RagnarDanneskjold says, I WANT [a] thread about the vicious Obama LIE regarding Romney and killing cancer patients. Hells bells I'll settle for just a general 'most onerous Obama LIE' thread.
Alrighty.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/08/13180408-first-thoughts-the-final-three?lite
Yep, nothing of the sort happening. In fact, the reforms, asked for by Republican governors, as implemented by the Obama administration, require more welfare to work.
Now that is a lie. A real one. And one told by the candidate himself.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on August 8, 2012 09:55 AMThat's a matter of opinion, not fact.
What HHS says is that it will consider changes that meet the "work goals" of TANF. Does that mean the goal of working a certain amount in certain types of activities, etc., or does it mean accomplishing something similar to those goals? The very real concern is that it will mean the latter, and given Obama's statements about welfare reform, and his administration's propensity for ignoring the law, this is not an unreasonable assumption (if one is prone to make assumptions, which I am not, but both candidates are).
And I am loaded for BEAR courtesy of my son:
So... we've got this one now.
Yep. Apparently Mitt Romney now causes cancer. Uh huh.
Hey guys... just so you know, I'm going to get REALLY vicious here. I am going to take a cancer widow, and rip his throat out with my bare teeth. If that bothers you, I suggest you skip this post.
Fair warning.
Hey, Joe Soptic - I'm talking to you with this one:
I don't think Democrats understand that people aren't entitled to a job. That it is not Mitt Romney's, nor anyone else's responsibility to keep a plant open in order for you to have a job. It is not Bain Capitals responsibility to keep a plant open for the purpose of employing people (as opposed to producing a product). You know what that's like? That's like paying a guy to dig a hole, refill it, dig it again, refill it, and to keep doing so just so that he has something to do for which you pay him and provide him health insurance. There is no sense in that whatsoever, as there is nothing the employer is receiving for the services you are rendering.
I don't think Democrats understand that your wife becoming ill is not Mitt Romney's problem (nor is it appropriate for the President, under the Constitution, to assume such a role - as they are not enumerated powers/responsibilities of the Executive). It's a tragedy, to be sure - but it is not Bain Capital's responsibility to make sure you have health insurance or to make the having of health insurance affordably available to you. That's like saying that someone should provide you something you didn't earn and/or that they should do so at a loss to themselves. There is no sense in that whatsoever, as no (sane) business owner will willingly work himself into bankruptcy for the sake of his employees. (And the insane ones that will won't be able to do so for long, and they'll/you'll be in the same exact boat anyway. But I suppose the Democrat answer to that is "bailouts!" isn't it.)
Mitt Romney did not do this to you, Joe. Mitt Romney did not create your lot in life. Mitt Romney did not create your circumstances. It is my understanding that the steel plant you mentioned, GST Steel, closed in February, 2001. Your wife died on June 22, 2006. Exactly what the hell were you doing for 5+ years while your wife was letting cancer eat her from the inside, Joe? In that time, unemployment floated around 5-6%, nationally (as opposed to the 8.3% to 10% it's been, thanks to Obama's utter failure of economic policies). Romney didn't kill your wife, Joe. YOU DID.
YOU DID, by not spending your life developing for yourself a marketable skill and ability that was desirable to employers. YOU DID, by not practicing responsible financial planning that would have given you savings to afford private personal health insurance when you were out of work. YOU DID, by living by an ideology that abdicates personal responsibility and self-reliance - in favor of being a Democrat. A useless, worthless, helpless Democrat.
Whether you looked for a job or not during those five years, your skills were clearly limited to "janitor." That's on YOU. Whether you set aside savings or not for life's curveballs, you didn't have enough to take care of your family. That's on YOU. And now you're trying to blame your failings as a man on someone else, and you're pimping out the corpse of your dead wife to Obama to do so. How sick is that? And how sick is it the Obama Campaign who is all too eager to have their way with her corpse?
God, you know... it's not the depths to which the Obama Campaign will sink in making their ads that bothers me. (But, seriously, Obama? "Romney causes cancer?" Seriously?) Frankly, it doesn't surprise me at all coming from them. It's the overtly socialist ideology that they're trying to say is what America should be - and that they're PROMISING with the re-election of President Downgrade. That's what really galls me. They are telling America - hey, we should have "businesses" that operate at a loss just so you can have a job! (Green Energy programs, anyone?) Hey, your health care is someone else's responsibility! That they do this so openly and so brazenly these days is all the evidence ANYONE should need that these collectivist and statist Democrats need to be destroyed. For good.
