+Todd Vierling rightly pointed out that this one link deserves more direct attention.

Edit: And we are back s of 9PM Central time. Please refrain from "me too!" "they all do it!" and other comments that do not serve the need of the public learning to fact check their politicians. Pointing out new lies from any politician using verifiable facts and logical reasoning would be a great contribution! Just please don't constantly bring up the same old debunked claims of lies. Repeating something does not make it true.
Alec Imperial's profile photoSharon Vandusen's profile photoAshley Barnett Smith's profile photoFederico Botella Pombo's profile photo
Only 533? He is a politician. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
Jim Clark
If anyone thinks that a politician can get elected today without spewing a bundle of lies they are mistaken. Today a politician must say whatever the people want to hear for the votes, regardless of whether or not they can actually accomplish these promises. We are so polarized that an honest politician can't win an election here. That is much more a sad statement regarding who we are as a people than it is a dark cloud over the people who are running for office. Most people today either wouldn't recognize the truth, or simply don't want to stare it in the face!

Obama is as equally bad in the lie department. But this should not be a debate over the man as much as it should be a wake up call to the citizens of this great country.
I have an idea, go outside and enjoy a fresh breath of air instead of repeating the obvious. It's so kind of you to point out a politician lied. Just like Obama tells lies everyday. Their both dirty lies, you just make it to blatant that your a cheerleader for Obama. 
+Jim Clark No, I don't believe that because people like Elizabeth Warren have a good chance to get elected.

+Christopher Mylant Incorrect. Most of what people claim are "lies" by President Obama are just malicious distortions of what he actually said with context.  It's like comparing an ice cube from your freezer to the ice berg that sank the titanic.
Don't know if Gary Johnson lies, but he's very comfortable in his beliefs and so am I.
If I'm elected, I'm gonna screw you but, it's okay if you wanna blame the black guy.
Since this post has hit the main page (why, I don't know, but oh well) I'm going to start deleting blatant lies and empty rhetoric. For both sides. 
If anyone has a link to documented and factually proven lies by Obama then please post it. Links to partisan hit jobs will be deleted.

Let's stick to what can be proven logically.
+Ralph Sevy Obama signed an Executive Order that directed the closure of Gitmo. The next day (or two) The USA Congress passed a bill, that President Obama could not veto, that forbade the expenditure of any federal money in the effort to close Gitmo.

It is far more appropriate to say that Congress is keeping it open.
Most of these people that are bitching get their news from one source AND we all know which channel that is
I bet you half the article a lie. Typical Democrats.
Joe Dean
It's a PROVEN and Well Known fact the the GOP congress will not work with Obama on anything. Their sole purpose is to destroy his presidency regardless of the affect on the economy. They even hate their own ideas if Obama liked them. They are a bunch of clowns!!
+Brian Wolfe I wasn't aware that Elizabeth Warren was running for the presidency. 

Local and state elections tend not to get the press that a presidential election gets. Sometimes, though rarely, a local or state election can be run without all of the BS, but we are on the topic of presidential elections. So when Elizabeth Warren runs for the presidency and wins by telling the truth I will agree with you. But how many presidential candidates can you name within your lifetime have won the nomination and then the election without telling a lie or two?
Joe Dean
LIE and GOP go hand in hand. Why else would your campaign say "Our campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers"?
I am not one bit surprised hes a piece of work thats a understatement
So what you are telling me is that not only you  but the president has no clue what he is and is not capable of as commander in chief of the military. Had he not been a lying sack of garbage like any other parasite in government, he would have boarded all on to military hops and flew them into the Virginia naval base to then be tried in a court of law, He like every other parasite in chief is nothing but a megalomaniac power hunger piece of fecal matter.

Since the ability to veto a bill is supposedly one of the checks in the balance of power of that magical, mythical piece or paper the constitution, then again both you and him do not know the powers of the president. That or you are admitting he's nothing more then just another puppet.
Romney wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass
He can run on his record and he will but the fact still remain that Romney is a flip flipping tax evading draft evading fool. 
+Jim Clark You have to get through the local, state, and federal congress elections as a candidate before you can have a chance at being elected POTUS.  Your statement about her not running for POTUS is a rather blatant attempt to derail a point with irrelevant arguments.
+Ralph Sevy Incorrect. Congress is the entity that sets the wording of how federal money may be spent by the Executive branch. If congress takes away the money then the executive branch can not act. 

It's a common tactic to insert attacks like the one on closing gitmo into bills that have overwhelming support on completely unrelated topics (or even related topics). These bits are called riders and amendments.  This isn't the first, nor the last, time that Congress will override the orders of the POTUS with legalities.

Now, please stop posting ignorant comments and accusations of "you don't know BLAH-X!"
+Michael Bulger Continuation of the tax breaks for the bottom 90% of  Americans by income level. That is if Congress will pass the bill.

The removal of inane discrimination of individuals and families.

Acceleration of the rebuilding of our overly-aged national infrastructure.

Fully funding the Consumer Financial Protection bureau.

Numerous other improvement that were blocked during the last 3y 9 months.

I'll leave a full exploration up to you.
Your playing games with words, if he wanted to do it he could, i mean, he can execute any person onh the planet at his whim and he cant send a c130 to gitmo during a "war"? Obviously you have never been in the military or understand its function and financing. But dont worry, i wont be posting anything more to you at all, obviously you are more concerned with a political agenda then doing the right and moral thing. support the criminal murderer. I have no respect for people like you.
+Ralph Sevy It takes 60 votes to get somethign contentious passed in the Senate. Democrats held 59 seats for the first 3 months of 2009. One Independent by the name of Lieberman promised to vote with the Democratic bloc but went turncoat and even abandoned his Independent status.

