Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: desperate willard tried to snare Obama in a lie & proved the liar was in the mirror

Posted 7 years ago on Oct. 17, 2012, 8:40 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Debate Transcript
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime…
Romney: I think interesting the president just said something which – which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

Obama: That is what I said.

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror?
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
Obama: Get the transcript.

According to that transcript, here’s what Obama said in the Rose Garden Sept. 12 at the end of his five-minute statement:
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

We also learned that Mitt Romney can’t shake the stink he generated by jumping on the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo before the smoke, literally, had cleared.

Obama: “While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that’s not how a commander-in-chief operates, You don’t turn national security into a political issue — certainly not right when it’s happening.”



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Real time fact checking As I predicted after Romney 'won' the first debate that he would have a hard time in the subsequent debates once he was on the record with his new set of lies. Obama was ready for him this time and Romney showed his contempt for 'the help' questioning him on his lies. He came very close to demonstrating why Ann is concerned about his mental health if he's elected.

The corporate media obliged the right by ginning up the story that both men hate each other. You don't have to hate a meth rat to hit it with a stick. It's Willard that 'hates' since he doesn't have any rational reason to lie like he does. The lies have to serve a higher purpose, it can't be simple greed or lust for power. His lessers are the enemy and must be stopped. This is of course the Republican meme, the 'takers' are out to get them. The 47% can't be reasoned with, they must be brought under control by a strong leader. http://www.prairie2.com/

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

I have a slightly different perspective IMHO

I think willard does not hate Obama -
he is a religious fanatic -
not Mormonism - capitalism -
willard worships money

I think Obama does not hate willard -
when you step in a pile of dog sh1t lying on the street - or lying in a debate,
you are disgusted and revolted

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Mitt is doing a job and following orders to enhance the bottom line for his bosses in the 1%.

Obama takes it one inning at a time as our Jackie Robinson POTUS.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

I believe that was a general statement and not specific to that action in libya. Otherwise, why would the white house continue to state at numerous times, including at the UN that it was a mob action due to the video. There is no logic to the actions to support that as a specific statement. What Romney should have said is that instead of staying on the semantics of the words Obama said. Unfortunately, these things are always politicized by both parties to their advantage. I also believe Hillary fell on the sword and will likely leave the state dept after the elections if Obama is reflected. I think Hillary has performed her job very well in a difficult position, but she should not be sacrificed for political purposes. I wish she won the primaries back four years ago. I voted for Obama, which in hindsight, was a major mistake in the primary. Just like many others that voted for Obama in that heady period.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

The pres had a lot of time to think about and prepare what he said last night. The real question we should be asking today is:

If on Sep 12 the pres knew there was a terrorist attack on the US in Benghazi why for three weeks did he tell the American people that it was not a terrorist attack but a spontaneous uprising by a rioting mob enraged about an anti-Islam utube video?




[-] 0 points by conservatroll (187) 7 years ago

Because that would have been an admission that his foreign polciy isn't working and al queada is NOT on the run.

I do feel sorry for Hillary having to try and sell Obama's polcies for the last 4 years. Talk about a lousy job

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

Do you believe that a foreign policy focused final debate helps or hurts Obama?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Meaningless question.

It was an act of terror! he said it.! he dealt with it as one!. The video, A protest, a riot, spontaneous, planned, all dishonorable repub efforts to elevate the attack into a scandal.

Repubs got in trouble that night when they played politics with this. Romney got in trouble when he used the dead dipl in his campaign stump speech.

Romney said in the secret tape that he would be looking for an international incident that he could exploit, and that is exactly what he is attempting.

Repubs in general must elevate the assassination of our courageous American diplomats into a new reason to escalate the war on terror because they see this pres succeeding at eliminating the need for the repub created "war on terror". The repubs are panicked. And desperate to find any way to maintain the fear mongering they use so effectively to get their agenda passed.

It's disgusting, unpatriotic, only the repub base is embracing the scurrilous act.

Don't believe the hype.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Well if Gallup polls say so, it must be so!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Oh well I guess it's all over.



[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

"It ain't over 'til it's over." - Y Berra

Do you believe that women leaving Obama really accounts for this polling trend? Why?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I haven't paid a lot of attention but obviously the1st debate was the beginning of Romneys surge so I suppose that has a lot to do with it.

