations don’t allow for anything real. In your world there is no truth, just ideology. It’s very sad.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I did read and understand and responded clearly. that you cannot see that is interesting but expected.
          I am impressed that it took you this long to go ad hominem. You are learning restraint.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, you did not. You still maintain that the truth is a lie, that “that” when referring to an antecedent is plural, and that you never make mistakes. All of them are wrong as has been proven. That you continue in your denial is simply the MO of a liberal. I do not care if you call yourself a democrat or not.

  8. suyts says:

    Here Tony……..

    “Last night, my opponent says he refuses to close the loophole that gives big oil companies $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year,” Obama said at a Denver campaign event on Thursday. “He ruled out closing the loophole that gives oil companies $4 billion in corporate welfare.”

    Here’s what Romney stated in that debate……

    “But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why, that $2.8 billion is on the table,” Romney said during the debate. “Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.”

    Is that a brazen enough lie for you?

  9. suyts says:

    You can go here….

    This shows one of their many brazen lies about Romney/Bain/China….. they even managed to get the company wrong on that one.

  10. suyts says:

    Speaking of the “You didn’t build that”….. go here and watch the team Obama ad.

    It’s pretty funny. Romney quotes Obama, then the ad says the problem is “That’s not what he said.” The didn’t say context, didn’t say that’s not what he meant, it didn’t say there was a different interpretation, it stated that he didn’t say that……. then later in the ad, it shows him saying exactly what Romney quoted.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      that is jsut foolish. He “didn’t say that” does not mean that the quote is incorrect. it means that his meaning is so absolutely clear from the imediate context that anyone ortraying it as something other than the real meaning is lying about it. And that is waht happened to the point that the Republican convention used it as their slogan. I actually consider that to be a prime contender for “lie of the year” but the Romney quote is so blatant and undefensible I understand Politifact using that instead.
      The Obama quote is NOT about interpretation. no other interpretation is possible. the fact that it WAS interpreted as being what it was not, just propaganda.

      • suyts says:

        So, “he didn’t say that” doesn’t mean that “he didn’t say that”? Why not just say, “that’s not what he meant”?

        This is the problem I have with your arguments. Lies aren’t lies, but truths are lies. Do you not understand the dangers of such advocacy?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          James, opyu would have to ask them. I don;t have the time to do so. But there is nothing unclear about it to the vast majority of people who are interested in what things actually mean and not jsut trying to find ways to twist meaning to fit an idealogy, becuase the ideology requires twisitng meaning into propoganda.
          I understand exactlty the dangers of twisitng meaning so that it conforms to ideoloigy, which is waht you are doing with this whole post and almsot all the comments.
          Asd i ahve said you are free to argue that this was not the lie fo the year. Andf you are free to say that the ad did not conatin anything that was not factual. Politifact took the entire reality and accurately described it. Youa r are taking that accurate description and condemning it as being a lie becuase the ad only contained facts. That is p[ropoganda designed to prevent an understanding of reality.
          As with the free Buchenwald trip[ the “facts” do not trump the reality
          As I pointed out and as the article points out the ad misused facts. They say it, everyone who has commented and condemend the as says t. No one disagrees with that.Since noone disagrees, then the facts are not in question. Noon has pointed out anything unfactual that I have said and there is nothing I ahve said that does not confrom with reality or logic.
          yur arguments are propoganda, which is fascinating for me to read, but that does not change the reality. No facts are in contention, only the interpretaion. Your interpretation of the ad is non existant, mine is a reasonable one that fits the facts well about the ENTIRE issue
          I have to leave this conversation, and i am sorry that my insistence on not accepting your twisted reasoning has upset you. As alwaysI enjoy these exercizes. I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. I know I will not. That is not my intent at all. If it was it would be a tremendously frustrating exercise.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, you are deluding yourself. Since no one has actually done a poll, your channeling of “Hillary” is merely sophistry. And since you are clearly outnumbered here, the unscientific poll shows you to be an outright liar.

          Suyts is correct. Try a course in English Comprehension.

        • suyts says:

          Tony, you didn’t upset me. I’m a bit disappointed, but, not upset. I’m quite familiar with leftist logic. I didn’t realize how tied you were to your ideology. I know now. I do, enjoy the discussions, as well.

          Be sure to hurry back!