As far as "commander in chief" yes, he can issue orders. But if those orders can not be funded then the orders do not happen. Especially when you account for the fact that Gitmo is a CIA operated base utilizing troops for guard duty. No money. No moving.

In fact, about 1/3 of the detainees at Gitmo were picked up by other countries on those countries dime as a last ditch effort to get as many out of Gitmo as was possible. The remaining detainees were rejected by all other countries.

As you can see, if you look at things with the facts instead of falsehoods you can get a real picture of what is going on and why. Attempting to oversimplify things does a disservice to the truth.

Please stop posting incorrect information sourced from the right wing media.
It has now gotten to the point that the last dozen or two comments have been deleted for being way off topic and other irrelevant partisan crap.

Please people. We need real discussion, not a poop flinging contest based on lies and distortions.
your post is partisan! what do you expect?
Joe Dean
How is fact checked truth partisan??
Partisan is when you rely on rhetoric and non-factual statements. Documenting lies with facts is not partisan. I even asked for documentation on Obama's lies to serve as a counterpoint. But no one has bothered to provide any real documentation.

Verdict: Not partisan at all. 
Opps. I forgot to point out that I have deleted just as many pro-Obama/anti-Romney rhetoric and chants as I have deleted the right's irrelevant commentary.
+Ralph Sevy The prisoners at Gitmo are CIA detainees. The CIA funding is subject to far more control than the military's.

You keep avoiding this fact and others to make your false assertions. If you persist any longer in spreading falsehoods then I will have no choice but to block you.
Post documented facts on Obama lies, not "he lies!" rhetoric. Please. Otherwise it will be deleted. The very same will happen to "Romney lies!" commentary. As well as "all politicians lie" crap.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Do people not pay attention?
it's a grey area lie he just says what people want to hear. So technicaly it's your's fault. But he's an asshole nonetheless.
+Ralph Sevy I can disprove almost all of those. The remainder are either misrepresentations, or inconsequential.

Oil production is at the highest that it has ever been. The number of operating oil rigs in the USA has tripled from the low under Bush Jr. 
http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html In just the last year there has been a 33% expansion of rigs drilling.

As for the picket line, obviously a POTUS can not. Obama (again obviously) meant it in a metaphorical manner. That he would attempt to help the unions, which he has.

And as for Obama hates Israel..... http://bit.ly/w66Mqh Perez himself makes the claim that Obama is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Considering that the first three claimed lies on that list are easily debunked we have to reject the list as a partisan hack job filled with lies to claim lies.
Wow, read just the first one, and saw that was indeed true, and the author is lying about it, so no need to read anymore. 
+James Collings Considering that there are more "crazed  and murderous nut-jobs" incarcerated across the continental USA than there are at Gitmo............ Your comment and fear is unfounded.
You really should look at what your posting, not sure what the number of rigs has to do with actual production but since you insist


Shows that their was a sharp DECLINE of rigs in 08.

But hey, lets not even remember that the entire gulf region got hosed by the hurrican bush created.
Your graph shows a low point of .... 8 years ago.... with ~750. Today's high point shows ~2000. That is 3 times as many in the last 8 years.

Your evidence just confirmed my verdict of "not lie".
+Christopher Mylant Except the Romney camp is lying at an unprecedented rate, and continues to tell the same lies even when they have been pointed out as false. 
As for the question of "what the number of rigs has to do with actual production", that is an easy one to answer. The number of rigs operating is a fairly good indicator of the production level of natural gas and oil in the following 5 years. Since it takes anywhere from 1 to 3 years for the exploitation of a well to reach peak production the production rate naturally lags the drilling rate.
completely ignoring the continued rise in numbers during those years to recover from the gulf and had ZERO to do with Obama. Not to mention the LIE that is "has EVER been" no has ever been in the last 8 years. I guess you dont see the number of rigs from say oh... 1980 on that graph. lie.
+Ralph Sevy The rigs brought back online in the gulf are not a part of that assumption. The hurricane keeps them closed for too short of a time frame for them to fall off the roles of active rigs.

Second, you are misrepresenting the claim. It was "in the last 8 years". Please go watch the video and be honest in your response for a change.
It is "onus". And no, there is no onus on any one person to show Obama lies that are proven with facts. I made it a general request much further up the thread.
Irving texas? im from Oak Cliff. And you sorta look familar, Argus maybe? or #philosophy? yes off topic for a moment.
My peeps in texas call me NuroSlam, and being a voluntaryist, im behind enemy lines no matter where i am at.
Only if you are ok with the idea of the lesser of two evils. I am not. Which is why i do not vote.
No well informed and honest voter will ever agree 100% with any candidate. I don't agree with the label of "lesser of two evils" because of this aspect of democracy. It's a derogatory term that only serves to divide and destroy democracy.
I wish democracy was destroyed. Its just one more method for the powerful to enslave the populations. But thats best left for a different thread
I can't disagree with that concept +Todd Vierling .

+Ralph Sevy  No other system of governance has been found to be a better solution than democracy. I suspect that you have a set of opinions that does not match the majority of the USA citizenry, so you feel like democracy has let you down. 

All political systems can be corrupted. This isn't something unique or fostered by democracy.
which is why i dont engage in politics. I do not support a system that has its foundations built on force, violence and coersion.

