Don't be silly. It's not a blatant lie if it's implied.

How about a a hair-splitting lie?

Here is a list of five lies that Paul Ryan told during his speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention

That old list has been debunked long ago.

Yes it has. The "fact-checkers" get it wrong much of the time.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14447/fact-checkers-tell-just-as-many-lies-as-paul-ryan-and-president-obama

Here is a list of five lies that Paul Ryan told during his speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention

That old list has been debunked long ago.

Yes it has. The "fact-checkers" get it wrong much of the time.

http://www.policymic...president-obama

I suggest you should read some more

Paul Ryan Proves He Can’t Speak Without Lying About Janesville GM Plant Closure

http://www.politicususa.com/paul-ryan-proves-speak-lying-blaming-obama-gm-plant-closure.html

I suggest you should read some more

Paul Ryan Proves He Can’t Speak Without Lying About Janesville GM Plant Closure

http://www.politicus...nt-closure.html

"Real liberal politics". I'm sure that they are completely unbiased. Here are the same issues from the other side.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/

Don't be silly. It's not a blatant lie if it's implied.

How about a a hair-splitting lie?

When it suits, it's certainly an improvement. Like this: "don't argue with me whether it's induction or deduction, they're both logic so what's the difference". Yeah, 'hair-splitting lie' has just about the right amount of truthiness to do the trick. SuperPAC not a part of a campaign? Of course it is - when it suits. Of course it isn't when it doesn't. Deny the obvious and obviate the denial.

Don't be silly. It's not a blatant lie if it's implied.

How about a a hair-splitting lie?

When it suits, it's certainly an improvement. Like this: "don't argue with me whether it's induction or deduction, they're both logic so what's the difference". Yeah, 'hair-splitting lie' has just about the right amount of truthiness to do the trick. SuperPAC not a part of a campaign? Of course it is - when it suits. Of course it isn't when it doesn't. Deny the obvious and obviate the denial.

I'm glad you mentioned that. The Obama Campaign denied any knowledge of the Super Pac's ad but there is evidence - even audio - showing they in fact did know and their involvement is illegal. But since Obama is the BFF of the media, they just ignore it. My God,if that had been Romney it would treated be like the second coming of Watergate.

Don't be silly. It's not a blatant lie if it's implied.

How about a a hair-splitting lie?

When it suits, it's certainly an improvement. Like this: "don't argue with me whether it's induction or deduction, they're both logic so what's the difference". Yeah, 'hair-splitting lie' has just about the right amount of truthiness to do the trick. SuperPAC not a part of a campaign? Of course it is - when it suits. Of course it isn't when it doesn't. Deny the obvious and obviate the denial.

I'm glad you mentioned that. The Obama Campaign denied any knowledge of the Super Pac's ad but there is evidence - even audio - showing they in fact did know and their involvement is illegal. But since Obama is the BFF of the media, they just ignore it. My God,if that had been Romney it would treated be like the second coming of Watergate.

I don't know what a BFF is, though I do know that the second coming of Watergate was caused by Deep Throat.

I'm glad you mentioned that. The Obama Campaign denied any knowledge of the Super Pac's ad but there is evidence - even audio - showing they in fact did know and their involvement is illegal.

Correct!

Edited September 13, 201213 yr by Ulysses G.