Campaign Attack Not Truthful

1. 61

   American Viewposted 11 years ago

   The Campaign venom is in full gear. The liberal are hot on the trail to spew anything hateful against Romney as they can, and they do not care it is not accurate. Here is the latest one.
   
   "The family of the late classmate whom Mitt Romney allegedly bullied in high school said Friday the portrayal of their brother in new media reports is "factually incorrect" and that they are "aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda."
   The family also said in the public statement that they would make no further public comment on the matter."
   
   Since the family has come out and said the story was not accurate, that must mean no one checked with them about the story before it was released.
   
   How about both sides stop with the BS and get down to talking about what they plan on doing if they get the job. That is a lot more important to me than either ones high school pranks they pulled.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      According to ABC, the WaPo's article is not factual. They quoted a supposed eyewitness to the event, stating that he had "long been bothered by it." ABC interviewed the guy, and he said he didn't witness the event. In fact, he said he didn't even know about the event until the WaPo told him about it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I saw this thread and the first thing I thought was it would not get many responses, then I thought, Habee will respond. You tend to be more middle of the road and I guess thats a good thing.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, I'm center-right, but not far right.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               TomBlalockposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Oh my sweet Jesus, another moderate! Thank you, for merely existing!!!

               replyreport
         2. 61

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well of course the left won't respond. If they did they would have to admit that once more they spread an untrue story and we know the Dems will never admit that. This is their tactic he see it time and time again and it will never end. And when you give a factual account about a Democrat they rally the wagons and say you are attacking, your racists, and whatever else.
            
            And repair you are right Habee is a good commentator and is welcome always

            replyreport
   2. 60

      tom hellertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      AV,
      dont count on it Barry can't win on issues so he will pick up a clump of mud and just fling it... As the poles start to get out of handle and reach of Barry he will get nasty, he will race bait , he will lie , he will bribe, he willlie cheat steal and create votes voterfraud will be raised to a new levels , voter intimidation will be commonplace, and if by some great troke of luck and truth Barry gets the boot after all the fraud is ironed out in March or May... and Obama is found to lose the race riots will begin and last for several weeks until the govt gets a handle on it then the lawsuits about the racist governmnt killing and beating the rioters.. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be on the news nightly stirring them up then trying to-calm them down while blaming the Romney administration. Then racial attacks will continue for 2-3 yars... the democrats will blame conservatives and the Tea Party with the help of the Lamestream media... Obama will remain silent. Michelle will run for Senate or the house of rep for Illinois---Obamas wont go away...

      replyreport
   3. 56

      Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Let's assume you're correct with the excerpts - To my knowledge, the family never said the "Assault & Battery" by Romney after the boy hit the ground had never occurred -
      
      Apparently, according to one conflicting reporting source, some of the facts as disseminated, were incorrect as alleged by the family -There's a surprise, incorrect reporting - However, the family never said the allegations related to the Assault & Battery were false and the event simply didn't happen -
      
      When is the last time the media was exact on the buttons with "Facts"?
      
      Once again, according to your excerpts, the family also stated they were "aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda." -
      
      This aggrieved emotion and reaction does not necessarily contradict what actually happened - They never categorically denied the hateful incident took place - Apparently, according to your snippets, they simply disagree with certain aspects as portrayed and possibly the publicity of the high profile assault which is certainly understandable -
      
      After all is said and done, it appears as if an incident did occur, probably pretty close to the original version with minor adjustments like all media stories need, and the family wishes it would remain private and not made public for political purposes -
      
      Until the victim, the family, and all other parties involved categorically deny and reject the underlying incident in its entirety, it would be reasonable to assume it did indeed happen -

      replyreport
      1. 94

         peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Guilty until proven innocent?

         replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It figures the story's propoganda.  America's being inundated with that stuff.  Worst part is that they'd even perpetuate such carp, what with the alleged victim being deceased.  The Left will go to any lengths to attack the Right.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Friendlywordposted 11 years ago

   Romney admitted he cut the boys hair and four  of his friends that held the boy down came forward and admitted their role in terrrorizing the boy.
   
   This is a done deal.  The problem is Romneys' attitude regarding the attack.  He has no conscience. He has no problem with hurting and destroying people and Companies...
   I just would not trust him to have his finger on the button in the White House.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When did he admit that? Do you have a link or anything?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Probably not, he also thinks Obama killed Osama Bin Laden.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And that is incorrect because....?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Because....he DIDN'T kill Osama Bin Laden.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The Navy Seals did when Obama gave the okay.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     They forget protocol when it's Obama. Just like they forget common decency.
                     