As to the issue of voting, ill let G. Carlin speak for me

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." — George Carlin
Yes, in essence you do not get to complain because you took no action to choose.

"If at first you do not choose you will still have made a choice" - Rush
that is your opinion. The fact i pay taxes without choice gives me every right to complain, Voting is immoral and i will not engage in immoral acts.
You pay taxes because you directly benefit from their use in the public good. Roads. Water/sewer. Military. Unemployment benefits. Social Security. Medicaid. EPA policing of pollution that kills. Police. Fire. Our judicial system. And many many more benefits.

Unless you live outside of the borders of the USA then you have directly benefited from the collection and expenditure of taxes. Even then there is a very real argument that the world has benefited from the USA's collection and use of taxes.
im not a libertarian as i said earlier, and htere is nothing libertarian about solamila and its not an example of anarchy either.

So its love it or leave now huh? or what? what do you plan to do? Im not going to shut up, im not going to become some immoral thug, nor am i going to move....so again, love it, leave it, or WHAT?
Not at all +Ralph Sevy . It's more a point of "going here would better fit your expectations". Especially since you have absolutely no hope of seeing your "ideal" version of the USA ever happen.
If you aren't a libertarian then I must assume that you are a member of the Sovereign Citizens movement, or at the least a serious sympathizer. Their political beliefs match your pretty well.
I made it clear what my "non political" stand is, that of voluntaryism.

There is nothing about Somalia that is even in the same solar system as my personal philosophy.

"Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end."

Second, if you cant even question the necessity of the state, then isn't just another religion based on faith at that point? Why do you need religion:man is bad why do you need the state: man is bad.

So no, i am not a SC or do i condone anything they do.
+Ralph Sevy Without a  governance of some kind societies break down.  Those that would cheat do not hesitate to take advantage of the lack of enforcement of common goals for their own gains. It ends up leaving the weak in a position of defenselessness.

Can you point to any successful societies that are based off of the idea of pure volunteerism? I'd love to examine them to see what makes them tick.
Actually, +Ralph Sevy I've let things get way too diverted from the topic of documenting lies here. Would you mind making a new post about your political system? I'll reshare it and you can link it here.
Its not the governance, its the violence behind it. There are no modern voluntary societies (other then the aborigines) since they are competition to the state and we know the state does not like competition they are eradicated.

Yes, people cheat, and when you vote, you allow those who do cheat to gain the power to cheat without regard or liability.
+Darque Wing Would you please clean your last few comments up? I just realized that I have allowed a bit of bias on my part to divert this thread for you, Ralph, and myself. We can take it to the side if Ralph is interested in the side topic.
Its all good with me. I will stand by my statement on this thread tho, politicians are liars left or right.
Since we agreed to side table it anything else on that topic posted in here after this comment will get deleted. Sans a link to the thread of course.
nick t
Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under 250k I think. Obamacare was ruled legal because it is a tax and that was the argument made to the supreme court by Obamas lawyer's.
+nick t The ACA was designed so that anyone unable to afford the "tax" of buying health care would be given a credit to buy it with in open exchanges. So it becomes a net 0 tax for the majority. For those that could have afforded, but did not buy insurance, there is a penalty tax, but that penalty can be avoided. 

As such, a small percentage of people in the single digits will end up spending money that they would not have spent now by choice instead of spending much larger sums later when they finally decide that they can not go without insurance. However that insurance policy does not go to the government. It goes to the insurance industry, and thus isn't a tax like the penalty tax. 

Conclusion, you can avoid the tax by being responsible and purchasing health insurance so that the government does not have to tax you to pay for it. Thus no tax increase forced on everyone. Just a small slice of irresponsible individuals.
Please. Do as the Red Leader suggested... stay on target people. I don't like having to delete so many comments!

I must have deleted at least 50+ so far. 8-(
Despite his clueless defenders, Mitt has flip flopped and lied throughout this campaign. Remember the convention was supposed to be a pivot to the middle to attract moderates and independents, but the only way they can sell that is through endless distorting commercials.
How exactly is it irresponsible not to have health insurance
Vaguely relevant. I suppose the question of why the lies qualifies for discussion. 8-/  Though the commercials aspect is third parties mostly, so not relevant.

How do we square the circle of Romney's claims, especially when compared to how he was as a governor? 
+Ralph Sevy That's really a side discussion to be honest. 

The short answer is that all forms of insurance require people to participate in full, even during the times that they "do not need it", in order to balance the books on average costs and risks. Then there is the fact that a substantial portion of those that "do not need it" end up using the health system where they can not pay for it, and the unpaid balance is unfairly passed on to everyone else as a hidden cost on health care and insurance. 

By being passed on in this manner without choice it can be categorized as a non-governmental tax on our health care system. One forced on everyone else by those that believe that health care is a choice.
But if one can afford his or her medical bills without insurance how is that irresponsible? Its making assumptions that one, people cannot afford medical care, or that (altho positively not going to happen) real change was gone for to actually reduce the costs medical care so that insurance becomes unnecessary for the vast majority of people.

As to the lie it should be corrected to That it was stated the ACA was not a tax when infact it is.
Facts are reality... unfortunately many have lost touch with it and are doubling down on the election hoping that nobody notices...  It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people... 
+Ralph Sevy Self insurance is still a form of insurance that is allowed without paying a "non-insurance" tax. You just have to document to the satisfaction of the Department of Health that you have sufficient cash-assets set aside to cover 1 million in expenses for yourself and any dependents.