      • philjourdan says:

        The meaning is clear from the context. If he was referring to the bridges and roads, he would have said “those”. he said “that” which could not refer to multiple things, only one thing. And the only singular was the business. THAT is in CONTEXT.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, the meaning IS clear from the context. He MEANT bridges and roads because that is waht he said. Any other interpretation is either irrational or cynically trying to torture reality in order to mislead people.
          ” The system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges – if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. the internet didn’t get invented on it’s own. Government research created the internet, so then all the companies could make money off the internet. the point is that wehn we succeed. We succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. there’s soemthings like fighting fires we don’t do on our own. imagien if everybody had their own fire service> that would be a hard way to fight fires. SO we said to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, You know what. there are some things we do better together” etc.
          So there is it. Anyone not invested in HAVING to believe that Obama HAS to be evil and a socialist bent on destroying the country will see that he was talking about infrastructure. Why, becuase he was talking about infrastructre in every single sentence of that speech!
          Of CORUSE I don’t expect you or James or amino to accept the truth. But there might be occasional people who come to this blog who are not completely close minded and maybe they willl see someone that is not lying and is willing to contest reality about issues such as this and the romey lie and not be intimidated by your attempts at distortion and deflection form pretty obvious reality

        • philjourdan says:

          See previous rebuttal with the facts. You WANT him to have referred to it. However, unlike you, I do not think Obama is an illiterate black man, so I KNOW it referred to the business. Bridges and roads are plural, Business is singular. There is no amount of puffery or spin you can apply to change the rules of English.

          Sorry, even your Messiah cannot do that.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, in spite of being an articulate black man, everys single word that comes out of his mouth is not protected by some magical spell that makes it impossible for you to find soem way to twist reality and make his wrods mean what you decide they mean.
          the quote is absolutely referring to infrastructure, because that is the only thing that he is referring to in that section of the speech. it is quite clear and the fanatic atttempts of complete ideologues to try to turn it inot something else do not make it so. You can harangue me all you want with whatever intensity you want and you will not convice me of soemthing that is patently untrue. Now I just saw Zereo Dark thirty, and i do not doubt that with sufficient time and approval form CIA superiors that if I was held in a dark cell with heavy meatl blaring at me, beaten and water boarded that you could get me to admit that Obama MEANT that smal business owners are not in any way responsible for their success. But that would not change the reality.
          Int he next paragraph he very speciifcally says that business oners are responsible for their success, but he reiterates the point that economic success is dependant on ALL the worl of all the people that built this country and the infrastructure that make success possible. As James pointed out in his post somewhere else here.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony – RIF again. I paraphrased Biden. So do not put words into my mouth.

          nevertheless, he may not have MEANT to say that we did not build our businesses. He is also famous for hoof in mouth disease (not as famous as Biden). However, that IS (you know the meaning of is I hope) what he said. You have no idea what he MEANT to say as you do not reside in his head (regardless of how many you allow residency in yours).

          Your post is an admission on your part that you are wrong. While you play a clown, that does not include the gift of clairvoyance. So you have ONLY his words – in the proper context – to go on. What he and his minions later spun his EXACT words to supposed to mean is irrelevant.

          He can clear it up with a simple admission that he misspoke. But like most liberals, admitting a defect is an anathema, as you have demonstrated. So he merely marshalled his minions (which makes your weak denials of being one unbelievable) to start the spin and try to change English Grammar. It did not work, just as your attempt will not work.

          You are wrong. Unlike you, I admit when I am. And unlike you, once someone acknowledges an error, I drop it as the debate is moot.

        • philjourdan says:

          Oh, and for those who have already tired of Tony’s lies and want to know what the “very next paragraph says”, here it is:

          ” The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

          Nowhere does it say you built that business. Success is not only about business. He was talking about the teachers and the firefighters. He did not mention business again.

          Sorry tony, even your lies are demonstrably (easily) proven to be lies.