[-] 1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 7 years ago

as of today, he has a six point lead over the village idiot. Go GOP

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Good luck in all your good efforts.


[-] 2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

It is not meaningless and does not address the question: if he stated it was an act of terror, then why go to UN, news shows, etc. and say it was mob action. Which is it? There is no logic if he actually was saying it was an "act of terror" and then going the other direction for the following weeks. There is no argument that the action itself was terrorist action (we know that now), but rather how the administration responded to the crisis afterwards. The question has nothing to do with dems or repubs, but just some simple honesty to the people. You can't have it both ways. It is a yes / no question. If the rose garden statement was a generalized wording on terror (which I believe it was), then it makes more sense that obama had to wait for the intelligence. If it was specific, then what the hell were they attempting to do by saying it was the video?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

It was obviously an act of terror because 4 courageous American diplomats were assassinated!!!!

He was obviously talking about this attack specifically!!! To say otherwise is just scurrilous campaign non sense.

Nobody lied to the American people, over several days the intelligence was changing. Just yesterday the paper ofrecord indicated there WAS a protest.

Whatever it don't matter. "how the admin responded" We don't know what the admin is doing is response, several people have arrested and the group in question will probably be drone bombed. That is the admin responding.

You ain't talkin about that. You're talkin abaout what was said and when. That is simply campaign nonsense.

Repubs got in trouble that night when they played politics with this. Romney got in trouble when he used the dead dipl in his campaign stump speech.

Romney said in the secret tape that he would be looking for an international incident that he could exploit, and that is exactly what he is attempting.

Repubs in general must elevate the assassination of our courageous American diplomats into a new reason to escalate the war on terror because they see this pres succeeding at eliminating the need for the repub created "war on terror". The repubs are panicked. And desperate to find any way to maintain the fear mongering they use so effectively to get their agenda passed.

They have no honor. I think they should stop playing politics with these courageous American diplomats.

We were attacked on the anniversary of 9/11!!!

We should be coming together, not seeking political gain with what statement was said when and by whom.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Your not listening again. Think about the logic of what I said. If he was stating it was a terrorist attack, then why go on for weeks about a mob? That just does not make sense. Again, this as nothing to do about last nights debate, but how the whitehouse handles things. As I stated, I am not taking sides, but trying to get you to answer the question. It is a binary answer. I have not minimizing the tragedy that occurred there. Mistakes occurred and that will get sorted out internally. Forget the politics for the moment. I don't care about that. Talk about the logic of the issue as asked: if he was being specific, then why go on about the video for weeks afterwards? Stay on topic please. You can not have it both ways as you have responded.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Going on about the video was required because the video was being used to incite violence in 20 Muslim countries around the world.

Good thing Pres Obama did since as a result he handled it well enough so that there was no other American injuries/deaths. So that is "how the White house handled things" successfully!!! Yay for us????

And by the way it appears there is evidence that the terrorists in Benghazi have said they were responding to the right wing created anti Islam youtube video.

Here read some FACTS about the attack against us (on the anniversary of 9/11)


[-] 3 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

You did not address the question at all with that response. I am asking a very simple question. Quit dancing like a politician. Why did the WH say it was a mob attack incited by video if Obama said it was a terrorist attack. That is not making any sense at all no matter how you attempt to spin it. Talking about the video is one thing in trying to calm things down, but is not logical to use that to explain attack on embassy. Why is that so hard for you to understand? As I stated, I believe he was generalizing in his statement. So why would he try to back track after the fact? It is either one or the other but can not be both. There is no middle here on this. So now the right wing created the video?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

His Banghazi comments in the rose garden the day after the Benghazi attacks was about the Benghazi attacks. It was not "generalizing" as desperate repub talkin points are trying to spin. LMFAO

The Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack AND there was a separate mob outside the Benghazi consulate as well. For about a week the US intelligence agency was unclear,get off their backs.

No big deal these things are rarely cut and dry. The repub attacks on the timing of White house statements over that 1st few days is just desperate, shameful use of this tragic assassination of our brave American diplomats for political gain.

And the very next day Steve Klein (noted right wing wacko anti abortion, anti mosque hatemonger) was all over the news as the spokesman/consultant on the film, and Koran burning Fla Pastor Terry Jones was also involved regarding marketing. So that is the only ones we know of. But I'm sure the right wing was more involved.