We just never hear about it because it negates the idea of this being "forced on everyone".

Of course the cost of the accountants and lawyers to do this documentation is more than the tax, so people without ideological points to score will simply pay the non-insurance tax and be done with it.
What is being forced on people is the right to do with their body as they wish, from raw milk to the war on drugs we are nothing more then slaves who beg for crumbs on election dayh hoping, that this time, unlike any other time in history that government will do the right thing for once. Sounds like the definition of insaity to me.
well as i said, the lie is we were told it wasnt a tax and the fact is it is a tax.
insurance cost would have droped already if two things were in the bill that the democrats would not let in 1 tort refom  2 the sale of insurance across state lines
Insurance cost won't drop until the insurance companies lower their premiums. This is revenue for them and since there're isn't a ton of competition in this area that would be lost revenue. The GOP still would have rejected anything even after there demand. They've done many times.
You are splitting hairs there +Ralph Sevy . And it's way past time to take this to a side thread.

The only tax ever claimed, or labeled was the "don't want to buy insurance" tax. The rest is not, nor has it been labeled by the courts, a tax.
It's also ben shown tort reform would have little to no affect
After clicking on a few of those links, the first thing I notice is the fact-checking was done by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. Hardly a fair and impartial person.

Of the 3 lists I read through, I didn't see any evidence that proves anything Mr. Romney said was an intentional lie. Many of his statements are intentionally misconstrued by Ms. Maddow.

The ratings of MSNBC are low for a reason. Its because they are the ones who are full of crap.
I'm tired of all the Obama bashing. Most of what Romney says makes absolutely no sense. And to say that Obama lied is completely irrational. The mess that good ol' Bush left behind won't take just 4 years to fix. I don't believe Obama ever said it would. So what lie has he said?
+Michael Bulger Texas passed tort reform quite a few years ago. ~15 if my memory is working. However we have seen absolutely impact on the price of insurance in that entire time. As such Texas' history with tort reform is solid evidence that tort reform will have a negligible impact at the national level.

As for selling insurance across state lines, that was proposed with the requirement that the state the insurance company offices were in be the only regulation allowed, even in other states.  All that will do is allow companies to pick the state with the lowest standards for coverage and negate the rights of other states to enforce better standards. Second, it has absolutely no incentive for the insurance companies to improve coverage or pricing. Not one single piece of evidence has been found or provided to show that it would lower the consumer costs.
+Bill Thick, Jr. Please back your assertion with the relevant proven facts or retract your comment. See my rebuttal of the link provided for Obamalies.com for a good format to use.
Read a few, clicked the hyperlinks for the supposed proof, left disappointed...

Disappointed at the site for connecting dot's that are very distant, comparing apples to oranges, and general playing with/bending the rules of logic to suite whatever.  Example: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/setting_the_standards_for_the034544.php

I hope people understand utterly pathetic it is to compare how many jobs that Romney may have created to those that Obama may have.  Seriously.  The site is quick to point out that not all of Bain's projects saved jobs, and that some were lost, but then they seem to forget that the exact same thing happen's with 'Obama's' economy. I, for one, do not think that the pres has the amount of influence on the economy to be made responsible for every single job creation/destroyed, but the site shouldn't just cherry pick whatever statistics will bolster their opinion the most.  It's all or nothing.  They assume that whatever job's are created are all 'Obamas' jobs.  Not so.

(also, it just occurred to me that jobs are being counted twice in this, as 'Romney's' jobs are his but they also count towards the 'job growth' that Obama claims is his.  Did they both create those jobs in this instance?  Another example of faulty logic.)

After reading a few more, I get the feeling that one could make similar arguments about pretty much all of them.  It's all a matter of perspective, really. Or "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
I will be departing for dinner with my wife in about 1.5 hours. If the flood of off topic and partisan bashing continues then I will have no choice but to lock comments until after I am done with family dinner in 4.5 hours. Once I get back I will definitely reopen and continue to curate this discussion as fairly as I can.
+Samuel Stageberg Logic does not agree with you. It is perfectly valid to count the lost jobs from Bain owned companies against the jobs that were credited to Bain. 

I followed the links and for the most part it is all fairly solid and factual with almost no true "apples to oranges" comparisons. Of course with your example "problem lie" being as badly parsed as it is I have to ask that you document a different example before your credibility can be established.
+Marshall Reiman I have asked for documentation and have looked for documentation. I have not found any documentation that isn't misapplied logic, taking words out of context, or other tricks and cheats to create lies from nothing.

Of course I could also be missing out on some of the documented ones since I haven't been looking for an extended period of time. As such if you know of any then please link them and explain why they are valid lies.
whether in part or in whole the ACA includes a tax, so it is a verified lie.
+Ralph Sevy I'll accept that conditionally. in reality it's a point of view difference that the courts clarified into being a tax. So I don't see it as an intentional lie.
As for the accusation (that i deleted) that I'm liberal partisan deleting only conservative crap.... You know not of what you speak. I have deleted as many posts of name calling, false accusations, and other tripe from the left as I have from the right. If you don't want to believe that, well that is your problem of prejudice without fact. 

I will continue to delete the tripe that is off topic of factually wrong on the face.
Do you actually agree with the logical fallacy I showed that the website presented?

"apples to oranges" is comparing ceo of a company to the pres.  The pres can claim that he created more jobs just based on the scale of his job.  A ceo is just a ceo, and like I said the jobs are counted twice, i.e faulty application of logic.

