Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 02:56:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82533 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 126555 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1450 on: April 10, 2012, 12:01:35 PM »

Hope and Change becomes Fear, Envy, and Bribery

http://www.dickmorris.com/what-is-obamas-strategy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #1451 on: April 10, 2012, 04:27:29 PM »

He did his best.  He bows out with style:

Lead StorySantorum suspends campaign, but “we are not done fighting” to defeat Obama
   
By Michelle Malkin  •  April 10, 2012 02:01 PM
RickSantorum.com

Rick Santorum fought hard, he fought well, and he gave voice to a large contingent of grass-roots conservative activists across the country who wanted a candidate who lived the values he preached. He held Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on health care, challenged Newt Gingrich’s green flirtations and past support for the individual mandate, and took on Ron Paul’s foreign policy extremism. His presence improved everyone else’s game — and that will serve the GOP ticket well this fall, whoever ends up on it.

Thankfully, Sen. Santorum’s daughter Bella has been released from the hospital after being admitted this weekend.

Thanks and prayers to Santorum and his family for their energy and passion and dedication to defending life, prosperity, and the American Dream. With a fraction of the money and air time, Santorum came from nowhere to become the most formidable challenger to Mitt Romney through hard work and faith.

Will update after press conference.

***

Update: Santorum addresses press in Gettysburg with wife Karen and children beside/behind him.

Bella is a “fighter,” “doing exceptionally well.” Weekend was difficult time, time for re-thinking. Recounts decision to enter the race, telling his story of the American Dream, meeting voters and hearing their stories, acknowledging volunteers, families with special needs.

Santorum talks about good times of campaign — sweater vest phenom on Twitter, visiting Minn. manufacturing plant, supporter in pick-up truck, girls who made “Game On” music video.

Miracle after miracle, this campaign was as improbable as any. This wasn’t about my voice. It was about your voices…reflecting hopes of Americans, not just fears.

“Against all odds, we won 11 states, millions of votes…wonderful people of this country who care deeply.”

Campaign is suspended, but “we are not done fighting” for our country…and will defeat Barack Obama, win on Capitol Hill.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1452 on: April 11, 2012, 10:10:25 PM »

"Obama is not just Obama, he is a machine. Romney is not just Romney he is now the only defense against the Obama machine."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/if-packers-couldnt-beat-lions-in-1937.html?showComment=1334162828943#c5341362258975864890
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1453 on: April 15, 2012, 01:52:26 AM »

Early electoral map, Obama leads:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #1454 on: April 15, 2012, 11:12:10 AM »

Doug, The dems know their only hope is to keep up the divide and conquer strategy (of Americans); into classes, races, ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientation, taxpayers and nontaxpayers.

Barring three things:

Some unforsefeen event
Romney screws up in some big way
Just enough of the electorate can be bribed with taxpayer money

I agree with Dick Moirris - this election will not be close. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1455 on: April 16, 2012, 05:42:24 PM »

It is about a tie at right now but this piece paints an optimistic picture for Romney. Romney needs to win Florida, Ohio and Virginia but if he can win those three, a good number of other tossups might also fall his way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romneys-bright-electoral-landscape/2012/04/15/gIQA9jcsJT_blog.html

Romney’s bright electoral landscape
By Jennifer Rubin

The electoral map reveals how perilous is President Obama’s grip on the White House. Let’s start, as RealClearPolitics does, with a base of 170 electoral votes for Mitt Romney. It’s hard to imagine that Obama could win any of even the less-red states that comprise that batch (e.g. Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Montana). To get 100 more and seize the presidency, Romney only needs some states that routinely went Republican before the 2008 race (Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia) and needs to hold on to a few that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to win (Arizona, Missouri). This gets Romney to 273.

In other words, Romney doesn’t need to win (but he might) in New Hampshire or New Mexico. He would love to, but isn’t required to, break through in states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan. (The first and last would seem the most likely.)

It may come as a shock to liberals when you break it down by the only measure that matters (electoral votes), but Romney can do worse that George W. Bush did in 2004 (when he won Iowa and New Mexico) and still win the White House.

This doesn’t mean Romney will have an easy time of it, but it does suggest that Romney doesn’t need to twist and turn on policy, or throw the longball for VP to win the race. If he runs better than McCain and worse than Bush, then he’s very likely to win.

Of the states critical to Romney, it is not hard to see how important Ohio, Florida and Virginia are to his prospects. These states have a cumulative total of 60 electoral votes. Romney won all three in the primaries, and each has large urban and/or suburban areas of the type Romney has won all across the country. All three states have GOP governors. In 2010, Ohio and Florida each elected a conservative senator in part due to a backlash against Obama.

All of this leads us to a couple conclusions. First, a popular VP pick from one of them would be a smart thing indeed. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell would qualify and please the base without turning off swing voters.

Second, if you think of some of the issues that matter in these states (trade, Cuba policy, jobs) Romney is well positioned. Virginia (in part from government-related hiring in Northern Virginia) is the only one of the three with unemployment below 7 percent. Florida’s is over 9 percent. Romney need not rethink or restyle his agenda, nor (as liberals keep arguing) move “to the center.” He simply has to communicate over and over again why his middle-of-the-road Republican policies and his background in the private sector would be better for those states and the country.

Republicans should be relieved, but not cocky, about the electoral landscape. The states most at risk will very likely be close. But Democrats’ confidence at this point seems unwarranted. It is very easy to spot Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1456 on: April 16, 2012, 06:34:00 PM »

Obozo is very beatable, if Mittens is ready and willing to take the fight to him. So far, his team has been spot on.

As an example, this:


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/video-david-axelrod-makes-the-case-for-mitt-romney/

Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1457 on: April 16, 2012, 08:49:53 PM »

We need a DECISIVE win by Romney.

We need to expand the hold on the House.

We need to take the Senate.

Strategies for this sort of thing are a forte of Newt.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1458 on: April 16, 2012, 10:00:39 PM »

We need a DECISIVE win by Romney.

We need to expand the hold on the House.

We need to take the Senate.

Strategies for this sort of thing are a forte of Newt.

Perhaps if Newt were to quit his vanity campaign/audition for a CNN gig, he'd get a chance to work for Mittens on such things.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1459 on: April 17, 2012, 05:37:23 AM »

Well, recently he has said the right things about working enthusiastically for MR should he be the candidate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1460 on: April 18, 2012, 11:17:25 AM »

Dick Morris posts some indicators that this is not going to be the electoral tie of 2000 that the currently vacillating polls might indicate.

"Six of eight presidents seeking reelection (since 1964) performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). "

..."of the total of 
19 points that shifted between the final poll and the election results, 17 points or 89 percent went to the challenger.

The implications of these findings are that the current polls, while seemingly close, portend a strong Republican victory. The RealClearPolitics.com average of the past eight presidential horse race polls shows Obama with a 47-44 lead over Romney. But among likely voters, in the Rasmussen survey (all others were of either registered voters or adults), the president was running behind Romney by 48-44.

But given the historical fact that the final results are almost always worse for the president and almost never better, we really need to focus on the Obama vote share rather than his lead or lack of one against Romney. If Obama is, indeed, getting 44 percent of the vote, he is likely facing, at least, an 11-point loss. If he is getting 47 percent of the vote, he is looking, at least, at a 6-point defeat. (Given the fact that six of the eight incumbent presidents not only lost the undecided, but finished lower than the pre-election survey predicted, it would be more likely that Obama’s margin of defeat would be greater than even these numbers suggest.)

There are other indications of a Republican landslide in the offing. Party identification has moved a net of eight points toward the GOP since the last election. In Senate races, there are currently eight Democratic-held seats where Republicans are now leading either the Democratic incumbent or the Democratic candidate for the open seat."  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/18/undecided_lean_to_insurgent_113883.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4083


« Reply #1461 on: April 18, 2012, 11:42:29 AM »

GM wirtes:

"So far, his team has been spot on."