I mean Romney did say he would look for an international incident (like a hostage crises) to exploit. It ain't too long a leap that they might try to create and incident.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

Your deflecting. Again, forget about the politics for just once and discuss the point. Leave all that other crap out. I am not arguing that it was actually a terrorist attack or not. That was not the question. Ok, so if you say that he stated it was a terrorist attack specifically relating to the embassy attack, then what was the logic behind the two or three weeks of the whitehouse stating it was the result of a mob attack due to the video? It is not logical. I also read the link you posted above which is a bit unclear and even states that his statement was an "indirect reference" . One other thing. Do you believe that it is a bit intolerant of the Muslims to behave as they did?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Muslims "industry of outrage" against cartoons, & perceived insults is illogical, and intolerant, & not universal. Most muslims do not caught up in the inciting of violence. The anger over these things is managed & used to create incidents of violence by extremist religious groups.

The comments that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous protests incited by the videos ended by 9/19. 1 week! Why did it take a week. Who knows? Who the fuck cares? Only repubs who want to exploit the assassination of our brave diplomats for political gain care.

There's no conspiracy, Pres Obama hasn't done anything wrong. Get a grip. Try to be a good American and support you country during this assassination on the anniversary of 9/11.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

You do seem to have trouble answering a basic question. Thanks for the none response. ("who --cares"?)Who said anything about a conspiracy? I am not exploiting anything, but rather asking a simple question on how the WH is handling or mishandling a very tragic situation. And that is important to the citizens of this country, who last time i checked are repub, dem and others. Get off the politics when you discuss things please. And by the way, my country has my full support, more than you could ever imagine.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I answered your questions!

Got any more? Your easy.

WH is handling the tragic Benghazi attack on our brave diplomats just fine.

It is the Romney/repubs who have handled it in a despicable way.

They stumbled on the evening when they didn't have all the info and decided to use the attack against the Pres for political gain.

Romnay had to be told by the mother of one of the murdered diplomats to stop using him in Romenys campaign stump speeches.

And Romneys commenst in the secretly taped fundraiser indicate he was going to look for an international incident like a hostage crises to exploit.

So let me ask you.

Isn't Romney & republicans actions the wrong way to deal with a national attack against us on the anniversary of 9/11?

Shouldn't we come together and not use this for political gain?

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

To your response below: "my boy bush"? Where did that come from? It seems that you not only have extreme difficulty listening, but you also can never make a response without some political agenda? Give it a rest VQ. Try answering a simple question without the political rhetoric.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I've answered all your questions. All you have left is offensive comments because you can't handle the truth.

So as such, consider your self dispatched, & dismissed.

You lose!

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

More politics again? Buzz! Wrong answer. It's an election year and yes, this is fair game. But there are better ways to discuss publicly, I wll grant you that. So we come together and continue the status quo? The problem is that this president is overmatched, he did not bring enough experience into this job. That is why things are the way they are.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Hasn't he dealt with the terrorists more successfully than your boy Bush without the million+ innocent deaths?

Hasn't he resisted the right wing pressure to invade Iran? Started cutting the bloated Defense budget, cut merc use, ended the iraq war, stopped torture & extraordinary rendition, reduced Gitmo detainees by more than half. & begun the end of the Afghan war?

I think that is progress and clearly military better managed than your boy Bush.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

"Just yesterday the paper ofrecord indicated there WAS a protest."

WHERE?????? Please show us this "paper of record".

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

Please demonstrate where in that article it indicates that "there was a protest" In Benghazi.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The fact that there were large groups of people (not the terrorists) outside the embassy is most likely the reason our great intelligence resources reported protests in addition to the terrorist attack.

" though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound."

This statement was in the article I linked. You can open the article and use the find function.

So again. Our brave American diplomats were attack and murdered on the anniversary of 9/11. The several days of confusion regarding the exact details is not a conspiracy and shouldn't be used for political gain.

Romney got in trouble for playing politics that evening, He was told by the mother of one of those brave diplomats to stop using the her son in his campaign stump speeches. Romney said (in his secretly taped fundraiser tape) he would be looking for an international (hostage like) incident to exploit.

It should be beneath you to support this dishonorable camapign attack.

Why isn't it? Why do you hate this Pres so much?

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

The question is why YOU insist on sticking up for a President who LIES. You can't even quote your own article completely or it would demonstrate that YOU even have to lie to make your point!-

"According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound."