Oh well, the funny thing is none of this really matters.  Someone will win, economy will still tank.

+Brian Wolfe Also, I never said to never count the jobs lost at Bain, I just said it needs to be consistent.  I'm gonna have to ask you if you have actually read all 533 of these and followed all the links and can honestly say that you have come to the conclusion you have said.  I doubt it.  But thank's for putting the burden on me to supply the argument's here.
Here's another one, and since we put conditions on what a lie is or not i will say this is a lie for the reason that he is a "constitutional authority"

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.

A blanket lie since it is in fact the responsibility of the Court to strike down unconstitutional law.
Please. People.

 Keep the comments on topic. "Me too!"s, "better than bush", "Obama lies always", "politicians lips"  etc will get deleted. 8-(
Obama has cut small business taxes more than any other Presidents and that's the truth. Anybody saying otherwise is blatantly lying. And how do I know that, we own a small business!!! And yes we are better off than 4 years ago.
+Rich White , I agree.  I have come to understand that people are generally logical beings and will naturally believe whatever they find to be the most logical based upon whatever they have seen.  This type of flat out bashing of a presidential nominee will just turn off those whom it would seek to change.  The only thing this accomplishes is further dividing red and blue.

Let's talk actual issues, or take all 500 of these 'lies' on one at a time and have a close look at the facts before coming to such a general conclusion as this website would have us believe.
+Ralph Sevy Ok, what part of that statement says that the SCOTUS can not rule somethign as unconstitutional? I can see the part of "unprecedented", which it isn't. But the rest doesn't fit.  It also feels like a nitpick against Obama's view of whether the law is constitutional or not. 

As such, while it is a point to argue, I can't count it as a lie based on the current discussion.
+Samuel Stageberg Now you are on the topic. :) Please. Do discuss each one in turn and use solid logic and verifiable facts and the well established logical process to disprove the lie.
+Samuel Stageberg Because you are the one asking for and making the assertion that Obama lies. I'm on the assertion that Romney has lied at an unprecedented level, not Obama. 

Where in the rules of debate doe sit say that I have to provide the evidence for my opponent's assertions?
Okay the source for this is msn, which obviously answers to Obama and only puts out articles that make Republicans look bad and liberals look like the best thing since sliced bread.
+Brian Wolfe if Obama wanted to veto the bill he could have.  Congress passed a bill that prevented the use of Federal money to pay for the transport of the Gitmo prisoners.  Obama decided to sign the bill into law and not veto the bill because it was attached to a bigger military bill that he said was too important not to sign.
He could have vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress with a veto which would have required that 2/3 of both the House and the Senate vote to override his veto.
Obama also promised that his administration would publish each non-emergency bill on the White House website for 5 days prior to signing it to allow for public comment and review.  He stated it was important for the government to be transparent.  He has also failed to do this.
Obama also said that he would repeal the Patriot Act but instead he signed a bill to extend it.
He said he would put restrict lobbyist in his administration.  *"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."*  This hasn't happened
See also: comments on the recent White House post about their beer brewing recipe. Half were enraged that time was spent doing that video instead of fixing the economy. (apparently, many think that's what the kitchen staff should be doing in their spare time..)

The right has learned that frothing mad is better for their cause than logical and they'll say anything they can think of to encourage it.
+Brian Wolfe I never said Obama lies, must be confusing me with someone else.  However, on that topic, I do think he lies.

It's just a bit cheep to throw such a huge amount of content at someone and say 'here, this is my position now argue with it!'

Even if I win one or two or a hundred of these arguments about lies, you could still fall back on the other four hundred.  No thanks, I have better things to do with my time.
That's not how i see it, its not just the "unprecedented" part, the fact that he used the "passed by a strong majority" as a way to explain why its unprecedented strong majority or not, it is one of the few powers the courts have and as a constitutional scholar supposedly, the statement was meant to mislead the public to garner support.
+Charles Gilmore The cost was too high, thus it is logical to say that Congress forced him to accept the halt on closing Gitmo. 

It's akin to saying "So what if all that we gave you was 5000 pounds of dynamite to kill the termites in the village? You still failed to kill the termites". It's a non-option because vetoing the bill would have meant that the military would have to stand down troops and send them home without pay or transportation. The Republicans did this as a means of giving him no choice.

I'll grant you that Obama's staff hasn't posted every single bill. I'm also going to point out that the bills that weren't posted could plausibly be deemed emergency or were of such inconsequence (such as renaming a post office).

However this is again a nitpicking argument against him instead of showing a flat out lie.
+Ralph Sevy Not if you view it from the ultimate ruling of the SCOTUS that it was constitutional, which was the connotation in Obama's statement that you appear to have left out.  In short, the connotation was that it would be unprecedented for the SCOTUS to rule the law as unconsitutional when it had almost universal opinion from constitutional scholars that it was indeed constitutional. He was not talking about the power of the SCOTUS to rule on law being constitutional or not.

Thus I must find your example as a non-lie when placed in full context of Obama's speech.
really, I am sure we both could document all kinds of lies, rather than waste the time do something productive like help the needy.
thats exactly what he was implying by that statement, and the courts agreed by demanding that the DoJ make it clear what was the power of the courts in the view of the administration.
+andrew tacquard I've tried! +Jassmine Wolfe also spent an hour or so trying to find documentable lies that obama has told and failed to find any solid ones. 

