Obama campaign caught in lie....

[cal50]

Oops.

Someone forgot to check the timeline and get stories straight.

 

A slimy bunch.....

 

 

http://fwd4.me/17S4

[Versa-Tech]

How is this news?

 

Liberalism is defined by constitutional dishonesty, coupled with acute neurosis. It is a mental disorder, brought on by an inability to cope with a less than ideal reality. The empathetic rationalizations they use are nothing more than defense mechanisms rooted in delusions of grandeur, preying on the weaker elements of human nature, justified by self-righteous indignation. I could go on to infinitum.

[Langston Hughes]

How is this news?

 

Liberalism is defined by constitutional dishonesty, coupled with acute neurosis. It is a mental disorder, brought on by an inability to cope with a less than ideal reality. The empathetic rationalizations they use are nothing more than defense mechanisms rooted in delusions of grandeur, preying on the weaker elements of human nature, justified by self-righteous indignation. I could go on to infinitum.

 

May i suggest you just call us Assclowns, it would be preferable to that gigantic load of pompous, overly pretentious pile of horse shit that came out of your mouth.And i have no doubt you could go on forever as there is obviously a large element of OCD behavior within the psychosis that is conservatism.

[partsisparts]

This ad was done by a PAC. The Obama campaign has no control over what the PACs say.

Edited August 12, 2012 by partsisparts

[Mark B. Morrow]

How is this news?

 

Liberalism is defined by constitutional dishonesty, coupled with acute neurosis. It is a mental disorder, brought on by an inability to cope with a less than ideal reality. The empathetic rationalizations they use are nothing more than defense mechanisms rooted in delusions of grandeur, preying on the weaker elements of human nature, justified by self-righteous indignation. I could go on to infinitum.

 

Michael Weiner, is that you?

[RangerM]

This ad was done by a PAC. The Obama campaign has no control over what the PACs say.

However, the campaign can disavow it. "Disavow" in the sense that they acknowledge its inaccuracy of leading the audience to believe that Bain's (and by extension, Romney's) actions had a direct relationship to the death of the man's wife. They haven't.

 

And the same man (Joe Soptic--who appeared in the PAC's ad) also appeared in an ad run by the Obama Administration earlier this year.

Edited August 12, 2012 by RangerM

[akirby]

When both sides spend all their time attacking the other side instead of focusing on what needs to be done to fix the problems and working together - we're all screwed.

[TomServo92]

However, the campaign can disavow it. "Disavow" in the sense that they acknowledge its inaccuracy of leading the audience to believe that Bain's (and by extension, Romney's) actions had a direct relationship to the death of the man's wife. They haven't.

 

And the same man (Joe Soptic--who appeared in the PAC's ad) also appeared in an ad run by the Obama Administration earlier this year.

 

I believe also that one of the top Obama campaign officials denied any knowledge of the story of Soptic's wife but it was later revealed that the same official hosted a campaign conference call where Soptic told the story during the meeting. Whether she authorized the PAC to run the ad is unknown but she did lie about knowing the story.

[RangerM]

When both sides spend all their time attacking the other side instead of focusing on what needs to be done to fix the problems and working together - we're all screwed.

Which is why I'm encouraged by Romney's selection of Paul Ryan.

 

Many may not like him, but there's none better with budgetary issues, imo.

 

[partsisparts]

However, the campaign can disavow it. "Disavow" in the sense that they acknowledge its inaccuracy of leading the audience to believe that Bain's (and by extension, Romney's) actions had a direct relationship to the death of the man's wife. They haven't.

 

And the same man (Joe Soptic--who appeared in the PAC's ad) also appeared in an ad run by the Obama Administration earlier this year.

Yes they could, and they should. But then again the Romney camp has made up a couple of falsehoods of thier own..... Edited August 13, 2012 by partsisparts

[fmccap]

Which is why I'm encouraged by Romney's selection of Paul Ryan.

 

Many may not like him, but there's none better with budgetary issues, imo.

"none better"? What could possibly make you feel that way?

[RangerM]

 

"none better"? What could possibly make you feel that way?

Because he largely talks to people like adults; describing the nature and extent of the problem. And he usually avoids platitudes

 

You may not like his gradual approach to reduction in spending but I see it as the only way to get bipartisan support.

[Langston Hughes]

Which is why I'm encouraged by Romney's selection of Paul Ryan.

 

Many may not like him, but there's none better with budgetary issues, imo.

 

That i believe is open to discussion. While he may seem like a whiz kid on the budget, I do recall plenty of interdependent policy and economic analysts criticizing his budget plan because it was unrealistic and unobtainable.

[RangerM]

He gets criticism from the left because of his "draconian" cuts and from the right because he doesn't go far enough.