Can you read that? NO demonstration before the attack-after/during the attack, a crowd gathered and some later looted the compound.

There is even a LINK IN the article YOU took HALF of the quote from embedded in the words "eyewitnesses have said....." that leads to those eye witnesses describing what happened and that those eye witnesses KNEW the group attacking the compound were known terrorists!

There were VIDEO feeds of the compound showing Stevens escorting the Turkish diplomat out the main entrance of the consulate that night and that ALL WAS CALM. There were NOT "large groups of people" outside...AT ALL. And the intelligence community AND the President himself using the Situation Room located IN the White House had immediate/LIVE ACCESS to that video feed on the night the attacks occurred. (all came out during the Congressional hearings)

The President of the United States was BRIEFED before he went to bed that night that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked with military grade weapons and that the whereabouts of Stevens were not known. He went to bed, NOT to the Situation Room. After finding out the next morning that Stevens and the others were dead, he SKIPPED his security briefing to meet with grieving families (which I agree was called for) but then did not MEET with his security council at ALL that day and flew to Law Vegas for a fund raising event. The day after a terrorist attack.

On Sept 20th, in a town hall meeting organized by Univision Network on September 20 President Barack Obama said QUOTE: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

9 days later, the President was STILL blaming extremists for using "the natural protests" over a video that he and the entire intelligence community were fully aware HAD NEVER HAPPENED.


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I disagree.

The univision quote you sited did not include anything about Benghazi.

Pleae stop the dishonorable use of this tragedy for political gain.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

Why did you lie about the article you chose to link to?

I have nothing to gain except the truth. Do you actually CARE about the truth? Not it if harms your candidate it seems.

AP sources: State Dept officials deny linking attack to anti-Islam video, raising questions

By Associated Press, Published: October 8 | Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 5:41 PM

"WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans."

The QUESTION was about Libya and Benghazi is IN Libya. The man ALSO knew at this point-as did most of America by then-that there had BEEN NO PROTESTS at the Benghazi compound.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

What lie? I gotta cut n paste the quote, link the article, explain how to use find again for you.?

The witnesses said a crowd formed. I didn't say it.

I haven't lied.

Why are you so dishonorably disgusting that you would use the assassination of brave American diplomats for political gain.?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

The eyewitnesses ALSO said that there was no protest or demonstration prior to the attack-but you conveniently left that part out of your quote the first time. Why? Why are you avoiding it now still?

You also said quote-"The fact that there were large groups of people (not the terrorists) outside the embassy is most likely the reason our great intelligence resources reported protests in addition to the terrorist attack."

And yet the FACTS are-according to the eyewitnesses statements found in the link in the NYT article-

"To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound."

The ATTACK itself drew the crowds. The intelligence sources never said there were large groups of people outside the embassy PRIOR to the attacks. And the video proves that no large groups WERE outside the embassy prior to the attacks.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Now you are adding "prior" I never said that. I left out the entire article! except the line that indicates there was a crowd. I included the line indicating there was a crowd because you asked what in the article might have lent itself to the protest assertion.

I included the bit that addressed your question.

You see conspiracies everywhere.

Why are you so dishonorably disgusting that you would use the assassination of brave American diplomats for political gain.?

[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 7 years ago

simple explanation- the terrorists used the video to stir up the mob
I dont know if this is true - but considering how they use videos themselves to spread hate, this makes complete sense

check out youtube : Undercover Mosque http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQEO9Jx5cok&NR=1&feature=endscreen

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 7 years ago

The clerics control what is protested and what is ignored. Terrorists may use situations like this to take advantage, but in this case, it seems like it was a pre-planned attack.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

Are you serious? The problem is THERE WAS NO MOB in Benghazi. AT ALL. There was no protest at ALL at the consulate. There was only a terrorist attack that night. And the President claimed for two weeks that there had been a mob/protest induced by a video tape. It was a LIE.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

also not given much press is that the consulate at benghazi was bombed in june.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

There have been attacks on the consulate and around Benghazi on Americans for the past year.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

yes there were, and what did barry and the state dept do, NOTHING>. the game was to have the ambassador kidnapped, held hostage and then barry would negotiate his release and show what " stateman " he is> BUT the murdering muslims didnt get the memo.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

yep, and he was going to use Bigfoot, to get the job done.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

use michelle or hillary?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

Barry went to bed that night to get his rest so he could fly to Vegas the next day and fund raise. He's quite a statesman.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Of course. Well said

All these whiny repub plants know this obvious explanation.

