And just how funny is it to see '08 Obama telling all that he would not use negative ads.

So very different.

Oh and please keep up the 'magic underwear' stuff. makes it so very much easier to identify your religious bigots.

Man, what happened to you libbies? So desperate to keep you guy in the WH you willingly toss out one of the supposed fundamental aspects of liberalism - tolerance.

Tolerance for all but the dirty 'magic underwear' wearing LDS-ers.

Awesome.

Spanky, President Obama wanted to run a clean campaign. I'm sure he would still like to. If you remember, it was Romney who went negative on his fellow republicans first, during the clown car race.

The President is just fighting fire with fire!

Obama only means what he says when it's convenient to him. He'll only take public campaign dollars? Well that sounded nice, until he decided not to. No negative ads? That worked well, until it didn't, and now he does. Cut the deficit in half? Sounded great when he said it. Never happened. Unemployment would be 5.6% by now? Great politics at the time, it got him his trillion dollar stimulus, but results? Well, lets not get tied down by the details. Against raising the debt limit in 2006, all for it in 2011. Barry saying if he didn't get the economy going by the end of his first term he'd be a one term prez? That ones looking to be true.

And the lefties just keep on believing this liar. Good for them, it keeps them happy.

Yep. Kinda' like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Obama won in '08 because McCain screwed up by running with Palin. Can't necessarily count on something like that happening again, so Obama is bringing a gun to a gun fight.

Besides, the 'Corporations are people too' decision changed the landscape and the rules of engagement. Throw in repub voter suppression - you got a new outlook and a new game plan from the Obama camp.

Sucks when the dems don't roll over and give up, don't it.

video of which Buzzfeed dredged up yesterday.

Dredged Up???

Little snarky there, eh Domenico?

So are Obama's past statements off limits now too?

Tell me Domenico, have you been doing any "Dredging" of Mitt Romney's past comments?

How about you take a look in the mirror?

The more a person runs negative ads the more apparent it is that they don't have the answers for the problems in front of them.

Negative ads has unfortunately become the norm. "Look I don't a solution to what problems you have, but the other guy is a worse option" seems to be the typical approach now.

What we need is to have the candidates simply giving us their thoughts on how they would run things. Unfortunately, I said earlier, politicians simply don't have the backbone to stand on their merits so they try to build a fear factor into the heart of Americans that the other person will cause more harm than them.

Hardly a reason to elect anyone.

FR -No matter how much Obama in 2008 may have wanted things to change -- or even thought they would, it’s remarkable how much he now acknowledges they have, in fact, stayed very much the same

You could apply this to every aspect of the Obama Presidency except of course for the things that have gotten worse.

Wanting and hoping for things to change doesn't get it.

When will you realize that Domenico?

Never confuse Effort with Results.

It's actually pathetic than any individual would rely on this type of campaign strategy to win votes.

nms: Negative ads has unfortunately become the norm. "Look I don't a solution to what problems you have, but the other guy is a worse option" seems to be the typical approach now.

True enough. For Obama to win, he's got to make this campaign as superficial and as negative as possible. Talk about Bain, about tax returns, about social issues, and about anything except his economic record. His record is a real problem for Obama.

Romney needs to point out Obama's failures (not a difficult thing to do, there are so many), but you are correct nms, he also needs to go positive and explain how he'll improve the economy, how he'll be better than Obama.

To see the direction the Republican Party was going to take in Mitt's presidential campaign, one had only to look at the poop fight of the GOP primaries. The wannabe candidates were dragging out scandals, innuendo, and old skeletons in their attempts to pull their competition into the very mud in which they themselves were wallowing. It's hard to imagine anyone thinking the Obama campaign wasn't going to prepare itself for this type of vicious onslaught after watching the hilarious GOP primary race unfold in all of its mud covered glory. Therefore, if the GOP wants to see a kinder, gentler presidential campaign from the Democrats then they need to cry fewer crocodile tears and clean up their act.

Obama went negative first. He started in February of 2009! He told Republicans to "Get on the Back of the Bus". He told Americans that Health Care was more important than Jobs. He Gave Away money to his cronies - But Hey his wife tripled her salary when he was elected to the State Senate by taking a job with a Hospital in his district that needed his support. That is all he knows. He grew up in Private Schools, not public, he never has had a private sector job. He is a discrace.

For the first time in American History, we have a President who opposes success. Then we wonder why the Economy is in the dumps. His original economic team resigned in year 1, when they saw what his intent was. They wanted nothing to do with his policies. How can anyone defend this President?

His attack on Romney - "He is successful, and you should hate him for that". How Horrible, Romney put together a management team that succeeded at Bain, He put together a strategy and it worked, consumers loved his decisions and utilized his new businesses - Yes Why Would We Ever Want a Successul Person Running the Country!

Then they attacked when he "actually" left Bain. Before of after he saved the Olympics. Think about that. Thier are arguing that he was able to Save the Olympics and Run Bain at the same time. Yeah, thats someone who cant get things done!

If President Obama is so liked and was supposed to win by a land slide, then why does he have to against his promises and resort to negative adds.

The answer is he has broken many promises and its time for him to go.

Romney 2012. Correct the error made in 2008 and all the promises broken.

fuzzy44
Spanky, President Obama wanted to run a clean campaign. I'm sure he would still like to.

He has nothing to run on but bull@!$%#, lies and the hot air he will blow up your ass.

I actually voted for change last time - and we didn't see anything change. Obama has to attack Romney because he can't run on his record. And as a single mother of 4 that worked 2 jobs, never rec'd child support, and didn't take any kind of welfare I am insulted by Obama saying "he can relate to the middle class" - he has no idea what struggling means.

Every time Mitt opens his mouth, its a negative ad in favor of the Dems.

Sailcat-2064101 who writes.

English isn't your first language, is it?

OK, It is suppose to read "why does he have to run against his promises and resort to negative ads"

No English is not my first language, it actually is my third. But I bet you got my meaning.

Regardless is hard to take 2 minutes to write a Post when you are working. How is San Francisco doing these days?

Romney doesn't tell us in any detail what his plan is for the economy or jobs.

From what he has told us, the poor will pay more taxes and the rich will pay less. Revenues will drop and he'll add 5 trillion to the debt.

Ruken - I just think you may have a slight crush on JAS1? You used to be so nice on these boards, now the Saggy PL comment? Come on Rukes..you're better and smarter to use a derogatory name to someone who disagrees with you politically.

Would you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Sailcat,

Please forgive me if I insulted you in any way. You did get my meaning?

You show the true colors of a Liberal (and from SF). Did I call you stupid? Please not all of us are as smart as you are. Please go jump of the Gate Bridge. See if you can sprout some wings.

As for Ruken. Don't worry about Ruken, he is one of those dogs that I talk so much about.

Ruken es un perro sucio!!!!! Y no sabe de que habla.

His negative campaign, which he was the first to start, shows obama for what he truly is, a lying hypocrite and a loser that will say anything that he thinks his followers will believe and will get him votes. He knows he can not run on his record because it is a abysmal condemnation of his lack of accomplishment and leadership, so by taking things out of context he forces his opponent to correct him and defend the truth - he is playing a game that he thinks he can win with - what a sorry fool.