This ad is worse than just the blatant attempt to smear The Rominator. This ad really overtly screams the cannibalistic ideology of the left.
And the fact that SO MANY PEOPLE don't see that, is what's truly horrifying about this ad.
ps. Who else here is wondering whether "Joe Soptic" actually exists, or whether he's a "composite" like all of Obama's autobiographical girlfriends?
This is what comes of a generation who has been repeatedly told they are entitled to have someone take care of them. This is what comes of a political party preying on the less fortunate, the lazy and the incapable by constantly berating their opposite... all the while BEING their opposite. This is what happens when you give fish rather than teaching TO fish.
There was one particular response to my son:
The one that gets me is the ad that details Romney's attempts to minimize the taxes he pays and mentions his offshore accounts and concludes "Mitt Romney is not the solution; Mitt Romney is the problem."
What's so wrong with that is not whether or not those allegations are true -- and they probably are -- it's that if you ask, "Who is the audience this ad is aimed at," the answer gives you every reason not to vote for Obama.
The ad is aimed at people who don't understand how wrong it is to have and enforce the tax system we have.
Avoiding it, within the limits of the law (and sometimes on the fringes of it), is simply common sense; and large numbers of tax consultants and accountants, and lawyers make their living helping their clients do exactly the same things.
The ad is aimed at people who don't understand how business works, so if you describe everyday practices in the right tone of voice, the ignorant multitudes will believe there's something wrong with the system that the government created in the first place.
The ad is aimed at people who are ignorant and inexperienced and uses those vulnerabilities to misrepresent common ordinary facts as suspicious, morally culpable actions. And then concludes that because Romney has done what he and every businessman in America is forced to do by the system the government set up -- is a monster.
This is the most obvious example of "playing the rubes" I've ever seen.
It's is nothing more and nothing less than sheer arrogance.
Why would anyone vote for a man who telegraphs his contempt of the electorate so obviously? - B1ueBufellow commented on Today - 4:35am
**Emphasis in response is mine.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 10:03 AMExceot that he would not ask anyone to pay more in taxes. Baldfaced lie.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2012 10:07 AMSecond, since you mentioned it, now you're going to have to prove it: tell me about how anything I said about ballots if "phony."
A group did an analysis that said Romney can't pay for his plan, and one way he could pay for it is to remove tax credits the middle class uses.
And Obama said that this constitutes a Romney plan to remove those credits, even though he never even implied he would. And we all know he wouldn't, anyway. Get rid of the child tax credit? It can't and won't happen, and Romney never did or would propose it.
Obama's just simply lying. As he always does.
The Obama administration claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (section 407), including "definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates" -- in other words, the whole work program. Sebelius's HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can write any policy it chooses. Because HHS granted itself total authority to change any aspect of the work standards, the agency will not be bound by its state-by-state waiver approach in the future.
HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers for new conservative policies. The agency's guidance states that it will not approve policy initiatives that are "likely to reduce access to aid." Translation: HHS will oppose any policy that reduces welfare caseloads.
Liberals traditionally use sham "exit" statistics to pretend they are shrinking welfare, while in reality they're increasing it. Given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of individuals moving from "welfare to work" is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place. Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. TANF curtailed the use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not "bed rest" or "reading" or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.
Remember how he said he would stop the partisan bickering and bring the country back together during his campaign? After he was elected, he said in essence tough sh-t, we won. And he's done nothing to work with anyone on policies that could solve our economic woes, instead lying about wind and solar, which have in turn enriched his cronies, but failed in terms of economic impact and in producing any meaningful energy that could actually reduce carbon emissions.
When Obama opens his mouth, he is lying.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 8, 2012 10:16 AMFirst, we know that primary results are unpredictable, because we have different levels of turnout from different demographic groups every time. So you can compare similar groups of voters -- those who vote in the 39th between Zimmerman and Scott, for example -- but less so the voters in the same area who vote for Walters. Maybe Republicans have less reason to come out because we already know it is going to be Dunn and McKenna and Koster.
