(Advertisement)

What Won’t Romney Lie About?

Posted: October 26, 2012 at 3:11 a.m.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied. As a friend asked me, “If he would lie about having sex with ‘that woman,’ what wouldn’t he lie about?” Updating that question, “What won’t Mitt Romney lie about?” Romney had to present himself as a moderate Republican to be elected governor of Massachusetts, a very liberal state. To get the presidential nomination, he had to present himself as a radical right-winger. To accomplish this transformation, he had to lie about many or all of his basic beliefs, assuming he has any.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/26/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Guide to the Editorial Page

Only the editorials express the opinion of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. They almost always appear on the left side of the editorial page. The editorial writing staff incl... Read »

Next Story »

HOW WE SEE IT Clinard Earns Another Term As J...

Managing county roads can be compared to baseball umpiring: Every fan can find something wrong with how the job gets done. Read »

Nancy, has your head been buried in the sand? You have bought into the lies the bias national networks have been spewing for months about Romney.

Remember when Obama said in 2008 if you don't have a record to run on you attack the other guy.

That's exactly what the left is doing to Romney and you bought it, hook, line, and sinker!

How about Obama promising if you pass the stimulus the employment rate would be 5.3% by now. Didn't happen!

23 million unemployed or under employed.

$6 trillion new debt under Obama is just 4 years

Europe is on fire.

Al-Queda is alive and well

Obama and his administration, including Hillary Clinton, denied the attack on Benghazi still calling it a video when there is definite proof it was an attack.

You are obviously a yellow dog Democrat, which is your right to be so, but let me remind you, Romney will get Arkansas' 6 electoral votes so just vote away on Obama all you want.

Romney is not a liar, he will get our Country back on track with jobs and the economy which is the first and foremost concerns for us.

Posted by: footballfan

October 26, 2012 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama is an anti-American, anti-national security-pro-Muslin, Marzist. Compounded with his lying , megaiomaniacal, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest behavior. He is unworthy of respect and remains the clearest and most present danger to our Republic and the world. And I'm just talking about the white side of him, wouldn't want to be called raceist by any of you liberial koo koos.

Posted by: JailBird

October 26, 2012 at 7:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

*WARNING the previous two posts contain weapons-grade irony*

footballfan and Moneymyst:

So, basically, in place of refuting the claims of the article's author you have, literally, listed the Republican talking points against Obama. Or, in other words, attacked "the other guy" since Romney has no record (that you'd like to acknowledge) to run on.

All the above posts have done is further cemented the notion that Republicans don't actually want Romney, they just want %NOTOBAMA%

Mitt Romney is a liar, that's well documented, but not only that he's the *worst* kind of liar. The kind that will tell you whatever will make *you* vote for him.

Posted by: Nilatir

October 26, 2012 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama's administration successfully *killed* Osama bin Ladin. So, Obama is pro-Muslim? Yeah. Right.

Mitt Romney is a spoiled brat who is not working in *my* best interest. Perhaps Moneymyst and footballfan are members of the 1%. No one in my community is!

Of all the possibilities that the R party had to choose from for a "moderate" candidate, Romney is not the best pick. And his running mate is a misogynist ultra conservative.

I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: SPA

October 26, 2012 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Muslims have been killing Muslims for centuries. Obama just killed another Muslim. So SPA

Posted by: JailBird

October 26, 2012 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

So tired of all the right-wing nut jobs claiming Obama is a muslim. Is it because he doesn't have an "American-sounding" name like john smith. Go crawl back in your hole.

Posted by: AutopilotAR

October 26, 2012 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, maybe Romney doesn't lie, he just forgets. And when he remembers, he remembers things in a different way...

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Take a minute and compare it to what Mitt initiated and implemented in Massachusetts (aka Romneycare).

They are VERY similar.

- Both plans include individual mandates including penalties for those who don't obtain healthcare.

- They both require businesses to offer employee healthcare or face penalties. Obamacare requires it of employers with 50+ employees, Romneycare with 11 or more.

- They both set up state insurance exchanges to give individuals more and cheaper coverage choices.

- They both expand Medicaid to insure more of the low-income population.

- They both increase the age at which young adults can be covered under parent's plans to 26.