I think its a requirement for the Obama campaign including its volunteer workers to go negative. Have you read the posts from the leader on this board on down? Fiesty has been negative and attacking before Romney was ever the GOP candidate, so you cant say that Obama is just reacting to him. Read the posts by Seeking Sanity, Ruken and Fiesty everyday and its personal attack or negative campaigning as they dont seem to have anything positive to say.

Dont forget Ruken is calling people stupid on here while yesterday not knowing that Penn is in the Ivy league and not knowing the difference between scholarship athletes and nonscholarship athletes. Sometimes the pot does call the kettle black.

Sailcat-2064101

"But I bet you got my meaning."

You can say stupid things in three languages but you can't think rationally in any of them. Was that your meaning?#1.23

No his meaning is that you idiots don't have a valid argument so you resort to attacking him as to what you perceive to be his personal weaknesses. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

So does that mean you won't vote for him this time?

I challenge everyone to see beyond the negative ads. Look at each mans records. Then look to find
what their plans are for the future of the USA. They both have plans if you look at what they put out and what they say they will do. Look at their web sites. Then you decide who to vote for. The one who wants government to control everything in your life or the one who has been successful and thinks you can be too.

Tebow 15 - most of us go negative when someone does it to us first - or when they deliberately lie about our President and First Lady. It's rare we start out negative.

There are those who try to put each of us down for negative posts but they fail to acknowledge the posts we are replying to - who start the negativity.

So, it pays to see what someone is replying to rather than jumping on them for their post. You may find - although negative - it is in direct response to something worse.

The only thing more pathetic than politicans running a negative campaign are the Americans who support it.

Rick-312779,

Thank you for seeing what these so called Liberals really stand for. They mock precisely those that they pretend to defend. He knows that I'm a black Latino woman and was a Democrat turn Independent and Voted for a bad CHANGE in 2008.

I have always be upfront with that, however I'm used to that kind of treatment not from the right nor from the Independents and not even from the Kennedy Democrats. I only get that from the Liberals and specially those here in this MSNBC FR.

People like Sailcat do not have a life, so they get their kicks here in FR. Ooops, just made a little poem for Sailcat.

Obama's negative ads arent going to cover up his record as president. This country is thirsty for common sense leadership. Romney 2012!

Seeking Sanity--you can try to defend your constant personal attack posts as being responsive to others but it just isnt true. You attack those whose only crime is that they share a different belief or opinion than you. Many times you respond with extraordinary claims and out and out lies such as yesterday when you personally attacked someone viciously and then lied and said that Chicago and Obama always knew they were not going to win the Olympic bid and that Brazil was the frontrunner from the beginning when it fact Brazil was being thought of as the 3rd choice at the time. You have consistently made up vicious lies and attacks about me for the sole reason that I have a different opinion than you. I think it was Fiesty who made the claim that the democrats are just responding to the GOP because they created Swift boating. Does that mean you guys have forgotten the Clinton white house and their smear campaigns against everyone that challenged them including accurate stories regarding his women? I am a Clinton fan but stop being so driven by your desire to have your candidate win, that you lose all objective reality of the truth.

You seem to be the designated attack dog on here with never a substantive response. Some serious attempt at civility and critical thinking would go along way in making us actually give you the time of day.

Tebow15 - I rest my case. As you can see, there is not logic in so many of these attacks on some of us. These are made by people who just need to post their "logic" when there is none present.

As for the Olympics statement I made, it was in reference by another poster that President Obama and our First Lady had made a terrible presentation to the committee for the Olympics and were an embarrassment.

Below is a repudiation of that lie - as so many people lie on here including the one who has most recently attacked me - as per his usual nonsense.

From the NY Times Sports Section:

Rio and Chicago had gone into the day considered the favorites, ahead of Tokyo and Madrid.

The chance to bring the Olympics to a continent that had never hosted the Games worked in Rio’s favor. During its presentation, the bid team showed a graphic of the world and marked all the places that have held an Olympics. South America was glaringly bare.

It was a defeat for the U.S.O.C., not for Chicago,” said Denis Oswald, an I.O.C. member from Switzerland.

Mr. Oswald said that 10 to 15 fellow I.O.C. members had approached him recently wanting to discuss issues related to the U.S.O.C. He said that changes in U.S.O.C. leadership “has not helped,” either, and that it was clear that the Chicago bid and the U.S.O.C. were not united. Stephanie Streeter, the acting chief executive of the U.S.O.C., and Larry Probst, the committee’s chairman, have taken their posts in the last year and have run into problems with the I.O.C., most notably over their stalled plan for an Olympic television network and their share of the Games’ network and corporate sponsorship contracts.

Again, many posters stalk some of us and refuse to acknowledge that we are responding to others - whose posts actually are worse - when we go negative.

And, from those posters, I don't need the time of day because they prove over and over again - they don't know what time it is!

Seeking Sanity--see how easy it is? If you notice you responded well in this case to a poster who made a claim that Obama provided a bad representation of Chicago. By the way the cited article doesnt support your made up claims that Obama always knew that Brazil was the top choice and they were not disappointed in losing. But of course you knew that already. But why didnt you just provide this cite which would have been a reasonable response--although it also doesnt address the claim that Obama didnt represent Chicago well. There were others here in Chicago that also made that claim at the time if you remember correctly. I personally dont buy it and dont think Obama had anything to do with Chicago not getting the Olympics. However, instead of responding reasonably you viciously attacked the person. Using your logic, shouldnt I call you an idiot, stupid or a moron for making up the lie regarding Brazil too?

Very few posters on here are worse than you. The above would have been a reasonable first response but thats not what you did is it? And if you notice you clearly didnt even provide any support for your lies.

I love you Sailcat!

Obama/Biden 2012 FORWARD!

4more4 44!

A vote for Mitt the Twit is a vote for Insanity! I'm AlaskaGirl and I approve this message!

If a politician has a list of wonderful accomplishments over their last term, they don't have to run negative ads....they run ads touting what they have done...sadly while some of President Obama's achievements have helped a minority of us...the majority feel left out...or in disagreement with what was done (i.e. Obamacare). The lack of positive ads, praising administration milestones, speaks for itself.

Mr. President, change course, work with American businesses to create American jobs! Many in the business community don't think you are doing that, as evidenced by this comment made by Maria Bartoroma on CNBC, July 17th, at 1:38 PM, "Business leaders said they went to meet with him (President Obama) at the White House, he came in gave a speech and left, he didn't ask for their ideas or stay for any discussion"!

It really doesn't matter to me that Mitt Romney cannot sing, that doesn't rank very high on my list of Presidential skills, I would rather Sir, that you spend those millions of ad dollars telling me how you are going to put America back to work!

Those of us in the unemployment line are waiting to hear from you!

Kirk - again you clearly have nothing to do but stalk me.

I don't have to defend any lies since I didn't lie. But, since that is all you do - keep it up.

Some of us have things to do. And, I'm done with you.

News98 - your total post is nonsense and lies. My guess - you're a close friend of jim/Kirk. No intelligence in your post but you're eager for everyone to see it! Pathetic!