And they know that Romneys secret tape showed him saying he would be looking for an international incident that he could exploit.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Hillary said long ago she would be leaving after the1st term.

And don't worry you can vote for in 2016.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

You left out the most important part - when Obam made this statement he was referring to the 911 attacks on the twin towers - not the attack in Benghazi.

So, Romney was correct in what he said - Obama never did claim the attack in Benghazi was a "terrorists attack"

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 31 Myths(Dirty GOP LIES) In 41 Minutes

By Igor Volsky on Oct 17, 2012 at 9:12 am

1) “I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program, so that people are able to afford school.” As part of his budget, Paul Ryan proposed cutting Pell Grants for nearly 1 million college students. In fact, Romney’s white paper on education, “A Chance for Every Child,” suggests that he “would reverse the growth in Pell Grant funding.” It says: “A Romney Administration will refocus Pell Grant dollars on the students that need them most and place the program on a responsible long-term path that avoids future funding cliffs and last-minute funding patches.”

2) “I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Mitt Romney’s claim that he will create 12 MILLION jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

3) “And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.” 14 percent is a one-year number. “Overall, oil production on federal land under Obama is up from 566 million barrels in 2008 to 626 million barrels in 2011, a 10.6 percent increase.” Compared to the last three years of President Bush, there have been 241 million more barrels of oil produced from public lands in the first three years of President Obama.

4) “Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.” ...

5) “I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.”...

6) “And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up.” 1,500 coal jobs have been created under Obama.

7) “And if we do that, if we do what I’m planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years.” Romney would actually eliminate the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

8) “I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada.” Even with generous assumptions, the impact of the pipeline on oil prices is unclear and may raise prices in midwest states. After all, a lot of that refined tar sands crude will be sold on the international market.

9) “The proof of whether a [energy] strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you’re paying more.” Gas prices are certainly high, but oil is a global commodity, and the president has virtually no control over them. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, Romney’s proposal to increase domestic oil production would not have much impact on volatility.

10) “And I will not — I will not under any circumstances, reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest income taxpayers. And I will not, under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle-class.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

11) “But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.” ...

12) “A recent study has shown the people in the middle-class will see $4,000.00 per year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration.” ...

13) “Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

14) “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.” Romney did not ask women groups for candidates. Instead, prior to his election, a “bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government.” They “put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions” and presented it to Romney after he was elected. A UMass-Boston study found that “the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.”

15) “I’m going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.” Romney has been uncomfortably silent on the issue of pay equity. He has refused to say whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would allow women to sue for equal pay, and named four of the justices who voted to roll back equal pay in that Supreme Court decision as his models for any of his appointments to the federal bench.

16) “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” But back in March, Romney expressed strong support for the so-called Blunt amendment, which that would allow employers to deny contraception coverage to women. Romney also wants to defund Planned Parenthood, where 76 percent of the patients seek low-cost birth control options. Defunding the organization would make it much harder for those women to get contraceptives.

17) “So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. ...

18) “He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year....

19) “He keeps saying, ‘Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.’ That’s after losing 5 million jobs. ...

20) “The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.” But Romney has promised to veto the DREAM Act.

21) “Now, when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation — he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our — our immigration system… He didn’t do it. ...

22) “Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in — in Chinese companies.” Romney’s blind trust is not very blind, and includes investments in a company owned by Romney’s son.

23) “It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.” Obama called the Libya incident an act of “terror” the very next day....

24) “Consider the distance between ourselves and — and Israel, the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel.” ...

25) “The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and —

26) “We, of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons,...

27) “The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious....

28) “What I will do as president is make sure it’s more attractive to come to America again.”...

29) “Canada’s tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. ...

30) “And there’s no question but that Obamacare has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people.”...

31) “He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy.”... (Continued: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/)

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

On Today's Show

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Binders full of women! Twitter users started making fun of a random phrase because it sounded funny, so people took a closer look at it. It turned out to be a lie. What were the odds? We’re talking about Mitt Romney—the odds were 100 percent. Mitt didn’t ask for the binders full of women, as he stated in the debate. They were created by a bipartisan women’s group and presented to him. All he did was to accept them from the women—and probably roll his eyes a little when they weren’t looking. We know that Mitt doesn’t like to have any women telling him how to do things. Just look at how he treated Candy Crowley. For Mitt, a woman’s place is in the stables. His wife can fill her spare time riding her dancing horse—and the working class woman can clean the stables.

