Mitt's lies, topic #1 - 99!

MARKED FOR SPAM

Dog has just been given the new Dem talking points to use to defeat Romney, calling him a liar.
When they have the horrible record of the incumbent in chief, they have to lie about lies to keep their guy in the race. Dog, how about some threads detaiing why Obama actually deserves a second term? ACA? Nope, it will still continue whether he is golfing at Camp David or Oahu.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But mitt is a liar

You are becoming a spammer suddenly. What happened to you? Why don't you keep all your vitriol in one thread?

Because I do not have to. You would certainly have more credibility if you bothered to criticize Toad, Becky, Heisy, Grady and the others of their ilk in their serial diatribes involving cut and paste outrages taken from far right wing blogs.
Since when is exposing the truth spam? Point out the "spam" in any of my posts and I will be happy to debate with you. Or perhaps you prefer debating the quality of the hair of the Secretary of State during crises, or whether it is tacky of the President to campaign during the RNC?

Pointing out the serial lies by Romney is certainly a public service and you should be grateful that you are being so well informed. FYI, it has been document that Romney spewed 36 lies in 32 minutes during the debates. Does that not concern you?

Several similar topics were merged together into this one thread. Although a couple of the responses are now out of order, you can see the origination of each original post by looking at the title at the top. Please keep similar topics in one thread so as to keep the board organized and easily readable. Thank you!

FredHayek wrote: Dog has just been given the new Dem talking points to use to defeat Romney, calling him a liar.
When they have the horrible record of the incumbent in chief, they have to lie about lies to keep their guy in the race. Dog, how about some threads detaiing why Obama actually deserves a second term? ACA? Nope, it will still continue whether he is golfing at Camp David or Oahu.

I have provided numerous posts on why President Obama deserves a second term, including his efforts to reform the banking industry to prevent the financial chicanery that brought down the economy, his lowering of the deficit that he inherited, his cutting government spending, his lowering of the size of government, his stimulus package that most economists agree prevented the worsening of the economy, the decrease in foreign oil dependency during his term, the largest number of deportations of illegal aliens in history, his health care reform that will enable millions of previously uninsured to have access to appropriate health care, and many more efforts. All of this despite an obstructionist Congress that has placed the interests of the party over the interests of the American public, and prevented legislation that would have greatly improved the unemployment in this country as well the economy.

But you were not listening or chose to pass on by because you prefer the lies of your candidate.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Dog has just been given the new Dem talking points to use to defeat Romney, calling him a liar.
When they have the horrible record of the incumbent in chief, they have to lie about lies to keep their guy in the race. Dog, how about some threads detaiing why Obama actually deserves a second term? ACA? Nope, it will still continue whether he is golfing at Camp David or Oahu.

I have provided numerous posts on why President Obama deserves a second term, including his efforts to reform the banking industry to prevent the financial chicanery that brought down the economy, his lowering of the deficit that he inherited, his cutting government spending, his lowering of the size of government, his stimulus package that most economists agree prevented the worsening of the economy, the decrease in foreign oil dependency during his term, the largest number of deportations of illegal aliens in history, his health care reform that will enable millions of previously uninsured to have access to appropriate health care, and many more efforts. All of this despite an obstructionist Congress that has placed the interests of the party over the interests of the American public, and prevented legislation that would have greatly improved the unemployment in this country as well the economy.

But you were not listening or chose to pass on by because you prefer the lies of your candidate.

So Fred, where are your comments on why Romney deserves to be elected as POTUS? Hmm? Did not think so.

I have to give Fred credit for at least attempting to spin Mitt's lies. The rest of the responses fall within the usual non responses by conservatives because Mitt is indefensible.

Reduce dependence on foreign oil? I think I just caught you in a lie. Green energy is still an embarrasingly small portion of energy production, and Barack and his EPA have actually stood in the way of increased domestic natural gas fracking which has done more than the Kyoto accords to reduce greenhouse gasses and reduce dependence on international oil sources. Not to mention holding up energy exploration on public lands and Obama's war on coal.

A reason to support Romney? He knows how to work with the legislators of another party and get things done. Just like Bill Clinton, who was used to working with a Republican statehouse and was able to work with Newt Gingrich. Obama refuses to negotiate with Boehner and the house Republicans.

FredHayek wrote: Reduce dependence on foreign oil? I think I just caught you in a lie. Green energy is still an embarrasingly small portion of energy production, and Barack and his EPA have actually stood in the way of increased domestic natural gas fracking which has done more than the Kyoto accords to reduce greenhouse gasses and reduce dependence on international oil sources. Not to mention holding up energy exploration on public lands and Obama's war on coal.

A reason to support Romney? He knows how to work with the legislators of another party and get things done. Just like Bill Clinton, who was used to working with a Republican statehouse and was able to work with Newt Gingrich. Obama refuses to negotiate with Boehner and the house Republicans.

The US imported over 300,000,000 barrels of oil per month in 2008. Under the Obama administration, foreign oil imports are less than 280,000,000 barrels per month. I call that reducing dependency on foreign oil. "War on coal". LOL. Energy companies are moving from coal because of the cheaper costs of natural gas.


Boehner and McConnell refuse to work with the President, going so far as stating their top priority, beyond the economy, unemployment or any other interest of the American public is to keep President Obama from a second term. When the representatives of the American public place their own political ambitions above the American public, the country can only suffer. Until those Republican obstructionists who place their own politics above the interests of the American public are removed, the American people can only suffer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

As far as Romney working bipartisian in Massachusetts, remember that Mitt? Claiming he was far to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, was in favor of abortion on demand, individual mandates on health insurance, cap and trade on emissions, cap and trade, etc. If he is willing to adopt the Democratic platform, then sure, there can be bipartisanship. As to his claim of bipartisanship success, that once more was a lie. According to the NY Times,

But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.

The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact. A wholesale restructuring of state government was dead on arrival in the legislature; an ambitious overhaul of the state university system was stillborn; a consolidation of transportation fiefs never took place.

Mr. Romney lobbied successfully to block changes in the state’s much-admired charter school program, but his own education reforms went mostly unrealized. His promise to lure new business and create jobs in a state that had been staggered by the collapse of the 2000 dot-com boom never quite bore fruit; unemployment dropped less than a percentage point during his four years, but for most of that time, much of the decline was attributed to the fact that any new jobs were being absorbed by a shrinking work force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/po ... .html?_r=0

So why do you support Mitt?

Unemployment in MA under Mitt was 2 to 3 points less than it is now in America under Obama. More lies in your talking points. And bringing unemployment lower? It is a lot harder to go from 5% to 4% than 8% to 7.8% after 4 years and trillions of dollars of stimulus.