What you call stalking is more like pointing out your personal attacks and outlandish lies and claims. Have you noticed that whenever you make something up and I call you out on it (this is like at least the 10th time), your standard response is I dont have to defend myself I didnt lie (with no support of course because you have none) and then say I am done with you. You realize that is the equivalent of rolling over and giving up basically admitting that I am right.

Do you really want to keep telling posters there is no intelligence in their posts? You keep doing it and again you and Ruken keep meeting that black kettle over and over.

Concern ...

You show the true colors of a Liberal (and from SF).

Now you're insulting the City by the Bay???? How low will you go to make a point???? I love my City and miss living there! And Sailcat if you do live in the Bay Area ... so JEALOUS! :)

What's wrong with negative adds if they contain the truth?

I want information that tells me the history and character of these men. If their past is negative I sure want to hear about it. I don't care that Mitt strapped his dog to the roof one vacation. I do care that he made his money through shady business practices and government loop holes with Bain Capital. I do care why he won't show his share in his tax returns. I know it was legal for him to stick the taxpayers to pay for $70,000 for his dancing horse but what I do care about is that he was ok enough morally to actually deduct it.

Feisty - you're right! He's on ignore! Nothing worth reading in his or jim's posts!

Why Fiesty ? All he has done is point out SeekingSanity's penchant for personal attacks and name-calling. She rarely addresses the issue of the article and quickly goes to inflammatory name-calling on a regular, ongoing basis. Then, when she gets "called-out" for her attacks, she either starts crying "stalker" or pretends to be the victim.

If SeekingSanity were to clean it up, there would be no call to go after her personal attacks. But she seems incapable of doing that .... name-calling and personal attacks are part of her DNA.

It looks like the "gangsta girls" of Chicago WANT a free license to attack, and this website seems to give it to them.

I personally agree that SeekingSanity is one of the worst at personal attacks. Apparently being a cyber bully is cool. Playground bullies aren't so cool and neither are cyber bullies. I think the moderator ought to moderate and stop the personal attacks. Not cool at all.

Come on Really?--could you tell me what shady business practices that Bain were part of? Was it more shady than Obama selling a 10 foot piece of land to Tony the fixer Rezco for several hundred thousand dollars? What government loopholes are you talking about? You are now putting morals into the tax code? What about Obama's failure to donate any money to charity until he ran for president? Is that a moral failure. If voted completely on history and character would President Clinton ever been elected and he was one of our best presidents ever. Same with JFK or Lyndon Johnson. Lets find out who has the best plans to bring us out of the economic morass we are in and bring us into economic prosperity not tied to government assistance programs.

I am not sure whether being put on ignore is a badge of honor or just a weakness on both Fiesty and Seeking Sanity's part because they are unable to respond with any valid defense or support. I have never ignored anyone and always found that to be almost an admission of defeat. Whats interesting about it is that both of them are admitted Obama campaign volunteers (paid or unpaid I dont know) so their posts are meant to create a vote on their candidate's behalf. So they act in so many posts as if they are on a soapbox and they have this legion of potential voters that are reading their vitriol. So if they ignore my replies which point out their shameless personal attacks (without any honor code violations), constant hypocrisy and wide embellishments and lies and if their legions of independent voters get to read those without any defense or support rebuttals by them, arent they the ones losing out? If they are unable to provide any substantive discussion to the topics arent they losing out?

Just me--be careful--you might get accused of also being Jim and Kirk as one and the same. Our numbers of people seem to be expanding.

Feisty - I see jim/Kirk have a new alter ego - Just me - lotsa numbers. What they don't realize is they have a "tell" when they create a new one. It's really funny and so obvious!

When will you righties tell Citizens United, Romney, Fox and Limbaugh to shut their negative mouths up? Or is this just an Obama beat-down? If anybody tried to play it clean against the lying dirty cheating Republicans it would be like bringing a slingshot to a gun fight. So if you don't like the negativity then blame yourselves and your Party!

Seeking Sanity--got news for you neither Jim nor Just me is Kirk. Sorry no tell and invite me to one of your lunches with Fiesty sometime and I will prove it ha.

Funny how SS claims her negative posts are only responding to others when Feisty, Sanity and their fan club are always the first half dozen posts. Feisty's posts are always nasty, negative, crude and ignorant, and then her minions cut and paste her comments, add their own scintillating comments such as "so true!" and pat each other on the back for being so clever calling Romney mittens.

It's no wonder they admire Obama so, they are just like him. Liars believing their lies, and attacking others when confronted with their lies.

Obama campaigns non-stop running from fundraiser to fundraiser. Jobs created craters to less than 100,000 the last 3 months and it has been seven months and counting since he has convened his Jobs Committee.

If you post first, you can't be replying to negativity, you create the negativity.

Typical lib, when caught in an obvious lie, you change the topic.

As I sit and watch ads from two perspectives... from Missouri and from California... I have seen nothing but dark negative ads coming from the right attacking Obama. The one on Romney and Bain is negative but is not run anywhere near as often. The Democrate Senators from both states are running positive, albeit bragging ads while the right wing Senate ads are 100% negative, especially the ones targeted at Clair McCaskill. I just don't see the parity between parties' ads. The right wins the negative ad contest hands down.

That said, let me make up the difference with some pointed comments aimed at the right... LOL.

Did all you righties forget that it was Karl Rove that started the "lying" negative ads? I think Obama has a perfect right to counter them with true negative ads. All the Democrats have to do is replay the repugs ads made during the primary or replay the comments made by Romney everytime he opens his mouth. The ads may be negative but they are true compared to the false negative ads run by the repugs.

GOP top brass instructions to CEO supporters:

"Take advantage of the low top end and capital gains tax rates NOW while the taking's good. Leverage the profit MAKING into profit TAKING and take your profits out NOW at the low tax rates. Wait until after the election to reinvest in your company... stalling the economy NOW and helping a Romney win. It will be worth your while with even deeper corporate tax breaks once he's elected."

Of course this is not stated explicitly, but is implied. It comes in pieces but fits together nicely, don't you think?

Like I've stated time and again, the economy will be exactly FLAT until after the election. The CEOs are pulling money out like there's no tomorrow and tucking it away in safe places while the politicians are creating fear and confusion... KILLING any consumer confidence that might happen our way.

Flat. No reinvestment. No demand. No consumer confidence. Stalemate in Congress. Just what the GOP doctor ordered.

PS

Woody-1316476

Did all you righties forget that it was Karl Rove that started the "lying" negative ads? I think Obama has a perfect right to counter them with true negative ads.

Thanks for reminding me... it's not the negativity that bothers people so much as the outright lies. In that regard the GOP wins again... in fact, it seems they will lie even when the truth would work.

Kirk,

You have to excuse people like seeking. They often remind me of the bullies back in grade school that had to resort to name calling and insults when people showed how stupid they are...

To Kirk,

As for the shady practices, I'll refer to the example that Bain purchased Kaybee Toys with a deposit 6% down of it's worth and six months later paid themselves dividends 400% of what they put down. They then declared bankruptcy and this caused a successful company to close some 500 stores and put people out of work. When you declare bankruptcy the taxpayer comes to the rescue, when people lose their jobs the taxpayer comes to the rescue. In short, Bain netted $67 million for themselves buying a successful company and gutting it. It was legal to destroy this company because they owned it. They bought it for $18 million, took $85 million, and declared bankruptcy. I call that shady practices but that's me.