- The list goes on...

One big difference, Romneycare pays for abortions, Obamacare does not...

Maybe Mitt just forgot these things...

Posted by: Dexter

October 26, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff Foxworthy: If you smell, act, & sound like a ----------------, you just might be a----------------. Fill in the blanks. Clue-words start with an M

Others have figured it out too. Gallup R 51 O 46

Posted by: JailBird

October 26, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Romney actually went to the White House and encouraged Pres Obama to implement a health care program like the one he implemented in Mass.

You can look it up.

Posted by: cdawg

October 26, 2012 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

...or Joesph Smith, that's a pretty American-sounding name.

The Facts: Obama - Methodist; Romney - Mormon

I don't like attacking Mitt Romney for being Mormon, I would like *all* religion left out of government and I think there are plenty of issues on both sides without bringing someone's mythology of choice into it.

But the fact is Romney has held the posts of Bishop and later stake president, so not *just* even a "practicing Mormon" but more akin to a minister/priest and then regional minister/diocesan bishop.

So I find it ironic (in a face-palm, head-desk, tear-your-hair-out way) that right-wingers will line up to vote for Romney because they don't want a "secret Muslim" in office.

Now here's the "weapons-grade" irony. Ready....

Mormonism is a magnitude closer to Islam than it is Protestantism or Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonis...

Posted by: Nilatir

October 26, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey, Nilatir, our rwingers can be led to accept the Romney-Mormon fact that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Joseph Smith said so, Brigham Young taught it. That settles it.

"When Mitt was a youngster his dad would get the family packed and they would go to Mexico to visit Mitt's grandparents. Mitt would get to visit his grandma Sarah, grandma Martha, grandma Lisa, grandma Elizabeth,grandma Jane ...."
--Jimmy Kimmel

Posted by: cdawg

October 26, 2012 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mormanism is an "ism" a cult. Joseph Smith was a con-man with a seeing eye that could look into the earth and see treasure. Talked others to invest in scheme. Once said the found golden tablets an with said seeing eye translated them into book of mormon. No golden tablets today, gone poof. Read "No Man knows my historiy" by Fawn M. Brodie. Got to question the judgment of anyone who believes in Mormonism.

Posted by: JailBird

October 26, 2012 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As usual, the left-wing punks demonstrate that they have as much regard for facts as Charlie Sheen has for chastity. Candy Crowley admitted after the second debate that the ruler was lying about whether he believed the attack on Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, a conclusion which any rational person would have reached since he and his surrogates were blaming the deaths on a YouTube video that no one ever saw.

They can't stop there, since they choose to go after the next president's religion and the usual anti-Masonic claims against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. The sad fact is that it is the Obama shills who behave as if they are members of a cult. They are the type of people who demand that their children and grandchildren be forced to pay the bill for their own profligacy. There is no redeeming qualities they possess, and they must be defeated in November if we are to survive. Period.

Posted by: IrishMensa

October 27, 2012 at 12:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>The sad fact is that it is the Obama shills who behave as if they are members of a cult.<<

Nay, not so fast my dumbed down amigo. Billy Graham taught for years that Mormon faith is a cult.
Only recently when Mitt appears as the redeemer for white Christendom does the Graham family appear supportive and accepting Mitt into the loving arms of Jesus. You will not hear Mitt or family say they've accepted Jesus as their personal savior. There's just some whoppers even Mitt cannot tell but I won't be surprised if he does. It's the vote that matters, not the faith.

Posted by: cdawg

October 27, 2012 at 12:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are some Conservatives (much to the suprise and/ordisgust of our fellow Conservatives) that will (or already have in early voting) voted for the President based soley on the fact that Gov. Romney is a Mormon.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's funny, until about a week ago, Billy Graham's website had Mormonism listed as a cult religion. Seems he changes his mind as frequently as Mitt...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...

Posted by: Dexter

October 27, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not going to start throwing spears at Rev. Graham. I'de be willing to bet he doesn't run his own website.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The office of the president is not about religion, but the business of the country. No one asks or cares about the religious belief of a pilot or bus driver. Anyone who is literate can do better than Obana. He is a fraud and con man and has been from the get go. He will soon be gone, but the damage he left is like the aftermath of a hurricane. If Romney screws up, we can vote him out.