        • Tony Duncan says:


          I have uttered no lies, as any reasonable person can easily see,
          Obama clearly said in the next paragraph as you wrote “we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together”
          that totally makes the entire attack on his quote a lie and all of your twisitng notwithstanding, anyone who is not a fanatic sees taht that is waht he meant because those wrods “individual initiative” mean” individual initiative”. and the words “we do things together”, mean we do things together”. End of story excpet for those that HAVE to find evil in his words. He clearly was saying that business owners rely on infrastructure to make their success happen, and he then clealry says that individual initiative is part of that, meaning business owners. You of course need to spin that to mean the oppositie of what was actually meant becuase you HAVE to hate him, it is part of your ideology and tht ideology does not allow you to accept him saying anything that you cannot attack. You ifnd a way to do so, and no matter how clear and honest and based in realtiy mu responses are, you have to find ways to convince yourself that I am lying or being deceptive ot twisting reality. Also the fact that I am dong so without being “polite” is insulting to you. that is all fine, as I am unintersted in convinceing you of anything. And that is why these arguments, always go on forever. I only commment n issues that are very clear cut contradicting your ideological position that is in complete oppposition to reality, and then whne I keep pointing out reality you have to keep finding ways to undermine that. That is fine and i do enjoy it.
          A rational discussion would look to the facts as are accepted by both parties argue about the context and find points of disagreement and produce new facts that suppport the particualr argument. that of course does no thappen here. the facts were very clear from the very beginning, and even though you and soem others tried to contest some, you ahd to give up on that once i supplied irrefutable evidence. Now it is all about propoganda, which I also enjoy, but I have work to do now

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, you did lie. But if you are asking me if I think you will ever admit it, the answer is no. YOu have yet to admit your lies or your mistakes.

          “WE” are not business. He even used different pronouns. It is a separate paragraph, which any 3rd grader can tell you means – new thought. He did not continue the thought as there is no transition (Business). I know you want everyone to believe that he is the smartest man in the world – except when he is not. But clearly the context shows (through simple English Grammar, punctuation, and pronouns) that he was talking about the business, not the (plural) roads and bridges. Any intelligent 3rd grader I should say.

          Your spin is as bad as any I have seen. And what makes it worse is your dual defense of calling the truth a lie, and saying that Obama lacks the education of a 3rd grader. So no one believes you. Those who give a damn, the vast majority knows he was talking about business. The rest do not care and do not know. You are in a minority. Right not a minority of one. You are the only one that thinks are you omniscient and clairvoyant. The number of times you have been proven wrong here alone proves no one else is going to believe you.

          Period. So stop lying. Lie to the sheep. Not the shepherds.

  11. suyts says:

    Here’s some more Orwellian lying from Obama’s campaign.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I will just answe to this one because I know it fairly well.
      Obama told a crowd NOT to boo Romeny. It was totally a gesture of civility on his part. “get your revenge by voting is actually a positive thing. He was CLEARLY saying, hey, don’t attack this guy if you disagree with him, just vote for me, and that will be all you need. You don’t have to boo or say bad things, just do your civic duty. this was then twisted by Romey and the right to be a vicious attack. It is no big deal, just politics Both sides do it.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, that’s quite a twist. The thing is words mean things. Revenge? Yeh, a gesture of civility…… just like when he describe people like me as “the enemy”.

        • Tony Duncan says:


          no twist, just pointing out the reality that this is a political campaign. Obama TOLD the audience not to Boo the man. He said in a palayful way. Get your revenge by voting. This was twisted into pretty much the exact opposite of what he meant by the republicans. it was stupid and blatantly worng, but it is normal politics both sides do it. the repubs are such extremists these days that thea are willing to do it with things as obvioulsty meaningless as this

        • philjourdan says:

          Playful? Like a polar bear plays with its dinner. Yea, it was not OBama that told his audience to bring a gun to a knife fight. Nah!

          Keep digging Tony, China is not far away.

        • suyts says:

          LOL, yeh extremist Repubs! Don’t you hate the way they actually use words towards the actual meaning as opposed to what was implied?

          I’ll tell you what is extreme and extremely dangerous. Twisting words to hold the opposite meaning as to what the English language defines them as.

          Extremism, in the defense of Liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.

          I am at ease and sleep well with my extremism. How’s it working with your moderation?

      • philjourdan says:

        So you have read the talking points more than once. Big deal.

        Obama used words of violence to incite people. For all we know, he incited newtown. After all, the left accuses Palin of the same thing – and she was not even in the same time zone.

        Your spin is terrible. And your lies are even worse.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil, if Obama had said. “NO don;t BOO Romney, Don’t waste your energy with booing. Take that hate and VOTE FOR ME, THAT way we can get revenge on ALL ThE EIVILS those republicans have put us through. REVENGE REVENGE” and gotten the crowd chanting. You would have a VERY strong point.