And I agree that you can run ads against Obama not giving to charity until after he was President, Clinton for cheating on his wife. I haven't heard of Obama selling 10 ft of land for hundreds of thousands of dollars but if that's true then absolutely run ads on it. These are truths let's hear them.

It is pretty easy to evaluate whether to read a comment or not. If someone tells you they don't lie then you know they lie. If they deny reality to push some agenda, they are liars. There is no value in reading these posts that present nothing, just egos covered with anonymity.

look, there will be plenty of time for Mitt to show us he has a plan, it would be nice if you GOP people could outline some details that will be part of that plan. You seem to know everything about Obama and nothing about your candidate. Can you help here, I am at a loss to make any decision on Mitt and no decision means the vote goes to Obama, can you present a case based on what Mitt can do (let's not use his Mass. tenure as it doesn't appear to support his current campaign)?

It's nice to see the moderators doing their job so effectively. All you have to do is look at post 1.6 There is no doubt in anyones mind had a 'conservative' said that to/about someone on the left side of the aisle, they would have been suspended, if not deleted and the comment would have been taken down.

Well done yet again.

The slimy little $hit bag known as Obama has only one option, go negative, early and often. Such a breath of fresh air he is.......NOT! Just another lying weasel, only worse. For all his touted intelligence, he's so stupid he couldn't pour piss from a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

TO: Spanky- who wrote:

"And just how funny is it to see '08 Obama telling all that he would not use negative ads..."

Well I can't blame him, it's hard to find something "nice" to say about folks who have been calling him bad names for the past 3-1/2 years, and they (the GOP) did everything in their power to stall our Economic Recovery.

Obama/Biden 2012

SO! THAT'S the reason he won't release his taxes for the past 10 years!!!

He only released his 2010 return and a cursory 2011 estimate since those are the years he's officially run for President.

BUT he won't release his tax statements prior to 2010 because he can't afford to! He'd be crucified!!

HE DIDN'T PAY ANY TAXES. NONE! Through any number of "legal" deductions, loopholes' and shelters (available to only the very rich) he managed to avoid paying ANY taxes for the 10 years prior to 2010!!!

He took advantage of the system. And while "legal" it's clear he will do whatever he can to hang on to every nickle in ways the rest of America can't!

The more I hear about this SOB the more I feel like I need a shower!!

What a Shifty bast*rd!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-releasing-past-tax-returns-obama-more-distort-170725701.html

Zardoz,

You've been listening to that crackpot Reid again. Perhaps Alzheimer's or dementia has finally taken over that poor bastard. He should stick to what he does best...nothing!

JK1963 - You listen to Rush and that's ok but I read a number of similarly speculative articles (including one about Reid) about why FUD-romney is afraid to release his pre-campaign tax returns and you criticize me?

HA! You're either a FUD-romney apologist or totally in denial.

It's highly plausible that he's only "paid" his legally minimum share of taxes once he started his campaign so he could release a few obligatory tax returns but didn't pay any taxes prior to his deciding to run and now can't afford to produce them.

Zardoz,

What are you blabbering about now? Reid is talking nonsense. He has no clue, just like you have no clue as to what Romney paid or didn't pay. All this speculation gives you loony liberals a drooling session that someone supposedly didn't pay what he was required.

Say...here...this is what I heard about Reid...that he likes to dress up like Lil Bo Peep and do naughty things to farm animals... You see??

Reid is not going to get to skate from his libelous statements about Romney as easy as he got away from his 2008 remarks about Obama being successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

There's an easy way to put Reid on the bench for the remainder of the campaign...Romney can just release his tax records as other Presidential candidates have and the whole thing is done.

That or there's something to it and Romney's the one who looks bad.

An apt description of Mitt. Thanks dogs80!

yeah, the conservatives are really on the high ground with their policy platform (i mean for real, WTF are they smoking, and why don't they share? oh, thats right. sharing is communism. my bad...). nothing like voter suppression mixed with laws restricting women's right to choose sprinkling in a budget that would tear down the social safety net in order to give big business and those at the top an even bigger tax break in order to destroy programs that have worked for over 70 years, plus laws that would restrict non-christian religious law while trying to turn a secular nation into the united states of christianity. Gotta love that conservative high ground.

Facts are, politics are in the mud because no one is working for common sense compromising solutions to the problems we face (and as an independent i blame the conservatives more for this because they publicly state, "Compromise should be the democrats coming over to our positions"). It is nothing but empty rhetoric and dogmatic adherence to platforms that have been proven to be utter failures. But hey, at least the internet is here for everyone to get their hate speech hard ons and vitriolic monologues out...

Yeah, and the first Mr. Romney ad ran against the President was factual and in context right? You Romney supporters sure have a short memory don't ya. Mr. Romney's campaign started this s$#@ storm of negativity and now you all want to complain because the Presidents campaign has decided to fight fire with fire?

@dogs80: Funny how you non-libs love to use the "whine" word in its many variations when posting your defense of Mr. Romney; but who's been the real whiner since the GOP primary (clown show) ended? Your party's representative response to everyone who is requesting to see pre-2010 tax returns is, "I don't want to give the Democrats more data to twist, distort and exploit." HUH? That passes for a legitimate reason in your world? As you non-Libs like to say, "What about personal responsibility?" If Mr. Romney is the head of the "Party of Personal Responsibility" then he shouldn't have any fear of what some "ole mean Democrat" would do with his/their tax information. If Mr. Romney is "so proud of his private business experience and personal success" then why is he afraid of those "mean ole Democrats" attacking how much he did/didn't pay in income taxes; even if it was $0.00 for some years because of his loss on investments. After all in Mr. Romney's own words "I paid every dollar in taxes that was LEGALLY REQUIRED under the tax laws and not one penny more." If that's true then what could he possibly be afraid of the "mean ole-Democrats" saying, twisting, distorting, etc.

Seems to me you non-Libs are simply giving Mr. Romney a PASS for one reason and one reason only; you non-Libs have such a severe case of ODS that you'd rather vote a turd sandwich into office rather than re-elect the current President.

Really, who are the whiners in this election cycle? Non-Libs (Better known as Republicans/Tea Partiers).

Ole Ronnie loved his teleprompter too!

Democrats consider taking the high ground as simply not being accountable for or outright ignoring anything negative that they have done, said or promised in the past. Plausible deniability at it's best...LOL.

Truth - if you actually want to tell the truth you will acknowledge what you posted is exactly what the GOP does - but of course the truth isn't what you're about.

Obama/Biden 2012

I am tired of the negative from both sides. Both sides have several negatives. How about the positives? I have been trying to focus on what each side is saying. What I hear from Obama is that we cannot be anything without him and his government. Romney is not much better but I have heard him say he believes that government is not the answer to everything. The left seems hell bent on creating more class envey. All you people who think that rich people should pay more should ask if that will make your life better. The answer is no. It will make the rich more like the poor but it will not help the poor get more rich. They will still not get anything more than what is necessary to survive. I do not want more poor people. I want more rich people. We need people to get out and create more. We need at least 10 more companies like Apple, Microsoft, and any more of the big names you want to put in here.

