"Romney's Seven Biggest Debate Lies"

punked · October 18, 2012

The right wingers on here aren't even trying with their lies anymore.

Edited October 18, 2012 by punked

bleeding heart · October 18, 2012

You still pretending that Libertarianism is a leftist ideology, or originated with the left?

Pretending?

It's the case, kraychik.

Now, you can pronounce all you want about potential conflicts, about contradictory elements...that's fine.

What you can't argue are the facts.

Libertarianism did originate with the Left. Predating right-wing libertarianism by a really long time, in fact.

That you don't like this truth doesn't affect anything, except in that it produces a sort unpleasant spectacle in watching you squirm about.

Nevermind the fact that the values of the two are mutually irreconcilable, you practise Orwellian doublethink quite well.

No, this is your demon. You're the one who is saying history is false if it does not align with your preconceived notions.

At bottom your conception of "the Left" is far too one-note, far too married to what you view as doctrinal necessity.

You can entertain two incompatible beliefs in your mind at the same time, just like Smith believed that O'Brien was holding up both four and five fingers at the exact same time with the exact same hand. If there's any personal animosity, it's one-directional and not coming for my end.

I'm sorry, fellow, but you have been proven demonstrably wrong in this case. We're not in the realm of opinion and analysis, but in proveable historical facts.

kraychik · October 18, 2012

Doesn't matter Smallc because this is a right wing LIE. California WAS INCLUDED. This is another Romney tactic just put out an unsupported lie and see if dumb people bite.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-with-jobless-claims-2012-10

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobless-claims-impacted-by-one-state-2012-10

There are many other articles out there, but there were irreconcilable numbers in the updated BLS report. For example. how can the total percentage of those unemployed be decreasing if the number of jobs being created per month aren't sufficient to keep up with the growth of the those in the working age (both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers)? America needs just over 200K new jobs per month just to handle new entrants into this group, yet the number of jobs created. This hasn't been the case.

Jack Welch wrote a good op-ed about it recently, although clearly you won't read it. Better to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "liar!" over and over.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html

Here's another article that adds context:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/

Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number of full time jobs declined by 216,000 last month, as Lott also noted. The unemployment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported surprise September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the separate Household Survey of families across the nation. That reported increase is anomalous for the reasons discussed below.

punked · October 18, 2012

http://www.businessi...-claims-2012-10

http://www.businessi...e-state-2012-10

There are many other articles out there, but there were irreconcilable numbers in the updated BLS report. For example. how can the total percentage of those unemployed be decreasing if the number of jobs being created per month aren't sufficient to keep up with the growth of the those in the working age (both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers)? America needs just over 200K new jobs per month just to handle new entrants into this group, yet the number of jobs created. This hasn't been the case.

Jack Welch wrote a good op-ed about it recently, although clearly you won't read it. Better to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "liar!" over and over.

http://online.wsj.co...0406091012.html

Here's another article that adds context:

http://www.forbes.co...ons-on-the-way/

Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number of full time jobsdeclined by 216,000 last month, as Lott also noted. The unemployment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported surprise September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the separate Household Survey of families across the nation. That reported increase is anomalous for the reasons discussed below.

FROM THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.

We spoke to an analyst at the Labor Department. According to this analyst, here's what happened:

ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week's jobless claims. Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false.

How dumb do you think I am that is first thing the ARTICLE YOU CITED SAYS. I can read can you? AGAIN YOU ARE LYING!!!

Not only that it says California's jobless numbers were down so ever if you weren't lying even though you are it only helps the number. Seriously what are you talking about? You think I am going to get confused over something so simple? I know what the BLS numbers are and I know ALL STATES were included. You want the reality so much to be the reality you want you are willing to change FACTS to fit your world view. That is a problem, and you have a problem you should seek help because you are not living in the real world. You even cite articles that prove you are lying to prove you are right? It is what a crazy person does.

Edited October 18, 2012 by punked

kraychik · October 18, 2012

FROM THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.

