Depends on what your definition of "marched with" is

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You DID brand Mitt a liar. Then you beg the question by asking 'why he lied, that's what patholocial liars do' . You falsly assert that he did lie, when in fact he DIDN'T lie, and then absurdly claim you didn't call him a liar. Very strange and pointless to discuss any furhter. You're trying to equate Mitt to Clinton, which is nothing short of laughable.

Bob Kerry (Democrat ) - " He's ( Clinton) and unusually good liar " .

I asked you a simple straightforward question that you refused to answer.

Is he a life-long hunter?

OH, I refused to answer such an important question? No, I simply missed it for its irrelevence to the things that matter in the world. I have no idea if he's a 'life long hunter'. When did he first go hunting ? And while you scurry away to find that answer, why did it take Hillary 2 yrs to find the Rose Lawfirm Billing records, which were in her own office, on her own DESK ?

Who hired Craig Livingstone ? Hillary can't seem to answer that one either. See, while you accuse Romney of skirting the truth on trivial matters, we KNOW where Bill and Hillary have lied on major issues, and yet you're willing to give them a pass, but not Mitt ?

This is a thread about Mitt. There have been a ton of threads about Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Gore, etc, and you're free to start more. This is a thread about Mitt that you willingly joined, but insist on trying to derail while asserting fact-free statements like:

Mitt hasn't been CAUGHT in any lies.

But what is abundantly clear on this thread is that you refuse to answer a simple question because either you fail to follow the news, even about your chosen candidate, and don't know the answer, or you know the answer, but can't force yourself to say it because it doesn't jive with the fantasy image you've constructed for yourself in order to maintain the delusional world view that you have.

You can't even engage in simple scrutiny of a guy you want to be President.

Yet, you're obsessively stuck on a question that was resolved in the last decade, but you won't accept it because it, too, doesn't jive with your delusional world view:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...inton.filegate/

Even the highly partisan Kenneth Starr and the Republican Congress proved that.

[AURaptor 1,126]

the 'lie' you claimed he was caught in was over this 'seeing' his dad marchi w/ MLJ Jr, not whehter he went hunting or not. If you're free to change the ground rules, then so is eveyone else.

As for Hillary,, " He (Ray) found no evidence to corroborate an FBI document that said Nussbaum had told the FBI that Livingstone came highly recommended by the first lady and that she knew Livingstone's mother. . " Where the hell do you think the FBI even GOT that document ? Did they just grab it, out of thin air ? Or maybe you think Dan Rather found it ?

Also, " In July 1999, the first lady signed a sworn statement that said she never ordered anyone to request any files from the FBI, nor did she order any background checks on any operatives from previous administrations. "

Sorry, but I don't believe her. Those files got the some how. 900 files don't just migrate to the White House on their own, or by some bureaucratic screw up! And Ken Starr wasn't on the case any longer as I.C., it was Robert Ray. And all this report shows is that he wasn't interested in following up on any of the various issues found by Ken Starr. He could have, very easily, but after the impeachment, they basically just closed up shop and went home. So spare me your misinformed lecture about delusional world views . Your own is what you need to worry about.

Starr wasn't HIGHLY partisan, nor did he and Congress ' prove ' that question was answered, as you falsly claim.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

the 'lie' you claimed he was caught in was over this 'seeing' his dad marchi w/ MLJ Jr, not whehter he went hunting or not. If you're free to change the ground rules, then so is eveyone else.

That was the first lie I referenced. You broadened it greatly with this:

Mitt hasn't been CAUGHT in any lies.

I understand why you want to dance around this issue. It shows how eager your boy is to lie for even the slightest perceived advantage.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I was responding to Tiger Al's remark, that Mitt was caught in a lie, blah blah blah. You're convieniently taking my 1 response out of context, like I should have figured you would.

TigerAl : Every lie he's been caught in so far has been due to pandering!!!

Me : He hasn't been CAUGHT in any lies.

TA makes it seem as if Mitt has been caught in a mulititude of lies, when in fact, that's not the case at all. I could have responded better, instead of making it seem like Mitt has lied, but just not gotten 'caught'. But in context, TA takes it at face value that the quotes attributed to before in the thread were lies by Mitt, when in fact there were no such lies by Mitt at all.