SeekingSanity. I never said the GOP didn't. I am completely about the Truth, be it GOP or Democrat! Actually, the GOP tried taking the high ground in 2008 with a weak candidate in McCain and lost badly as a result. Normally though, I don't believe Democrats or Republicans take the high ground in politics and for a Democrat supporter, such as Feisty Redhead, to claim the Democrats can or do is an outright blatant lie. Don't you agree?

Neither party takes the high road but I will say President Obama did until the GOP and their PACS went on a relentlessly negative campaign. Let's truly be honest - after the swiftboating of John Kerry - which Karl Rove directed - every candidate in the Democratic party has to be on defense.

If you want to lay the blame anywhere - it has to be on the right. When you call on Karl Rove to participate - you've already taken the low road.

I personally think that Romney does not want to show America his tax returns because then we will all find out that he has a love child in Utah(think Olympics!) or Massachusetts(he was Governor) and is paying child support. Ann, being the dutiful Mormon wife, stands by his side as what else would a married and kept socialite in her social position do? Her vengeance is staying married to him so that all that delicious money stays within her sights.

Just like a true lefty. Make a baseless accusation weather it is true or not. Why not show us your tax returns to see if you dotted all your I's and crossed all your T's according to our cristal clear tax code. All releasing more tax returns will do is give us more baseless things to fight over. Lets look ahead to the future. What will each man do for the future of America?

rgmoon- why can't Romney meet the standard and release his tax returns. If it were Obama you'd be throwing a fit! Oh, that's right - you don't give a damn about facts - just your ignorance.

libsux - it has been the standard for all Presidential candidates in our lifetime. If you check you will find all of them have released at least 2 full years - most at least five. It is very easy to find out. Google it.

And, if it isn't an issue, why are many Republican politicians now calling for Romney to come up with his returns? Hmmmmmmm

Romney's father released 10 years when he ran.

My bad - Dad did NOT release 10 years. He released 12 years!

Of course, Romney’s father, George Romney, is famous for having released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968, saying “one year could be a fluke.” As BuzzFeed showed, he paid an effective tax rate of 50 percent — those were days before the Reagan tax cuts.

Courtesy of "the fact checker"

rgmoon: I crystal clearly stated that 'I personally think'. That is a big difference. I am entitled to my opinion and I am also entitled to voice said opinion. I also personally believe that tax returns are a window into the soul of a person. I want to know what type of people the Romney family are, as do millions of other Americans. After all, the man is running for the most important job in the world. If he has nothing to hide........Or does he? I am of the majority who thinks that Romney feels the heat he is catching over not releasing his returns is nothing compared to the sh%@ storm that would happen with what is really in his returns.

libsux - from "outside the beltway"

The common response to the points I’m raising here usually boils down to mentioning the fact that The New Yorker managed to get its hands on George W. Bush’s Yale transcripts during the 2000 campaign. They didn’t get them from the Bush campaign and, technically, whoever released them was violating Federal laws regarding the privacy of education records. Several months later, The Washington Post managed to get its hands on Al Gore’s education records, again without the consent of the campaign and in apparent violation of Federal law.

No President has ever had to release his transcripts - period. Come back when you have an actual argument to anything. Oops! Guess you're gone for good!

As for the tax returns - it is the standard EVERY presidential candidate has done - no one except Mitt has refused. He clearly has something to hide. But, that's not surprising to anyone who can see through the empty suit Mitt!

Obama/Biden 2012

You know there is something that catches my attention. When Romney speaks he always talks in first person, "I" "I""I". When Obama speaks he always says "we" "we". Seems to reflect the vision each one has about you and me.

It's going to be a looonnngggg three months since Oblameo has no accomplishments to run on. Maybe he should promise all of us an above-average income. THAT ought to buy some votes if nothing else does.

That might be why all the Romney ads are attacking the president... no accomplishments for Romney to run for president on... just sayin'...

Of course you have some Neo-Nut Right Wing Drones who post here saying the President has no record to run on. However, we know that President Obama has a GREAT record as President. Heck the President has a better record than Ronald Reagan and that is a fact.

However, we know that these Neo-Nut Conservative types suffer from ODS, and they like Willard Romney are, "DAMN GOOD AT LYING."

Explains Romney's ads.

After the conventions ... Obama's camp will shift ...

DOW up over 6000 or so.

OBL Dead

UE lower then what it was his first full month in office (was 8.4% then, 8.2% now, likely to be lower by Nov).

GM saved.

And Mitt, who barely survived the "not-Romneys" will be running, not as Romney, but as "not-Obama".

Mitt brings nothing to the table .. well, except maybe an unfunded war with Iran based on the Bush doctrine and a WMD scare.

Joe

Dow is inflated with funny money from the fed.

OBL was an ongoing issue, back to clinton's days. Obama just said yay or nay. Big deal.

UE has been over 8% for 40 months.

GM was nothing more than a handout to the unions. Airplanes still fly through managed bankruptcy, cars would have still been made.

Granted I am a ron paul supporter, i would still take Romney over this anti american Obama

brendan ...

When the DOW was falling, the right wing blamed Obama, now that its up, WAY UP, it doesn't matter. If Obama was so bad for business, the DOW could not be up. Same for the S&P.

OBL was Obama's call, he made the call, Bush did not. If a Republican made that call, you'd be helping chissel his face on Mt Rushmore.

UE was 8.4% in Obama's first full month, reached a high of 10.2% (thanks to Bush/GOP policies), and is now moving in the right direction, and is lower than 8.4%, the data doesn't lie.

Good luck calling saving the auto industry a "handout" ... Michigan, Ohio, and other states that need the US auto industry won't be giving Romney ("let Detriot go bankrupt") any credit for that.

And as for Obama being anti-American ... what does that even mean? Are you one of those birthers? Obama not "Anglo-Saxon" enough?

Romney is a clown, and is now threatening yet another unfunded war in the ME. I guess you'll give him a pass on that.

And an article yesterday was talking about
GM having issues again.

Up until December of 2007 the Dow had reached a high of 14,000 points, unemployment was around 5% and gasoline for the most part was under $3.00 per gallon. So what happened in 2007 to change all those positives? Could it be that we got a congress full of democrats who took office in January of 2007.

You liberals complain about how much the republicns filibustered during the Obama administration, why didn't you complain about how much the democrats filibustered during the Bush administration. Just think, if they had allowed the republicans to regulate the derivatives market and the sub prime industry we would not be having this conversation now.

Who filibustered what?

I think the stock market is up only because it thinks the government is behind it. It is too big to fail. I think they need to have a bit of reality. What do you think?

rgmoon - you truly don't have a clue about much do you? The stock market responds to buys and sells of it's stock. Period.

President Obama has many accomplishments to stand on. If you were brave enough and really wanted to understand the candidates then you would be objective and go in search to credible sources to see exactly what the President has done. The difference here is that the President doesn't need to come out everyday and toot his own horn.