When Mitt ran for Senate in 1994, his excuse about the lack of women at Bain Capital was that the private equity profession “doesn’t attract many women and minorities.” Hey, if it’s full of guys like you, I can see why. No women or minorities want to enter private equity? It’s a profession where people with no discernible skill get obscenely rich. EVERYBODY wants a job like that, For Mitt, a woman’s place is in the stables. His wife can fill her spare time riding her dancing horse—and the working class woman can clean the stables.

Super-rich CEO’s are threatening their employees with losing their jobs if Mitt Romney isn’t elected president. Romney himself has even encouraged the behavior. Hey, at least if they get fired, they’ll have health insurance if Obama is president. Several CEO’s have sent out messages to all their employees telling them that they will lose their jobs if Obama is reelected. Evidently their businesses can handle four years of Obama during a huge economic crisis, but not four years of recovery and growth. My advice to these employees is vote for Obama. He’s going to win anyway, and you don’t want to lose your job AND know you voted for a sleazebag like Mitt Romney.

Tagg Romney wants to tag President Obama. Romney’s son Tagg said he wanted to “take a swing” at the President during the debate. Hey, Tagg could have taken a swing at Obama from his seat in the back and still not missed by as much as his dad missed Obama with that wild swing about the Rose Garden statement.

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html#ixzz29iuinQSo

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Loud noises stimulate the Zombies. "Fake Scandals, Abortion, Gays, Guns!" Gets 'em going. But "Blacks in the White House!" whips them into a ZOMBIE FRENZY. Thank Darwin they are a minority.

Polls schmolls, inevitably it all depends the diligence of Dem Voters. If they turnout we're safe for another 4 years. If they pout like they did in 2010 we're in for 8 long years of Bush-Cheney regime on steroids, and another wasted decade cleaning up the carnage.

Get busy people: http://occupywallst.org/forum/not-just-potus-down-ballot-voting-info-4-u/

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Lets not insult the zombies and lable them as just R in the D/R scam... It takes an entire nation of zombies to hire the same two political parties, in the same system, for over 100 years.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

takes a Zombie to think they're the same

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Feel free to allow abortion and birth control to frame your thoughts while we blow a hole in the planet and allow the banks to clean out every country it comes across.

No one is going to able to afford birth control or abortions, self paid or the gov, if you guys dont stop pandering to these criminals.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Was that you with your favorite wedge issue once again?

All the while you ignore and minimize the crap you've given your own State?

The mixed up, crazy state of affairs in Florida.........


But don't attempt to take a photo of an industrial farm.. That's illegal too!!

Now........Go ahead.....Say it!

Look......over there!!! Obama............the boogie man!!!!

And another child's life is ruined in Florida, for the sake of the conse(R)vatives agenda.

Now, before you repeat yourself, please show me the equivalent form the liberal "side".

You, of the lie of duopoly fame..

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Bottom line is Obama is doing the bidding of the NeoLibertarians, along with congress and Rick Scott.

You support them. I dont. Thats why Im involved with Occupy. Im not sure why you are.

Have fun in your self loathing today. And dodging every meaningful banker or war related question. Ignorance is bliss.


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Pretty good stick with your bullshit, while ignoring what was posted, once again.

Talk about ignorance being bliss.

You must be the happiest guy in Florida.


[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Its not my wedge issue, its the media's. Both sides love it. Keep you clowns divided.

GATT and Glass Steagall are the two leading pieces of legislation that has removed all the jobs, and destroyed the housing industry, both signed by Clinton, whom I used to be a big fan of. With bipartisan support.

Some of us hold the commander in chief responsible for murder. Others dont.

"Reformed Libertarian" that refuses to look at his own actions. Let me guess, you are a recovering alchoholic that viciously attacks those that drink?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

The only viscous guy here is you.

I won't bow to your continued insults.

It's all you really have.

You still haven't proven the point I asked you to many, many months ago.

all you have are insults.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Zombies think only one is sold out to wall st. Only one votes for war. Only one votes for bailout. Only one votes for free trade with slave labor. Only one bows down to the Fed.

