he thinks Romney is only motivated by money. I pointed out that someone motivated purely or primarily by money (a) would go back to earning tens of millions at Bain rather than run for president, (b) would not have worked for free at his last two jobs, and (c) would not have given millions to charity. An honest person would either have replied "Jeez, maybe Romney isn't purely motivated by money" or tried to refute my argument. What did Ritmo do? He ignored all three points, grabbed onto a tangential aspect of the third, and sneered at Romney because most of his charitable contributions were to his church, as if that had anything to do with the argument. When you change the subject so blatantly just to avoid admitting that you've been refuted, that seems to me to be tantamount to a lie. Oh look! Ritmo finally admits that Romney is not motivated purely by money, but doesn't have the grace to admit that he was wrong in saying so and I was right. And he thinks I'm the being humiliated by "long-winded non-concession"? Now Romney is "motivated by religious causes" and "his church" is "the nearly exclusive, if not sole recipient" of his charity. Another easily-refuted falsehood. If you Bing "Romney charitable contributions" the very first hit is a Huffington Post story from 8/11/11 about how most of his contributions are to his church. But even when they include contributions to Brigham Young as contributions to his church, they