If you're within five percent, you're in a virtual tie as far as the general election is concerned. That's how Koster won the primary last time, but Larsen won the general. Not much changed between the elections (a few votes might have passed because Koster refused to debate on KING 5, and Larsen spread a lot of lies about Koster trying to kill Social Security), but the real difference was Patty Murray's last-minute vote push that helped down-ballot candidates like Larsen.
Second, we've only seen the first day of ballots, and we could have more than half the votes left to count. We have at least a fifth left to count, which could put McKenna ahead.
Third, Dunn is going to get almost all of Pidgeon's votes, which puts him very close to Ferguson, and, again, Dunn+Pidgeon could be above 50% before it's over. Along similar lines, we could have a bunch of nonvoters (I am not crazy about either one; though I voted for Dunn, it wouldn't be beyond me to withhold a vote in the primary race, while I would definitely vote for Dunn in the general).
I could go on, but I hope you realize how stupid you are by now.
But since I've proved many times how stupid you are and you still haven't gotten it, I don't hold out very much hope.
He said that in his inaugural address. I think we've never had before a President who, right in his opening statement, told half the country that he didn't care about their concerns. But that's what Obama explicitly did.
The false, invented analysis behind Obama's tax claims
Besides the stench of all these lies as they pile up (and fall over), is the blatant assumption that the American people are stupid. This administration is like a pinball bouncing from ping to ping hoping for points.
I wonder though why they are coming in the dog days of August. If Thugbama and his henchmen believed America would believe this stuff, why now and not October? I say because they know they can't fool people when those people are paying attention. And those paying attention are doing so with their houses underwater, their bankbooks empty, their food, clothing, utility and gas costs rising. Thugbama and his henchman are cowardly trying to pick off the ignorant now because they won't be able to change the subject after the conventions and after the debate. The coward Thugbama doesn't have the balls to bring this kind of fetid crap up in a debate.
And that Romney - ANSWER FIRMLY. Confront the liars and pound the liars with truth. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. One of the traits I appreciate about Romney is his class and his calm... I like calm in adversity, but I want the bullied to fight back. As my son learned in 9th grade, it only takes one bloodied bully nose to make them stop.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 10:28 AMAs the nonpartisan report on Romney's tax plan states, there is no way he can pay for it unless he raises taxes on the middle class. Romney has not refuted that. Of course, he could release details of his plan, so people know how he plans to actually accomplish what he says, but since Romney knows that actual Republican ideas are not popular, he will avoid doing so. Plus, there really is no way he can do what he says he wants to do without raising taxes on the middle class, so he is stuck. Kind of like his taxes. Obviously, if there were not terrible things, he would release them, like his father did. It is only because he has a lot to hide that he will do whatever he can to avoid the issue.
As for the welfare reform, I note that you have no facts to support your claim, just normal Conservative "Oooh, Obama will destroy it, just you wait." You cannot refute that the changes were requested by Republican governors. And no mater what, you cannot refer to it as "gutting." Heck, strangely enough, Mitt Romney requested the same changes when he was governor.
Again, we see why Romney refuses to discuss his career in politics. Is there anything Romney has done that he is comfortable talking about or doesn't embarrass him? To date, he would rather be a cypher and hope people buy into Conservative paranoia than actually talk about his merits or give details of what he plans to do to the country.
And here, here to Ivan. The Republicans get embarrassed in what is normally their high water point in the election, and not a word from this blog. Obama's lead is expanding, and Romney refuses to talk with anyone but his base and FOX News. False charges of lack of ballot secrecy, or claims of Obama lies might get people to listen to your on a FOX News comment board, but they destroy your chances with real people at an election. If only the Republican party in this state had stayed with strong centrist, like Sam Reed and Dan Evans, instead of jumping off the cliff that the far right demands of all candidates. Going to be a rough couple of months, isn't it.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on August 8, 2012 10:54 AMFirst, it is not "partisan," only in the strictest sense. It is a left wing group.
Second, it's obviously a false statement. There's never only one way to pay for something, unless existing rules requires that, and it doesn't.
Third, if Obama proposed a lot of things he couldn't pay for. Some of them he didn't do, some of them he did do but didn't pay for (hence, a trillion-dollar deficit).