If we don't call out the lies with facts and logic then the lies will continue. As long as the lies continue then we will not be able to have a truly fair election of ideas and plans instead of partisan rhetoric.

That is why it is important to document and show the lies.
+Brian Wolfe to my knowledge not one non-emergency bill has been posted online prior to signing.  It isn't nitpicking in my opinion because this was his platform.  Change from business as usual, a more transparent government.  Free from the influence of money (his lobbying promise).

Regarding the Gitmo bill he could have vetoed the bill and took the case to the American people.  This is one of my problems with Obama, he didn't have fight.

I was a BIG Obama supporter during his last run but now I feel really disappointed in him.  His extension of the Patriot Act, his signing of the NDAA 2012, his lack of fight, his AG interpreting the Constitution to mean that due process is separate from judicial process, his unwillingness to go after Wall Street and bring about reform.

I'm not saying that I am voting for Romney because I would never vote for him.  I think the article points out how insincere and untrustworthy he his.
The 3 lies that really matter
1. I'll repeal the patriot act
2. I'll end the wars
3. I'll close gitmo

These lies were not uttered from Mitt's mouth. 
The patriot act, NDAA rider of warrantless wiretaps were tidbits tacked on to hugely important bills that the Senate Republicans ran the clock out on, so no real choice. Thus I can not blame Obama on these or claim he lied.

As far as the lack of fight, did the Republican bloc get him to sign anything they wanted willy nilly? No. They didn't. He blocked as much as he could, and that I qualify as fighting.

Additionally he has legally used his Executive Order power to do what he can that does not require the approval of congress. 

I don't know what you mean about the separation of due process from judicial process unless you are referring to the situation where Gitmo detainees can not be tried because Congress forbade him from spending any money on it,which leaves only military tribunals which are entirely inappropriate for a fair trial.

I'll have to look at the bill posting promise, but I remember him saying "when possible", which is really tough when things are run down to the wire.
one it wasn't a speech, it was a press briefing, just a few paragraphs

two, whether it was constitutional or not was for the courts to decide. His opinion does not justify misleading the american people onh what the power of hte courts are.

three, the courts have upheld unconstitutional law as well.
ie the fugitive slave act, whether it was constitutional isn't really in contention in the statement.

But we will just have to disagree on this one.
William. That is the 10th time that list was posted. I have already debunked it earlier. Please read the rest of the commentary before posting repeat claims.
veto is a choice of a principled president. and that makes all the difference.
+Ralph Sevy A press briefing by POTUS is by definition a speech.

The POTUS must decide if a bill is constitutional before they sign the bill into law. Thus it is not entirely the role of SCUTUS alone and solely. The POTUS get's first dibs on ruling that.

Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled as constitutional things that are clearly unconstitutional, and vice versa. That's why I  we continued the discussion. However since Obama's statement of constitutionality was based on professional opinion as POTUS and as a PhD of Constitutional Law means it was not a lie at all.
Ok, thread is being locked. I have to go relax and have dinner. I will reopen in ~ 3.5 hours for continued discussion.

Oh, and please learn the difference between rationalizing and solid logical conclusions supported by all of the available facts.
We're back to commenting. Please read through before commenting so that we don't have to rehash old claims or irrelevant content.

I will be aggressively deleting any rhetoric and off topic comments. No matter who posts it.
+Brian Wolfe what of my post was falsehoods? Can you respond to one before deleting my post?
No, because 30 seconds on google would provide factual documentation that every claim is false and simple rewording of the stock Republican talking points. I specifically asked people to not do that.
+Benjamin Gardner The standard popular fact checkers have fallen down that hole. 8-(   I have been aggressively removing interpretive and out of context claims of lies. If you wish to debunk specific entries in the linked article, even if it's to point out an interpretive claim, then by all means, please do!
Man, the sheer number of crap comments has me leaning towards locking and filing this one under "swamped by partisans".
Who cares about Romney it's the Senate and the House of Representatives that makes legislation. Only congress can declare war and only congress can make bills laws. Otherwise the president is just a distraction from who really makes the decisions. Your local senator is who makes the calls. 
+Brian Wolfe help me understand. You post a partisan article, and when some of us pinpoint that its "facts" are wrong, you censor them? You are entitled to do so, of course, but don't disguise it as "truth-seeking".
+Massa Sapio I censored illogical claims. False claims. Irrelevant partisan crap. etc. I have yet to remove a single logical argument that was backed by facts that can be checked.  Your very first claim that Obama hasn't created one job is so easily debunked as to fall into the category of "partisan bullshit" and thus deserving of deletion.

Thus ends your appeal. Denied.
When did I say that Obama didn't create one job? Please don't distort what I said, +Brian Wolfe . I said that unemployment since Obama took office has been higher than it was in Jan 2009. Is that not a fact?
Unnecessary Clarification: If you post "Obama lied about taxes!" or other simplistic single sentence tripe with absolutely no links, relevant information, or any kind of evidence at all you will get deleted . Period.
+Todd Vierling Obama assumed office in February 2009. I would not count that month's losses against him since, as you said, there was nothing he could have done anything in that short of a time frame.
You do realize Obama was part of the majority party in the Senate before the crash.

So he is as much to blame as anyone
+Devin Christensen Having the choice of blocking the cuts and causing serious long term damage to the economy and the operation of the government versus letting them pass as a rider on an extremely important bill, with absolutely no chance of getting a clean version of the bill without the bad item is not a choice, nor a broken promise in my book.

