Romney now has 19 pants on fire statements. Almost 3 times as many as a sitting Pres.

How is this even possible?!

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

How is Romney not laughed out of the ring? After 4 years of scrutiny the president only has 7 pants on fire statements. Or 2% of his factchecked statements. Romney has 19! 9% of his total fact checked statements and he's not even president yet! Over 40% of his statements are rated mostly false or higher! Romney should be voted against for the sole reason that this behavior should not be tolerated.

 

Fortunately for Romney, a lot of Americans don't fact check or listen to those who do. They just believe what the man says. Many are also stupid enough to think the atrocious economy of 4 years ago should have already been completely fixed. lol Then you have a certain amount of Americans who are scaredof Obama's skin color and middle name. It all adds up to a scary amount of voters voting for this slimeball liar Romney. Likely not enough to win Romney the election, but enough to make it close. I do believe his lies about the auto industry being exposed in a major way over the last few days in Ohio, may bury him.

 

Politifact is a democrat organization that needs to be fact checked themselves.

When it comes to obama's pants on fire lies about Benghazi, Politifact has not even rated the president on his truthfulness or lack there of on the issue.

Instead, they say that Romney has told half truths regarding obama's lie about calling the attack terrorism the very next day.

I would rate obama's lie pants on fire and the whole White House on fire.

Gee, why do you think politifact would take an obama White House lie that took place for weeks and everyone knows it, and turn it into a Romney lie?

 

Bingo well said , there getting desparate!

 

Assertion without any evidence to back it up. Stop being lazy.

 

I just gave you the evidence. They didn't rate obama's lies on Benghazi, instead, turned it into a Romney lie. What more evidence would you like?

 

Only 19? I'm shocked it's that low!

 

That's not evidence. That's an anecdote, and a "prove a negative" type of anecdote at that.

Here's what Politifact has done on Benghazi:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/18/sorting-out-truth-attack-libya/

They've slammed a statement by Romney and a statement by Biden.

What has Obama himself said that you think is incorrect and needs fact-checking?

It's quite possible there hasn't been a statement from Obama himself that is both significant and fact-checkable.

 

Of course you would, you swallow everything your media tells you, without question.

 

Something tangible and true?

 

Romney either did lie or was misinformed, that's not really debatable. What politifact did debate was that was Romney completely wrong about it taking the full accounts of the time period they showed that Obama did either lie or was misinformed about the justification of the attacks they said as much in it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-obama-waited-14-days-call-libya-attack/

Though if I remember right politifact did deal with the claim about more security requests.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/

There may be more but politifact tend to wait until they can actually verify things (probably because they don't want to be wrong) though politifact isn't the only fact checking site out there there is also factcheck.org .

Though it's a bit dishonest on your part claiming it's a "democrat" organization with no actual evidence to prove it and makes you seem ignorant to the point where everything that says you might be wrong is a "democrat" organization.

 

Gee where do we start lets try the big ones 1st:

I will cut the deficiet in half (It doubled)

If I pass my stimulus the unemployment rate will not reach 8% he passed it and it went up to 10%

If I pass this 2nd stimulus it will get Unemployment down to 6 %. It still went to 10 and today sits at 8%

I rambled on for 2 weeks about a YouTube video and a demonstration to the country and the world I than apologized for America's behavior at the UN knowing the whole time this was a premeditated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

Since I dont have the next ten years it would take to list all of Obama's lies I will just leave it at that and take the kids trick or treating. Happy Halloween!

 

Like Romneys aid said. They dont run their campaign on facts.

 

Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto called the fact-checking "a bizarre exercise", and added, "PolitiFact does not appear to have done the same for past "SNL" sketches spoofing Republican politicians ... It's as if CNN and the St. Petersburg Times are trying to reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama."

It is quite possible that both of you missed the second debate in which obama lied and said he claimed it was an act of terror. However, that does not match up with the facts now does it? Only 4 days later his Ambassador Susan Rice went on 5 Sunday shows denying that terrorism was involved at all. That they had no evidence to suggest that terrorism was involved inspite of the fact that they knew immediately that it was an act of terror.