Rick-312.... the filibuster has been used more by the GOP against Obama's policies than any time in the history of the county. But, I guess that's okay with you?

It's OK by me. Filibusters serve a purpose. These happened to save the public from some of Obama's mistakes. Too bad we couldn't stop his executive orders too.

Hard to blame a president for the countries troubles when you block everything he tries to improve the country. Also hard to explain how a party that signs a pledge required by a corporate lobbyist is representing their party and not corporations.

Larry - I know this may be a novel thought. But if Obama can't get the job done, perhaps he is ineffective as a leader and needs to step down or be replaced.

If Obama has so many issues to stand on why did he break another campaign promise and resort to negative ads? Answer is simple. He doesn't have anything positive to run on. Instead he's trying to scare people and strike fear with flat out lies about Romney. We don't know what Romney will do as president, but we do know what Obama is capable of. And anyone who likes their tax deductions must vote against Obama and his capacity to throw away tax payer money to his cronies.

you do realize that the largest increase in government came under 43, right? creating the whole department of homeland security was the biggest jump in governmental scope and size in my lifetime.

Obama hasn't increased the size, scope, or breadth of government in this country a fraction of what his predecessor did. but don't let those facts get in the way of your ideology...

Same ole Right wing talking point that is devoid of the facts at hand. The size of government has shrunk under this administration. Even without looking at the FACTS as published by both government and non-government sources anyone with common sense would know that to be the fact. Look at how many PEOPLE have lost their government jobs thanks to the insistence of the GOP/TP and their desire to rid our country of public sector unions, etc.

You don't loose 600,000 government sector jobs and expand the scope and size of government at the same time. Well, maybe in the GOP/TP world that is true but people who aren't living with Alice in Wonderland already understand that the GOP/TP supporters aren't realist anyway.

Tzalaran

you do realize that the largest increase in government came under 43, right? creating the whole department of homeland security was the biggest jump in governmental scope and size in my lifetime.

Obama hasn't increased the size, scope, or breadth of government in this country a fraction of what his predecessor did. but don't let those facts get in the way of your ideology...

Maybe you forgot about the cause of the inception of "homeland security." That event was devastating to the economy. Too bad you libs won't allow us to go after the real root of terrorism in this country. It would be a lot less expensive and less intrusive to the US citizenry.

Colorado - oh please enlighten us. What is the real root of terrorism in this country? I can't wait to hear your idiocy on this one!

Obama/Biden 2012

ahhh, the standard deflect, blame and shame response. it is all your enemies fault, and call the other a lib and all the sudden you are so much better than them. speak in vague statements and claim how much better your way would be. rofl. what a joke.

The facts are what i stated, and you can't straw man or red herring your way out of it (not that a conservative would make a logically cogent argument in the first place, but they would have more credibility if they did, and maybe i wouldn't have been forced to become a recovering conservative).

Just in case anyone wants to look at the numbers.

www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

Colorado - still waiting!

@lulu98.

Those numbers do not include Federal Contractors which have exploded to an estimated 7 to 7.5 million people.

and the source...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45135375/ns/politics/t/federal-hiring-proves-be-recession-proof/#.UBg3_KCQP44

Somebody isn't doing their homework. Pay attention to what is going on and you would see that the current housing market is up and rising. Nothing negative about up and rising is there?

Oh my - Colorado has disappeared! Not the state - just the useless poster!

Wow, I think you left out "poopy-head" in your detailed analysis.

You might want to check the dryer, I think your sheets are done.

JoePhilly - I'm sure he has several sets since my guess is that's all Jody-159 wears!

I'm still waiting to see one positive ad from Romney. Hasn't happened yet. Anyone have a link to one?

Believe In Our Future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hFEL1-bO2M&feature=player_embedded

In America: Anything Is Possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz3XgYLqCjg&feature=relmfu

Johnny B-1876520

If I was a liberal I would question your intelligence on that post and to prove my point I would be especially of your usage of the English language.

Well, if that isn't calling the kettle black. Please reread your post and then get back to us.

The GOP is the party of exclusion, not inclusion. They have offended and/or alienated women, minorities, union workers, moderates, and seniors. That is not a strategy for winning elections and consequently Romney is falling further and further behind as November draws nearer. When the election is over and President Obama is reelected it will be amusing to hear the right wing lunatic fringe blame everyone but themselves for Romney's dismal showing.

DOW up 6000

GM ALive

OBL DEAD

Nope, nothing to run on. LOL.

Willard Mitt-Wit Romney is a very dangerous man. Let's remember 60% of his foreign policy advisors worked for Dick the war monger Cheney. But of course you have some Neo-Nut Right Wing Drones who post here saying the President has no record to run on. However, we know that President Obama has a GREAT record as President. Heck the President has a better record than Ronald Reagan and that is a fact.

However, we know that these Neo-Nut Conservative types suffer from ODS, and they like Willard Romney are, "DAMN GOOD AT LYING."

Yep, GM is alive JoePhilly.

And shipping over 15,000 jobs to China by next year. And the left wing nut jobs claim Romney outsources.....look at your boy & his auto company. The final nail in the coffin for Detroit!!

Hey Detroit.....hope you're happy with the bed you made voting for this loser. Enjoy the CHANGE!!!

You must be listening to one of those channels where nothing good (or truthful) is said about our President. "Your ignorance does not our alternate reality make"...to paraphrase the classic office mug. Johnson, Carter, Cllinton and Obama have revolutionized our Culture while you R's have found back with NO, NO, NO.

Historically this will be obvious...civil rights, energy policy, thriving business climate, universal healthcare. When was the last time a modern R president did anything useful for the 99%?

libsux - and you're a total moron. Bush said point blank - Osama is not a priority. Cheney said getting him was not important.

Amazingly we have a President that said - from day one - getting Osama was his top priority. And, he gave the order knowing it could easily backfire on him.

In November we will be saying goodbye to Mitt - hopefully this time it's for good! He's kind of the perpetual candidate!

Obama/Biden 2012

I bet you would become totally unglued if libsux were to call YOU a "total moron".

Intelligence gathered via waterboarding before Obama took office gave the clue eventually leading to Obama's whereabouts. The Navy Seals got Bin Laden and their reward was a security leak of their identities courtesy of this administration.

Ok, so even though a lot of you GOP guys toss out this thing Obama hasn't done anything. But any reasonable person says "well actually he has done a lot of things and it is obvious because you are mad about it". So, answer me this: What has Mitt done for the last 5 years? After all he has been unemployed and had lots of time to do something. He has plenty of money, he has plenty of connections, but what has he done? Just help me through this one, I can't find anything he has accomplished.

What has Mittens done for the last 5 years? He's run for President.

In spite of all evidence that's all he's done Willard and Ann continue to tell a bogus story that not much over a year ago they jointly decided he "had to" do it "for the good of America." Good thing he "had to" do what he was already doing...

Good thing the guy was born on to wealth, otherwise he wouldn't make a good door to door salesman.

Did you just call JDL an idiot ? Is that a violation of the Code of Honor for this website ??

jim-1455434

Did you just call JDL an idiot ? Is that a violation of the Code of Honor for this website ??