Someone(s) on the right did great with this:

I loved the recent news about OBama paying less than HIS secretary on taxes!  It goes along with the proper theme of total tax reform not just taxing the rich (which the bamster does not qualify beause he makes only 3/4 of a mill), and he is a total hypocrit (as are many crats).

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1462 on: April 19, 2012, 12:16:53 AM »

Obozo is very beatable, if Mittens is ready and willing to take the fight to him. So far, his team has been spot on.

As an example, this:


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/video-david-axelrod-makes-the-case-for-mitt-romney/

Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?

So, three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1463 on: April 19, 2012, 12:37:43 AM »

"three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will."

People can say what they will about Romney for President but I wouldn't vote for Obama for dogcatcher.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1464 on: April 19, 2012, 07:34:37 AM »

"three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will."

People can say what they will about Romney for President but I wouldn't vote for Obama for dogcatcher.


 grin
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1465 on: April 19, 2012, 11:25:33 PM »

**What is this strange sensation? Could it possibly be some enthusiasm for a Romney candidacy?   shocked

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/19/romney-visits-empty-factory-to-mock-obama/

Romney Visits Empty Factory to Mock Obama.

By Janet Hook



Mitt Romney speaks at the closed National Gypsum drywall factory in Lorain, Ohio, Thursday, April 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)LORAIN, Ohio — Mitt Romney, shadowing President Barack Obama on the campaign trail, went to the battleground state of Ohio to appear at a shuttered industrial warehouse to dramatize his complaints about the incumbent’s economic policies.

“It underscores the failure of this president’s policies with regard to getting the economy moving,’’ Mr. Romney said standing in a cavernous, empty warehouse festooned with a banner that read `Obama Isn’t Working.’ “If you want to know where his vision leads open your eyes.’’
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1466 on: April 20, 2012, 06:21:37 AM »

Brought to my attention by my uncle, and worth seeing if you've not already:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1467 on: April 20, 2012, 06:58:35 AM »

Brought to my attention by my uncle, and worth seeing if you've not already:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp

Obama found a missing dog. It's still missing.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1468 on: April 20, 2012, 11:24:53 AM »

Bigdog, That is a great story and quite an example that the guy does have a core and a heart.

In the Romney dog story, he built the dog it's own windshield!  In this part of the country what we might call 'garage logic' not 'silver spoo'n thinking.  Dogs love sitting in the front of a boat or the back of a pickup.  A family of 7 plus a dog traveling in a station wagon or that he and Ann lived in a 75/mo. apartment when first married.  On the upbringing part, his dad was an executive not owner of a big company and that company made Ramblers not Mustangs or Corvettes.  George Romney was a well liked Governor but a failed Presidential candidate, more like Lamar Alexander or Paul Tsongas than growing up a Kennedy.  

People criticize the type of company that Romney ran but besides exercising many positive qualities there such as competence, being organized, setting priorities, making hard choices, managing staff, he had the rare personal ability to leave that work while on top.  He was good at it but that dog eat dog world (pardon the expression) wasn't all that he is.

In 2008 so many of the choices including the final 2 or 3 came out of the senate, without executive experience.  That is a big distinction.  The senate has its own aura, great deliberations, strategy and oratory, but it alone is not the experience of running an executive branch somewhere.

Obama's executive experience was that he ran an amazing campaign in 2008, but it was centered around running away from hard choices of governance with the blank canvas speeches. That, along with the main theme of blame Bush and the Republicans worked for the election but it did not establish a roadmap for successful governing.  He had no experience or ability to adapt and change course as a successful business executive is trained to do.

Back to Romney, he won't be bragging about his Mormonism but that he served in his religion and rose to such a high level is another demonstration of character.  That was not something he had to do - he could have written books about himself, played golf, visited beaches around the world...

Re. GM's post `Obama Isn’t Working': Remember that McCain's refusal to take off the gloves was a key point in not getting this inexperienced opponent with his misguided direction fully vetted.  Crafty had complained or pointed out that Romney was outspending these primary opponents ruthlessly and I saved a Romney piece that came to my mailbox days before our caucus viciously taking a former Speaker down to size, who in his time changed Washington and made a huge difference.  Sorry to say but that willingness and ability to go critical and negative now becomes quite a strength in the general election where Barack Obama with his record is far more vulnerable than was Newt.

Romney isn't cool or hip to the (unemployed) younger generation, but if he is still projecting competence and readiness on Nov.6 he will be the next President.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 11:31:55 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1469 on: April 20, 2012, 11:47:33 AM »

Mtt needs to criss-cross the country and make speeches in front of every Solyndra-esque "green jobs" failure and highlight the quid-pro-quo dem money connection to each empty building.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1470 on: April 20, 2012, 11:59:08 AM »

 On the upbringing part, his dad was an executive not owner of a big company and that company made Ramblers not Mustangs or Corvettes.  George Romney was a well liked Governor but a failed Presidential candidate, more like Lamar Alexander or Paul Tsongas than growing up a Kennedy.  

Huh?  George Romney made almost $3,000,000 in 1968!  That's not rich???  In today's dollars that means he made almost $20,000,000 dollars in 1968 alone!

"Romney became a millionaire on company stock options after he introduced a compact car as president of American Motors Corp. The figures show his adjusted gross income ranged from $661,427.68 when he was president of American Motors Corp. to a low of $78,483.85 last year. The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58."

He wasn't just "an executive" of a "big company" he was President American Motors, one of the big three auto companies in America.  Mitts was brought up in wealth and privilege the rest of us only dream of.  That said; so what; lucky him, but let's not foolishly denigrate his wealth; he was brought up very very wealthy. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1471 on: April 20, 2012, 12:09:01 PM »

Wealth Mitt gave away, then went out and made his own, as opposed to our affirmative action president who depends on the graft of others.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1472 on: April 20, 2012, 12:12:12 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mitt-romney-responds-to-obamas-silver-spoon-swipe/2012/04/19/gIQAGNrDTT_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

After President Obama took a not-so-subtle jab at his Republican opponent Mitt Romney by saying, “unlike some people, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” Romney on Thursday accused the president of “attacking people” when he should be “attacking problems.”
 
Romney, who amassed a fortune now estimated at as much as $250 million during a career at Bain Capital, was asked in an interview on Fox News Thursday morningto respond to Obama’s quip on the campaign trail in Ohio Wednesday afternoon.
 
“I’m certainly not going to apologize for my dad and his success in life,” Romney said on “Fox & Friends.” “He was born poor. He worked his way to become very successful despite the fact that he didn’t have a college degree, and one of the things he wanted to do was provide for me and for my brother and sisters.”
 
The former Massachusetts governor, added: “The president likes to attack fellow Americans. He’s always looking for a scapegoat, particularly those [who] have been successful like my dad, and I’m not going to rise to that,” Romney said. “This is a time to solve problems. This is not a time for us to be attacking people. We should be attacking problems.”
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1473 on: April 20, 2012, 12:19:43 PM »

I agree; I admire his father; just don't say Mitts wasn't born and raised rich.  He was in fact born with a "silver spoon in his mouth."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1474 on: April 20, 2012, 12:28:49 PM »

I agree; I admire his father; just don't say Mitts wasn't born and raised rich.  He was in fact born with a "silver spoon in his mouth."

So was Buraq. What's your point?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1475 on: April 20, 2012, 12:37:05 PM »

“Really, this ‘silver spoon’ business?” Coulter said. “Are they going to do that about every Republican while simultaneously revering FDR and JFK?  They really were pure silver spoon aristocrats inheriting all their money. Mitt Romney gave away all the money he inherited. He made it on his own.”
 