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 27, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

george,

A whole lot of people care about the religious beliefs of the CinC.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank
Not sure why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of the President. We're not electing a spiritual leader, we are electing an executive to run this country.

I'm a conservative Christian, but I'd vote for a Hindu, if they could run this country effectively.

Any conservative that voted against Romney based solely on his religion probably should have stayed home. .

Posted by: P5harri

October 27, 2012 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

p5Harri/Tomspch--

RE "Not sure why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of the President."
He didn't say they should-- he said they do.

RE "Any conservative that voted against Romney based solely on his religion probably should have stayed home."
The same goes double for any conservative who believes that Obama is a Muslim: once for making an issue of his religion, and once for being deliberately stupid.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2012 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Amen AlphaCat... :-)

Posted by: Dexter

October 27, 2012 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tom,

RE-

"Not sure why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of the President."

Because it is a perogative.

For the record, the President is a Christian, and that is important to a lot of people, Liberal and Conservative... all Americans.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For the record, the president "says" he is a Christain. Hitler was a Lutheran. Said also that he was a Christain. I say that I'm a Catholic, but no one believes me. I'm as honest as Oboma or Rumney.

Posted by: JailBird

October 27, 2012 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All you posters have been doing is diverting the attention from the real issue of our ECONOMY. We cannot take 1 more yr of Obama, not to mention 4. These off-the-wall issues are ridiculous. We need a strong economy, a strong military and Obama hasn't done anything to get us back on our feet; he only put us deeper in the hole, making our children/grandchildren a slave to the government.

Posted by: mycentworth

October 27, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth--

RE "All you posters have been doing is diverting the attention from the real issue of our ECONOMY."
Since Romney has lied (or ignorantly misinformed us, as the case may be) about the economy-- just like everything else-- we aren't really off-topic here.

RE "We cannot take 1 more yr of Obama, not to mention 4."
What we can't take is another year-- much less four-- of Republican obstruction and economic sabotage.

RE "making our children/grandchildren a slave to the government."
Oh, waaah for your spawn. Republicans are responsible for most of their impending slavery. Look it up.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2012 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth,

The military is strong and it gets stronger every day.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Republicans freed the slaves and now they want them back. ;)

Posted by: Nilatir

October 27, 2012 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nilatir, that is profound, I don't know exactly how to respond to it so I'll stand down.

Posted by: JailBird

October 27, 2012 at 8:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is absurd, Nilatir. Creating dependency is a form of slavery in itself.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 27, 2012 at 9:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IrishM: "Candy Crowley admitted... [Obama] was lying about whether he believed the attack on Benghazi to be an act of terrorism,">>

After Ms. Crowley, Candy slapped Mittens, the conservatives were furious so they made up this desperate meme that Candy "walked back" her claim in the debate. Let's ask Candy about that since surely she would know:

"This morning, Paul Ryan, who has been making the rounds on the morning shows, says, 'Well, she's already backtracked,'" CNN host Soledad O'Brien pointed out to Crowley on Wednesday morning. "Are you backtracking on what you said in that fact check last night?"

"Goodness, I hope they get back to one another," Crowley replied, adding that her comments following the debate were "exactly the same" as the original fact check. "He did say 'acts of terror,' call it an act of terror, but, Gov. Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape."

"Not a backtrack?" O'Brien wondered.

"No!" Crowley said."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/d...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2012 at 12:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Football has a fist full of cow flop.

FT: "Obama promising if you pass the stimulus the employment rate would be 5.3%...">>

No he didn't. Again:

***
"[Obama was citing a report by] ...Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

FT: "23 million unemployed or under employed.">>

You'll want to avoid that one, because Mitten's has lied repeatedly about that one. The debunk:

"THE FACTS: The number of unemployed is 12.5 million, not 23 million. Romney was also counting 8 million people who are working part time but would like a full-time job and 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work, either because they are discouraged or because they are going back to school or for other reasons."
http://tinyurl.com/9so83sy

Stop peddling this lie.