So it is simply a fact that Romney's proposals do not constitute proposing a tax increase on the middle class, and it is simply a fact that Obama is lying by saying he did.
There's no wiggle room here.
there really is no way he can do what he says he wants to do without raising taxes on the middle class
You're lying. Stop it. Again: he can raise money in other ways, or he can simply not pay for it, like Obama and the Dems have done in record amounts.
As for the welfare reform, I note that you have no facts to support your claim
The facts are obvious, and Palouse stated them even more clearly.
You cannot refute that the changes were requested by Republican governors.
So? You seem to think you have a point here. You do not.
And no mater what, you cannot refer to it as "gutting."
False. If, as many of us reasonably suspect, it will lead to significantly reducing the work requirement -- which it obviously COULD -- then that is "gutting," clearly.
And here, here to Ivan. The Republicans get embarrassed in what is normally their high water point in the election, and not a word from this blog.
OK, I would like to apologize to Ivan. I said he was the only stupid person here who doesn't understand our primaries. I stand corrected.
False charges of lack of ballot secrecy
Make your case, or you are disallowed from posting further. I won't allow you to say what I said is false, without backing it up.
... or claims of Obama lies might get people to listen to your on a FOX News comment board, but they destroy your chances with real people at an election
You can't say that we are irrelevant on the one hand (mostly true), and that we have the power to destroy Repubican chances on the other.
If you don't think you need to do that, then show me the court decisions that support your claim that mail-in voting is unconstitutional.
I have read what you say. I understand your argument. But it's YOUR argument, and that's all it is. You can't be bothered filing a lawsuit, because if you did, you might find out that the real legal authority that determines constitutionality exists apart from, and outside of, this blog. Here on this blog you are a big shot. Outside it, not so much.
Believe it not, Pudge, and the rest of you lot, not everyone who disagrees with you "hates the rule of law." If it makes you comfortable to belieeeeeeeeeeeve that you are the sole guardians and arbiters of the law, then you are welcome to your illusions.
Somehow I think our republic, and the democracy with which we run it, will survive mail-in voting. Hasta la vista, baby.
Finally, the end result is likely to be disgust by John Q. Public. Mr. Romney must focus on laying out more specifics NOW about how he will improve our economy, business climate and jobs and continue to drive this point home. Many independents are skeptical about him, primarily because he has not exposed his plan. He appears to be playing Obama's game by not being specific about his plans - not the wisest move. It is being perceived as if he hesitates to be bold for fear of being attacked by the opposition which is unattractive and dangerous for his candidacy.
It gets back to fighting fire with fire, which must be done - the electorate is ready for this - it is Romney's election to win or lose..
Posted by: KDS on August 8, 2012 11:40 AM
You're a liar. I never said any such thing.
If you don't think you need to do that, then show me the court decisions that support your claim that mail-in voting is unconstitutional.
Constitutionality is based on the state constitution. I made a very strong case that a system of statewide voting at home is unconstitutional. If you disagree, you need to provide arguments, not simply point to a lack of court cases.
I have read what you say. I understand your argument.
Then either a. you understand I am right, b. you think I am wrong and you have reasons why, or c. you have no reasons to disagree with me.
If c., then you have nothing to say against me. If b., provide your arguments, or shut up. If a., then just say so.
Those are the only three rational possibilities. Your response about court cases is entirely irrational.
You can't be bothered filing a lawsuit, because if you did, you might find out that the real legal authority that determines constitutionality exists apart from, and outside of, this blog.
False. I know what determines constitutionality: the constitution. The Supreme Court of Washington only determines what is holding, not what is actually constitutional. This is obviously true, else the Supreme Court could never change past precedents, or if it did, it would be explicitly making new law to override the old, which is ... well, unconstitutional.
Believe it not, Pudge, and the rest of you lot, not everyone who disagrees with you "hates the rule of law."
You're a liar. I never implied any such thing. What IS true, however, is that if you want the law to stay the way it is and you don't care what the constitution says about it -- which is scottd's position, and probably yours -- then you hate the rule of law, by definition.
Somehow I think our republic, and the democracy with which we run it, will survive mail-in voting.
You're stupid if you think that's an actual argument.
