Lying Republicans

[Howey]

We've seen it all over the place, even here with our representatives of the right wing. Unable and incapable of proving a point they resort to lying. Unfortunately, using Fox News as a reference point, it works. Witness the thousands of claims made here, there, everywhere by Republicans, teabaggers, et al, that are based solely on fabricated information. Hell. There's even a name for it: Circle Jerk of Attribution™!

I'm sure the lies of Newt Gingrich, many as they are, will be coming out in the near future. For right now, though, the target is Mitt Romney.

Why Does Romney Lie?

Andrew responds to Romney’s highly embellished anecdotes from his mission years:
 

Why would Romney go out on a limb like that – when it could easily be disproven by an enterprising reporter?
 
Why does Romney ever tell bald-faced lies? After all, this is a man who has made the non-existent “apology tour” the rhetorical centerpiece of his presidential campaign. For some reason, he even managed to say something untrue about his real first name during the national security debate last month. It’s tempting to say that he has reinvented himself so thoroughly that he can no longer remember what is true and what isn’t, and he has absorbed and appropriated so many new positions over the years that it all gets jumbled together and re-mixed according to whatever the political need of the moment happens to be. It’s easy to lose track after the fourth or fifth incarnation. More likely, he is so contemptuous of the people he tells these lies to that he never thinks he will be found out.

I read the story about Romney's missionary days the other day. Hilarious!

Mr Romney told supporters he had experienced austerity as a missionary in France, using a bucket for a lavatory and a hose for a shower. “You’re not living high on the hog at that kind of level,” he said.
 

But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as “palace”. It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy.

I guess that's as bad, if not worse, then Uncle Herman's lies about his childhood. It's a shame his campaign imploded so fast I wasn't able to tell the tale of Uncle Herman being raised by a magnaminous rich Democrat white guy who paid his way through college. Ah well...

This thread, therefore, is dedicated to all the Republican lies out there!

[Howey]

I gotta give ol' Newt credit for this one.

“I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

“Yes,” Gingrich replied.

“You’re calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

“Well, you seem shocked by it!” said Gingrich. “Yes.”

[ekg]

I gotta give ol' Newt credit for this one.

the best part, when reminded that he's the one crying about 'negative attacks' he said that 'it's not negative if it's true'.. and then went on to say that you can have 'true' ads with happy music and they wouldn't be negative..

HAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[uselesslegs]

Eh, Newt was all for Citizens United, until the money barrel was aimed at him...funny.

[ekg]

Eh, Newt was all for Citizens United, until the money barrel was aimed at him...funny.

ironically I told Mike this would come back to bite him. In fact, that was a big position of mine for just about any fucked up position he had... 'ya know Mike, one day the Dems will get to use this,that or the other..' "Ya know, there are liberal billionaires who can exploit this'.. blah blah blah..

what's funny is, it's Newt's own party who did it to him..

that's really got to leave a mark.

[lil mike]

ironically I told Mike this would come back to bite him. In fact, that was a big position of mine for just about any fucked up position he had... 'ya know Mike, one day the Dems will get to use this,that or the other..' "Ya know, there are liberal billionaires who can exploit this'.. blah blah blah..

what's funny is, it's Newt's own party who did it to him..

that's really got to leave a mark.

Yes but coming back to bite me wasn't the issue I was concerned about with Citizens United, the 1st amendment is.  This has always been a freedom of speech issue with me.  Even granting your worse post-Citizen's United nightmare, I still have to default to liberty.  Sorry but the first amendment is more important than one candidate or one political party.

[Howey]

Yes but coming back to bite me wasn't the issue I was concerned about with Citizens United, the 1st amendment is.  This has always been a freedom of speech issue with me.  Even granting your worse post-Citizen's United nightmare, I still have to default to liberty.  Sorry but the first amendment is more important than one candidate or one political party.

Companies are incapable of speech. People are.

[lil mike]

Companies are incapable of speech. People are.

Re-bit.

The case was about banning a movie.    Go read the comments on the muche at the time.  It was pretty good coverage.

[ekg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html

atleast someone got it right..

[Howey]

Eh, Newt was all for Citizens United, until the money barrel was aimed at him...funny.

Now they're running scared of their own SuperPacs.

The rapid rise and far-reaching impact of super PACs -- the well-financed non-party groups that helped carry former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to victory in the Iowa caucuses -- have persuaded some prominent Republicans that restrictions of some sort on the groups' activities may be in order.

In an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday evening, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said he saw no legal way in which to limit the amount of money that these groups could spend or raise. But he said that both he and the candidate he supports, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, believed firmly that the names of the donors funding those groups should be subject to near instantaneous disclosure.

"I've talked to Jon about this and he and I are like-minded," said Ridge. "He has a modest super PAC [supporting him]. I have felt for the longest time, it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court of the United States would put financial limits on free speech. But I think it is within the power of the president and the Congress to say: 'Guess what? Any contribution in excess of $500 to $1,000 to you personally or the super PAC, it is on the Internet within 24 hours, so people can know.' Not quarterly. Transparency now, it is the best antiseptic."

Told that his proposed solution echoes the general theory behind the campaign finance disclosure legislation that Democrats failed to move through the Senate in 2010, Ridge argued that a bit of presidential leadership could do the trick. As of now, there are no plans to reintroduce the bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act.

Under current law, super PACs can chose to file the names of their donors either quarterly or monthly. If they elect to do so quarterly, then they only have to file twice during an off-year of an election cycle such as 2011.

[Howey]

Re-bit.

The case was about banning a movie.    Go read the comments on the muche at the time.  It was pretty good coverage.

Sure...tell that to this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZw4oBsKo8&feature=player_embedded

[lil mike]

Sure...tell that to this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZw4oBsKo8&feature=player_embedded

Gee I missed the part where he said he wanted the government to have the power to ban movies.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself on this issue.

I know I know, crazy talk right?

[Howey]

Gee I missed the part where he said he wanted the government to have the power to ban movies.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself on this issue.

Hmmm...I didn't know the government banned a movie! I could swear it was shown in theatres and on DVD!

Gee I missed the part where he said he wanted the government to have the power to ban movies.

Was this about a movie that wasn't banned or was this about allowing corporations first amendment rights? Cuz your beloved Reason thinks so!

In overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision upholding a state law that prohibited corporations from spending money on election-related messages, the Court rejected the very notion that the First Amendment allows the government to discriminate against speech by groups of people organized as corporations. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself on this issue.

We have me saying CU was about granting corporations a living soul, and we have you saying it was about a movie that was banned but wasn't banned*. I guess Reason and I proved you wrongo again!

Glad to see I edumacated you (again!)



*Note. Don't pull out the bullshit that Hillary: The Movie was banned by the government because it couldn't be shown on PPV cable! It clearly was a political ad running 90 minutes long and was scheduled immediately (within 30 days) of the Democratic primary and at the time was legally prevented from that by McCain-Feingold. A bipartisan law passed under Bush's regime, tyvm.

[Howey]

I feel the need to score this:

Howey, Reason Magazine (lilMIke's favorite right wing/libertarian source), and John Huntsman (lilMike's favorite republican candidate for president) all say CU was about making corporations a "being".

Then we have lilMike saying it wasn't. Wrongo!

[ekg]

I feel the need to score this:

Howey, Reason Magazine (lilMIke's favorite right wing/libertarian source), and John Huntsman (lilMike's favorite republican candidate for president) all say CU was about making corporations a "being".

Then we have lilMike saying it wasn't. Wrongo!

it's his cover.. that way he can feel superior to you and mock you for not liking the 1st amendment.. it's his game.  you should feel sorry for him, I mean, I do..