FT: "$6 trillion new debt under Obama is just 4 years">>

Complete nonsense, because it ignores that your Bush left $2.7 trillion to land directly on the next guy:

"...the large short-term deficits the nation is facing are emphatically not the fault of the current leadership.
What do these charts show? First, that before Obama took office the United States was projected to run a deficit of nearly $1.9 trillion in this period. Second, they show that between the time Obama took office and the time CBO released their August 2010 update, the total deficit had risen by $866 billion.... Approximately three-fourths of the increase in the deficit comes from a collapse in revenue -- a direct result of the recession..." http://mediamatters.org/bl%E2%80%8Bog...

$1.9 trillion plus $866 billion, that's a $2.76 trillion cherry Bush left to smack the next person. And the remainder? That's your Bush too. Nicely shown in two simple charts:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

FT: "Obama... including Hillary Clinton, denied the attack on Benghazi..">>

Except they didn't: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2012 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FootB: "Romney is not a liar,...">>

Yes he is. Bigtime with bells on. He may even be a pathological liar. Here are a few hundred examples:

1) Romney getting his facts wrong 27 times at the debate: http://www.nationofchange.org/last-ni...

2) 35 of Romney's his howlers in his convention speech shredded, point by point: http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts...

3) Here are 50 additional whoppers he told a week or two ago: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/201...

4) Here are the 37 he told the week before that: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/201...

5) Here are ten more examples: http://front.moveon.org/10-pieces-of-...

6) Here are 31 more he told at his second debate: http://www.alternet.org/election-2012...

7) Here is the motherload: "Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them:

"Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration. This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktiv...

That collection goes to August. He adds about 30 per week so Romney's easily over 600 by now. I wouldn't remotely defend each and everyone of them as technical "lies" (some are shameless errors, I say shameless because he keeps repeating them and some are open to interpretation), but a great number of them must be intentional fabrications.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2012 at 12:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I see none of the traditional rwingers on here wish to refute what Ms Saunders letter stated about Mitt's two lies.

Posted by: cdawg

October 28, 2012 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Maybe someone should document and count Obama's lies. He has not lied?

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 28, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "That is absurd, Nilatir. Creating dependency is a form of slavery in itself."
It's not at all absurd, and your own reasoning demonstrates the point. Congressional Republicans have increased dependency by obstructing numerous jobs bills that would relieve dependency.

We have had record low taxes for over ten years now. Corporate profits are at record highs and the stock market has approached its highest point ever. High unemployment and record income disparity are absolute proof that trickle-down economics don't work. The Republican Party insists on promoting an economic model that creates dependency.

Et voila! The Republican Party wants their slaves back.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kinggeorge/MrD--

RE "Maybe someone should document and count Obama's lies. He has not lied?"
Not to exaggerate your prowess at research or argumentation, but, given your desperate belief that it is the case, as you haven't been able to find any documented examples of lies told by Obama, it appears that he has not lied, or that nobody heard him lie, or that he lied about something that is entirely irrelevant to his public service.

Was "Your bet is on" a lie?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Niether side of the aisle in Congress is innocent.
Maybe you should have driven through the welfare prominent towns down here close to my new location in Louisiana. Don't get me wrong, these people need help. However, Government programs haven't done much for these folks that meets the eye. I'm not for "trickle-down economics", I'm for keeping the government out of economics as much as possible. That includes promoting a way of life free of government dependency (for people and businesses) where people don't adopt a cycle of living in squalor for successive generations AND where big businesses aren't getting a break at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 28, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As Bill Clinton said: "Define the word "lie".

Posted by: JailBird

October 28, 2012 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KingG: "Maybe someone should document and count Obama's lies.">>

Indeed someone should. And as I've been pointing out for months, you are just the fellow for the job. Begin with example number one. Start with your best one. How about starting now? Begin. Start now. Gather your courage, give it a go.

Dare ya.

D.
------------
In case you don't remember, here's what a lie looks like:

***
"The US budget fiscal year goes from September 1 to September 31 of the following year. On the day that President Obama took office the 2009 budget year — Bush's last budget year — was in its 5th month. The projected deficit for that budget year — again, Bush's last budget year — was already $1.2 trillion... [consider this] conservative news outlet with the slogan: “The Right News. Right Now.” It is dated January 7, 2009, two weeks before Barack Obama took office, and the title is Congressional Budget Office Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009, The federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to a Capitol Hill aide briefed on new Congressional Budget office figures.