Well, you're stupid regardless of whether you think that's an actual argument.
No more warnings: if you post again without providing one of the three possible responses I gave you against my claim that mail voting is unconstitutional, then you will be banned.
Same thing for Hutz.
I am plenty bored with idiots coming in here and pretending to have something to say, and then completely dodging the point and giving nothing but bluster, lies, and innuendo. If you have something to contribute, even if it is against my view, great. But you don't.
The most effective tool to fight Thugbama's fetid pile of stinking refuse is to USE HIS OWN WORDS.
One of the most onerous lies of of omission Thugbama commits is the FACT of all his extra-constitutional executive orders he signs under the cover of darkness. Why hide?
We know.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 12:07 PMGuess which Mormon was a professional boxer and which was a cheerleader:
a- Harry Reid
b- Mitt Romney
Posted by: red hiney monkey on August 8, 2012 12:43 PMPosted by red hiney monkey at August 8, 2012 12:39 PM
When did you stop beating your dog and being a pedophile ?
Posted by: KDS on August 8, 2012 12:50 PMI am pretty sure you are a progressive because you make nonsensical comments -- kind of like when my one son will say to his brother: "I know you are but what am I?" over and over again. At least they GREW out of it!!
Are they any adults in the progressive arena or are there just blathering idiots who like to hear themselves talk, call names, lie and point fingers at people with differing opinions?
By the way, the word is out!
Nancy is insane.
Harry is senile.
David is liar.
Valery is a spy.
Debbie is a puppet.
Rahm is a thief.
Barack is is really Michelle.. and vice versa
Joe is... well Joe
I've heard this from a number of sources that they are so they are. It's up to them to prove that they're not. And it's up to you to prove that you are not a Progressive lemming now too! :)
Now, can we please go back to discussing the cost of gas, the rising unemployment rates, the cost of health insurance, the rise of national debt?
Not to mention how we must stop the trampling of our liberties by said persons above?
Not to mention how we must stop the trampling of our liberties by said persons above?"
But................. You're the one who suggested this topic.
- discussing the cost of gas -- there was no discussion when it was falling
- the rising unemployment rates -- caused by 30 years of Republican policies and the rising jobless rate linked to the summer season -- http://www.clevelandbanner.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Rising+jobless+rate+linked+to+season%20&id=19614154
- the cost of health insurance -- please....\
- the rise of national debt? -- you gotta be kidding
NO ONE believes that unemployment is caused by Republican policies. Obama says it a lot, but even he doesn't believe it (as evidenced by the fact that he has never even attempted to tell us how Republican policies caused the recession).
EVERYONE knows that "Obamacare" increases the cost of insurance. That's its point: to make those of us with insurance pay more, to pay for those who can't afford it. Even the left admits that's the point of the mandate.
And on national debt, it's simple factual and well-known numbers that Obama's bloated it far more than any President since WWII.
No serious liberal would even attempt to make these stupid cases.
I do think the ad in question by a pro-Obama super-pac extremely stretches the case and Obama should disavow the ad. This should also be the case with Romney when a pro-Romney/GOB super-pac puts forth an ad that is untrue or stretches the truth so far that is figuratively breaks.
Let me ask one question in regards to Romney's "truthfulness". Do you really think Romney's can generate the jobs he is claiming he can generate, cut taxes as he has outlined, increase defense spending the way he has proposed and keep the deficit from ballooning and lowering unemployment? I don't believe it for one minute. His math doesn't add up and tax experts agree. To cut spending to offset his tax cuts, which may be needed, will throw a lot of government workers on the unemployment line, which will increase unemployment. This could be offset by the increase in military spending, but this increases government spending when Romney says he will cut overall spending. Which means either the deficit will balloon to cover the increased government spending on military, or he will have to further cut other government spending, which equates to cutting government jobs. Further, I don't believe there is enough non-defense and non-mandatory spending left to make his numbers work out. Romney refuses to come clean on the details of his magic formula to fix the economy, which includes ballooning defense spending, and still address the deficit. This is one of my biggest issues with Romney.
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 8, 2012 01:14 PMHe has shown to be a good economic manager and was successful in running the 2002 Olympics, but we want to know what he can do now !
