Romney campaign caught lying, red handed

#177
#177
Gramps said:
Tuesday 10:08 PM
Hillary Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.


Tuesday 10:10 PM
The Obama administration is disavowing a statement from its own Cairo embassy that seemed to apologize for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.

"The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,"


Tuesday 10:24 PM

Romney's comment, apparently referring to the embassy statement, was sent to The New York Times about 10:10 p.m., originally embargoed until midnight. The embargo was lifted at 10:24 p.m.

“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”


He clearly states the killing of a consulate worker in his first statement released at 10:24 PM
Click to expand...
Ok, so the timing was slightly off crom what i thought, but again . . . What is inaccurate? He's knocking the initial response isn't he?

I promise I'm not trying to be a party hack here and I'm truly trying to understand what the beef is.
 
#178
#178
Vol Main said:
Okay, how about taxes? Republicans continually claim that President Obama burdens American business with the highest corporate taxes in the world. The reality is that large corporations in America pay less in taxes than corporations in many other countries, even though our tax rates are higher. Why? Because large American corporations enjoy tax exemptions and credits which effectively lower their real rates. Why? Because they spend millions of dollars on lobbyists and political contributions, to both political parties. America's small businesses do not spend millions of dollars on lobbyists and political contributions, so they end up paying more than their fair share of corporate taxes. President Obama has tried to lower tax rates on small businesses while closing loopholes that allow GE for example to pay zero corporate income tax. Republicans oppose. How about individual tax rates? President Obama has lowered tax rates for the middle class while trying to return tax rates on the top bracket to the Clinton era. Republicans oppose any tax increase on the most wealthy people in America, regardless of the budget, and criticize his tax reductions for people who work for a living. Throughout our budget crisis, Republicans actually advocate even lower taxes for the super wealthy. How do you defend them?
Click to expand...

Actually, Obama hasn't done a dang thing about corporate taxes so if the current corp taxation is a sign of only looking out for the rich then count Dems guilty too.

In fact, Obama has doubled down on the lobby angle and handed out plenty of tax based goodies to chosen industries and even companies - don't forget the choice ACA waivers to his preferred constituencies. If you want to use corporate taxation as the hallmark of Republican/rich coziness then Obama must be a Republican.


On to those tax cuts for the middle class - the vast majority of those are extensions of the Bush tax cuts. Last I checked he was a Republican. Other than that we have a temporary cut that amounted to not much more than some withholding schedule chicanery and the 2 year payroll tax cut that expires this year. He is not proposing new cuts - just extension of those evil Republican Bush cuts (which oddly enough Republicans want too) and ACA will have a tax impact on some middle class as will his proposed changes to cap gains and dividend rates (which will also hit seniors). So again, Obama must be a Republican on taxes here since his middle class plan is actually more tax aggressive on the middle than what Republicans are suggesting. The big difference is they want to continue the rates for the upper end where Obama doesn't.

Hard to say Republicans only care about the rich when their tax policy does as much of the lower and middle as Obama but also address the rich too.
 
#180
#180
lawgator1 said:
Bottom line: Romney's one and only hope to win this election is to demonstrate a clear plan out of the economic quagmire. Implying that Obama is weak on foreign policy isn't where Romney needs to be focused, imo.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that, but thinking back, this is eerily similar to what was swirling at the end of the Carter Presidency. The economic and foreign policy problems all kind of just suffocated the administration. Still though, "I'd suck less" is never a winning campaign strategy.
 
#181
#181
Gramps said:
Obama condemned the killing of four American diplomats in a Rose Garden address Wednesday morning, then went to Las Vegas, campaigned, going to Golden, CO for another campaign stop Thursday morning before retuning to Washington. .
Click to expand...

Should have addressed the nation from the Oval office during prime time
 
#182
#182
Those of you saying that Obama should have done more: what should he have done? Bombed someone? Sent in troops?

I don;t know, you guys sure seem willing to just willy nilly commit military forces before we know all the facts waaaaaaay too much. Did you learn nothing from the Iraq misadventure?
 
#183
#183
Vol Main said:
I wish I could agree with you that the Republican Party cares about the entire country, but I don't. Can you help me out with that, since you seem to know something about them that I haven't seen. Besides the wealthy, who do they want to help? How have they helped anybody but themselves? I'm not being facetious, please do tell me.
Click to expand...

As in the above posts - virtually every tax cut Obama is touting are extensions of the Bush tax cuts. R's want to extend them for all while D's want to end them for a segment of the population and RAISE taxes on cap gains and dividends which will impact some of the middle class (particularly the dividend one). Hard to see how the difference in tax policies serves as proof that R's only want to help one small group - they want lower taxes for all.

The regulatory framework differences are quite different too. The R approach is to be more judicious with regulations to free up economic growth which helps all. The D approach is to tighten down and let agencies make decisions on economic activity without full cost/benefit analysis of job impact (see for example EPA testimony that their "clean air" regs on coal did not consider economic impact; particularly high potential job loss and instead focused only on health effects).

Let's take industrial policy - D's favor a more directed economy model where incentives and penalties are used to promote certain industries and deter others (see for example the energy sector). R's favor a less directed economy model that allows the market to be the guide on resource flow.

None of these differences suggest one side cares only for some small segment. The are philosophical governing differences on how to advance the state of the country.
 