“And the silver spoon Obama got — I mean that generation, it can’t be denied, you can’t support affirmative action and then pretend it doesn’t exist. You don’t transfer from Occidental, which by his own accounts in his autobiography he mostly spent smoking pot, to a fine Ivy League university like Columbia if you’re not checking off ‘black’ on your application. So you know, the silver spoon since I’ve been alive has been an affirmative action silver spoon.”
 
And while she dismissed the rich-versus-poor meme some Democrats have been promoting, she did say there was another sort of class warfare occurring between those earning money from the government and those whose tax dollars are paying for it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1476 on: April 20, 2012, 01:37:47 PM »

I love the silver cocaine spoon analogy.  Reminds me of Ted Kennedy never being able to get away from tragic water analogies.  Every cliche he used seemed to fall into it:  drowning in debt, swimming upstream, head under underwater, water under the bridge, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, asleep at the wheel... it just never ended.  Now the blew-some-coke guy tries a worn out spoon cliche on his opponent to kick off the general election.  Is that all ya got?  That line was Hilarious when Texas Gov Ann Richards used on Geo. W Bush - to an audience of partisan Democrats, not from a 'unifying' President crossing the country on Air Force One on official government business. Interestingly, Bush won and Richards lost; I wonder if Obama's teleprompter-writers knew that!  Watch for more Freudian screwups; this campaign has its wheels falling off.
------
Thank's for the clarification on George Romney's wealth, '3 million is like 20 million now' and I agree with your conclusion: "That said; so what".  For further clarification, big personal wealth now is measured in billions with a B, a starting factor 50 fold greater than 20 million.  And why would you quote Pre-TAX income from those days?  You show more what he did for his country more than for his family.  You have friends, neighbors, acquaintances richer now than George Romney was then, right?  Not exactly unimaginable wealth.  Again, "so what".

Funny that you then skipped in your wealth clarification the part about the family of 7 traveling in the station wagon, or the couple's first apartment rent of 75/month - that would be nearly $350 today?! But still in the basement, lol.

Understanding wealth and how it is created comes better from Romney's environment than from demagoguing with radical professors and then organizing for welfare rights.  JMHO.
-----------
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/
Mitt Romney: "Well, he (George Romney) didn’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did...inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up."

(Once again, the money by that time belonged to Mitt, but was given by Mitt in the name of his Dad.  Selfless like the guy who says his "whole life is a testament [Biblical term] to American exceptionalism.)

Politifact verification:

"There's no evidence we saw that Romney's parents helped buy him a business career."

"According to a short history of the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at BYU, the family provided an endowment in 1998, within a few years of George Romney's death."
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1477 on: April 20, 2012, 02:15:53 PM »

Pleeeze GM, you must be kidding?  I don't care if Mitts had a silver spoon or not, let's talk issues, but don't deny it and try to compare Obama's meager family wealth or upbringing.

In today's dollars Mitts Dad made almost $20,000,000 (today's dollars) in just one year (1968) alone; now that's really wealthy.  And that was at a time when top executive compensation
was ridiculous low, unlike it is now.  G. Romney's income would probably be much higher in today's business climate.  Obama's upbringing is not even close. 

As for Occidental College, it is an excellent liberal arts college here in LA; frankly quite difficult to get into.  "The college is noted for its combination of rigorous academic programs, a small yet diverse student body. Occidental students have won 10 Rhodes Scholarships, 12 Truman Scholarships, 55 Watson Fellowships and, since 2003, 51 Fulbright Scholarships. The college is among the top 10 percent of liberal arts institutions whose graduates go on to earn Ph.D.s."  It's a great school.  I know a few graduates and I respect all of them.


As for affirmative action..... Let's look at Mitts.

Mitts had mediocre grades in High School, but for his first year in college he went to Stanford.  How do you think he got accepted?
His Dad, of course....  nothing Mitts did; he was nobody in high school.  GM; do you understand as President of one of the three largest automobile manufacturers in the 60's, the power
and influence, the prestige and privilege his father, therefore Mitt's family had in Detroit?

Now that's a silver spoon.  A big one.

Again, I repeat; so what.  I don't care.  But at least get the facts straight.  Mitts was born very very wealthy and privileged.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1478 on: April 20, 2012, 02:27:01 PM »

Pleeeze GM, you must be kidding?  I don't care if Mitts had a silver spoon or not, let's talk issues, but don't deny it and try to compare Obama's meager family wealth or upbringing.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? Buraq's maternal grandmother was a bank's vice president that sent him to an elite private school in Hawaii and willed him somewhere between a quarter and half a mil. In gratitude, he called her a "typical white person". Let's see Buraq's academic records for Occidental and the other schools. Why are they a state secret?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1479 on: April 20, 2012, 03:07:11 PM »

Me bringing it up?  Why?  Because Doug tried to imply that G. Romney and therefore Mitts weren't truly wealthy; they were.  It needed to be corrected.  See above...

Now you reference Obama's grandmother; a bank VP?  You must be kidding again.  My sister in law, a wonderful woman, is a bank VP.  Maybe six figures, but I doubt it.  Bank VP's are a dime a dozen.  Hardly equal to the President of one of the three largest automobile companies - not even in the same ballpark.  Now if you said Obama's grandmother was President of Bank of America, or Chase, or Citicorp, then I would say they were wealthy.  But she wasn't.  She "willed him somewhere between a quarter and a half a million"?  Wow!  Romney's Dad made 40 times that in one year alone!!! 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1480 on: April 20, 2012, 03:55:20 PM »

The most important factor is that Mitt grew up in a loving and intact family while Buraq's was fractured and chaotic,resulting in Buraq's deviant behavior and unbalanced personality. This is why despite his attending a expensive and elite private school in Hawaii, Buraq sought out terrorists, communists and racial hatemongers like Ayers and Wright.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1481 on: April 20, 2012, 06:30:46 PM »

 "The most important factor is that Mitt grew up in a loving and intact family while Buraq..."

GM, that point is huge.  That was a missing ingredient for Bill Clinton.  For all his brilliance he acted out his deviance to embarrass the nation.  Fatherless Democrats deserve a fair shot at everything including President and pursuit of happiness, but only in progressive-America is growing up in a functional home considered a BIG negative.
----------
Gotta love JDN, trying his hardest.  I point out that was pre-tax income during high tax rate days is NOT what the family gets, and so he repeats it - and again.  Let's try again.  3 million doesn't grow or inflate to 20 million today if government took 78% the combined top tax rate then before he got it.  But in 1968 George Romney was governor of Michigan on a public servant salary.  What JDN passes as a single year income is the exercising of options, investments that he made, earned and saved over a period of time, at risk, that happen to pay off due to leaving the company and shareholders (and workers) in a nice situation.  Greedy capitalist.
------
Romneys Reported $3-Million Income From 1955 to 1966
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B14FF345914728FDDAF0A94D9415B878AF1D3

Gov. George Romney of Michigan and his wife Lenore had a total income from-1955 to 1966 of nearly $3-million. Of this amount they gave $561,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and another $115,000 to charity, it was disclosed yesterday.

($3 million over 12 years, pre-tax? and a large chunk went to charity.  Greedy capitalist with silver spoon babies.)
------

My suggestion: Substitute the word accomplished or successful for wealthy and then see if he was around too much of it.  George Romney did not work his full career as an auto executive.  He was also a Governor and HUD Secretary.  

The only trapping of wealth on Mitt the detractors could come up with on the Romney family was that they paid his airplane ticket to come home from Stanford.  Wow...  He also worked as a night security guard there so he could fly back more than they knew.  Devious!