Minor differences dont matter between you and guy next to you when there is a horde of zombies outside waiting for you, and you are stuck in your house of duopoly.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

The 2 parties are vastly different! One of them WILL get into office!

No reason to analyze in a sophisticated way which agenda of the 2 viable parties is closer to our preference, which is better, which has a shorter distance to come to meet our needs right?

Replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives & protest for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Do me a favor, dont troll me anymore. Stick to the unicycle of minor differences.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Woohooo! The billionaire tax evading 1% plutocrat is almost in power.

Can't wait for him to impose austerity on the 47% he doesn't care about and cut taxes for his oligarchical 1% friends!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Excellent list.

Repubs believe his lies but the independents can be convinced of the truth.

thx, upvote for you.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 7 years ago

One question:

If on Sep 12 the pres knew there was a terrorist attack on the US in Benghazi why for three weeks did he tell the American people that it was not a terrorist attack but a spontaneous uprising by a rioting mob enraged about an anti-Islam utube video?


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

He didn't!


[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

It was a blanket statement in refference to both Bengazi and 9/11. Let's move on.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

Obama mentioned 9/11 ?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Bengazi attack was on 9/11 of 2012

I think that's what he's referring to.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

As long as you morons keep gobbling this shit up, and endorsing it, nothing is EVER going to change.

I hope you are fine with that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Another name calling effort form hchc?

Of course, it's the only game you know.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

People who help to destroy the nation could be called worse, and are starting to be outnumbered by those who want change.

The governemnt is bombing people all over, the country and our future are for sale, rights are being taken, and the banks are cleaning out the world.

People need to stop pandering to these two and humoring their bullshit.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

People who are destroying the nation and the World at large, are called neolibe(R)tarians.

Note the root word is libe(R)tarian.

You know, the ones profiting from what you like to bitch about the most? Your own personal "wedge" issue?

It's more obvious every day and with your every post.

The denial and bullshit is yours and yours alone.

It's the box you live in and refuse to look outside of, so you always resort to name calling..

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

GO HERE to find all the details of the Romney plan to save America: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

^ Former Libertarian that now claims to be reformed.

Ideology like that doesnt all of a sudden disappear folks. Its why he refuses to blame democrats and republicans, and instead creates his own little pet names.

The last thing these people want is a unified attack on the entire establishment.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's why it's so very important that you stop all your bullshitting and pointless name calling.

Not to mention all your denials of simple truths.

You still haven't proven your initial accusation. Let alone this one.

You still never go into any detail about what's happened to Florida and you still constantly lie about the ACA.

Those Neolibe(R)tarians want exactly what you are doing.

Ignore them and say............

Look....over there........Obama!!!

I don't just claim to be a reformed libe(R)tarian. I am one, unlike you.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Is Obama doing the bidding of what you call NeoLibertarians?

Shit...I forgot the cute parenthesis haha

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

The thing you forgot to ask yourself is, who's bidding is Rick Scott doing?

Who is doing all the SHIT that is happening in other States?

You ignore it. That's more than a little hypocritical. Attempts to point that out to you have been either ignored, or minimized by you. Even called gossip.

I would answer your question, but you NEVER really answer mine.

You just return to insults.

You would rather return to your own attempts at division, like calling the 99% asses.........Or shamelessly attacking those considered liberal.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I'll take your dodging as yes, Obama is.

And yes, Rick Scott is as well.

Guess that settles that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Dodge my fucking ass!

You're a feakin' dodgeball!

From a name calling guy who NEVER gives a straight answer to a straight question...NEVER.

From a guy who's first reaction to a challenge is to name call.

From a guy that dodges EVERY question about his home State and doesn't give a shit what is happening in the rest of them.

You are aware the Chomsky himself said, that if was in a swing State he would vote for Obama just to keep Romney from getting elected.

There are at least some of us who still deal with reality, and you aren't one of them.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

So now Chomsky is the know all that people should follow. Stop following, start leading. Thats where change comes from.

And since you still didnt answer, and I realize you would not want to do it in public, I'll take that avoidance as a yes. Hey, its obvious right?

Dodging = admission. Obama is run by the neolibs. And so is Rick Scott. Got it?


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Not dissin him, I think he's very smart. Doesnt mean everything he says is right or should be followed though.

Why do the group of you need to pander to leaders so much?


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

You're such an idiot.

That's the first time I've quoted Chomsky and now you tell me I'm a blind follower.