                     Ergo--they deserve none in return.

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     tom hellertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes we all know that... I was using the absurd to illustrate the absurd...

                     replyreport
                  3. 61

                     American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You're right Paul, Navy SEALs did go in after Obama gave the okay. But what everybody forgets what uses do not acknowledge is that if it was not for Leon Panetta the raid never would've occurred the first plus. Obama was against the raid, it took a week for Panetta to get Obama to say yes and even then it was not a wholehearted yes.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Correct American View, it was a "yes as long as you get him but if Sh*t hits the fan and you don't I'm blaming you". I am not a romney or Obama supporter but facts are facts. Obama gave a reluctant ok, but since main stream media doesn't mention the rest everyone makes Obama out to be a hero.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Uh huh...just like we had 8 years of "The War Hero....Keeping Us Safe From Terrorists"!!!
                           
                           No one ever complained then, did they? Oh no...cause Bush DESERVED it. right?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              well he must've after all there were no more attacks under Bush.

                              replyreport
   2. 61

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Friendly,
      
      I think you need to go back and look at the soundbite. Romney does not admit to doing it. He even said he didn't ever recall doing something like that.

      replyreport
3. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   "How about both sides stop with the BS"
   
   When will Romney?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As soon as Obama does since they are the ones doing it

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really? Romney called Obama weak, feckless and an abject failure. Is Obama supposed to just sit there and take it?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tom hellertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            LMC,
            If the shoe fits buy the other one.. The Mittster has an abundance of things to attack when it comes to lil' Barry's policies and abissmal record on actual  actions are closer to anything he does correct- was closer to luck and he was forced into than he wanted to do.  Did you see his sour puss as he was watching Osama get ganked...He'd rather be on the golf course or basketball court or dining with donors. but boy oh boy he is still riding the victory lap on this....

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Should you ever demand respect for a Republican....I will show this post to you.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tom hellertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What have I said that was soo bad soo disrespectful? oh yes I spoke the trut and evidently the truth hurts you libs like holy water on a demon sunlight and a vampire- Let see I made observations about how our neophyte president looked as he watched Osama...watch the replay and see truth. Yes Obama was lucky to have the Bush policies as his predecessor all the tough work was already done by W. Obama has tried to undo everything Bush had done but now he takes a victory lap for it... o ahead try to use my words against me try it your lil Barry boy still is the worst president "since the great depression" to use his contant whining.. I guess he forgot about Carter.... so take another sip of you HOPEY CHANGEY CHERRY COOLER...rEALIZE WHO YOU WILL BE TRYING TO SUPPORT....
                  th

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I am from Venus--you are from Mars. Nothing connecting us....not one iota of a particle of cosmo dust.
                     
                     I can just rejoice in the knowledge that ANYTHING I want to say goes. NO respect is required ANY more. So Be It.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I have not forgotten you! I shall swoop in and reprimand this....
                        
                        Um, actually, I have to stop there because what he said was so not right that I'd probably end up getting banned if I told him off in any proper manner. It's the thought that counts, right?

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, thank you Shanna.
                           
                           This is what it feels like around here sometimes:
                           
                           "Fox attacks anyone that Obama was associated with, but is outraged when reporting is done on Romney campaign officials:" http://bit.ly/Kt3p4n

                           replyreport
         2. 61

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            LMC,
            
            No, had Romney called Obama week and a failure he does have the right to respond, absolutely. The problem is he can't because he is weak and a failure. Obama could counter by showing he has a strong track record, but he can't. Obama could call Romney week and a failure if he could find issues when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts for which Romney was week. That's fair game. Going after Romney was something he didn't even do as a teenager and plaster it all over is not a proper response. There in lies the difference, and that is what Democrats are incapable of doing, properly responding.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Just the opposite av. Just googel mitt romney's lies about obama....there are plenty. And they are nasty. Snidley Whiplash-like.
               He has Citizens United people behind him, after all.
               
               And Obama didn't go with this story--the media did, like they do with everything.
               
               Or don't you remember reading about Obama in a madrassa as a kid? (lie), how he isn't "really" American because of it? Was that fair game?
               
               Remember how a teacher having kids sing for Obama had a mom hysterical and crying? Because she thought her kid was being "indoctrinated"?
               
               please....when it comes to using things....ANYTHING to smear a man, you all have it sussed. THEN complain when it's used on you!
               