Grey area. First Read is not policed like other newsvine sites, or the nbcnews.com site. The moderators tend to let the vitrolic messages flow here... might be a better discussion forum if the trolls were put under the bridges where they belong...

newsvine moderators will not go after the liberal's who violate the rules, only the ones they don't agree with.

@ dadoftim:I call BS on you! I am a Democrat and I have been suspended from this site a couple of times for inappropriate sparring. I don't understand why people such as yourself find this site to be less then adequate, yet here many of you are day after day. How come you don't go to a news outlet more to your liking and one that you feel is more conservative based? I am sincerely curious to hear your perspective.

Alaska Girl - libsux has no perspective - just her usual insults and lies that she posts. She has nothing to say about the far right posters who can be the nastiest around but will attack anyone who doesn't agree with her lies and misstatements.

We all know not to expect much in the way of facts or ideas from her. You have to remember, she is a Romney supporter, so you can't expect anything of substance from her.

Well, thanks for the hypocrisy. I asked you quite sincerely for your thoughts and what did you do? You blatantly made derogatory remarks about me. I have never alluded that I have all the answers to the world's ills and neither have many other Democrats on here. But, hey, you seem to be only here for the laughter instead of anything substantive. And, before you go derogatory on that, I do alot of researching and fact checking and many of the comments on here are based in fact.

AlaskaGirl - that's what I mean. The far right posters attack then complain about anyone who attacks back. You've made good points and it's great to have you on the site.

Thanks, Seek. Man, some of these people are completely impossible. It truly amazes me that when faced with clear cut facts they continue to believe the falsehoods that they are told when they tune into Lush and Fuxed Up News.

Obama/Biden 2012
4more4 44!

Code of honor? On a lefty web site?

OXYMORON: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

all all of his accomplishments have done what for the economy....the only idiots that see Obama as a benefit are the one that recieve benefits...i am so glad the rest of us work harder so the millions more he has put on benefits don't have too!!!!

Looks like the Stocks jumped because they thought they thought thr Fed was giving out more money. Now it is dropping cause they don't know if it will happen.

SHUTUPLIBS

all all of his accomplishments have done what for the economy....the only idiots that see Obama as a benefit are the one that recieve benefits...i am so glad the rest of us work harder so the millions more he has put on benefits don't have too!!!!

hmmmm. From what i remember, we were heading to depression when Mr. Obama was elected, and we pulled out fo the depression into a recession. right now the biggest drag on the economy is Europe's slowdown/debt crisis, and i don't recall that the president was elected to govern there... Might not be the recovery we saw after WWII, but under the climate of the time that is to be expected.

Your last comments are so utterly foolish it is pathetic. i was turned down for unemployment benefits after getting discharged from my last job, have always been denied govt assistance anytime my family has applied for it, and still see the benefit of having Obama as our president over some conservative hack who has no clue what true governance is. After all, according to conservative supreme leader norquist, all a conservative president needs is a warm body to sign tax cuts and pro-christian agenda legislation...

spare me your pity party about having to work so hard... i've been busting my a$$ for over 20 years in the workforce and never gave one negative thought to those less fortunate than i. That is because i view the measure of a society not by the excesses of the wealthy, or the lifestyles of the rich and famous that live there, but by how the lowest member of a society is treated. by this measure, America doesn't live up to her potential by a long shot...

SayitaintSo-628660

OK. how about "Its the economy stupid". Would it make you feel better if we use that?

Rick-312779

Use whatever you want, I could care less. Just be sure to be truthful about who and what has the most impact upon economic policy and therefore the economy.

Hint for you: President's don't write laws, they simply sign the ones that Congress passes.

Hint #2: From the mouth of Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” that's from your party's highest ranking person in the Senate (part of Congress ya know). Seems he's more interested in defeating the President than moving the country forward for all Americans, like he was elected to the Senate to do.

And if you are so against President Obama why do you have his picture as your avatar? Oh, I should have looked closer, you show him holding a basketball. That's your idea of some sort of "slam" I take it.

Move along folks. Nothing here to see. Rick-312779 is just another ODS victim who believes in the ABO doctrine, you know the party that gave us GWB x 2.

SayitaintSo-628660

Rick-312779

Use whatever you want, I could care less. Just be sure to be truthful about who and what has the most impact upon economic policy and therefore the economy.

Hint for you: President's don't write laws, they simply sign the ones that Congress passes.

The president can not sign the law and just let it die sitting on his desk. And you are wrong, the president's staff can and do write laws but get a congressman to sponsor it. They can call in favours and make deals to help a bill become law.

And McConnell made that statement on October 29, 2010 after Obama and the democrats crammed Obamacare down our throats when they should have been dealing with unemployment. But you liberals don't seem to be intelligent enough to realize that there are some politicians that would feel that Obama's reckless spending is bad for our country.

SayitaintSo-628660

And another thing, it is you liberals that aren't truthful about the economy.

So, what law has President Obama not signed that would support your "It's the economy stupid" response?

Your response is nothing more than a deflection from the subject at hand, and a lame attempt to justify Senator McConnell's "treasonous" attitude towards the President.

As to your claim regarding lack of intelligence, get back to me when you can stay on the subject at hand and carry a coherent and substantive conversation on the subject which is the President's supposed lack of accomplishments.

The FACTs are that since the Republicans retook the House in 2010 they have worked less legislative days than any of their previous representatives and passed less legislation than any previous House. They have yet to address their rallying cry from 2009, you remember the one where they asked "Where are the jobs?". Now the American people have seen the Republican party for the obstructionist that they are.

Get back to me when you can back up your accusations that the slow economy is solely the fault of Democrats and the President. Till then I'll simply count you as one of the ODS crowd who'd rather elect a flake like Mr. Romney than give the President's ideas an honest try.

You are AWESOME!!! Great post! I love to read a post that is so grammatically pleasing and I don't have to try and decipher it due to rotten spelling, sentences that are so ill constructed. And people in this country wonder why Democrats care so much about education..........because there are a bunch of people on this site that could really use some.

Obama/Biden 2012

SayitaintSo - also, President Obama has, on more than one occasion proposed giving tax breaks to companies that bring jobs back to the US only to have that blocked by the obstructionist GOP.

They are so against this President that they don't care about what is good for the country.

Obama/Biden 2012

Alaska Girl,

You are so right! Doesn't it just drive you crazy when Feisty writes "should of" and "could of"? It's a tip-off that the rest of her post is uneducated nonsense.

What are you, 10? "I know you are but what am I!" You win, hands down, for the most immature and childish comment of the day. Thanks for the chuckle. "You people" never cease to amaze.

And JFK-2112 just proved the point of my previous post (#15). Boy, you members of the anti-Obama/Republican/TP crowd are soooooo predictable.

If Obama wins,who is he gonna blame for the next 4 yrs?

If Obama wins .... boy will he INHERIT A MESS ! The guy elected in 2008 has run up the national debt, has never had a budget, filed lawsuits against a bunch of states for trying to protect their borders and voter registrations from illegals ........ oh wait, Obama would have to blame Obama for making an even bigger mess of what he started with ! OOPS !! Nobody to blame but himself !!!!!!

jim-1455434

Oh you're sooooo funny. Too bad you are devoid of facts but then again what should one expect of today's Republican supporters.