At least I don't get my info from the John Birch Society.

You on the other hand DO follow that blindly, as well as the teagbage(R) forum disruption video...

Plus there's the simple fact that YOU NEVER leave the politics behind and comment on threads without that content.

For all your bitching about others being partisan, you're the most partisan of all.

The one most lost in all the propaganda, so lost you don't even know what it is anymore.


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Let me know when you're ready to answer that single question-

Is Obama doing the work of the neolibertarians?

(this will tell if you are here for a unified stance against the establishment or endorsing the status quo).


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I'm not answering anything else you ask.

You haven't answered a single question asked of you.

You are the establishment.

Defender of the Kochs.

Defender of gun nuttery.

Defender of teabagge(R)s.

Defender of the GOP.

Lover of CATO.

Liar extraordinaire.

Hater of the 99%.

When you actually start answering questions asked of you, and proving some of propaganda statements, I will answer your questions again.


[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago


[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

see above

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 7 years ago

You support Romney?


[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

NeoLibs, NeoCons, NeoLibertarians....Call em whatever you want. The bottom line is the establishment is destroying this country, and the world, and they want to divide rather than change.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 7 years ago

Obama's transcript from the rose garden

Good Morning. Everyday all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interest and values of our nation.

Often, they are away from their families, sometimes in great, great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as his Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.

We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed and today the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Note: No mention about any "act of terror"

[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 7 years ago


watch how the Wall Street Journal faked the dubbing of Obama's speech

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 7 years ago

This is part of Obama's lapdog media along with cbs, nbc msnbc and other dog chit like them

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 7 years ago

Obama lied again but what is new????

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

did you watch the video

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 7 years ago

Video means nothing, a lot of us know that for two weeks he blamed it on some lame youtube video

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

9/12 Pres called it an act of terror

9/19 The admin had gotten enough solid intelligence that everyone was in synch on the facts that it was a planned terrorist attack.

Just the facts ma'am.


[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

then why did barry and hillary make a video ( payed for with taxpayer $) that was shown in pakistan. in which they aplogized for the video? why did ambassador susan rice say it was the video? why did barry at the un , say it was the video?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

They made no such video!

They did make a video saying we had nothing to do with right wing created anti islam tape because it was being used to incite violenceagainst American in 20 muslim countries.

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

sorry kagggie, they did. it played in pakistan, and at the UN obama was still blaming the murders on a video. the video never incited violence,............i the " riots" were phonies, all the attacks were pre planned, the resuld being 4 murders.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Pres Obama discussed the video justifiably to minimize the violence in the 20 Muslim countries around the world. And the effort succeeded since we avoided any other American injuries/death!

At the UN Pres Obama mentioned the video but did not say it was the reason for the killing of the American Benghazi diplomats.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

So first he didn't make the video then he discussed it (justifiably) so which is ?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Who said Pres Obama "made" the video? I thought the right wing christian fundamental cases (Steve Klein, Fla Pastor Terry Jones) made it.


[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

The apology video/statement I think is what they are talking about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Oh that one was an effort to calm the situation. but was not an apology, but a denouncing of the anti islam tape, and the violence being incited with it.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

At least I think that's the one they are talking about.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Suggest a meaningful subject. Let's see if you can converse in a civil way using just the facts.


[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

If you notice I keep it civil untill you seem to get a bit pisssy. I would prefer to keep it civil belive me. You just seem to get nasty with people who disagree with you. I think you mean well you are just angry and that is when I've made worst decesions in my life. What would you like to talk about?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Don't mean I care!

No I ain't impaired.


[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

I have to question weather I am, trying to have a rational conversation with you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

So I ask you to suggest a topic & you insult me ("pissy"? "nasty"? "angry"?)


Then you ask what I wanna talk about?

No thanx.

My offer still stands If you ever want to discuss a meaningful subject without the childish personal attacks!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Who the fuck cares what they're talkin about.?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 7 years ago

Obviously you do you commented it, are you impaired in some way I'm not aware of?

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 7 years ago

still covering for obama?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago



[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

is it what you see with your eyes that means nothing?
is it what you hear with your ears that means nothing?
is it your brain that understands nothing?

[+] -4 points by TheRazor (-329) 7 years ago

Today, the moderator backed away from her clearly prejudicial rant and declared ROMNEY to be correct.

Obama caught in his lies again.