That was two weeks before Obama took office. That is the first of “four straight trillion-dollar deficits” upon which Romney is basing much of his campaign rhetoric. Except it was Bush's last budget year, not Obama's first.

The third budget year of Obama's presidency just ended two weeks ago. The deficit was $1.1 trillion. That is not “double” as Romney claimed, it is lower than when he took office. Here is Reuters reporting on it: Federal deficit shrinks, still tops $1T in fiscal 2012

The deficit dropped from 10.1% of GDP in the 2009 budget year — Bush's last budget year — to 7% in the 2012 budget year. That is not “double,” that is a 30% drop.

But Mitt Romney says, again and again, that Obama “doubled the deficit.” No, he didn't, he reduced it."

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/201...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2012 at 7:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I believe Bill Clinton wanted the word "is" defined before he would answer a question... But that is neither here nor there... Romney's lies seem to be pathological in nature... It is worse than just flip flopping because he "flips" and then "flops" and then "flips" back again...
.
Reminds me of the old shell game... Where you don't know which shell the pea is under because they were shuffled around so fast..
.
Why would anyone vote for a person who is so disingenuous...??? If he can lie this easily to win an election, what will he lie about as President..??? Do we really want a person who shape shifts as much as Mitt Romney does..??? Will our allies be able to TRUST him..??? Will members of Congress be able to TRUST him..??? But most of all, will the American people be able to TRUST him..???
.
I seriously doubt it..!!! Re-elect President Obama..!!!

Posted by: aimee

October 29, 2012 at 2:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Maybe you should have driven through the welfare prominent towns down here close to my new location in Louisiana<

You want to see welfare as you've never seen it?

Drive down Wall Street. It's there glaring you in the face. Billions upon Trillions of it. You have no idea of how America' real welfare works. Take away the government money and Wall Street would have crumbled long ago. Meanwhile they have the slaves, like you, watching the puppet show down on low-income row.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/30126...

You want to see more welfare? Fly over the coasts of So Carolina and No Carolina as this huge hurricane hits and destroys hundreds or thousands of homes. Those expensive, sea side homes would not even exist if it were not for the WELFARE doled out in the form of Federal insurance "subsidies." Notice they have a nice word for it SUBSIDIES.

No one would insure those expensive homes except the Federal government because all insurers know that within a 12 yr period many will be destroyed. Real free-market insurance fees would be unaffordable.

Pure welfare. Now, tank, you howl on about single mothers getting some food and a housing allowances to go along with their minimum wage paychecks.

There's a "welfare row" over in Eureka Spgs too. Who wanted it for the city? Local tourist businesses who couldn't attract cheap labor because there was no affordable housing in Eureka Springs so the business community got together, got some federal money and built a low-income complex so low-paid workers would have a roof over their head. That's how welfare works.
.

Posted by: cdawg

October 29, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

***
"Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs"

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006."

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 29, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

RE-

"Now, tank, you howl on about single mothers getting some food and a housing allowances to go along with their minimum wage paychecks."

No, I have never done that. Are you helping a certain campaign make more of their Michael Moore style ads.

We need to pull up those that need it and not continue to promote dependency lifestyles that run a pattern over generations AND we need to cut off big businesses leaching off the government.

"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."
-Thomas Sowell

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 30, 2012 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I am not suprised that the ad at the top of your link's homepage is pro-Iran/anti-US..... garbage.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 30, 2012 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank; "the ad at the top of your link's homepage is [blah blah]">>

a) relevance = zero
b) I don't read or pay attention to ads
c) ads have no relevance to the actual data in question.

Got anything besides your smear the source genetic fallacy, and a big dollop of attempted "guilt by association" on top?

Put on your big boy pants some day and try to actually address the data rather than smearing the source and running. Really, try something new.

D.
-----------
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 30, 2012 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

You make a serious miscalculation on who I voted for with your smart aleck picture.

I don't think it is smearing a source to point out that it is pro-Iran/anti-US. And the ad was linked to the article endorsed and posted to the site.