So he had less money than John Kerry.  Less than the Kennedys.  Higher grades than Gore or Kerry.  But JDN rips Romney for his grades ("he was nobody in high school") - while his opponent won't show his.  The drivel continues while the 'growth' plan is 'ask' the 'rich' to pay their 'fair share'.  Strange priorities.  
-----------
NY Times continued: "whenever [George Romney] felt his salary and bonus was excessively high for a year, he gave the excess back to the company... he developed a good relationship with United Automobile Workers leader Walter Reuther... AMC workers also benefited from a then-novel profit-sharing plan. Romney was one of only a few Michigan corporate chiefs to support passage and implementation of the state Fair Employment Practices Act."
Greedy capitalist.
-----------
JDN wrote further: "She "willed him [Obama] somewhere between a quarter and a half a million"?  Wow!  Romney's Dad made 40 times that in one year alone!!!  

Actually it was 6 times that and it was exercising options earned over a 10 year period, not indicative at all of his salary.  "Wow"  A quarter to a half million quoted were dollars Obama got to keep.  Compare that to a non-existent $20 million figure of falsely inflating a one-time gain of his Dad's, that did NOT come to his Dad or Mitt, except for a part a quarter century later that Mitt received and gave away in his father's name.  Mitt was 21 and gone in the year JDN says the Romneys made the windfall.  Undisguised dishonesty.  Makes Obama is a pretty good fit, lol.  Looking forward to more distortions and worthless discussions on non-issues from now until the election.

Meanwhile half of black teenage males unemployed under Obama: http://blackstarjournal.org/?p=660

No problem.  Let's come down harder on employers.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 06:44:37 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1482 on: April 20, 2012, 06:58:59 PM »

Good post Doug, some nice research in there.

One would think the Gigolo John Kerry who not once but twice married women worth hundreds of millions yet dodges MA taxes on yachts by docking in RI would come in for notice and approbrium , , ,
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 07:03:15 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1483 on: April 20, 2012, 06:59:20 PM »

Do Sasha and Malia earn JDN's scorn? Why do Buraq and Michelle insist on sending them to a very expensive private school while fighting school choice for DC's poor black students? Why not "spread the educational wealth around" and send them to Malcolm X Elementary in Anacostia?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1484 on: April 20, 2012, 08:45:58 PM »

I'm not "scorning" anyone....

But "nice research"; you must be kidding?  Everyone is trying to be a comedian.   smiley  I'll try to take is slow for you'll. 

Pre-tax income is a gross number; no one uses after tax income for comparisons. For ex. I make $100K you make $150K; i.e. you make 50% more than me.  No inquires about our tax situation.  So let's keep talking apples to apples versus throwing in oranges and grapefruits.

But just to set the record straight, rather than the fictitious 78% Doug quoted, if you do the math "The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58 in 1968."  I think that's about a 37% tax rate.

And what Doug seems to interchange rather conveniently is that in today's dollars George Romney made $20,000,000 in 1968.  Frankly, in todays dollars he would have made a LOT more; average wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, but executive wages have skyrocket way above adjusted for inflation.

So yes, in today's dollars (that's when Obama got his inheritance) Romney made 40 times Obama's inheritance in one year is accurate. 

Fact; George Romney as President of one of the largest corporations in the world made millions of dollars in today's dollars.  Not to mention the perks and benefits of being
President of one of the three largest auto companies in Detroit.  We can't imagine.  Do you really think he or his family had a want for anything?  That man was very RICH. 

Sorry Doug, but facts and statistics are important.

That said, I never said he was greedy; frankly I acknowledged that George Romney and Mitts for that matter earned every penny.  Good for him.  George did a good job at American Motors.  Plus from all accounts Mitts was raised in a loving family.  Lucky him.  But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that.

Rather than deny and/or apologize for it; he can't, he should simply embrace it and say yes, my dad and I were successful; so what?  Frankly I admire the family.

As for Kerry, how about McCain?  Frankly, who cares....  More power to them....  Lucky guys....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1485 on: April 20, 2012, 09:14:02 PM »

But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that.

And Buraq was raised in an atmosphere of chaos and anti-americanism/marxist thought. How's that working out for us? Narcissism and a bag full of daddy issues hasn't played out real well, has it?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1486 on: April 21, 2012, 12:35:44 AM »

I don't care that Kerry married into great wealth , , , twice.  I care about the inconsistency that cares that Romney is wealthy, even though he earned it, and does not care that presidential candidate Kerry was (and is) just as wealthy even though he did not earn it.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1487 on: April 21, 2012, 09:26:45 AM »

I don't care that Kerry married into great wealth , , , twice.  I care about the inconsistency that cares that Romney is wealthy, even though he earned it, and does not care that presidential candidate Kerry was (and is) just as wealthy even though he did not earn it.

Kerry was not just as wealthy, but don't get me wrong, he wasn't poor either.  Kerry was raised in an upper middle class (father was a government lawyer; his mother a nurse although she came from a a rich family) Kerry served our country in Vietnam, for that service he was awarded several combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.  He became an Assistant DA after graduating.  Hardly equally as wealthy as Mitts, albeit he always had plenty of money.  Maybe it's because he plays the bass guitar or likes cycling (which I now like) that he is so popular with the rich women?  smiley  Being a Senator doesn't hurt; McCain probably used the same lines.  By the way, Kerry did sign a prenup with Ms. Heinz. 

I do think George Romney did a superb job at American Motors.  Nothing to apologize for, he earned his money and didn't flaunt it although like any manufacturing there were some union issues.  Mitts however at Bain and I do admire Mitts' ability, is a little different.  That business is a holdover from the robber baron business.  Mitts has accumulated 250 million dollars; and given a lot away (taken a tax deduction) but mostly to the Mormon Church (nice, but not the same as the Red Cross) There is no pride in building the business; it's all about the money.  No one matters except the partners and investors. Basically it's $%^& the employees.  Now Doug might argue that such destruction is good, I don't know, but it doesn't sell very well to the general public.  It all seems a bit greedy; like Gordon Gekko.  I think in the coming election we will see more of Bain Capital and the thousands of employees that were fired. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1488 on: April 21, 2012, 09:52:30 AM »

Kerry served betrayed our country in Vietnam, for that service he was awarded several combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts and the gratitude of the Vietnamese communists.

Fixed it for you.

http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps

Analysis of John Kerry's Fitness Reports   
.
Context

John Kerry's campaign representatives quote a few words from one of his best Navy fitness reports to support their misleading claim that Kerry's military evaluations were those of a top-flight officer. They carefully ignore the existence of several other reports that range from mediocre to substandard, thereby presenting an inaccurate picture of Kerry's service record.

There are also gaps in the documentation made public to date by the Kerry campaign, where no fitness reports are provided at all. Here we present an analysis of the available record.

An Introduction to Navy Fitness Reports

Navy officer fitness reports ("FITREPs") are of vital importance. Selection boards use them to promote the officer. Assignment officers use them to “sell” the officer into his or her next assignment. Only truly outstanding officers get the best jobs (or “billets”). Officers with adverse or spotty records are unsalable for anything but the most backwater assignments.

To read and understand FITREPs correctly, there are several crucial things to understand.

Dings and RAPs

First and foremost, a FITREP is a relative picture. You are not reading absolutes. If an officer is graded, say, as “outstanding,” it is meaningful only if he is ranked ahead of his contemporaries and the rest of the FITREP contains no glaring negatives.

Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP.

Third, what is not said in the narrative section is just as important as what is said. The truly superlative officer should be “RAPped,” meaning "Recommended for accelerated promotion." If Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the officer should be considered for promotion along with the rest of his year group (all those commissioned in a given fiscal year constitute a “year group”). In the context of other marks and remarks, a “Recommended for promotion” mark means that the officer may just be average, called a “pack player.”

