PolitiFact Names 'Lie of the Year'...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

You will always have a problem with the fact that business owners didn't build the roads that lead to their system or the schools that provide them with educated workers?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
You will always have a problem with the fact that business owners didn't build the roads that lead to their system or the schools that provide them with educated workers?

So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?

If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.

I'm not arguing that we don't need to have a stable government that provides these services in order to have a successful business operation.

I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.

**d-usa**

These business owners, and all tax payers, are using infrastructure that was build and put in place during times that taxes were higher (pre-Bush tax cuts and beyond) than they are now. So complaining about taxes now when they benefit from stuff put in place during higher tax rates is silly.

And no, the taxes one person paid before they were a business didn't build a road or were enough to pay for their workers education.

So even if somebody that builds a business after paying taxes, then THEIR taxes didn't pay for all the infrastructure needed to make that business even possible. All our taxes did. And that was the point of that statement. They didn't build the infrastructure, we all did, so we need to make sure we all continue to have the same opportunities and continue to pay into the system that allowed them to be successful.

The only thing awful from that campaign speech is the backwards reasoning from Republican politicians and talking heads that they try to force to pretend that Boot-Strap Joe McRepublican really exists and would have build a multi-billion business without any use of governmental resources what-so-ever.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
These business owners, and all tax payers, are using infrastructure that was build and put in place during times that taxes were higher (pre-Bush tax cuts and beyond) than they are now. So complaining about taxes now when they benefit from stuff put in place during higher tax rates is silly.

And no, the taxes one person paid before they were a business didn't build a road or were enough to pay for their workers education.

So even if somebody that builds a business after paying taxes, then THEIR taxes didn't pay for all the infrastructure needed to make that business even possible. All our taxes did. And that was the point of that statement. They didn't build the infrastructure, we all did, so we need to make sure we all continue to have the same opportunities and continue to pay into the system that allowed them to be successful.

The only thing awful from that campaign speech is the backwards reasoning from Republican politicians and talking heads that they try to force to pretend that Boot-Strap Joe McRepublican really exists and would have build a multi-billion business without any use of governmental resources what-so-ever.

Yeah, I understand your position. I disagree with ya.

My dislike for Obama is coloring my opinion on everything he has done or will do... I'll admit to that.

When's Hillary's campaign starting? She's a shoo-in...

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:

When's Hillary's campaign starting? She's a shoo-in...

Rumors now she will refuse to testify on Bengazi.. She's no longer a shoe in. Plus the real contenders will come out for this one. On the R side I'm already seeing Christie, Rubio, and Jindal. There will be more. On the Demo side I'm seeing H Clinton and that

faced grinner Chris. There will be more.

Besides the incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term since the 1980s.

**d-usa**

Republicans had a great shot at winning this year, they just managed to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity.

If they learn from half their mistakes they should have a good shot.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Republicans had a great shot at winning this year, they just managed to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity.

If they learn from half their mistakes they should have a good shot.

Nope... (R) won't learn...

Mark me here... Hillary Clinton will be the next Prez. Now, that's not a bad thing... she wasn't such a bad Southern Democrat.

As to Bengahzi? She's teflon... things would've stuck to her long ago if it would...

**Frazzled**

"Madam secretary who turned down the request for more security?"

"Er...uh...."

"Madam secretary do you know where your husband is?"

"Er....uh..."

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.

Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.

Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.

Why do I feel like you're supporting my premise?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Frazzled wrote:
"Madam secretary who turned down the request for more security?"

"Er...uh...."

"Madam secretary do you know where your husband is?"

"Er....uh..."

Hah! Take an exalt for that!

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.

Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.

Why do I feel like you're supporting my premise?

If you think that was anywhere near your premise, you completely misunderstood the point, which wouldn't shock me, or you are oblivious to what argument you have been presenting, which would also not surprise me.

**Breotan**

Susan Rice's statements at the UN on Benghazi are bigger, more serious lies than anything Romney or Obama said during the campaign.

Also, Sarah Palin didn't say she could see Russia from her house - that was Tina Fey on SNL. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.

Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.

Why do I feel like you're supporting my premise?

If you think that was anywhere near your premise, you completely misunderstood the point, which wouldn't shock me, or you are oblivious to what argument you have been presenting, which would also not surprise me.

And I can say you're just as oblivious as to why I had an issue to that statement... here's the juicy quote:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American 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.

What I interpreted by that statement is that ”You don’t get credit for your hard work.” It wasn't like, "hey, the government helped you to be successful" that the righties keep pushing.

So... I'm done with that bit in this thread. Moving on... I asked you this earlier... which is the more egregious lie?

A) The Romney Jeep AD in the original OP?
or
B) Blaming the attacks in Bengahzi on that Youtube Mohamed director?

**KalashnikovMarine**

The Obama attack ad where a guy blamed Romney for his wife dying of cancer was a good one.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The Obama attack ad where a guy blamed Romney for his wife dying of cancer was a good one.

In fairness... that wasn't Obama's campaign, but a PAC.

**Breotan**

Yea, but the guy in the ad was connected to the Obama campaign.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
"Madam secretary who turned down the request for more security?"

"Er...uh...."

"Madam secretary do you know where your husband is?"

"Er....uh..."