The tax cuts for the lower and middle class have been a good thing. It is the unnecessary extra cuts that the upper class got that have caused the majority of the damage to our tax revenue.
And another earns a block for repeating lies. Do any of you honestly think that you can post a comment calling me a liar and partisan hack, or any other tripe when you don't know me and lie about what you posted and not get banned?
I will write this very carefully so that it's not deleted.

In 2009, Obama Administration passed the stimulus bill with the objective of reducing unemployment. (I don't think, +Todd Vierling that this was "too early" in the Obama term because it was well within the first year, and its effects should have been visible by now). Well, after almost a trillion dollars was spent, unemployment is still higher than January '09. (And the worse 30 months of unemployment of the last 25 years have been in the Obama term). 

Can we at least agree that in job creation (the most important issue for voters) the Obama Administration failed?
+Charles Gilmore I agree that it is dangerous precedent.

However I'm not following your connection of how this qualifies as a factual lie. Maybe if you explained it a bit more I would understand your meaning.
+Brian Wolfe I wasn't holding this up as a stated lie. I pointed out a few that I saw as lies. This particular item was mentioned in my statement as to why I have become disillusioned with his presidency.
http://1.usa.gov/lD00iy  This chart shows that your conclusion of "employment is lower" in incorrect. It shows a total of  non-farm payroll jobs.

When you talk about "jobs created" it is far more appropriate to refer to the total employed instead of the "unemployment rate" for claims of creating jobs.

Now, if you laid the charge of "not enough jobs created to reduce unemployment" then you would have a leg to stand on.

The total stimulus was not "almost a trillion dollars". It was only $789 Billion.  Much of the spending was direct tax breaks that the Republican caucus demanded, about $288 Billion. So the total of actual spending stimulus is only $501 Billion. Or 1/2 of a trillion.

The job creation was a resounding success according to an overwhelming majority of economists. Both conservative and liberal economists agreed that it was a huge success and saved/created over 2 million jobs. Even ex-members of Bush Jr's presidential cabinet agree that the stimulus was a success.

Now, what was you proclaimed lie again? I lost track.
+Brian Wolfe according to your own numbers, and just to round up, it created 2 million jobs with 500 billion dollars (yes, you said "more than 2 million" but I am also reducing the stimulus to 500 billion instead of 789). That is 250k dollars per job created! Do you really call that a "success"?

Now imagine if the government in 2009 had given a $250k tax break to each company that hired not one, but FIVE people. What do you think would have happened?
+José Lezica Considering that much of that was to replace reduced state taxes, prop up police, fire, teachers, and other public sectors that are required for society to function, rebuilt $100Billion in roads, and other worthy things. Yes. I see it as well spent.

Some items cost a lot on a per-capita basis. Such as the roads for example. Other items cost very little on the same basis. So looking at it as a lump sum of money per job is not appropriate.

You could probably go through the list to see what specific items were likely to have been a direct job saver/creator that was special to the stimulus, and what items were delayed, or advanced, necessary expenditures to get a far better estimation of the cost per job than the gross number you cited.
+José Lezica Part of the tax breaks were for companies to hire people. Unfortunately when the market demand has been shut down so thoroughly it does not matter how much money you give a company for hiring employees. They simply will not hire an employee that they do not feel that they need to run the business.
people get smarter with social stuff
Well, Ryan will fit right in then.  I wrote a piece on that if anyone is interested.
+Dileep G Yes, they can get smarter. It really depends on the kinds of people that they follow and how they interact with others. Hence my effort here today despite the majority of comments being the typical slader, lies, and accusations of bias without evidence getting deleted.
+Brian Wolfe you seem to imply that stimulus was well spent because only government can create the infrastructure for business to operate, and not the other way around. There is a fundamental ideological divide between us that no Google+ post will close (I believe that economic success comes first - and that the best thing to do with business is to free it from bureaucracy and high taxes).

I am an atheist libertarian, so I stand with Democrats in social issues and Republicans in economic issues - and for me this election is clearly about the economy, st... (to paraphrase Bill). So Mitt gets my vote. Have a good day.
Where is all the fact checking on President Obama? I did not verify the fact checks on Romney but if you're gonna do it on one, you gotta do it on the other.
+Rhett Rhemann If you had bothered to read the backlog then you would see multiple posts asking for a report on Obama that is not a partisan hack job full of lies to create lies.
Yes. The evidence strongly supports this analysis. It's that simple.
+José Lezica You are right. There is a fundamental divide here on who is best positioned to provide the infrastructure a society needs to prosper. 

I'm just asking people to speak out about lies with logic and reason instead of blind partisan faith. To put an end to the use of lies to back failed political ideas.
It's easy to get "disappeared". Just break the rules or post fluff of absolutely no topical value and your wish will be granted. Repeats will get a block.
It is a shame that our political system has degraded to a point were we must constantly check every statement a candidate makes to validate it's truth.  Will we ever have a time when once again they speak of  what they want to do, balanced with the the truth of what they can actually accomplish?
I went through those and a few aren't based on facts. They are based on interpretation.  

Broken promises are completely different from active, willful lies, and thus do not count here.
It"s been done on the other. There is no supportable evidence that Obama treats facts this way. It is not fairly balanced simply by claiming that "they all do it." There has been a increasingly Orwellian cast in the Republican propaganda campaigns. Romney frequently asserts untruths which are transparent to knowledgeable listeners. Obama of course strives for rhetorical dominance, but he does not base it on statements which are known to be factually untrue.
+José Lezica That's a preview of the full list at obamalies and as I have stated before, the vast majority of the statements are broken campaign promises (through his fault or not) and the remaining majority are fabricated lies via out of context, or deliberate lies to claim a lies.