NOTE: An officer “Not Recommended for Promotion” is an officer in deep trouble. In a combat zone, failure to recommend for promotion may be indicative of problems in conduct, not just performance.

Key: Would His Commander Want Him to Command?

Fourth, if the officer is an Unrestricted Line Officer, he or she is in line for operational command (of a ship, an aviation squadron, etc.). Thus, one the most important marks on a FITREP for a line officer is “desirability for command,” referred to in the shorthand of selection boards and detailers as “command.” Thus, for a seagoing officer, a “ding in command” is big trouble. Likewise with the skill of “seamanship and ship handling”: a ship-driver “dinged in ship handling” is in big trouble.

As a footnote, line officers must win qualification as a Officer of the Deck for formation steaming [“OOD(F)”] that officer who stands watch on the bridge and is responsible for ship movement (and, frankly, everything that happens on that ship) while “formation steaming” or steaming in company with other ships. Officers must first qualify as OOD while in port [OOD(P) and subsequently for independent steaming [OOD(I)]. The quicker the climb to OOD(F) the better.

Also, Unrestricted Line Officers aboard ships (now called “Surface Warfare Officers”) must strive to be recommended for Navy Destroyer School which prepares the junior officer for his pivotal tour as a Lieutenant or Lieutenant (j.g.) -- a department head tour aboard a destroyer. A recommendation in a FITREP for Destroyer School is meaningful, however, if and only if the officer has qualified as OOD(F). The CO must qualify the officer as OOD for in-formation steaming; otherwise a Destroyer School recommendation is empty.

Thus, for the junior officer aboard ship, the number one performance goal is: qualify as OOD(F) and get recommended for Destroyer School. The unwritten rule is, don’t leave your first ship without the OOD(F) qualification.

Language and Other Signals

Fifth, FITREP language tends to be positive for officers who perform at a reasonably satisfactory level. That way, the FITREP tends to be a motivational tool to keep the officer on the right performance track. Thus, when COs feel the need to convey a signal to selection boards and detailers about performance that is lackluster, they will use code words. “Potential” is one of the key negative code words. Genuinely excellent officers should be performing; if they merely demonstrate “potential,” even “great potential,” this is read as a clear signal from the Commanding Officer that they are not performing.

Another signal is “trend of performance.” Unless it’s a “first report,” all good officers should be marked as “improving,” never “consistent” and certainly not “declining.”

Still another signal, particularly for line officers, is the broad categories of content in the narrative. A line officer’s FITREP should be glowing in praise of his or her ship handling and leadership abilities. Selection boards want to know how this officer performs on the bridge, not in some significantly less important collateral duty (e.g., public affairs officer). A CO who emphasizes performance in collateral duties is signaling that there is something lacking on the bridge.

Sixth, there can be no gaps. There must be one continuous thread of fitness reports in an officer’s jacket.

Seventh, it’s the operational tours that count. As long as the officer passes the school and stays out trouble, FITREPs from school commands don’t matter much.

Eighth, selection boards and detailers will examine the way the Commanding Officer grades his or her officers. Some of their considerations:

o They are looking for “good break-outs,” reports that clearly identify top-performers (called “water-walkers”) and distinguish them from “pack-plus” officers (above average performers) or “pack” officers (average). When a CO writes a “gift” FITREP (ranks everyone as top performers), boards and detailers tend to discount such “easy graders” and will look to a subsequent report for a clearer performance picture from another CO.

o Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1) and don’t matter nearly as much as in-tour FITREPs when the officer is ranked with his or her peers. (Of course, if an officer is smacked in an end-of-tour report, you can be assured that boards sit up and pay close attention.)

What Do the Kerry FITREPs Really Say?

Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.

In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).

Another “swan song” opportunity is lost when Kerry departs a brief tour of duty as an Aide. Kerry is dinged in staff desirability, management and military bearing by Rear Admiral Walter Schlech (2 MAR 70 Schlech) while Kerry served as Schlech’s Aide. The Admiral makes considerable mention in the narrative section about Kerry’s ambition to run for Congress, and no doubt the glowing words were meant as a parting gift to someone who might become a member of Congress. The narrative notwithstanding, any detailer or selection board would consider the FITREP a bad one. Had Kerry remained in the Navy, it would be difficult to “sell” him to a new Aide assignment when his last boss, an Admiral, had dinged him in precisely those attributes indispensable for Aides.

The real performance problems are evidenced in FITREPs for his operational tours.

Because it is a FITREP that only covers about a month, LCDR Grant Hibbard’s first FITREP on Kerry should simply be marked “not observed” all the way down the line -– no grades, marks or narrative. Significantly, LCDR Hibbard chooses otherwise. Hibbard detects a personal behavior problem – a conduct problem – and smacks him for it in the report. He also dings Kerry on initiative and cooperation, just like his last CO in Gridley. 17 DEC 68 (HIBBARD).

In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more.

The PCF squadron commander, LCDR Elliott has 15 officers in his command, and his report (28 JAN 69) offers an excellent breakout. Elliott ranks his officers in two groups, the top and the bottom, and Elliott ranks Kerry among the top group. Or does he? Just like Hibbard, Elliott “red flags” Kerry in conduct by downgrading him significantly in judgment and personal behavior. When viewed in the context of the total FITREP, it is very clear to a detailer or selection board that Kerry probably ranks 7 of 15. He’s a “pack player” at best, but this is a worrisome FITREP to detailers and selection boards, because the significant flaws Elliott finds are in two critical areas: leadership traits and personal conduct. Moreover, because personal conduct issues have been raised by past commanders, detailers and selection boards would certainly conclude that the officer has exhibited major flaws in leadership and conduct over a sustained period of time that limit both his promotability and his salability to positions of responsibility. None of Kerry's evaluators had access to his previous FITREPS -- his commanders observed the same flaws independently.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1489 on: April 21, 2012, 09:57:20 AM »

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=WarCrimes

John Kerry's Phony War Crimes Charges   
.


.
On June 6, 1971, John Kerry described the work of the Swift boats to the Washington Star as follows:

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

What John Kerry told the Washington Star was a lie.

Contrary to Kerry's claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians. On many occasions we did this at the cost of suffering additional casualties ourselves. We have interviewed hundreds of veterans who served on the Swift Boats or supported them, and there is simply no justification for Kerry's statement. Several members of our organization addressed the issue of atrocities during our May 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

John Kerry also completely misrepresented our meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt. Far from being a pep talk for officers distressed by their butchery of civilians, the purpose of this conference with the two highest-ranking American officers in Vietnam was to announce a new Swift boat mission: to drive the Vietcong out of the Ca Mau Peninsula. The goal of Operation SeaLords was to dominate the rivers in this area, and to eventually establish a permanent presence in the Cua Lon River, an effort later named Operation SeaFloat. This was to be done publicly, with the full participation of the media, to negate the claim of North Vietnamese negotiator Lee Duc Tho that Henry Kissinger could not legitimately represent South Vietnam because the U.S. did not control these areas.

We succeeded in that mission. We returned to Anthoi and drove the Vietcong out of the region, and soon the North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives in Paris returned to the negotiating tables.


----------
As its dominant tactic in their battle against the war, the antiwar movement successfully demonized Vietnam veterans by calling a series of "tribunals" or hearings into war crimes. But... they were packed with pretenders and liars -- historian Guenter Lewy, writing in "America in Vietnam"

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans.

False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam.

John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war.

Detailed information about the anti-war activities of John Kerry and the VVAW can be found at WinterSoldier.com.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1490 on: April 21, 2012, 10:00:56 AM »

Why do dems hate our country so much?

http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets

John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets?