#185
#185
For all of those in the political forum who clamor for balance...different points of view etc....I have a question. Irregardless of your political views when is it ever wrong for any citizen, politician or otherwise to make a statement supporting the sovereignty of our nation? I'm not defending Mitt or bashing Obama. I'm just asking the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#186
#186
On the OP topic - Romney shouldn't have weighed in the way he did; to call it blatant lying is just ridiculous though and once again shows we can't debate issues in this country (foreign policy) without resorting to stupid little gotchas. Romney tried to play gotcha and now the other side is trying to play it. Absurd.
 
#187
#187
lawgator1 said:
Those of you saying that Obama should have done more: what should he have done? Bombed someone? Sent in troops?

I don;t know, you guys sure seem willing to just willy nilly commit military forces before we know all the facts waaaaaaay too much. Did you learn nothing from the Iraq misadventure?
Click to expand...

not supported the "Arab Spring" and claimed it was a movement to peace and democracy. So far the "Arab Fall" has claimed American lives

Wasn't sending in troops to countries where they didn't belong one of the main talking points against Bush?

they guy's foreign policy is a joke and is backfiring on him. No wonder you said Romney should stay away from it
 
#188
#188
Lexvol said:
For all of those in the political forum who clamor for balance...different points of view etc....I have a question. Irregardless of your political views when is it ever wrong for any citizen, politician or otherwise to make a statement supporting the sovereignty of our nation? I'm not defending Mitt or bashing Obama. I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

I'm not an always nor a never guy but it's hard to imagine a case where it would be wrong.
 
#189
#189
Lexvol said:
For all of those in the political forum who clamor for balance...different points of view etc....I have a question. Irregardless of your political views when is it ever wrong for any citizen, politician or otherwise to make a statement supporting the sovereignty of our nation? I'm not defending Mitt or bashing Obama. I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...

Hard to think of a situation
 
#190
#190
volinbham said:
I'm not an always nor a never guy but it's hard to imagine a case where it would be wrong.
Click to expand...

It is one of the few cases where there should be a unanimous opinion.

On to the substantive issues in the recent developments. How is this allowed to happen? In honest political discourse the date really doesn't matter, but how is this allowed on 9/11?
 
#191
#191
Lexvol said:
For all of those in the political forum who clamor for balance...different points of view etc....I have a question. Irregardlessof your political views when is it ever wrong for any citizen, politician or otherwise to make a statement supporting the sovereignty of our nation? I'm not defending Mitt or bashing Obama. I'm just asking the question.
Click to expand...


Not a word.



Regardless is a word.

Irrespective is a word.

"Irregardless" is not a word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#194
#194
Lexvol said:
It is one of the few cases where there should be a unanimous opinion.

On to the substantive issues in the recent developments. How is this allowed to happen? In honest political discourse the date really doesn't matter, but how is this allowed on 9/11?
Click to expand...


How did 9/11 happen? Intelligence did not alert to the plan.

I swear, I do not understand how people think we can know or predict everything in advance, especially in such volatile places. And for those about to say we should assume it, do you not think that planning was undertaken, that the folks working there weren't in some way mindful of the possible connection some might make?
 
#195
#195
lawgator1 said:
How did 9/11 happen? Intelligence did not alert to the plan.

I swear, I do not understand how people think we can know or predict everything in advance, especially in such volatile places. And for those about to say we should assume it, do you not think that planning was undertaken, that the folks working there weren't in some way mindful of the possible connection some might make?
Click to expand...

You don't think this was a little more preventable than 9/11? Especially considering we were putting out pre-apologies?
 
#196
#196
lawgator1 said:
How did 9/11 happen? Intelligence did not alert to the plan.

I swear, I do not understand how people think we can know or predict everything in advance, especially in such volatile places. And for those about to say we should assume it, do you not think that planning was undertaken, that the folks working there weren't in some way mindful of the possible connection some might make?
Click to expand...

Here's a hint, it's freakin' Libya.
 
#197
#197
GAVol said:
Ok, so the timing was slightly off crom what i thought, but again . . . What is inaccurate? He's knocking the initial response isn't he?

I promise I'm not trying to be a party hack here and I'm truly trying to understand what the beef is.
Click to expand...

The Tuesday night statement could be dismissed by saying it was bad timing.

Wednesday morning camp Romney could have corrected the timing issue ( if there was one) instead Romney continues to say Obama was apologizing for our values.

That was a false statement.

Show me anything Obama said that was apologizing.
 
#198
#198
Gramps said:
The Tuesday night statement could be dismissed by saying it was bad timing.

Wednesday morning camp Romney could have corrected the timing issue ( if there was one) instead Romney continues to say Obama was apologizing for our values.

That was a false statement.

Show me anything Obama said that was apologizing.
Click to expand...
Again .... You're talking about Obama's statement. Romney is attributing the embassy statement to the administration. It's a semantics game on all sides.
 
#199
#199
GAVol said:
Again .... You're talking about Obama's statement. Romney is attributing the embassy statement to the administration. It's a semantics game on all sides.
Click to expand...

All the while avoiding any substantive discussion on the matter.
 
#200
#200
Gramps said:
The Tuesday night statement could be dismissed by saying it was bad timing.

Wednesday morning camp Romney could have corrected the timing issue ( if there was one) instead Romney continues to say Obama was apologizing for our values.

That was a false statement.

Show me anything Obama said that was apologizing.
Click to expand...

Again, it's only false if you don't consider an ambassador a member of the administration. Romney obviously does.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top