How dumb do you think I am that is first thing the ARTICLE YOU CITED SAYS. I can read can you? AGAIN YOU ARE LYING!!!

Not only that it says California's jobless numbers were down so ever if you weren't lying even though you are it only helps the number. Seriously what are you talking about? You think I am going to get confused over something so simple? I know what the BLS numbers are and I know ALL STATES were included. You want the reality so much to be the reality you want you are willing to change FACTS to fit your world view. That is a problem, and you have a problem you should seek help because you are not living in the real world. You even cite articles that prove you are lying to prove you are right? It is what a crazy person does.

Try reading the rest of the article. It challenges the false premise of the BLS employee.

punked · October 18, 2012

Try reading the rest of the article. It challenges the false premise of the BLS employee.

I read the whole article including the Update where it says California was included. Seriously what planet do you live on? You quote articles that prove you are lying and pretend like they validate you. You are like someone who eats up propaganda in a fascist state you have no clue, you don't read your sources, but by god do you think you are right.

kraychik · October 18, 2012

I read the whole article including the Update where it says California was included. Seriously what planet do you live on? You quote articles that prove you are lying and pretend like they validate you. You are like someone who eats up propaganda in a fascist state you have no clue, you don't read your sources, but by god do you think you are right.

The "update" was simply another contact from the BLS reasserting the original false claim. This was obviously done because the BLS was concerned about the political damage done by the original article. The BLS, like most other governmental departments, had a dedicated PR staff that monitors media coverage in order to preserve its image.

punked · October 18, 2012

The "update" was simply another contact from the BLS reasserting the original false claim. This was obviously done because the BLS was concerned about the political damage done by the original article. The BLS, like most other governmental departments, had a dedicated PR staff that monitors media coverage in order to preserve its image.

No the Update was from California saying they got their numbers in confirming what BLS already said. Nothing in that article supports your claim, and even if it did I already linked an article to point out why you are wrong. COME ON SERIOUSLY. You clearly don't understand what you are reading so you are going off right wing blogs. AGAIN CALIFORNIA WAS INCLUDED.

Even if it was true which it isn't it wouldn't have changed the unemployment number. That is calculated by surveys sent out to 50,000 people which are sent back in. It would have only effected the number of jobs added last month. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE SAYING OR HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS. So instead of trying to understand it you just lie about it.

Keep it up though you are doing a great job of making yourself look stupid. Keep it up, I like to quote a great man in these situations while the other side is looking stupid and doesn't know what it is talking about. "Please proceed Mr. Governor"

punked · October 18, 2012

I'll just post California's response here to make that hole you are digging even deeper. I doubt you will read considering you didn't read your first article you posted but here it is.

SACRAMENTO – California Employment Development Department Director Pam Harris today issued the following statement in response to an un-sourced and unsubstantiated media report from Business Insider that erroneously asserts the state failed to fully and properly report unemployment insurance weekly claims data – also known as the jobless claims report – to the U.S. Department of Labor.

“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible. The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.

The original article also erroneously claims that there is a backlog of UI claims in California. California continues to file UI claims on a timely basis. Data on UI claim activity is required to be reported to the Labor Department every week and California has fully complied with the weekly reporting deadlines.

It’s unfortunate this ‘reporter’ and others who repeated the article’s erroneous statements chose to speculate rather than report, failing to confirm this information with EDD. We demand an immediate retraction and encourage writers to verify these ‘stories’ before publishing them.”

punked · October 18, 2012

I'll just post California's response here to make that hole you are digging even deeper. I doubt you will read considering you didn't read your first article you posted but here it is.

Basically what California is saying here is YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

kraychik · October 18, 2012

Yeah, that was acknowledged in one of the original articles. California denies it. I guess somehow you can reconcile two things, that monthly job growth is below the minimum threshold required to accomdate new entrants into the labour market and maintain the current percentage of those unemployed, and that total unemployment, the U6 (or "real unemployment") is actually higher now than when Obama took office. It was 14.2% in January of 2009, and it's 14.7% as of the most recent data from the BLS. Also, there has been a precipitous decline in full-time employment, with many people migrating to part-time.