I should have said he hadn't been caught in ANY lies. Oh well.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I was responding to Tiger Al's remark, that Mitt was caught in a lie, blah blah blah. You're convieniently taking my 1 response out of context, like I should have figured you would.

TigerAl : Every lie he's been caught in so far has been due to pandering!!!

Me : He hasn't been CAUGHT in any lies.

TA makes it seem as if Mitt has been caught in a mulititude of lies, when in fact, that's not the case at all. I could have responded better, instead of making it seem like Mitt has lied, but just not gotten 'caught'. But in context, TA takes it at face value that the quotes attributed to before in the thread were lies by Mitt, when in fact there were no such lies by Mitt at all.

I should have said he hadn't been caught in ANY lies. Oh well.

Al nailed it!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah. Except for the 'lies' part.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Honestly, this one looks pretty bad. There's no spinning it. He said he saw his dad march to gain favor by association in the voters eyes. He got called on it, now he's backtracking.

He didn't see anything be it literally or figuratively.

Raptor:

BG's superior grasp on reality is making you look bad.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Honestly, this one looks pretty bad. There's no spinning it. He said he saw his dad march to gain favor by association in the voters eyes. He got called on it, now he's backtracking.

He didn't see anything be it literally or figuratively.

Raptor:

BG's superior grasp on reality is making you look bad.

Because you agree w/ a left winger who is wrong doesn't in any way make me look bad.

Mitt did indeed see his dad side w/ MLJ Jr, and that pisses you folks on the Left off. As much as you'd like to rewrite history, it's not gonna happen. Sorry.

[Tiger Al 0]

Because you agree w/ a left winger who is wrong doesn't in any way make me look bad.

Mitt did indeed see his dad side w/ MLJ Jr, and that pisses you folks on the Left off. As much as you'd like to rewrite history, it's not gonna happen. Sorry.

No one gets to call Bottomfeeder the resident whacko anymore. He's just been replaced.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Because you agree w/ a left winger who is wrong doesn't in any way make me look bad.

Mitt did indeed see his dad side w/ MLJ Jr, and that pisses you folks on the Left off. As much as you'd like to rewrite history, it's not gonna happen. Sorry.

No one gets to call Bottomfeeder the resident whacko anymore. He's just been replaced.

I think Raptor secured that position looooong ago. This just makes it official.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Typical. Because you can't win the debate, or stand w/ the facts, you resort to name calling. Standard M.O. for the Left.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Typical. Because you can't win the debate, or stand w/ the facts, you resort to name calling. Standard M.O. for the Left.

You can win a debate with a crazy person, but you just can't make them realize it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Typical. Because you can't win the debate, or stand w/ the facts, you resort to name calling. Standard M.O. for the Left.

Just calling them like I see them.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Typical. Because you can't win the debate, or stand w/ the facts, you resort to name calling. Standard M.O. for the Left.

Just calling them like I see them.

Naw. Because if that were REALLY the case, you'd not say Romney was lying about his dad and MLK Jr. Fact is, you're just calling it as your myrmidon eyes will allow you to see.

[Tiger Al 0]

Typical. Because you can't win the debate, or stand w/ the facts, you resort to name calling. Standard M.O. for the Left.

Just calling them like I see them.

Naw. Because if that were REALLY the case, you'd not say Romney was lying about his dad and MLK Jr. Fact is, you're just calling it as your myrmidon eyes will allow you to see.

Had he left it at "seeing" his father and MLK in the figurative sense I'd agree with you that it was poor word choice. He didn't. We were then told by his campaign that they were together in Gross Pointe, MI, in 1963. This goes beyond your insistence that he was simply misunderstood and his intent was "in support of the cause." His campaign has since retracted the claim that George Romney and MLK were EVER in a march together.

He's also claimed, in 1978, that HE marched with his father and MLK. Perhaps this was also meant in the figurative sense.

He's also claimed to have been a "lifetime hunter" but has only been hunting, according to his campaign, twice since 1947. In case you forgot, the NRA is a HUGE special interest group for the republicans.

He's also claimed to have been endorsed by the NRA in his run for governor in 2000 despite getting a lower grade from the NRA than his Democratic opponant and despite the fact that the NRA said they didn't endorse ANYONE in that race in 2000. His response was that he thought that because they did a phone bank for him that equated an endorsement.

He seems very prone to self-puffery when it doesn't really matter. The fact that he does it when it doesn't matter DOES MATTER.