               BTW--there are plenty of issues regarding mitt in mass. But his staff erased his records here...what do you think about that?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  LMC,
                  
                  Sorry you find the facts to be a like. What has Romney said that is not true, that we have a marble economy, job reports are false, the national debt has grown more under this President that all 43 combined before him, that foreign leaders are laughing at him, instead of saying Mitt Romney is lying, Obama should counter. But he can't, because Romney is right. There is not one commercial, not one campaign ad even from the super PACs at this point that says anything positive about this President. Every single ad is nothing more that ads on either Romney, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and of course the Democratic standby it's all George Bush's fault.
                  
                  Do I remember how a teacher had kids singing the Obama song because there were being indoctrinated, yes I do, and yes they were. You conveniently left out the part of the story that the Obama administration sent to that school district that song to be performed by a class when Obama spoke there. What would you call it if it's not indoctrination?
                  
                  You say" anything to smear a man". Well that is what Obama has done and not just to Republicans, he does it to fellow Democrats who do not follow along with his game plan. If they stand up to him holy cow, the Chicago politician in him comes out. When somebody says the green energy policy is not working it's a failure, you say to smear. It's not, it's a fact. When you say Mitt Romney is Snidely Whiplash like, that's a smear.
                  
                  And of course lastly, kind of funny you say staffers have erased his record, if there was no record left how was Obama able to pattern Obama care after Romney care? Interesting. Just for laughs I will concede to you for the sake of this discussion that indeed everything under Romney was erased, in a heavily Democratic state such as Massachusetts, I would think all the Democrats in the state house and state senators would be telling all the stories of all the things Mitt Romney did wrong as governor. I don't hear any of them saying anything, do you?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ … mneys-lies
                     
                     http://www.politicususa.com/obama-drops … -lies.html
                     
                     just 2 of many sites...from what I see, every word out of his mouth about Obama is a big fat one.
                     
                     Funny to see you people who are not from here tell me about a man who was gvr while I was here.
                     Yes, it was an ugly race between he and Kennedy. But they learned. They sent the Tea Party in long ahead of time for Scott Brown.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        LMC,
                        
                        Well the articles you presented were not accurate. Let  me take just one of the many false statements made. The article said, and so the President has also bragged:
                        
                        "The country had added 3.2 million private sector jobs over the course of 22 straight months of private sector growth."
                        
                        From the August 2011 BLS Jobs report:
                        
                        "Nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0) in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1"
                        
                        In other word, no new jobs, no growth, a lie from what is being reported in the article, a lie from what the administration says. If you would like to you can search the other months and you will find two of them where jobs were lost, not added
                        
                        http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archive … 022011.pdf
                        
                        You are right LMC, I was not living there and I have said several times you should know him more than we do. But I can look up statistics like unemployment is 6.5% today, it was 4.7% under Romney.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Who says your sources are accurate? I sure don't.
                           I see positive improvement in America...no matter who says what. I can find articles up the yin yang to support my observations. Who cares what the negative haters say?
                           That's all you ever do anyway: "You are disengenuous LMC....none of your sources are accurate.....you don't know what you're talking about....."
                           No use talking. We both have our minds made.
                           
                           Romney was gvr in 94. The booming 90's. Unemployment should have been 0. Obama took over a failing economy and 2 unpaid for wars.
                           
                           Apples and oranges as your guy likes to say.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              tom hellertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Obama took over an economy with unemployment- under 5 yet now its over 9.. AND the way they calculate it has changed- if they calculated it like they did when Bush was in office- unemployment would be closer 14...6Because-There are 6 million FEWER jobs available today than there were three years ago. The real unemployment rate is over 15 percent when calculating unemployed people that have lost their benefits and are no longer looking for work.
                              forbes online-Peter Ferrara, Contributor
                              When Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.
                              
                              When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history.  That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.
                              
                              The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either.  They may desperately need and want jobs.  They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty.  But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating a few weeks ago.
                              If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.
                              
                              Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama.  If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.
                              
                              Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be.  One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%.  Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.
                              TH COMMENTARY .. SO LOOKS LIKE BARRY IS COOKING THE BOOKS>> thatas according to that crazy rag FORBES....
                              BUT ....In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months.  By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.
                              