John Lott explains it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/05/what-78-percent-jobless-rate-really-means/

While total jobs rose by 114,000, people who are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as "part time for economic reasons" soared from about 8 million to 8.6 million, a 581,000 increase.

More people are unemployed today, both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers, than the day Obama took office. Moreover, the earn less and have significantly less net worth, and are indebted about 50% more at the federal governmental level alone.

You can see it here:

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

punked · October 18, 2012

Yeah, that was acknowledged in one of the original articles. California denies it. I guess somehow you can reconcile two things, that monthly job growth is below the minimum threshold required to accomdate new entrants into the labour market and maintain the current percentage of those unemployed, and that total unemployment, the U6 (or "real unemployment") is actually higher now than when Obama took office. It was 14.2% in January of 2009, and it's 14.7% as of the most recent data from the BLS. Also, there has been a precipitous decline in full-time employment, with many people migrating to part-time.

John Lott explains it here:

http://www.foxnews.c...e-really-means/

While total jobs rose by 114,000, people who are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as "part time for economic reasons" soared from about 8 million to 8.6 million, a 581,000 increase.

More people are unemployed today, both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers, than the day Obama took office. Moreover, the earn less and have significantly less net worth, and are indebted about 50% more at the federal governmental level alone.

You can see it here:

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Listen NONE OF THAT EXPLAINS why you are lying about the numbers. You can try and change the subject all you want, you can try to pretend Obama didn't add 5 Million jobs after Bush handed him an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month, you can change the rules. Fact is you have no clue what you are talking about, so why should anyone trust you? This is an issue you DON'T UNDERSTAND, stop going to right wing blogs to try to find something that will stick, you and Romney can cheer against an American recovery all you want. In the last year unemployment dropped the most it has in 17 years. That is a fact and California was included that is a fact.

You were lying you got caught everything say from now on is meaningless because it is most likely a lie just like your claims in this thread.

kraychik · October 18, 2012

Listen NONE OF THAT EXPLAINS why you are lying about the numbers. You can try and change the subject all you want, you can try to pretend Obama didn't add 5 Million jobs after Bush handed him an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month, you can change the rules. Fact is you have no clue what you are talking about, so why should anyone trust you? This is an issue you DON'T UNDERSTAND, stop going to right wing blogs to try to find something that will stick, you and Romney can cheer against an American recovery all you want. In the last year unemployment dropped the most it has in 17 years. That is a fact and California was included that is a fact.

You were lying you got caught everything say from now on is meaningless because it is most likely a lie just like your claims in this thread.

Do you always get so hysterical when you're embarrassed?

There is a lie in the original post that bleeding heart has parroted. The lie is that unemployment has been decreased under Obama's presidency. This is demonstrably untrue according to BLS statistics. There are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in term of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers. Although somewhat tangential, American net worth is significantly down (about 40% over the last three years), American median and average wages have gone down (around 8%, I believe, for both statistics), and total governmental debt at teh federal level has increased significantly (an additional $18K per American, about a 40% increase). Predictably, this lie presents itself as a "fact check" to a "lie" that came from Romney. This is the age we live in, I suppose.

Yet this is all somehow spun into an economic success story according to socialists like you. "Tractor production is up, comrades!"

Edited October 18, 2012 by kraychik

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2012

Basically what California is saying here is YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

punked - you can point out the inaccuracy of a statement without accusing the poster of intentionally misrepresenting themselves

punked · October 18, 2012

NONE OF THAT EXPLAINS WHY YOU LIED. I can't even trust you or your facts now, you cited articles that proved you were lying to pretend they didn't. Seriously you are a liar so you want to talk more about the BLS numbers or are done being embarrassed?

Michael Hardner · October 18, 2012

punked - you can point out the inaccuracy of a statement without accusing the poster of intentionally misrepresenting themselves

wait -you're quoting yourself here ? not understanding ...