If you are so much in favor of the welfare state, do you think the US should outlaw private insurance like a particular North American country did until their court had the sense to overrule the stupid act?

Good thing those old timers can get those hip replacements when they need them now.

“The best aims in the world, if combined with bad incentives, via the wrong institutions, can generate terrible outcomes. The intentions of advocates of the welfare state are irrelevant to the outcomes of their policies”. -Tom Palmer

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 30, 2012 at 10:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "serious miscalculation on who I voted for with your smart aleck picture.">>

Don't flatter yourself. I am well aware you have said you will not vote for Romney.

Tnk: "I don't think it is smearing a source to point out that it is pro-Iran/anti-US.">>

What link are you talking about? You didn't say. And yes, it is exactly smearing a source to complain that some ad popped up on their site. Ridiculous.

T: "And the ad was linked to the...">>

Let's see it. Relevance to the information in the article? Zero. As usual for you.

Tnk: "If you are so much in favor of the welfare state, do you think...">>

I ask Tank questions repeatedly and he ducks and runs from them. Now he wants me to answer his. Nice.

D.
---------
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 31, 2012 at 12:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Good thing those old timers can get those hip replacements when they need them now.">>

Oh, I see. Tank is trying to say something about Canada but he can't quite spit it out.

I remember my grandpa pulling up his pant legs (around 1980) and showing me his new knees the Canadian socialized healthcare (insurance) had just installed. He was quite proud of them and said they would have cost about $70,000. They didn't cost him anything even though he was a wealthy man.

My dad (age 72) lives in Canada and will need a new hip soon. He hasn't bothered with it yet. If he falls down and breaks it (as my grandmother did a couple months ago, in Canada) it will be fixed immediately (as her's was, she's 88).

I donated a telescope for a garage sale trying to raise money so a local lady of limited means could go to another country (India I think) to get her hip replaced. It was going to be 10's of thousands here.

If Tank would like to learn about healthcare between respective countries, I'll again recommend he read my lecture notes:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.
--------
It might be useful to ask what the people think:

Here's what the Canadians think.

"By an overwhelming margin, Canadians prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one. Overall, 82% said they preferred the Canadian system, fully ten times the number who said the American system is superior (8%)." -- http://tinyurl.com/nqvsr6

"The vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than the United States..." --CTV News, http://tinyurl.com/6ra3mwq

Let's ask the Americans:

"...extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system." -- http://tinyurl.com/72wnl

"...just 29 percent of Americans think the overall U.S. health care system is better than Canada's; more, 37 percent, think it's worse than Canada's." --ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 31, 2012 at 12:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I don't think it is smearing a source to point out that it is pro-Iran/anti-US."
Most web content owners have no control over what ads appear on their sites. The ad you cite does not reflect a bias on the part of the site. (I use an ad blocker, so I never see ads. Perhaps that is why I am so fair-minded in evaluating information.)

RE “The best aims in the world, if combined with bad incentives, via the wrong institutions, can generate terrible outcomes.”
That sounds like a damning indictment of private insurance.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 31, 2012 at 2:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Here is the link to the article on FFT's source (also listed as the TOP article on the home page: http://thinkbynumbers.org/

It wasn't a pop up as the our resident spinmeister would suggest.

Did I mention it is written by a guy styled as George “Ghost F**ker” Will.

Again FFT demonstrates his use of authoritative organzations for the crap he spreads. Rachel Maddow would be proud.

By the way, I guess Chaoulli v. Quebec was just a figment of the collective Canadian imagination.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 31, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT thinks rolling stone magazine is the US. constitution. why argue with a liberal nutt!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 101stnamvet

October 31, 2012 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

T: "It wasn't a pop up...">>

Nor is it an ad. The link you provide is a different page and it simply provides a link to another article, having (as is usual for you) no relevance whatsoever to the article I linked to.

Here is the link I provided:

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-...

I see no ads. Could you possibly be more desperate in your attempts to avoid dealing with the evidence I cite.

T: "Did I mention it is written by a guy styled as...">>

Who cares? Relevance to the article I referred to = zero.

