GOP and College Comments
here, you should add this to your profile on Mitt. Hope this helps:
I realize now that I’ve been wrong about Mitt Romney all along. I have been mystified by the ability of Republicans to support George W. Bush when they know he is lying to them, but that somehow Republicans did not extend Mitt the same support given his repeated problems with the truth. But now I think I understand it.
George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.
Mitt, on the other hand, is not a straight ahead liar; at least he’s not perceived in that way. He is viewed (by most sentient beings on the planet) as a panderer, one who will change any position, wiggle out of any past opinion, slither away from any previous statement, all with a pasted-on smile. Bush’s lying is straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance. Mitt is all about nuance; it’s actually entertaining to watch him try and explain his past support of gays, of abortion, seeing his father march with MLK. His slick rationalizations, professionally packaged, rehearsed and delivered with a faux-conviction that makes his new position seem somehow heroic, its marketing genius. Except that people aren’t buying it. Clearly they will accept lying from people they like, but they can’t accept pandering insincerity from somebody they don’t like.
Of course Mitt is well-schooled in the insincerity business. He’s the guy who told you (and expected you to believe it) that when Bain Capital bought your company and you were one of the 25% of employees to be laid off, this was actually a good thing for you. He was the person who, when Bain bought the factory where you worked and shut it down to move the operation to China, that this was progress. He was the guy who, when he bought the business where you worked and cut your benefits, told you that it was for you and for good of the company.
What Mitt knew then, and knows still today, is that those things actually were good. But they weren’t good for you, your co-workers, your friends, they were good for him, and the small group of managers who would buy a company, gut it, break it up and re-sell it at an enormous profit. Mitt and his partners were left with millions. You were left without a job, and with Mitt’s voice ringing in your ears telling you how great the whole thing was. The thing is, Mitt wasn’t exactly lying to them, he was simply, painfully, obviously, insincere. Bottom line: people will accept lying from a known liar as long as they like him. People will not accept insincerity from one well known for it, even if they do like him. Of course, with Mitt, they don’t seem to like him, either.
It’s c
All I ask is that if you call some one a strait ahead liar, then you need to back that claim up.
I'm sure you're thinking of WMD's, but I've got a situation for you;
You're a salesman in a store, and a customer asks you what the price of an object is. The last you heard, it was $5, and the sticker on the shelf says $5. But you go to the cash register to ring it up and the price has changed without anyone telling you. Did you lie to that person? No, you told them what you knew to be the truth, and were unaware of the change.
That's the way the information in Iraq was handed to President Bush. All of the intelligence that was given to him stated that Iraq either had WMD's or were currently attempting to produce them. And I know it's been almost 5 years, but the fact remains that we have not found "WMD's" YET.
We have numerous leads as to where they could be (mainly Syria), but there could be other places, such as in the sand. Iraqi's hid entire aircraft under feet of sand, and if there were underground facilities in Iraq, all they would need to do is blow the entrances and cover them with sand and we would never know of their existence.
However we have found tons upon tons of other weapons that are not classed as WMD's, but were in fact used by Saddam as weapons of mass destruction. For example, check out the list of WMD's that we knew Saddam had in 2002 (before we invaded), including Sarin and VX gas, anthrax, Aflatoxin, and BoTox, all meant to be placed in warheads
Commenting by HaloScan