Posted by: KDS on August 8, 2012 01:23 PMOK, Romney is a murdering tax cheat bully wimp weird Mormon billionaire who straps dogs to the top of his car. He's still an improvement.
Even if Romney only accomplishes a third of the things outlined on his website in regards to the economy, he'll be ten times better than Obama.
Posted by: Palouse on August 8, 2012 01:34 PMI assumed you meant the candidates. I don't care about PACs, because they are unrelated to the candidates.
Hilarious. Only a sub-human chud like Ivan could take a 22-percent sampling, and start measuring drapes in the governor's office.
Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick on August 8, 2012 02:35 PMAlso, the Obama administration is involved with the wife murder ad.
Regards, (click below)
Posted by: ivan's web cam on August 8, 2012 03:15 PMAnother thing I've noticed is that Jim Miller closes comment threads when unwarrented 'name-calling' occurs.
Do you suppose that your name-calling would qualify -- because if it doesn't, I have some that I can direct at you that will.
Posted by: red hiney monkey on August 8, 2012 03:17 PMWhy? It has no relevance on who will win. I could've said in 2006 that Deval Patrick had little chance, because MA had not had a Democratic governor in 16 years. But that would've been stupid.
You're being stupid.
Stop being stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4&feature=player_embedded
re 38: Thanks for the compliment. I only wish that I was headless.
I wish you were headless, too. And I mean that in the kindest ROP way.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on August 8, 2012 05:04 PMThis thread is really to point out Obama's lies as requested per Rags (Sorry Rags, I forgot your gender). A whole separate thread would be needed to cover Romney and pro-Romney super-PAC's alternative reality.
You go for it too, hopingmypostwillstay ... I believe Team Romney has been using Obama own words and published FACTS in his most compelling ads. And here's the thing: Team Romney is talking about REAL problems of this country and as such gives Team Thug the opportunity to form their answers. Team Thug isn't even that honest - they are spewing about everything BUT the real problems made by and or exacerbated by President Downgrade. Hope and change for the stupid, baby.
WE welcome the chance to discuss Team Romney idea's; we welcome the chance to compare and contrast. Team Thug wants his base to gossip about lies, innuendo and outrageous crap.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 05:10 PMI disagree. The candidate has the opportunity and I would say the RESPONSIBILITY to reign in hateful train-wrecks put forth in his name.
And that particular super-pac... hello? Bill Burton... Bill Burton, the principal deputy press secretary to Supreme Obama Apologist Gibbs.
Unrelated? PUH-lease
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 05:18 PMThey can't. It's illegal.
Brainless and lobotomized trolls like headless/red hiney monkey and Ivan (to a slightly lesser extent) are totally apathetic and want the same misery and statist government that Owebama has thrown at us since 2009, so they will vote for him. Most others will not take this election lightly and see the light and vote against the President. He and his lawless and mafioso type administration must get thrown out in November. To them, the rule of law matters no more ! Beware DANGER...
One
Big
Ass
Mistake for
America
Is it illegal for them to disavow an ad made in their name? "That ad doesn't speak for me or my campaign."
Easy peasy Chuckie Cheesy.
Lies piled upon lies: BUSTED
So eager is lifelike talking-points robot Stephanie Cutter to keep the campaign's fingerprints off the cheap lies in the PAC ad that she claims at 4:00 below not to know the facts about when Soptic's wife got sick or when she died. Minor problem: The campaign itself featured Soptic in not one but two ads several months ago and had him tell the story of his wife's death after he lost his insurance during a conference call with -- ta da -- Stephanie Cutter.
Unbelievable.... or sadly all TOO believable.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 05:49 PMDepending on how it is done.
"That ad doesn't speak for me or my campaign."
That doesn't need to be said; the law already says that. So yes, they can state as a matter of fact that no ad from a PAC speaks for them.
But if they say "this PAC is ad wrong" or "this PAC should not be showing ads like this," then that is illegal coordination. Any direct claim or implication of how the PAC should act is coordinating with the PAC, which as best I can tell, is illegal.
Yes, it's stupid. Laws often are.
Re 7: No, Romney Won't Raise Your Taxes $2,000
The central theme is actually to cut taxes on the middle class, multiple times, over and over. Romney nowhere proposes any tax increase on the middle class, or on anyone else for that matter. Obama's allegation that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class by $2,000 per family is a complete fabrication. Obama did the same thing to Ryan's budget plan, alleging a litany of supposed cuts that were nowhere to be found in the plan. Obama just made them up well.