Thanks, I'll just let myself out ...

kraychik · October 18, 2012

punked - you can point out the inaccuracy of a statement without accusing the poster of intentionally misrepresenting themselves

I don't need you to be my agent against stupid assertions from someone like punked. California stated it fully reported its labour information to the BLS, it was disputed by Business Insider and other with good reason, and California doubled down and chastised the website when its PR employees came across its article in order to defend their perceived integrity.

punked · October 18, 2012

punked - you can point out the inaccuracy of a statement without accusing the poster of intentionally misrepresenting themselves

I could if it wasn't for the fact this person cited a source that showed them they were lying but because they read right wing blogs just continues to act like the original statement is true. If after it is pointed out to you that you are wrong you continue to repeat what you said then your are just intentionally mis representing yourself so you are a liar and should be called out for it. I am tired of the right wing spreading lies and pretending they are facts. They aren't, you are not entitled to your own realities.

kraychik · October 18, 2012

NONE OF THAT EXPLAINS WHY YOU LIED. I can't even trust you or your facts now, you cited articles that proved you were lying to pretend they didn't. Seriously you are a liar so you want to talk more about the BLS numbers or are done being embarrassed?

You're like Michael Hardner. As long as you stay ignorant of facts, there's nothing to be concerned about. Nevermind the fact that unemployment is up, that poverty is up, that wages are down, that debt is up... all of which is widely known and available at the click of a mouse in a couple of seconds via public data. Nothing to see here, folks!

punked · October 18, 2012

I don't need you to be my agent against stupid assertions from someone like punked. California stated it fully reported its labour information to the BLS, it was disputed by Business Insider and other with good reason, and California doubled down and chastised the website when its PR employees came across its article in order to defend their perceived integrity.

Yet it is quite clear what happened. I have no idea where you get your information from but if you read the article why would you claim California wasn't included when it clearly was? If your blinders are so partisan that you can't fact check before you post then you got a problem.

kraychik · October 18, 2012

I could if it wasn't for the fact this person cited a source that showed them they were lying but because they read right wing blogs just continues to act like the original statement is true. If after it is pointed out to you that you are wrong you continue to repeat what you said then your are just intentionally mis representing yourself so you are a liar and should be called out for it. I am tired of the right wing spreading lies and pretending they are facts. They aren't, you are not entitled to your own realities.

Yes, you're so concerned with the truth that you ignore the blatant lies parroted by your fellow socialist bleeding heart about decreased unemployment in the USA under Obama's great economic stewardship.

punked · October 18, 2012

You're like Michael Hardner. As long as you stay ignorant of facts, there's nothing to be concerned about. Nevermind the fact that unemployment is up, that poverty is up, that wages are down, that debt is up... all of which is widely known and available at the click of a mouse in a couple of seconds via public data. Nothing to see here, folks!

Unemployment is down. Gallup has it down to 7.3 percent but don't let actual facts get in your way.

bleeding heart · October 18, 2012

California stated it fully reported its labour information to the BLS, it was disputed by Business Insider and other with good reason, and California doubled down and chastised the website when its PR employees came across its article in order to defend their perceived integrity.

How do you know Business Insider wasn't mistaken?

Are you sure that your...surety....isn't tainted by partisan emotions?

At any rate, you keep insisting I'm parroting lies...and you've allowed the possibility that I'm not consciously doing so.

I'll take such small favours where I can find 'em.

Edited October 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

punked · October 18, 2012

Yes, you're so concerned with the truth that you ignore the blatant lies parroted by your fellow socialist bleeding heart about decreased unemployment in the USA under Obama's great economic stewardship.

Are you willing to admit your lie about California yet?

kraychik · October 18, 2012

Yet it is quite clear what happened. I have no idea where you get your information from but if you read the article why would you claim California wasn't included when it clearly was? If your blinders are so partisan that you can't fact check before you post then you got a problem.

Put aside your perceptions of California for a moment and try addressing the more important points I'm making which redress the lies from the original post. You won't do it, and it's not a product of your integrity.