[video=youtube;2j7IneR8kpQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j7IneR8kpQ[/video]
"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror..."

You all know that they went on TV for weeks claiming it was not a terrorist attack, that is was a protest that got out of hand which was protesting an internet video.

[video=youtube;uFf0dUH3OtU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU[/video]

The fact that liberals and democrats are defending this man and his lies makes you accomplices in his treasonous behavior, which makes anyone willing to defend him on this just as much of a traitor.

Then on top of it all, after it was exposed as a lie, he still went before the UN, still blaming the internet video, and never once mentioning the word terrorism:

[video=youtube;9rvgS80xJ34]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rvgS80xJ34[/video]

 

Romney is auditioning for the job Obama already has. And his base are very vulnerable to half-truths and pants-on-fires because, frankly, they obviously could care less about things like facts or truths. Romney's camp said it themselves when they stated that they will not let their campaign be dictated by the fact checkers.

I do not fault Romney for taking the liar's approach. His fruit is ripe for the picking.

What DOES upset me is a sitting president even getting ONE pants-on-fire. I would expect this from candidate Romney. Not POTUS Obama.

 

We're talking about Benghazi, genius.

 

Ben who?

 

He did use the words "act of terror." I agree that he was talking generally, not specifically calling Benghazi a terror attack. But that's a thin thing to hang a fact check on.

Everything else you cite is not Obama talking. How is Politifact supposed to fact-check Obama if Obama doesn't say anything?

 

Factually correct but because of a massive recession he did technically inherit some of the deficit depending how you would define when his fiscal policies went into effect and if they did stabilize the economy.

It was an economic projection based on the information he had but yeah he did say that and was off by quite a lot. As for your information it's all right.

Don't remember this quote could you provide a link?

He didn't apologize he said he distanced himself and the country from the movie.

 

No, Romney did not lie, nor was he misinformed, and that is not debatable. The fact that you said something so ignorant makes you seem ignorant. So, coming from you, when you call me ignorant, it seems as though you are doing so because you have to resort to name calling because you have already lost the argument. Crowley even had to back off of her defense of obama during the debate and immediately said that Romney was in fact right.

The fact that you have to defend or make excuses for Politifact neglecting to rate the biggest lie of the year proves that you are a bit dishonest, so, don't call me dishonest either. Any objective observer would question why an organization, who's purpose is purportedly to check facts, would check Romney accusation of obama lying without verify if obama's statement was truthful. That in and of itself demonstrates that the organization leans to democrats. You are being intellectually dishonest, and in fact are lying to yourself if you cannot acknowledge these truths.

 

Well, duh. That is the pants on fire lie that Politifact can't figure out needs to be factchecked, but instead factcheck Romney on his lack of credulity.

 

I have to say, I do find it amusing that every single factcheck, according to conservatives, is a "democratic organization". Why do conservatives hate facts so much? Its a condition of the party that I simply have a very hard time understanding.

 

Nice dodge.

Try this fact on for size:

obozo lied about Benghazi.

Truth hurts, huh.

I think it is you that hates facts so much.

 

I should have noticed your sig earlier before bothering to even respond to your posts. Anyone quoting Ann Coulter has already proven them self a hate monger, and unworthy of even trying to have a rational discussion with.

 

Nope I wasn't wrong Romney said that Obama didn't refer to the attacks as acts of terror until 14 days after the attack that's not true he did refer to them as acts of terror where Obama was wrong was the reasoning behind the attacks now as I stated in my original post this could either have been done by lying or just misinformed. So where was I wrong there? I never defended anyone.

Though I'm sorry but I didn't realize saying that you are not providing actual evidence for the claim about politifact being a "democrat" organization when they have done attacks on the president and actually agreed Obama got it wrong with the benghazi attacks which you are claiming they didn't and saying it's making you appear ignorant. If saying that your statements and argument is making you appear ignorant is a what constitutes as a personal attack then I would say you need to really think what a personal attack is. If I said that you are ignorant and nothing else you might have a point but I showed you the articles and showed how some of your assertions were wrong.