Even the Tax Policy Center study that Obama cites for his charge says that Romney "promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now." The study argues that in order to raise the same amount of money, the federal government would have to raise taxes on middle- and lower-class families -- but it does not suggest that any such thing has been proposed by Romney. In addition, the study fails to give nearly adequate credit to the fact that Romney's tax plan will increase economic growth and jobs -- and thus, tax revenue. Reagan cut overall tax rates by far more than Romney is proposing, and during the 1980s, federal revenue doubled.
The bottom line is that Obama is disgracefully campaigning as a damn liar, to the great shame of the entire Democrat Party that he represents. It is old-fashioned Soviet propaganda to publicly campaign on the opposite of the truth, as Obama is doing. That reflects Obama's Marxist upbringing and the nature of today's Che Guevara Democrat Party.
**Emphasis mine
"We celebrate the fact that Sandra Fluke is gainfully employed so she can pay for her own contraceptives," said Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women of America.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 8, 2012 06:16 PMSure. I'm just saying that in my opinion, you can't address the ads in a positive or negative light without violating the law. It's all very circumstantial, of course, so I am speaking in general terms.
"So yes, Romney has a major problem on his hands, but the good news is that he seems to realize it. Hopefully, this latest move with @RomneyResponse is a sincere effort to aggressively fight back against his most venomous and dishonest opponent, the mainstream media, because removing Obama can't be done without first getting past Obama's Media Palace Guards.
In my ever so humble opinion, in order for @RomneyResponse to work, the Romney campaign is going to have to be aggressive and on top of absolutely everything media. So here are my "Top 5 Unsolicited Suggestions To Use @RomneyResponse To Whip the Corrupt Media's Corrupt Butt."
1. The over-arching goal of @RomneyResponse (RR) should be to mobilize the armies of New Media and Social Media. Through Facebook, Twitter and blogs, there are literally millions of Republicans eager and ready to go to battle with the corrupt media. RR needs to (quickly) earn its place as a leader in this army by offering material, guidance, ideas, truth, and a fearless fighting spirit (a sense of humor wouldn't hurt, either).
2. Whoever staffs RR needs to understand how media works, get up around four a.m. to read and watch those in the corrupt media who set the day's narratives, and identify what those narratives will be. And...
The first RR Tweets of the day should always be RR's prediction of that day's coming narratives.
Doing this will literally alert millions and offer direction as to where that day's battle with the media will take place.
For instance, it was easy to spot that today's narratives were going to be the juiced swing-state polls from Quinnipiac and a bogus tax study Obama and his media minions would dishonestly claim is nonpartisan.
The sooner your army knows what's coming, the sooner they can start swinging back with the truth. And the sooner you're swinging, the less it looks like you're on defense.
This is all about being proactive.
3. The second Tweets of the day should be RR's predictions of the news damaging to Obama the corrupt media will cover up. This was also easy to spot today. There was no question Gallup's new swing-state polls and manufacturing contracting for the second month in a row would get buried in whatever distractions the corrupt media could come up with.
And again, the sooner your army is aware of this, the sooner you can mobilize them to push the truth out through a new/social media counter-narrative.
4. Name names. In a good-natured, professional, but aggressive way, RR should directly and publicly challenge media outlets and "journalists" who get their facts wrong and cover up bad news for Obama. Let them know you know and let them know you are letting the world know by challenging them openly.
Throughout the day. focus on this. Point to the bias and call it by name. Solicit tips. Have fun.
5. Reward your army with links and retweets. Once you flood the zone with your predicted narratives, cover ups, and challenges for the day, throw some love to those online who help you get the truth out. This can start a snowball effect that spreads the truth far and wide.
-----
The idea behind all of this is not to change the behavior of the corrupt media. This will never happen and the sooner we all realize that, the closer we are to winning the election."
BUT, I applaud this guy who legitimately questions the Thugbama equivalent:
Is Obama responsible for the death of Tonya Reaves?
According to his supporters' logic, he is.