        • philjourdan says:

          I already have a perfectly valid point. Your problem is you are trying to spin for someone who lies as a matter of convenience. So he is always denying he said what he said, and you obediently repeat the lie.

          No, the only one with no point is you. We have the facts on our side. You merely have pathetic spin.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Words mean things. Absolutely. And if Obama was a total wimp he would have said. “Don’t boo, please don’t boo. that makes me uncomfortable when people boo. Romeny is REALLY a nice man, he has a nice familty and it is rude for you to boo him. Let me apologize for you to Mr. Romney for your rude behavieor. And I am embarrassed that you people are being rude to a man running for president of the United States. You people sound like you want revenge and that is a TERRIBLE sentiment. I condemn your boo’s and if you are booing agaisnt my honorable challenger then I don’t want you voting for me.

  12. suyts says:

    Here’s some more utter falsehoods Obama directly stated…….

    This contained the lie that Letterman was so disappointed with.

  13. suyts says:

    As far as the LSM and their willingness to do anything, here’s one of the many times they edited video to make Romney look bad……

  14. suyts says:

    Here’s some of the hypocrisy and lies about Romney/Bain/China…… and it’s a lesson in off-shoring and out-sourcing. Pot, meet Kettle.

  15. suyts says:

    Here’s another lie exposed from Team Obama, obviously not reported by the LSM.

  16. suyts says:

    Oh, great my links didn’t work!!! Dang…. sigh….. try this….

  17. Jim Masterson says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    January 16, 2013 at 2:10 am

    And Phil i have told you I am no democrat. I have no love for Obama.

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks. [Hamlet, Act III, 242-243]


    • suyts says:

      What is a Democrat to a leftist?

    • Jim Masterson says:

      For someone who claims he (or she) has no skin in the game, he (or she) is spending a lot of time trying to hang Romney and exonerate Obama. I don’t buy it.


      • Tony Duncan says:


        I am only discussing this issue. Since Romeny lied and the Ad was a craven desperate attempt to spread the lie as it was being promoted by the standard right wiing media, I have no choice but to hold tight to reality. Yes in this case it squately is attacking Romeny,
        and in the case of ther Obama quote is is squarely supporting Obama. Again i ahve to stand with reality agaisnt people who are using propoganda to create an alternate reality that is completely fictitious.
        In many other respects i do not support Obama at all, and in some very limited respects I support Romney’s views. In fact in listening to the speech he gave that inclides the blatant lie, he sadi a number of things I agree with.
        I am only spending a lot of time hanging Romeny because his body has been swinging form the gallllows the whole time I ahve been arguing with people who are telling me His neck is ALWAYS at that angle and he is just taking a little nap, and he likes to hang from riopes because it helps his posture.

  18. jimash1 says:

    ” The system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges – if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. ”

    And who was that ? Everyone who pays any sort of taxes has an equal interest in roads and bridges.
    It wasn’t someone else. It was ,us, them, you.
    The attempt to divide people is disgusting.

    • jimash1 says:

      Furthermore Tony, to even invest any energy into the assertion that Al Qaeda is “on its heels” has to completely ignore that they run parts of Yemen, Somalia and now Mali,
      and that their parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood runs Egypt, and soon Syria.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      I have to got snow blow my large driveway aprking area, so Will have to end this here.
      I am GLAD you finally are able to see what Obama actually said. Yes It WAS US, THEM We. And in that way he was bringing us together becuase we all built the ifrastructure that makes our incredibly productive economy function.
      Your bizarre interpretation that it means dividing people is of course an opinion you are entitled to.

      • jimash1 says:

        No Tony.
        Having heard and thought about what Obama said ( and really don’t you think it was said that way on purpose ? I do. )
        and having seen the original video, from which the president cribbed these wrong ideas from Fauxchahantas, I can tell you that it was pointed at business owners and risk takers
        and job providers .
        And meant to assert or imply that they hadn’t made any contribution, to the infrastructure
        and owed something more than whatever they already pay to the mythical “someone else”, credited with creating and maintaining the infrastructure.
        Pure Polemic intended to foster disunity.

  19. Jim Masterson says:

    suyts says:
    January 16, 2013 at 2:56 am

    What is a Democrat to a leftist?

    A comrade in arms?


  20. Pingback: In Other European Economic News ….. Fiat Lies To Italy …. Jeep Again! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s