FACTS, Republicans don't need no stinkin' facts when it is so much easier to just keep repeating the same ole' LIE over, and over, and over.

This man is so dishonest it makes me sick, whenever he opens his mouth nonsense and lies come out. I’m also getting tired of switching channels every time one his creepy and dishonest TV ads come on

Gee, who could we possibly be talking about here? Could it possibly be Oblameo? He doesn't even have to open his mouth to ooze lies! If you have no record on which to run, you run on a platform of negativity, smoke screens, mirrors, misdirections.....

Bob, Obama is not dishonest, that was Bush he lied to the American people all the time. the biggest lie being Weapons of mass destruction a lie, he knew this very well but since he would not go after Bin Laden because of his love for the saudi's, he had to make the American people think he was doing something against terror so he decided on Iraq, oh the secrets that Colin Powell must hold.

Are these lies too?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan 23, 2003

in your opinion ctviking, and that's ok so you prefer Romney over Obama. So what, I prefer Obama over Romney. I'm no flip flopper, amen.

that is a funny one, jim 1455434, cause if Obama follows suit and does the same with Romney, I sure Romney will look twice the fool. Cause since Romney has been campaigning there isn't many times he hasn't contradicted himself, I'll say about 99.9% of the time....lol he's a flip flopper.

lu, You get an "F" in originality.

Obama as Senator criticized Bush for running up the national debt ... only to do more of the debt ceiling raising.

Obama as Senator declared the United States should never enter a war where our national security interests were not at risk ..... without Congressional approval. Obama attacked Libya without approval.

Obama said he would close Gitmo .... only, he has not.

Obama said he would cut the national deficit in half ..... hell, he has run it up faster and higher in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8.

Obama supported traditional marriage before he flipped his position to support gay marriage.

Obama said it was a mistake to raise taxes while our country is in a recession ..... only he now wants to raise taxes while the economy still sux.

Obama talked about the Stimulus and all the "shovel-ready" jobs .... which he later admitted were not !

Obama promised health care debates would be openly televised on C-spsan .... actually behind closed doors !

Obama took the oath of office to uphold the existing laws of our country .... only to later decide the U.S. would NOT enforce part of existing immigration law, as per his executive order !

Obama is "beyond" a flip-flopper ... he could be the POSTER BOY FOR WAFFLE HOUSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no one is trying to be original, I'm not trying to get an "A" for originality, I'm not in school. No matter what you say Obama will win, he will win, what America stands for will not be lost. And Romney is the billboad face for billionaires wanting your hard earned money.

oh and one other thing, get real, since when have other presidents been able to keep their promises, both parties. Surely you don't think Bush ever did or that he never lied to Americans, first of all started a unlawful war based on made up facts and distortions, why do you think Colin Powell left. I could be here all day with lies upon lies from that little man. He also said he didn't care were Bin Laden was. He was an out of control teen and young adult and right up to and during his Presidency.

Lulu, ".. a unlawful war based on made up facts and distortions" ? Do you mean the "weapons of mass destruction" thingy ??

Oh, you DO REALIZE the wars were approved by Congress, don't you ? The votes incuded votes "FOR" by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. I guess since Congress approved of going to war .... then it really was not "illegal" as you claim. Care to explain ?

Keep repeating that Bush didn't care where OSB was. It makes you sound like a fool.

Just because Bush didn't leak secret information to make himself look better doesn't mean that there wasn't a plan being carried out. He was also gracious enough to let Obama take the credit, when they both knew the ground work for the capture was begun years before Obama was sworn in.

oh my goodness I laughed so hard my stomach hurts, thanks for the laugh but go take your meds, your brain is not functioning correctly. Bush gracious, not in yours, his, or my life time, since day 1 of Obama's presidency he started a campaign to get Bin Laden, Bush said it he was not interested in getting Bin Laden, he said it do you think he was lying or maybe he had a drink to much or a line (of the white power) and was not in his right mind, but then again when is or was he.

You righties are on a mission, one that is set for disaster and failure. And by your posts I know you all know it, but keep trying that's all you can do.

lu - it's all the righties have - lies and distortions. They know they are backing a moral failure of epic proportions but they can't help themselves. It's why the GOP is becoming the party of old white men and far right nuts - nothing more. The moderates and sensible people are leaving the party.

Obama/Biden 2012

When one is morally corrupt, one doesn't know the difference. That is today's Republican Party, which is really sad because there was a time when both parties were able to come together for the good of the people and this country. Now, the only thing the Republicans stand for is Mitch McConnell's oath to get Obama out of office at any cost.

Obama/Biden 2012 FORWARD!

4more4 44!

Another foolish statement.

When in the history of this country has a party lost an election and sat back for 8 years enjoying the opposition in power? Is that what you'll do if Romney wins? You won't be counting the days until you can reclaim the white house? You'll pass every law the Republicans propose and won't filibuster anything?

Do you even listen to yourselves repeating ridiculous talking points?

The election is Obama's to lose and he doesn't really have much with which to win beyond his personality and that can quickly become a negative for independents who are not interested in being lectured to or talked down to.

Excellent summary. In a nutshell, that is what will determine the election.

Especially when being talked down to is alternated with whining and crying and blaming.

so clinton's failing to take out Bin Laden is Bush's fault. your logic is dumfounded. democratic dumfounded. they both go hand in hand.

We were also attacked during Carter's term and Clinton's term, why don't we talk about that for a change?

The Repubs are just mad now that the Demos are FINALLY wising up and doing what needs to be done to win.

There is no pleasant way to introduce unpleasant facts about candidates. We all know Politicians would never divulge that information intentionally. Why do you think Obama severed his friendship with his pastor and keeps his school transcripts locked up?

Unfortunately in politics full facts aren't always used by either of the parties. In hindsight, the Repubs paid the price for playing "clean" in 2008 when McCain refused to talk about Obama's past or lack of experience. That in part helped nail shut his chances to win, in addition to picking an ill-prepared Palin. You can bet the Repubs will take the gloves off this round, and Obama will have to too since he has little to show for since 2008.

Truth - funny name for someone who lies as much as you do. President Obama has NEVER kept his college transcripts locked up. All college transcripts are confidential as yours will be if you ever go to college. McCain picked a moron to run with - over Mitt since she was better than Mitt - ouch!

The common response to the points I’m raising here usually boils down to mentioning the fact that The New Yorker managed to get its hands on George W. Bush’s Yale transcripts during the 2000 campaign. They didn’t get them from the Bush campaign and, technically, whoever released them was violating Federal laws regarding the privacy of education records. Several months later, The Washington Post managed to get its hands on Al Gore’s education records, again without the consent of the campaign and in apparent violation of Federal law. From Outside the Beltway

Now try to do something besides post the lies you continue to post. Oh, that's right - it's all you've got!

Rural Washington: Your comment is one of the very best I have read today!

But, SeekingSanity, what is really sad is that these people continue to believe such crap and nothing to the contrary will sway them. Present them with solid black and white proof and they will continually deny its authenticity. The new breed of Republican is wacky and divine intervention help us all if we can't right this ship!