Excerpts (with supporting links left out by me)
If the president's supporters believe that having a loose connection to the circumstances surrounding the death of a woman makes a person responsible for that woman's death, is it safe to say that President Obama bears responsibility for the death of Tonya Reaves?
Reaves died last month from a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago. She lay bleeding for five and a half hours before employees of the taxpayer-subsidized abortion provider finally transferred her to a local hospital, where she later passed away. While Reaves lay dying, Planned Parenthood employees intentionally disregarded an emergency dispatcher's instructions given earlier that same day to call 911 in case of an emergency.
President Obama is a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood and thinks it should be funded by taxpayers.
According to Planned Parenthood's 2009-2010 annual report, the abortion provider received $487.4 million in government grants and reimbursements between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. During that period, it performed roughly 330,000 abortions.
Considering his support for Planned Parenthood, why isn't Obama being held responsible for the death of Tonya Reaves? Holding Obama responsible for Reaves' death makes more sense than holding Romney responsible for the death of Joseph Soptic's wife.
Answer: because it is a constant double standard. The media plays by two different sets of rules for those they support and those they don't. And this is because Leftists know that if they have to run on their record, and on the truth of their goals, there would never be another Democrat elected.
Pretty lame when you have to cheat and have the refs playing for your team just to keep the game close.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 8, 2012 09:16 PMThey have to keep fighting and understand the audience and realize that the American electorate has evolved into many who lack critical thinking skills and have become intellectually lazy.
Posted by: KDS on August 8, 2012 09:32 PM"like this week"...Don't you mean the last month, and now extending into this month? Face it, this campaign is worn out its effectiveness.
Posted by: BlackRhino on August 8, 2012 09:38 PMThis still begs the question of; what will the GOP/Romney campaign do to effectively counter this ? (Andrea Saul must go for starters). This top[ic should be opened up on a new post.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 05:56 AM(Another reason why all-mail voting sucks.)
There was a story this morning on the web about a store owner Ohio who's store front was used in an Obama ad. She's quite angry about it and want's her business O U T of the ad.
Evidently the video was part stock footage shot for a shutter company which her manager approved and it had been explained to him that "They were filming stock footage that could be purchased and used for any reason."
The owner claims she has had complaints about the Obama ad featuring her deli and is losing customers because of it ... and that "She'd be just as angry, she said, if it were an ad for Mitt Romney."
Enter the classy guy, Caleb Faux, director of the Hamilton County Democratic Party
Faux disagreed that Krause-McDonnell would be just as angry if the ad were airing for Romney.
"From my conversations with her, it's clear she's not an Obama supporter," he said. "So she's got a political agenda."
Yep, classy: blame the victim and call her a liar... publicly
What say you, liberals? Defend another onerous action on behalf of your Thugbama. Tell us how he oh so supports "the little guy" ...
Oh wait.
She's not a guy ... WAR ON WOMEN!
But it certainly shows both incompetence and worse on the part of Obama's campaign. You simply DO NOT show identifiable, private, people and businesses in a POLITICAL ad without their permission, whether you can do it legally or not. It's unnecessary and a recipe for bad press, at the very least. Completely avoidable. Incompetent.
Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2012 08:09 AM
OBAMA FOR AMERICA TV SPOT: "ALWAYS"
OBAMA: "Those ads, taking my words about small business out of context, they are flat out wrong."
[Insert out-of-context video footage of a private business that was not asked to be in ad.]
...
Democrats CALLED her a liar and blamed her for not knowing the video could be sold.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 9, 2012 08:14 AMHis dead wife "would be so embarrassed" by her surviving husband.
Thanks Harry.
""What's past is prologue" is a quotation by William Shakespeare from his play The Tempest.
The phrase means that history influences, and sets the context for, the present. The quotation is engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.[1]
Senator Joe Biden used the quotation in the 2008 vice-presidential debate against Sarah Palin when he was accused of focusing too much on the past.[2] The phrase is also commonly used by the military when discussing the similarities between war throughout history."
But 'pudge' says it's not relevant, so he must be right and everyone else is a LIAR!!!!!!!!
But the history you provided is so incomplete as to be completely useless. I already proved this by giving you a similar case in MA, which you failed to address, either because you are dishonest or incompetent.
One more time: please stop being stupid. I've asked nicely, and won't ask again.