Newly discovered documents link Vietnam Veterans Against the War to Vietnamese communists
Two recently discovered documents captured from the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group's leading national spokesman.

The Circular: International Coordination of Antiwar Propaganda

The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document:

The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.

-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. The reference to "VC" indicates the Vietcong; "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government.

This sentence is particularly important in light of John Kerry's admission that he met with leaders of both communist delegations to the Paris Peace Talks in June 1970, including Madame Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam, also known as the Vietcong. FBI files record that Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August of 1971, and planned a third trip in November.

Prior to the discovery of the Circular, there was no direct evidence that Hanoi was actually steering the U.S. antiwar movement's activities by conveying Hanoi's goals and wishes to movement leaders during their frequent visits to Paris, though many investigators had assumed that to be the case. Further analysis of this document supports the contention that Madame Binh used her Paris meeting with John Kerry to instruct him on how he and the VVAW might best serve as Hanoi's surrogates in the United States. In the spring and summer of 1971, a key strategy of Hanoi was to advance what was known as Madame Binh's Seven Point Peace Plan.

The plan was cleverly constructed to force President Nixon to set a date to end the Vietnam War and withdraw American troops. According to the 7-Point Peace Plan of Madame Binh, the only barrier to Hanoi setting a date to release American Prisoners of War was President Nixon's unwillingness to set a specific date for military withdrawal. Of course, accepting the full terms of the 7-Point Peace Plan would have amounted to an American capitulation, a virtual surrender that included the payment of reparations to the Vietnam communists as an admission that America was the wrongful aggressor in an immoral war.

A section of the Circular titled "PREPARATION FOR THE FALL ((1971)) ANTIWAR MOVEMENT" makes clear the importance the Vietnamese Communists placed on advancing Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan within the United States:

The seven-point peace proposal ((of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government)) not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement.

-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. "SVN" indicates the South Vietnam Provisional Revolutionary Government, i.e., the Vietcong. "NVN" refers to North Vietnam.

And again, highlighting how the Vietnamese communists viewed the activities of the US antiwar movement, US politics, and politics in South Vietnam as interconnected; all to be targeted by Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan:

The Nixon-Thieu clique is very embarrassed because the seven-point peace proposal is supported by the SVN people's (( political struggle)) movement and the antiwar movements in the US. Therefore, all local areas, units, and branches must widely disseminate the seven-point peace proposal, step up the people's ((political struggle)) movements both in cities and rural areas, taking advantage of disturbances and dissensions in the enemy's forthcoming (RVN) Congressional and Presidential elections. They must coordinate more successfully with the antiwar movements in the US so as to isolate the Nixon-Thieu clique.

-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. "RVN" refers to the Republic of Vietnam, the government in South Vietnam supported by the US.

POW Families: Targets of the Vietnamese Communists

Late in 1970, a defecting Vietcong organizer described a communist plan to use Vietcong sympathizers in the US to recruit family members of American POWs held captive in North Vietnam. The following summary of his interview was provided to the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

The Viet Cong plan to continue their efforts to win worldwide opinion to their side and to solicit as much material support for the VC struggle as possible from other countries in order to create a favorable climate for the VC at the Paris Peace Conference.

The Viet Cong will continue to promote domestic unrest against the war in the United States in order to speed withdrawal of US troops and create pressure for an end to the war.

Efforts will be directed toward the US soldier in Vietnam to demand that they be returned to the US and be reunited with their families and wives.

The VC will strive to create anti-draft and anti-war attitudes in the US by organizing VC sympathizers in the US to contact families with sons in Vietnam and urge them to call their sons home. Also VC sympathizers in the US will be organized to distribute anti-draft leaflets to students and young people.

On February 1, 1971, at their Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit, the VVAW released a statement by Virginia Warner, mother of American POW Jim Warner, urging President Nixon to "end the war so the prisoners of war can come home." Jim Warner has accused John Kerry of exploiting his mother's fears to obtain this statement.

On July 22, 1971, John Kerry held a press conference in Washington, DC, to call upon President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan. Kerry surrounded himself at the press conference with POW wives, parents and sisters who had been recruited to promote his message. The event was reported in The New York Times of July 23, 1971 and the communist Daily World of July 24, 1971. Each article included a photograph of Kerry surrounded by POW family members.

Kerry's use of POW families directly advanced the North Vietnamese communist agenda as described by enemy defectors and in the newly discovered Circular, which suggests that Madame Binh had recommended the same course of action to antiwar activists meeting with her in Paris.

[Note: A number of POW families were contacted by a "liason" group headed by Cora Weiss, the daughter of Communist Party financier Samuel Rubin, with offers to provide mail and information about their husbands if the families agreed to publicly denounce the war. Most POW family members refused to cooperate with this extortion, even when promised better treatment for their husbands or sons in Hanoi. Four angry POW wives protested at Kerry's July press conference, one of whom accused Kerry of "constantly using our own suffering and grief" to advance his political ambitions.]

The Directive: Supporting the US Domestic Insurgency

The second document, captured by US military forces in South Vietnam on May 12, 1972, is a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States. The fifth paragraph of this document makes clear that the Vietnamese communists were utilizing for their propaganda purposes the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The protest described as occurring from April 19 through April 22, 1971 coincides directly with the dates of Dewey Canyon III, the Washington, DC, protest led by John Kerry, during which John Kerry's testimony before Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee was a televised centerpiece. The description of the protest activities in the Directive even include the "return their medals" ceremony in which John Kerry and other VVAW members threw their medals and/or ribbons toward the steps of the US Capitol, with several shouting threats of violence against their government as they did so.

The Connection: The People's Committee for Peace and Justice

Another key discussion in the documents reveals the degree to which the Vietnamese communists were working with and through the PCPJ (People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. The Circular, immediately after disclosing how the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used to guide the US antiwar movement, stresses the importance of the PCPJ to these efforts:

Of the US antiwar movements, the two most important ones are: The PCPJ ((the People's Committee for Peace and Justice)) and the NPAC ((National Peace Action Committee)). These two movements have gathered much strength and staged many demonstrations. The PCPJ is the most important. It maintains relations with us.

-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US (emphasis added).

The House Internal Security Committee in its 1971 Annual Report described the PCPJ as an organization strongly controlled by US communists: "There is no question but what members of the Communist Party have provided a very strong degree of influence, even a guiding influence, in the evolution and formation of policies of the Peoples' Coalition for Peace and Justice."

Recently released FBI surveillance reports establish a strong link between John Kerry, Al Hubbard, the VVAW, the PCPJ, and their trips to Paris to meet with Madame Binh. As discussed in Unfit for Command, Hubbard, the Executive Secretary of the VVAW and a hard-line radical with ties to the Black Panthers and the PCPJ, had directly recruited John Kerry into the VVAW's Executive Committee, bypassing the organization's election process. Al Hubbard's own claim to have been a transport pilot wounded in combat was discredited when the Department of Defense released documents demonstrating that, though Hubbard had been in the Air Force, he was neither a pilot nor an officer, had never served in Vietnam and had never been in combat. John Kerry shared the stage with Al Hubbard during the Dewey Canyon III protest in Washington, D.C., and he appeared together with Hubbard on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971. Hubbard also signed the People's Peace Treaty, a PCPJ document that reiterated the positions of North Vietnam and the Vietcong, on behalf of the VVAW.

An FBI field surveillance report stamped November 11, 1971 reported that the FBI had learned at the Regional VVAW Convention in Norman Oklahoma, on November 5-7, 1971, that John Kerry and Al Hubbard were planning to travel to Paris later in the month to engage in talks with the Vietnamese communist peace delegations. While this document is heavily redacted, other FBI reports make it clear that the Communist Party of the USA was paying for Al Hubbard's trips to Paris.

