Did conservative pundits con their base?

[thegreekdog]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

[Metsfanmax]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.

/sarcasm

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

[Night Strike]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

[Symmetry]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

[Night Strike]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

The deficit was doubled. Actually, what he said was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, which is what he doubled.

[Symmetry]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

The deficit was doubled. Actually, what he said was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, which is what he doubled.

What you said was that spending was doubled. That was obviously nonsense. Now you're trying for something different. Can we at least agree that you were wrong about spending?

[thegreekdog]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.

/sarcasm

It depends on what your definition of "viable alternative" is.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?

He won, dude, and his pundits were pretty spot on about it.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?

He won, dude, and his pundits were pretty spot on about it.

So you believed the president? Good for you! You're such a trusting and naive individual.

[Symmetry]

You're such a trusting and naive individual.

That's probably one of the nicest things you've said about me.

[stahrgazer]

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

He increased spending because Bush had let the economy collapse.

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in?

I don't believe in a totally free market, I believe in a Patriotic market.

Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

Don't be blind, NS. The Federal Government has, from the start, awarded contracts which helped certain companies. Usually it was defense related, and I believe that ensuring we keep viable jobs in this country is helps our national defense. I also believe that companies that eliminate or reduce factories here in the U.S. to move them overseas are anti-patriotic, undermining America, as well as itself "treating people and businesses unequally." Not all companies are "big enough" to move their work overseas, and those that aren't are being buried by those that are.

[Night Strike]

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

He increased spending because Bush had let the economy collapse.

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in?

I don't believe in a totally free market, I believe in a Patriotic market.

Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

Don't be blind, NS. The Federal Government has, from the start, awarded contracts which helped certain companies. Usually it was defense related, and I believe that ensuring we keep viable jobs in this country is helps our national defense. I also believe that companies that eliminate or reduce factories here in the U.S. to move them overseas are anti-patriotic, undermining America, as well as itself "treating people and businesses unequally." Not all companies are "big enough" to move their work overseas, and those that aren't are being buried by those that are.

So in your "Patriotic market", the government dictates which businesses are forced to stay in the country, what the executives of those companies make, and the prices they sell their products for? And if they don't have enough profit to continue operations, the government will infuse them with cash to keep them open? Sounds more like socialism than anything "patriotic". And do you know WHY companies are "un-patriotic"? Because the government piles on taxes and regulations without stopping, so they go to countries that do not punish them simply for being open or making a profit.

And the only reason Bush "caused the economy to collapse" is because the government is too involved in the economy in the first place. Economies will always cycle through booms and busts on its own. It's not the government's job to promote the booms and inflate the money to cover up busts. And it's definitely not the role of the government to bailout companies that the marketplace has deemed to be inefficient or unnecessary.

[Symmetry]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.

/sarcasm

It depends on what your definition of "viable alternative" is.

Somebody with a chance of getting elected, presumably.