[akirby]

He gets criticism from the left because of his "draconian" cuts and from the right because he doesn't go far enough.

 

Exactly my point. Any time one side brings up a possible solution it gets shot down by the other side and we never get anywhere. We need bipartisan solutions.

[Langston Hughes]

He gets criticism from the left because of his "draconian" cuts and from the right because he doesn't go far enough.

 

He does get that, but in this case it was that his budget plan was as I said before unrealistic and unobtainable.

[akirby]

He does get that, but in this case it was that his budget plan was as I said before unrealistic and unobtainable.

 

As opposed to the Democrat's version which is also unrealistic and unsustainable?

[Langston Hughes]

As opposed to the Democrat's version which is also unrealistic and unsustainable?

 

That would be an astute statement if I had mentioned that the there were none better than the Democrats at budgetary measures, but you won't see me pontificating about either sides ability to create budget policy. If you look at the statement crowning Paul Ryan the king of budgets you could understand that this isn't a him or them situation it is a critique on the elevation of Ryan's status as a budget planner. I have merely suggested he is mortal like the rest of them.

 

Many may not like him, but there's none better with budgetary issues, imo.

[RangerM]

He does get that, but in this case it was that his budget plan was as I said before unrealistic and unobtainable.

In what way--politically or mathematically?

 

(and if you're going to say "mathematically", I request you provide some supporting documentation)

[akirby]

That would be an astute statement if I had mentioned that the there were none better than the Democrats at budgetary measures, but you won't see me pontificating about either sides ability to create budget policy. If you look at the statement crowning Paul Ryan the king of budgets you could understand that this isn't a him or them situation it is a critique on the elevation of Ryan's status as a budget planner. I have merely suggested he is mortal like the rest of them.

 

In other words you're just arguing semantics for no good reason.

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

May i suggest you just call us Assclowns, it would be preferable to that gigantic load of pompous, overly pretentious pile of horse shit that came out of your mouth.And i have no doubt you could go on forever as there is obviously a large element of OCD behavior within the psychosis that is conservatism.

Funny how you refuse to debate any articulate point in my post. Instead, you just make vague generalizations about your feelings toward my position. You do realize that, you being an articulate person in most respects, posts like this are practically an endorsement of the opinion you seek to discredit.

 

In other words, EPIC FAIL.

[Langston Hughes]

In other words you're just arguing semantics for no good reason.

 

In other words, he's no better or worse than anyone else. It's not semantics to suggest that Paul Ryan is not the wunderkid of budgetary policy that is suggested. It's a simple criticism.

[Langston Hughes]

Funny how you refuse to debate any articulate point in my post. Instead, you just make vague generalizations about your feelings toward my position. You do realize that, you being an articulate person in most respects, posts like this are practically an endorsement of the opinion you seek to discredit.

 

In other words, EPIC FAIL.

 

There is no point in debating your post. You made stupid generalizations that have no meaning other than as personal attacks. You wish to call people names, just do it and be done, don't couch it like a pussy suggesting we are mentally ill and that there's some clinical premise to what you say.

[RangerM]

In other words, he's no better or worse than anyone else. It's not semantics to suggest that Paul Ryan is not the wunderkid of budgetary policy that is suggested. It's a simple criticism.

While I don't think I suggested Ryan is a "wonderkid", I do submit he's much more of a straight shooter than most or all.

 

Right now Obama is suggesting that the deficit will be brought under control by raising taxes by 5% on a very small fraction of the population. Ryan has said this is not mathematically possible and without meaningful entitlement reform we are on a path to insolvency. For that, he's accused of wanting old people to die and the poor to starve.

 

People need to accept that ignoring the inevitability of the fiscal cliff (as Obama is) doesn't make it go away.

 

If you recall, Obama promised to address entitlement reform in his first term. What has he done?

Edited August 14, 2012 by RangerM

[akirby]

In other words, he's no better or worse than anyone else. It's not semantics to suggest that Paul Ryan is not the wunderkid of budgetary policy that is suggested. It's a simple criticism.

 

What does someone's opinion have to do with his actual fiscal accumen? Nothing. You hate anything labeled Republican or Conservative and you do nothing but look for ways to attack or criticize. Others do the same thing with Liberals and Democrats.

 

It's turned into a game of college football where your team is right and your team must win so you support everything your team does and you attack everything the other team does. And that goes for both sides.

 

It serves no purpose other than to prevent us from getting to a common ground and actually solving problems. If the Republicans got off their religious high horse and stopped talking about gay marriage and abortion (which have nothing whatsoever to do with running the country) and the Democrats would stop hating rich people then we might actually be able to have some bipartisan solutions that benefit the country.