                              At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment.  By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone. i GUESS obama AND HIS BUDDIES ARE QUIT THE COOKS OF THE BOOKS...
                              th

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 
                                 on the contrary the unemployment rate by the measure used under the bush years has been falling including dissafected workers and underemployed (as can be seen on the graph)

                                 replyreport
                              2. 59

                                 Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 
                                 This one is better because it calculates the demographic decline as well. Unemployment rose slightly but has been falling in the private sector under Obama.
                                 
                                 I don't agree entirely with how Obama has handled the economy but facts are facts so I just wanted to correct that.

                                 replyreport
                              3. 76

                                 lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 "The fact is that Obama inherited a disaster of a federal budget. Eight years prior, when President George W. Bush took the oath of office, there was a $281 billion surplus. By the time Obama was sworn in, he was facing a $1.2 trillion deficit. Inconvenient though it may be for conservatives (especially those who are running for president), the truth is that spending, taxes and the deficit are all lower today than when President Obama took office."
                                 
                                 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 … get-chart/

                                 replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The GOP anonymous superpacs are geared up to swiftboat Obama. Five of them are doing a coordinated TV ad buying campaign in Michigan as we speak. And nobody knows where the money is coming from.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Step right up, get your America here!"
            "SOLD. To the highest bidder"

            replyreport
4. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   BTW--I saw Romney's speech at Liberty U. It was a very nice speech. And he seemed nervous to me, which actually was very endearing.
   
   I will never knock the guy for his beliefs and his love of family. I have grandkids too, after all. We can at least agree we love our children.
   
   And that is where the agreement ends. BUT respect due as a human being. Not a Mittbot.

   replyreport
5. 66

   ptosisposted 11 years ago

   Of course it's all political BS - nobody wants to talk about jobs & the economy! Just another red herring......
   
   but -
   
   Romney did not give that much of an apology - he never admitted to the specific incident. Mittens said, ""But as to pranks that were played back then ... I did stupid things, and I'm afraid I've got to say sorry for it."
   
   So he is sorry that he has GOT to apologize for it!
   
   
   
   Same thing with treating the dog as luggage and how revealing it is as to how Mitt Romney responded.
   
       DIANE SAWYER: Would you do it again?
       MITT ROMNEY: Certainly not with the attention it's received
   
       It appears that Romney would do these things again if he didn't have to face the repercussions.
   
   Please vote in on my poll that asks: "What does the 'Dog Story' reflect on Mitt Romney?
   Is Mitt Romney a psychopath because he still doesn't 'get it ' that it was inhumane and cruel to treat his dog like luggage? @  http://ptosis.hubpages.com/hub/socioVSPsyco

   replyreport
6. 66

   ptosisposted 11 years ago

   "Mittens can't explain away this part of his youth as having resulted from drug-created memory loss; he was stone-cold sober. Therefore, either Romney has beaten down and forcibly cut the hair of a large number of non-heteronormative people in his life, or he's lying. Given that he's a politician, my money's on the latter. "- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gro … 10466.html
   
   "Perhaps Romney has grown up since then, but his teenage behavior is what anthropologist Christopher Boehm describes as typical of an “alpha male social predator" http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evol … 03275.html

   replyreport
7. 0

   cottageindustryposted 11 years ago

   Much too early for the massive lies to be unleashed on the American people. Both sides are gearing up to win at all cost. Now that companies can give all that they want, expect a very nasty election.
   
   If you dislike dirty politics, this coming election would make you not want to vote, which is the intent of the corporate elites.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ptosisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually they want you to vote in this phony election in order to look legit. Why else would dictators with no competition and forced voting "win" with 99% of the "vote"?
      
      
      
      
      
      Political scientist Tom Ferguson has noted that there are always two elections at work concurrently in America, a public election that voters see, and a hidden election where funders operate in shifting coalitions to pull the levers of power. .. .  This is staged kabuki between powerful millionaires, ... The 2012 election, in other words, is at this point a completely empty enterprise, bereft of substance, or integrity."   - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/ … atter.html
      
      

      replyreport
8. 60

   tom hellertposted 11 years ago

   At least Romney has a record- he has created jobs, put forth legislation, Governed a state  where he could NOT JUST VOTE PRESENT. Even when he has been president - if he doesnt wait to comment on something, he gets it wrong-
   Oh it was stuid for the officer to ask for ID...or lets go ahead and bow to everyone he shouldnt but give our allies a DVD  his speeches but gives back Winston Churchill-an insult. give me space I will have more flexibility after my election.
   Or we could just go into what Barry says- I call him Barry because that is allegedly is on his BC.. Bush was the idiot supposedly but at least he didn't think there were 57 states  He didn't Barry say to Putin or Medvedev "give me space I will have more flexibility after my election". whaT THE HELL IS HE GONNA TRY OF HE IS REELECTED????Thats very telling conspiring with communistic dictators...Comparing obama to Romney is like comparing Cal Ripkin Jr a hard working everyday player  to Bob Eucker a no talent bumbling vaseball player better known for his announcing than his playing days. Although Eucher never just stated he was present...