IT IS NOTED THAT THE "COMMUNIST PARTY" REFERRED IN RETEL IS PROBABLY THE COMMUNIST PARTY, USA, BECAUSE AL HUBBARD IS A MEMBER OF COORDINATING OF PEOPLES COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE (PCPJ), AS ARE GIL GREEN, MEMBER OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST PARTY, USA AND JARVIS TYNER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, YOUNG WORKERS LIBERATION LEAGUE. HUBBARD, GREEN AND TYNER HAVE ATTENDED SAME NATIONAL MEETINGS OF PCPJ.

-- Federal Bureau of Investigations, Field Surveillance Report, filed November 11, 1971. A copy of this report was air-mailed to the Boston FBI office in reference to John Kerry.

An FBI field surveillance report dated November 24, 1971 details Al Hubbard's presentation to a VVAW meeting of the Executive and Steering committees in Kansas City, Missouri, during the weekend of November 12-15, 1971 -- the same meeting at which the VVAW considered, then rejected a plan to assassinate several pro-war US Senators. John Kerry is listed as present. Once again, Al Hubbard made clear the communist coordination involved in his recent trip to Paris:

[BLACK OUT] advised that Hubbard gave the following information regarding his Paris trip:

Two foreign groups, which are Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Peoples Republic Government (PRG) (phonetic), invited representatives of the VVAW, Communist Party USA (CP USA), and a Left Wing group in Paris, to attend meeting of the above inviting groups in Paris. Hubbard advised he was elected to represent the VVAW. An unknown male was invited to represent the CP USA and an unknown individual was elected to represent the Left Wing group from Paris. He advised at the meeting that his trip was financed by CP USA.

-- Federal Bureau of Investigations, Field Surveillance Report, filed November 24, 1971.

A letter written by Al Hubbard on April 20, 1971 leaves no doubt about the strong coordination between the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. Addressed from the offices of the VVAW in Washington, D.C., the letter is an appeal to VVAW members to provide assistance to the PCPJ. It discusses several ways in which the two organizations have worked closely together:

This is an appeal for help for the Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice. Over the past months the Peoples Coalition has supported the Vietnam Vets Against the War in many ways. The Coalition has made office space available at no charge, and permitted the use of all necessary office equipment such as mimeograph machines, stencil-making machines, folders and typewriters. They have loaned us cars, bullhorns, and public address equipment. Their staff has taken messages for us and joined fraternally in building our progress. Now we can return this support.

Saturday, April 24, the Coalition needs help collecting money and selling buttons at the great march and rally. Collectors and sellers must be energetic and determined. Theree will be security problems in taking large amounts of money to banks. The Coalition needs people power, hundreds of workers.

I earnestly hope that you will come forward to support our friends in this emergency.

-- Letter signed by Al Hubbard, addressed from the Vietnam Veterans Against the War office at Room 900, 1029 Vermont Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C., dated April 20, 1971. Found in the House Internal Security Committee subject files, Washington, D.C.

Two days after the letter was written, John Kerry gave his famous testimony to Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee in which he likened the American military in Vietnam to the army of Ghengis Khan. The march and rally for which Hubbard was recruiting VVAW assistance was the PCPJ's massive April 24 demonstration in Washington, which immediately followed the VVAW's week-long Dewey Canyon III protest. The communist Daily world reported on April 27 that "Tributes were paid to the special role of the Vietnam Veterans" at the PCPJ rally, and went on to quote at length from John Kerry's speech at that event.

Willing Partners: the VVAW and the Vietnamese Communists

Other examples of the VVAW's advocacy of Vietnamese communist positions during the period of John Kerry's leadership abound. The group issued a proclamation in February 1971 calling for mass civil disobedience and military mutiny if American forces entered Laos. After the war, North Vietnamese military leaders acknowledged that one of their greatest fears was that America would move significant forces into Laos to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The VVAW's eagerness to comply with the wishes of the Vietnamese communists even extended to its choice of nomenclature. The VVAW's Executive Committee stated in a July 1971 meeting that the terms "Vietcong" and "North Vietnamese" were not to be used in VVAW press releases and communications. Instead, "PRG (Provisional Revolutionary Government)" and "DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)"... "are to be used by us to reflect our acceptance of their designations." And the VVAW's unremitting insistence that American forces were mass-murdering Vietnamese civilians perfectly echoed the primary propaganda theme put forth by the Vietnamese communists, their international communist allies, and their Soviet sponsors.

Conclusion

The newly uncovered documents help clarify the relationship of the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, the PCPJ, the Communist Party of the USA, and John Kerry's VVAW. They indicate that these organizations worked closely together, using the Paris Peace Talks as a central point of communication, to employ the strategy and tactics devised by the Vietnamese communists to achieve their primary objective: the defeat of the United States of America in Vietnam.

-- by Jerome R. Corsi and Scott Swett


----------
[Note 1: On October 22, 2004, Swift Veterans and POWs for Truth researchers Troy Jenkins and Tom Wyld located the two Vietnamese communist documents referenced above in the archives of the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University, in the Douglas Pike Collection. Douglas Pike was a leading authority on the Vietnam War who collected over 2 million pages of original documents now archived at the Vietnam Center. James Reckner, Ph.D., Director of the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech, verifies that the documents in the Pike collection are original and authentic. The Circular and the Directive are listed as items numbered 2150901039b and 2150901041 respectively.]

[Note 2: The authors wish to thank Max Friedman for making available two additional documents, first, Al Hubbard's April 20, 1971 letter to the VVAW membership. The full citation is: National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for Peace & Justice (PCPJ) Part I, hearings before the Committee on Internal Security, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, First Session, May 18-21, 1971, p. 1796. The second document, "Extracts from an interview with a Viet Cong returnee" comes from the American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia 1971 hearings before the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development, House Foreign Affairs Committee, 92nd Congress First Congress, March 23-25, 30-31, April 1, 6 & 20, 1971, Testimony of Max P. Friedman, pg 299.]
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1491 on: April 21, 2012, 01:45:02 PM »

"Pre-tax income is a ..."

It is an amount of money that is not yours.  Not yours to hold, to spend, to invest, and not to falsely inflate and compare with a real number - like it grew over the next several decades when it can't because they that isn't the amount George Romney started with.  It didn't and you know that.  Drivel on.

"rather than the fictitious 78% Doug quoted, if you do the math "The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58 in 1968."  I think that's about a 37% tax rate."

No I said 78% was the top combined rate federal plus Michigan in that year and YOU said he earned in a single year.  Why lie?  Now you say he paid 37% which means it was largely LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS which are NOT made in a single year.  (Was 37% the combined tax rate or federal only?  Source?)  If he did NOT earn it in a single year and you say REPEATEDLY AD NAUSEUM that he did, which is it?  And why lie?  Why post on things you don't know or care about?  Why make attacks against the person "silver spoon".    What you said he made in a single year was earned over a period of 1954-1968 which is 15 years, at great risk and with great faith is his own accomplishments to leave it invested in the company all that time.  That said, who the f*ck cares.  That was GEORGE Romney taking EARNED gains after Mitt left the home.  George is dead FYI, not running for President in 2012 (Do you understand that?) and his estate has been properly executed.  Mitt born with a silver spoon?  He was born in 1947 before ANY of this and George started with nothing.  George was NOT head of AMC when Mitt was born.  They had good money later.  Very good money.  They had ENOUGH money.  No one said he grew up poor or undernourished.  They did not live like they had obscene wealth which is no crime either; it just wasn't the case.  (Wikipedia: "The Big Three, when used in relation to the automotive industry, most generally refers to the three major American automotive companies: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler." Show me Rambler in there, lol.)