Damn... maybe I do need to reassess my belief that Hillary will run for Prez:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-15-12-28-49

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who skipped an overseas trip this past week because of a stomach virus, sustained a concussion after fainting, the State Department said Saturday.

The 65-year-old Clinton, who's expected to leave her job soon, was recovering at home after the incident last week and is being monitored by doctors, according to a statement by aide Philippe Reines.

No further details were immediately available.

President Barack Obama telephoned his top diplomat Saturday to wish her well, a White House official said.

The State Department said Clinton was dehydrated because of the virus, fainted and sustained a concussion. She will continue to work from home in the week ahead and looks forward to returning to the office "soon," the statement said.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it won't hear from Clinton as planned at a Thursday hearing into the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also said Clinton would no longer give scheduled testimony at its hearing Thursday on Libya.

Senior State Department officials William Burns and Thomas Nides are to take Clinton's place at both hearings.

Clinton's aides on Saturday informed the Senate committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, about her health, and the Massachusetts Democrat "insisted that given her condition, she could not and should not appear" as planned, said Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth. Obama is expected to nominate Kerry to succeed Clinton.

Clinton backed out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf on Monday because she was sick. She caught the virus during a recent visit to Europe.

The former first lady is known for her grueling travel schedule and is the most traveled secretary of state, having visited 112 countries while in the job.

This is getting stranger, and stranger...

Unless someone else has an idea... I can only think of 2 reasons why her people would let us hear this story that she fainted, addled her pate, and can't face up to Congress on Benghazi:
1. She's not going to run for President (which, I still think it's likely), or
2. What she would have to say about Benghazi is more damaging than this effort to avoid testifying.

Hmmmm...

**KalashnikovMarine**

Orrrrr she's human and can manage to get sick/knock herself out?

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Orrrrr she's human and can manage to get sick/knock herself out?

She's a beaky 'umie?

Heresy I'd say!

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Besides the incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term since the 1980s.

We also had a 232 year run of "no black guys being elected". Just cause it's been a while doesn't mean it won't happen.

Alternately, here.

**Zathras**

Ahtman wrote:
"You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.

Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.

**d-usa**

Oh for feths sake....

**dogma**

Zathras wrote:

Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.

The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".

**d-usa**

dogma wrote:
Zathras wrote:

Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.

The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".

Exactly, here is the quote:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American 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

So somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system...you didn't build those? That's what Obama should have said to keep from insulting the American small business man?

Really, the only way the quote could say what everybody who is anti-Obama wants it to say is this:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American 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 it.

Although I don't even know why we waste bandwidth, because the people who don't like it will insist that the statement was wrong simply because it came out of Obama's mouth.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?

No, not disregarding it at all. Just asking people to recognise that they're not tiny little islands of unbridled capitalism, but part of a greater system. A system in which they, along with everyone else, pay in taxes, and in return they get the infrastructure and educated population that produces economic opportunities that business owners can take advantage of.

I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.

That was how the Republicans tried to run it. It sounded great to all the people that already thought Obama was a big government politician. But they were already voting Republican.

It's kind of one of the big reasons that the Republicans lost the election - their various political campaigns were just preaching to the converted.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?

No, not disregarding it at all. Just asking people to recognise that they're not tiny little islands of unbridled capitalism, but part of a greater system. A system in which they, along with everyone else, pay in taxes, and in return they get the infrastructure and educated population that produces economic opportunities that business owners can take advantage of.

I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.

That was how the Republicans tried to run it. It sounded great to all the people that already thought Obama was a big government politician. But they were already voting Republican.

It's kind of one of the big reasons that the Republicans lost the election - their various political campaigns were just preaching to the converted.

Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?

Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Rumors now she will refuse to testify on Bengazi.. She's no longer a shoe in.

Are you honestly suggesting that Benghazi, which barely rated a mention during the 2012 election after it had just happened, will be a major factor in four years time? The thing is alive now only because the Republicans are desperate to keep talking about it, in the hope that it will somehow start paying dividends.

Nah, Benghazi won't impact Clinton one bit. Her age is far more likely to be a negative factor in four years.

Besides the incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term since the 1980s.

There's been a whopping total of two instances that fit your criteria above (Gore losing in 2000, McCain in 2008). So your theory actually reads as 'incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term the last two times, but did the time before that'. Which doesn't really mean gak, to be honest.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Zathras wrote:

Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.

The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".

It depends on what your definition of is is.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?

Not much, really. Security at a consulate was compromised and people were killed. It's awful when it happens, but simply isn't that rare of a thing. Following the event, the initial comments from the administration weren't correct, but those comments didn't impact the investigation one bit.

But I am pretty disappointed in the Republicans continuing to fish around, trying to make some kind of scandal of this. It reaks of Whitewater, honestly. Lots of suggestion and innuendo that feeds on itself - lots of things phrased like they're suspicious, but at the core there's no actual wrong doing by anyone in government.

Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.

The Democrats also have a much greater pool of potentially persuadable voters that they can can tap to get out and vote.

The Republicans have a smaller pool, albeit one that typically gets out and votes more reliably. The problem is that their pool of voters is getting to be no longer enough to win, given the demographic trends, and so running political nonsense campaigns like 'He didn't build that' - half truths that the loyal party voters eat up, just aren't enough to win new voters, and therefore aren't enough to win an election.