There are a tiny handful that appear at first glance to be legit. So far I found only one on the border fence. However if you consider a barbed wire fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico to be a "basic" fence, then he told the truth.

And so, yet again, I reject that list until it is pared down to verifiable, factual flies. Not distortions and half truth interpretations.
One more important point: 533 lies in 30 weeks equate to 2.5 lies a day, including weekends.

Do you honestly think Romney lied 2.5 times a day in all these weeks and no-one except this obscure blog post noticed?
Sad thing is a lot of people believe these lies even though they are easily verifiable. A lot of voters are not responsible enough to actually keep up with past and current events in order to make the right choices at the polls. Voters dont necessarily know what exactly they r voting for other than a candidate for the party they usually sympathize with. Yes, politicians lie, no surprise there, but this type of lying is unjustifiable and plain shameful yet no one seems to mind and see the consecuences herein.
And that comment that I just deleted brings the total ban list to well over 100. Please. Contribute to the conversation. Don't post tripe of "nazi censor!" or "obummer lies too!". Use your head. Base your assertion of a lie on facts that are verifiable.
No one forces anyone to do anything they don't want to do. No matter the circumstances, it always comes down to a choice of something they would prefer over the alternatives given. Gitmo, this bill with hidden this or that, but oh wait there was something that couldn't be passed up, promises to change and then later choosing not to change those things as they've been buried by someone else. Look back at men in history who made a difference (president or not)...They all rose above adverse circumstances...beyond the difficulties. I don't see that strength, character, or integrity in either candidate.

Truth is...he could have done more if he had the mind to do so, and promises made by either side should be taken with a grain of salt due to the fact that no one has the full picture.

Also, as an aside point and a Communication major who loved Rhetoric...it's not a nasty term to avoid, but rather the art of communicating effectively to persuade. That should include the facts and well prepared arguments you seek...not stand contrary to them. Please do our language a service and use the terms properly.
Someone documenting a politician's statements and holding him accountable for what he says!?! Stop the presses!!!
+David Klein I know that you meant that in a sarcastic way, but in reality that is exactly what needs to happen if you truly do want honest politicians in office.

In the not too distant past of the media that actually happened quite a bit.
You Americans are so "black or white" people. You reduce a whole election to the simple question "Obama or Romney". And instead convincing people with your own arguments - you just try to pull down the only other choice. That's why people like Romney even have a chance to become president of a big country.

But what do I care actually. I just hope you don't start bombing my country to bring us "democracy".
You more or less are referring to arguments of Ad Hominem. Arguments based in feeling alone. Your plea for facts is dead center. Just try not to bury clarity in the misuse of terms. I think enough confusion already exists. Lol

I feel for our country and culture. We've been so spoon fed and complacent. It's catching up to us. To many people don't want to be helped and don't want to think through difficult issues. They just want someone who can do it for them and lie to them and tell them what they want to hear so they can continue burying themselves in debt to live beyond their means. Change starts at home. Don't think we can hold anyone accountable if we don't first hold ourselves accountable.
+Jason Crawford You hit the nail on the head for us. If we can't face the fact that some lies are outrageously false then we will never make a wise choice in president.

I hold no illusion that Obama has not made a factual lie. Yet every conservative today has accused me of believing just that. 

I'm challenging everyone to start to see the lies and reject them.
Most importantly are the lies we tell ourselves.

Start with the false assumption: Obama vs Romney.

Then work our way home with lies like..."I need the government to tell me how to live and make it affordable for me to do so."

I have the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness...

Not to tell anyone else how they can or cannot live out their same rights.
As long as those ways aren't detrimental to others, yes, I agree. Let them live their lives. 

The question though resides in what things impose unreasonable harm on others? These are the questions that our government is designed to do somethign about. 

As much as I would love to continue this sub-thread I must ask that it go off into it's own post to keep the topic relevant.
Who fact checks the fact checkers!?
It's actually quite on topic. As you laid out what our government was originally designed to do, and how far we as a people have so clearly allowed them to be off the path without accountability..and addressing the posts overall call for attention to lies. I would like to call our attention to the lie both of these two candidates are misleading us to believe...

We must choose one of them.

I don't think we need to point out all of their lies in order to understand that we are at a Tipping Point, and in need of more choices than Chocolate or Vanilla.
Second, this is about the kinds of lies from politicians that have become acceptable. Not what a proper role of our government is.

Two completely different topics. Two different threads. 
I thought you would pick up on the "two candidates" part. The false assumption of one or the other send to be all people focus on.

And, not for the sake of being contentious, but for the purpose of broadening the picture...we could refuse to choose...but it's highly improbable, and would have consequences dramatic and far reaching...yet lies within the realm of possibility.

Either way, good luck with your search for open minded individuals in search of truth.
Thanks. :)

I've considered the "no choice" option long and hard in the past. I couldn't get past the utter disaster my abdication of my duty as a citizen would cause.
I'm with you on that, brother.  I will fight till the last day of this election cycle, to prevent what I fear would be a complete and utter disaster for our country, and planet.
The relevant commentary appears to have tapered off.  Unfortunately the slogans, slander, snark, irrelevant off topic posts have continued. So in the interest of keeping this clean I will be locking the comments indefinitely.

If you wish to continue the topic, please start a new thread of your own, or join someone else's thread.