"And what Doug seems to interchange rather conveniently is that in today's dollars George Romney made $20,000,000 in 1968."

After 3 times told that was false, post it again.  I recognize the pattern.  What a blockhead. 

"So yes, in today's dollars (that's when Obama got his inheritance) Romney made 40 times Obama's inheritance in one year is accurate."

Just can't get off of a G*d D*mned lie.  An inheritance in that amount isn't taxed and the 20 million is.  The comparison is false.  A lie.  Plus you are comparing what one of the candidates actually received versus a what dead former Governor NEVER received by a factor of 10, AFTER his children were grown.  Please give some indication you are smarter than that.  ANYTHING!

"That man [GEORGE ROMNEY] was very RICH."    - SO WHAT!  He is also very DEAD.  And running for NOTHNG.

"Sorry Doug,..."    For what?  Wasting my time.  Pissing me off.  Bringing down the discussion.  Lies.  What are you sorry for when you just keep doing it.

We are stuck on stupid discussing his father's salary and tax rate as if we were uncovering unbelievable wrongdoing of his son when in fact everything went very well and nothing wrong is even alleged.  Everyone should have a career like George Romney.  But still, who cares.

Digging out info for this worthless argument keeps exposing more success and virtue in the Romney family.  George Romney was a moderate Republican and quite an honorable.  Barack Senior was a polygamist (irony) who left his kid unsupported on an island.  One built up an American auto company.  The other advised a poor country on how to stay poor.  The abandoned kid writes a book for his own profit (makes $20 million in one year, tomorrow's dollars) to honor an absent parent.  The one who inherited from his Dad gave the money to something his Dad would have liked.  How far do you want to go with this?  When you finish your hate speech you ought to go back and admit GEORGE ROMNEY is the type of Republican that YOU might have supported.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1492 on: April 21, 2012, 03:59:51 PM »

NO LIES Doug; but I am sorry you are not able to grasp the numbers; I'll try again and dumb it down for you.

Pre tax income is the bogy.  Look at the annual top paid executives, sports figures, etc. in Forbes or Fortune.  ONLY gross pay is reported; I don't know
what anyone's personal tax bracket is; it depends upon a lot of variables.  But for comparison purposes, EVERYONE (except maybe you) compares
total pay including stock options and other sources or income.  This isn't the tax thread where we are discussing taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/04/americas-highest-paid-ceos/

And yes Doug, in ONE YEAR, 1968, George Romney's total pay was nearly $3,000,000.  According to his tax return, he paid 37%.  No lie Doug; just FACT.

And yes Doug, $3,000,000 total income in 1968 is equal to approximately $20,000,000 now.    I'm not a blockhead; just factual.  But you seem to have a problem
with facts when they don't go your way or someone is not willing to twist them to suit you.

As for the inheritance issue, well we are back to the facts again.  Obama got maybe $500,000 in inheritance; George Romney in one year total pay was nearly $20,000,000 in comparable dollars.  According to my calculator, that 40:1.  Let's not look at the tax issues; just total money Doug.  In FACT, Obama's wealth and upbringing cannot compare to the wealth of the Romney's. 

Although you finally seem to agree that George Romney was very RICH.  Yeah he's dead, but his wealth is what supported Mitts.  It was his money that paid for Mitt's silver spoon.
No lie Doug; again just FACT.  Gosh those facts are pesky and irritating to you, aren't they?  Mitts was raised with a Silver Spoon.  That is the issue of this thread.  Just accept it;
he was born with a Silver Spoon, he was raised rich and privileged, and we can move on.  But that means you have to accept facts; something kinda tough for you it seems.

As for George Romney, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said I admired him.  As for "hate speech"; well who do I hate?  You seem to "hate" Obama; but I have no hatred towards any of the Romneys.  I said,

"That said, I never said he was greedy; frankly I acknowledged that George Romney and Mitts for that matter earned every penny.  Good for him.  George did a good job at American Motors.  Plus from all accounts Mitts was raised in a loving family.  Lucky him.  But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that."




Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1493 on: April 21, 2012, 04:04:31 PM »

And then Mitt went out and made his own money and stood on his own two feet. Buraq on the other hand glided on affirmative action and Chicago graft and now in his first real job, has failed miserably.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1494 on: April 21, 2012, 04:07:37 PM »

This has been interesting but I would like to suggest that we leave last word to Doug and move on.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1495 on: April 21, 2012, 06:33:04 PM »

"leave last word to Doug"   - Thanks for the offer Crafty but it has all been said.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #1496 on: April 21, 2012, 08:43:08 PM »

Excerpt from Paul Mirengoff, a founder of Powerline back from a one year absence:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/the-state-of-the-race-what-might-change.php

"Oddly, it may be Obama, the incumbent, whose image changes significantly. Polls show that his personal popularity is what’s keeping him afloat. Voters don’t very much like his policies and his results, but they continue to like him.

The reasons are pretty straightforward. First, he made a great first impression, and such impressions tend to last. Second, people want to like their president. Third, people want to like the first black president.

As his presidency has faltered, though, Obama has become increasingly irritable and negative. It’s unlikely that many voters have noticed because few follow the day-to-day utterances of the president.

But the electorate pays attention during the final months of the campaign, and especially during the presidential debates. If they see the whiney, defensive, and nasty side of Obama, he will pay a price.

In theory, Obama should be able to avoid this pitfall. His surrogates can do the attack dog thing, while he takes the high road. As for the debates, history shows that the sitting president is allowed one bad debate, especially if it’s the first one. So Obama just needs to keep his inner nasty partisan in check for a few hours.

But Obama’s arrogance works against him here. This is the man who famously proclaimed himself a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political director, etc.

Presumably, he also considers himself a better attack dog than his attack dogs. If Obama continues to sense that his presidency may be slipping away, he is unlikely to leave to others the dirty work he feels is needed to preserve it.

The adverse consequences of such self-indulgence may well be more than marginal."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1497 on: April 22, 2012, 04:56:40 PM »

#Invalid YouTube Link#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

If you like your failed president, you can keep your failed president.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 05:03:52 PM by G M » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #1498 on: April 22, 2012, 07:23:20 PM »

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/20/its-on-romney-campaign-takes-on-fisker-over-federal-loans/

It’s On: Romney Campaign Takes on Fisker Over Federal Loans


Stick with me to the end on this, and if you’re worried that Mitt Romney’s campaign will be too weak to take on Obama’s you’ll leave happy. Well, unless you’re an Obama fan.
 
On Wednesday, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams ripped Obama over government backed loans to so-called green companies, singling out Fisker.
 

“President Obama’s failed investments in companies like Solyndra, Fisker and Ener1 are a constant reminder to the American people that this president does not understand how the economy works, does not understand the appropriate role for government and does not have any ideas to get America working again,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said Wednesday.
 
Fisker is the car company that got one of the rushed DoE loans, only have its hideously expensive electric Karma die on the driveway when Consumer Reports tried to road test it. Fisker is laying people off left and right and faces the prospect of bankruptcy.
 
Fisker was not happy to get called out by the Romney camp, at all.
 

But Ray Lane, the former Oracle executive who chairs Fisker’s board, took exception after a Romney spokesman said the Fisker loan was an example like the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra of a failed investment by President Barack Obama. In an email to The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., Lane said Romney’s political attacks had kept the Energy Department from striking a new deal with Fisker: “Irony is Romney doesn’t understand he’s the problem and he’s lumping a company that did $100m in q1 with a company that’s bankrupt.”
 
This is the part where one might expect the Romney camp to wobble. But there was to be no wobbling on this day. Instead, Williams fired back a match-winning tweet today:
 



Well played.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31243


« Reply #1499 on: April 26, 2012, 12:18:31 PM »


http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!