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why don't you look up the record from when he was gvr. If I say it--you won't believe it anyway. Just search.
      
      And ask yourself what has he got to hide?
      
      and hey--it's not me comparing the 2...I think the dems and r's are nothing alike. Talk to other people about that, not me.

      replyreport
9. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   Chuck Hagel.....A Republican:
   
   "Reagan wouldn’t identify with this party. There’s a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending. Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party. …
   
   Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You’ve got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction. …
   
   The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Honestly I have bets on the Republican party splintering. The far right breaks off into it's little extremist group and does whatever in it's little strait jacket in the corner and the rest slowly become more moderate or evolve into a new party.
      
      I just don't see them garnering too many new voters in the coming years.

      replyreport
10. 0

    cottageindustryposted 11 years ago

    Be patient, it just started. Both sides are gearing up for political slug fest of the most ugly kind. Stay tuned for you've not seen nothing yet. They're going to do to Mitt Romney what Bush did to John Kerry.

    replyreport
11. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    Romney vs. The Facts:
    
    (Source HuffPost)
    
    ROMNEY: "America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined."
    
    THE FACTS. Hardly. Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined.
    
    In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.
    
    ROMNEY: "I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno. We will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can't even imagine, from foreign countries we'll never even visit. I will bring us together to put out the fire."
    
    THE FACTS: Romney's tax and spending plans don't support his vow to dampen the debt fire. He proposes to cut taxes and expand the armed forces, putting yet more stress on the budget, and his promise to slash domestic spending isn't backed by the big specifics. Romney's tax plan would cut the top income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent and other rates by 20 percent each. He says he'd broaden the tax base and eliminate many deductions in the process, but details are missing.
    
    A study by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded earlier this year that Romney's plans would not make a dent in deficits, and could worsen them considerably. That study was done before Romney upped his tax cuts, inviting even deeper debt.
    
    ROMNEY: "The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years, much of that time with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than put out the spending fire, he has fed the fire. He has spent more and borrowed more. ... When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion."
    
    THE FACTS: Much of the increase in the debt is due to lower tax revenues from depressed corporate and individual incomes and high joblessness in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The recession officially began in December 2007, when George W. Bush was president and the national debt stood at just over $9 trillion. Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending that started under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt.
    
    But so did the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. With bipartisan support, Congress has extended the tax cuts until the end of this year, and Romney's proposals for big cuts of his own would risk another squeeze on revenue.

    replyreport
12. 0

    Onusonusposted 11 years ago

    They have to make up false accusations to deflect from Obama's own crappy, nonexistent record.
    
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-cal … romney-ad/

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The Blaze????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
       
       
       Wikipedia: The Blaze is a conservative news and opinion website launched on August 31, 2010, by American media personality and former Fox News host Glenn Beck's Mercury Radio Arts, three days after Beck's widely publicized Restoring Honor rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C. Beck has promoted The Blaze as an alternative to "mainstream media outlets," which Beck says are "distorting facts to fit rigid agendas." Beck was quoted saying that The Blaze will feature "breaking news, original reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most" and that "we will examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won’t be afraid of a history lesson."[3] The site is reportedly modeled after The Huffington Post, and has been compared to that site by Matt DeLong of the Washington Post and Steve Krakauer of Mediaite.
       
       
       Why not just go straight to your own local insane asylum for fresh paranoid delusions—you can cut out the middleman!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Good idea. Ignore the facts, ridicule the source.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             "Ignore the facts, ridicule the source." 
             
             Glenn Beck wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass! 
             
             At least my post attributed confirmed unbiased sources while you mistake prejudiced opinion for "fact" because you agree with it. 
             
             

             replyreport
13. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Greg Sargent‏@ThePlumLineGS
    
    "Why? Romney's entire case against Obama is based on a phony jobs metric, and press won't scrutize it. No penalty."
    
    They let him say whatever he wants...I think they're scared of him.

    replyreport
14. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    

    replyreport