T: "Chaoulli v. Quebec...">>

Ha. I haven't seen that one in years. Mr. Chaoulli very much likes and is for universal healthcare. He just has his own ideas about how to improve and build on the Canadian system. Good for him. I would probably agree with him. Things can always be improved EH?

D.
-----------
From a research paper by him:

"We are proposing a new approach to the financing, insuring and delivery of medical and hospital services. While retaining universal entitlement to Medicare insurance, as a core publicly funded service, we propose a new concept of universal private choice. This includes Medicare, as well as voluntary private medical, hospital and health insurance alternatives, as exist in all other OECD countries. Our aim is to improve quality, access and choice for all Canadians."
http://www.iedm.org/740-dr-jacques-ch...

Note: "Medicare" is the unofficial name for Canada's publicly funded universal health insurance system."

And Dr. Chaoulli supports it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 31, 2012 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I disagree, 101stvet, FFT's favorite news information source is from "High Times".

Posted by: JailBird

October 31, 2012 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."
-Thomas Sowell<<

No tank, as I aptly demonstrated at "seeking Alpha" link
it's about egos of the bankers and financiers.

The "Welfare State" is about protecting Mitt's multi-million dollars a year income from regular taxation so that he pays a lower rate than a plumber or school teacher.

It's also about funneling $1.2 BILLION in U.S. welfare state money into his U.S. Olympics project so his oversized ego could say "I did it."

Posted by: cdawg

October 31, 2012 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

the republicans have already got their first priority bill ready for DAY 1.
it is to abolish the estate tax on the folks who have over 3 million so they pay NO tax and 100% goes to their heirs so they can hoard and keep all the wealth of America in just a few families forever! their children will be "trust babies" who live off that income and do NOT have to work. this is the most important bill for Romney and his lobbists. this will prove true if he is elected.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

November 1, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I hope that Day 1 is to kill Obamacare.

Posted by: JailBird

November 1, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Romney promised that, too-- even though it shows blatant hypocrisy on his part. In fact, he promised to do so much on Day One that there won't be anything else for him to do during the rest of his term except start the war that the doesn't want to talk about.

Of course, Romney's not black, so-- if elected-- he has a chance to get some cooperation from our lately-obstructionist congressional Republicans. Still, it's going to be a jam-packed Day One.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 1, 2012 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wouldn't mind if Day 1, he did kill Obamacare, as long as he replaces it with the same plan HE implemented as governor of Massachusetts (aka Romneycare). Luckily that won't happen because Obama WILL be reelected.

Posted by: Dexter

November 1, 2012 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dex: "Luckily that won't happen because Obama WILL be reelected.">>

Yes, let's review a few reasons why that probably is the case:

Various prediction markets from around the world:

Barack Obama:
Betfair: 73.8 %
Intrade: 66.3 %
Smarkets: 73.8 %

Mitt Romney:
Betfair: 26.3%
Intrade: 33.8 %
Smarkets: 26.5 %

As of: 11-01-2012 http://www.predictwise.com/taxonomy/t...

IEM (this hour): Winner Take All
Dem average: .65
Rep average: .35
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pr...

Princeton model: "Probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 96%, Bayesian Prediction 99%" http://election.princeton.edu/

Nate Silver:
Obama: 80.8%
Romney: 19.2%
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes....

Nerdwallet: "Romney's election odds: 31%" http://www.nerdwallet.com/markets/ele...

Huff Po electoral map:
Obama: 277
Rom: 206

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 1, 2012 at 9:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now do you see the effects of long term smoking of MJ will do to human brain.

Posted by: JailBird

November 1, 2012 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Indeed.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 2, 2012 at 12:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Possible problem with voting machine fraud in Ohio favors Romney?

Posted by: Coralie

November 3, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let's hope

Posted by: JailBird

November 6, 2012 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Looks like Romney lied about being the next president.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 6, 2012 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

He can lie all he wants now.

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson lost his $70 million wager on Republicans. He couldn't buy himself a new Dept of Justice so the investigations against him continue, here and in China.

Posted by: cdawg

November 7, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, you actually hoped that Romney would win through voting machine fraud?
.

Posted by: Coralie

November 7, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I did, I did. Just like in Benton County.

Posted by: JailBird

November 8, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )