Is anything his fault?
 

This president hasn't allowed the buck to stop here or anywhere near since he's taken office. Who are they kidding and what exactly are they trying to communicate with this latest ad about Joe Soptic? Is something other than Obama's dismal economy to blame for Joe losing his job and is something other than an injury to blame for his wife losing hers?... and what does any of it have to do with her dying from cancer when she was diagnosed at stage 4. There was nothing they could do for her. Insurance wouldn't have saved her anyway and the fact is that she didn't have health insurance on Obama's watch anyway.

Are these Obama people stupid or are they just smart enough to know that it is only the stupid who they can get to vote for Obama with such an outrageous campaign that hasn't yet produced reason one why anyone should actually cast a vote for Obama and/or his continued running of the country?


... and some of you wonder why I call Obama supporting liberals stupid.

C'mon now Mezz. I wouldn't call you stupid. Blind maybe. Misinformed. Radical. Perhaps just dishonest, because you know that there are significant achievements that the Obama administration is responsible for. And there will probably be more when the tea party members are sent back to their day jobs.

Regards,

D-Ray

Time minus 32 months and counting.

So, it is still better than being an opinionated blockhed.:p

I don't wonder; I know it's becasue you believe the fabricated "reality" of the right and get some charge out of parroting their soundbites.

The right wing and Tea Party has hurled lies at Obama since he was elected; birtherism is blatantly racist code, a euphemism for words I do not want to even bring up here.
And your upset when his campaign supporters push back?

Don't forget "The food stamp president" "Kenyan anti-colonial s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m." The emphasis on Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Lots of fixation on his "otherness."

Regards,

D-Ray

Who in the hell is Joe Soptic? It's not that imbecile from Toledo is it?

It is a super PAC ad, Obama has nothing to do with the ad.

Do you whine as much when the GOP puts out false, misleading ads that consist of down right lies.

The GOP pioneered negative ads. Remember Willy Horton, the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, and many others. It is about time the Dems fought fire with fire.

The latest lie making the GOP smear circuit today, that is being parroted by Mittens himself, is that Obama is trying to keep the military from early voting in Ohio. Nice try but no cigar. The lawsuit filed is to reinstate voting up until the weekend before the election for all Ohio citizens just like the last election.

The Republican voter suppression campaign limited Ohio residents early voting rights last year. Obama's justice department filed a law suit to extend everybody's early voting rights to three days before the election.

Does that make you mad mezz that Republicans would distort the facts to make Obama look bad. No, I did not think so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ing/56859922/1

Here is Willard:

https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/...50981967501121

More lies:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ilitary-voting

More proof:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/military.asp

The buck stops here. Defend this crap.

Was there actually a question somewhere in that right wing blog-o-sphere drivel?
Still voting for President Obama, by the way. I think a third term would be great step forward.
Your guy wants to take us right back to the Gilded Age.

It doesn't even take a very big man/woman to admit these days that Obama, whom they may even have voted for, has basically been a big disappointment and a colossal failure. I know many who are now doing exactly that. He's easily the sleaziest president to sit during my lifetime (which unlike some of you old guys reaches back only into the sixties). Even Dick Nixon had more class... and Carter although largely hopelessly detached from practical reality would at least tell the truth on occassion. Obama's no leader, he doesn't understand what makes this country great and the American people have been given no reason whatsoever to trust him and plenty of reasons not to.

He's really a leader for the stupid. He knows it and he counts on it.


There was no tea party when Obama was elected. The tea party grew out of a reaction to an arrogant, out-of-touch president who failed to lead.

Call these people whatever you like, but there are a lot of marginally interested, naive, easily fooled, and plain stupid people in America. Always has been, always will be. And of course the ones who most obviously and openly think themselves intellectually superior, while generally revered as such by the left, might be clever in some ways, but in the big picture are almost always going to weigh down on the stupid end of the scale because they lack any true wisdom.

It takes a leader of the stupid to get them all in the same line or behind the same cause. That cause in 2012 is Obama's presidency. If you can't see the disaster by now, you can be pretty sure you're a part of it.

I know this will even make some of you proud.

Some of us still see the good and the strength in the USA and understand and believe in what is has traditionally stood for. Some of us understand how our economic system works and how it can reward those who work hard and work smart. Some of us are acutely aware of the clusterfuck that is Europe and much of the rest of the world and the corruption that it fosters and are proud that the US is different. Some of us see clearly the obvious shortcomings of the half baked ideas and the knee jerk reactionary crusades which gather under the umbrella that is modern liberalism.

Some of us will be voting for Mitt Romney.

Some of you are dolts.

Take a bow.

And, right here is another post, by a right-winger that is entirely insulting, condescending and profane.

Where is Whell when we need him?

Dave

Hey Mezz, Since you get it completely, please break down the U.S. economy for me and what exactly (not in general) you'd do to "fix" it.

I'm not the biggest Obama supporter out there but I'm also seeing clearly that a vote for Romney is a fast tract to Oligarchy.

The question is plain and straight forward and the stage is yours........

Just a Clusterfucker...:rolleyes: mitt nuts..

Mezz, you give fools a bad name.

John

The best thing the American people could do for the US economy is elect someone with a better resume this time than "community organizer".

That's a great statement for you to make if you feel that way.

Do you plan on enlightening me on the Economy and the specific fixes you'd make happen?

Well okay, then! All fixed! That was simple!

Lamebrain!

John

You can't provide a better discussion of economic theory than that, and you label Obama supporters stupid. Do you have any original thoughts? Tell us what Obama has done wrong with respect to the economy, and why. Tell us what you think Mitt will do to improve the economy. Do you think Mitt will reduce the national debt by cutting taxes? What is you understanding? Do you have more than slogans?

Regards,

D-Ray

They'll be voting for Romney (and losing). :rolleyes:

I've held off posting until now. I get it, mezz: stupid, failed leader, tanked the economy all by himself; I get it. Now I pose two questions to you:

1) What specifically was it that Obama did that was stupid, demonstrated his failed leadership and tanked the economy? Specifics please to each.

2) What specifically would you have done were you president to turn the eoconomy around in January 2009 given what was handed to you? Again, specifics please.

And make no mistake; I'm nobody's liberal.

Beej you surely do not expect a sensible, honesst answer from the mouth that roared do you?

Who cares what I would have done in 2009. Clearly what Obama has done didn't work. Obama in fact did very little which was designed to help or stabilize the economy. Our economic troubles are still seen by him as an inconvenience. His solution is to throw some money at it in hopes it will go away so he can continue with his social agenda (which characteristically explodes the size of government and astronomically increases debt while at the same stifling economic activity by increasing taxes and handcuffing businesses in other ways like limiting pipeline production and oil drilling). Obama's level of committment to the economy is demonstrated quite effectively by his ongoing refusal to accept any responsiblity (blame it on Bush) which he thinks frees him up from having to take on the challenge of making improvements. Might have worked in 2008, but it's only going to fly with the stupid in 2012.


What matters is what is going to happen in 2012-2016.

Obama's economic plan going forward of course needs to be taken with a grain of salt because he's got a record to examine. So he can make up a script of what he's going to do to pander to the voters, but he cannot escape the fact that people who choose to open their eyes can't help but see the reality of what he's actually been doing for the last three years. If he's got a bunch of sudden improvements he's promising to implement now then why hasn't he been doing these things already.


Even if one were to foolishly give Obama the benefit of the doubt here for the sake of humor and assume a clean slate, comparing Romney's and Obama's plans show Obama's plans to be typically vague, filled with a lot of defensiveness and blame deflection, trying to turn bad economic numbers into good and even misleading about what he's actually done (for example he tries to imply that his auto bailouts helped Ford), while Romney's plans by default are going to sound like a breath of fresh air (which they are), they are also detailed and organized and while there are some instances of pointing out where Obama and Romney differ and why Romney doesn't agree with Obama's positions and how Obama has failed, but there is no petty blame game in Romney's plans.


Taxes:
http://www.barackobama.com/record/ta...ce=primary-nav
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Jobs and Growth:
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
http://www.barackobama.com/record/ec...ce=primary-nav

Energy (this one's embarrassing for Obama):
http://www.barackobama.com/record/en...ce=primary-nav
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

Spending:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
(Obama doesn't address this - what can he say really. He's been an unmitigated disaster on spending... far far worse than even any of your wives - and don't tell me liberals wives don't like to spend).

Trade:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade
(Obama doesn't really offer up easy-to-find information on this either. I think there was a sentence about trade buried in his blurb about taxes or jobs in one of the links above. Apparently he's not too concerned with trade).

Regulation:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation
(Obama's awol on this one too).

Social Security:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/social-security
(Obama: Not a mention. Obama plans to reduce the average life expectancy by implementing mediocre and substandard healthcare universally and with less people living longer the funding requirements for SS will be reduced).

I see. So you have no idea what you would have done only that you know that what Obama did was wrong. Lack of specificity noted. Lack of an operational response noted.

And not content to simply spew you have to attack other people's wives? Now that was an eye-opener.

Don't say I did not warn you.:)

Yeah, that was pretty embarrassing for old Mezz.

He's intellectually floundering like a drowning man about to go down for the third time.

Propaganda artists always fail to understand that screaming louder doesn't make it any more true.

How's this for a lie. From Romney's tax page:

"However, the reality is that before President Obama exploded the size of the federal government, our existing tax rates were more or less adequate to pay for the government we needed."

Having increasing deficits during each of the eight years of Dub shows that our tax rates were adequate?

By the way my wife is not a big spender. If she is extravagant in anything it is in what she gives to others.

Regards,

D-Ray

Heh-heh-heh!

http://bcove.me/t7ccojpc

John

The Romney claim about tax rate adequacy is not only flat out wrong it is outrageously so. The Clinton tax rates were adequate clearly and Bush II blew 'em up.

My wife is also an Independent and a moderate. Her approach to spending is similar to your wife's. She rarely buys for herself.

I guess we could count the times Romney has told the truth on the fingers of one finger. Chaps I do not feel any need to defend Florence to anyone.

And I don't blame you, sir.

The Obama campaign has now been caught lying on this by saying they knew nothing about the contents of this ad and were ignorant of the details of Joe Soptic's life when it has just come out that Soptic told essentially the same story already on a recorded Obama Campaign phone call back in May.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...195237581.html

More floundering and backtracking to come...

This is the excerpt of Soptic's conversation with the Obama campaign, straight from the blog you linked to:

"After we lost our jobs, we found out that we were going to lose our health insurance, and that our pensions hadn't been funded like Bain promised they would be. I was lucky to find another job as a custodian in a local school district. They gave me some health insurance, but I couldn't afford to buy it for my wife. A little while later she was diagnosed with lung cancer. I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn't have health care, and when the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill. That put a lot of stress on me: I thought I'd be paying it off until I died myself. That probably wouldn't have happened if Bain kept its promise and I was allowed to keep our health insurance."

It contains no reference to his wife's insurance coverage. That was mentioned to CNN later.

This is what the campaign said:

"I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance."

So, where's the problem, mess? (sic)

When you find out that the campaign knew about the Priorities USA ad in advance and approved it in advance, get back to us, okay?

John

You're kidding, right? Whaddya think I am some kind of dim witted Obama supporter? You reprinted the quote right in the same post where you denied what it said. It's all about his health insurance and his wife's lack of it:

"After we lost our jobs, we found out that we were going to lose our health insurance, and that our pensions hadn't been funded like Bain promised they would be. I was lucky to find another job as a custodian in a local school district. They gave me some health insurance, but I couldn't afford to buy it for my wife. A little while later she was diagnosed with lung cancer. I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn't have health care, and when the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill."

So while his health insurance may indeed have been mentioned also on CNN later, it was also mentioned in May in the conference call hosted by Ms. Stephanie "“I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance” Cutter herself.

This is why the Obama campaign is once again bumbling and floundering over this which is just the latest example of Obama himself or his campaign spokespeople blurting out lies before thinking about what they are saying in attempts to cover up their embarrassing level of sleazy and underhanded behaviour. Trying to lie yourself to defend them is just silly.

Even if Soptic's wife had insurance through her job, she could have remained on her husband's policy as well. The fact is that she did not have insurance at the time she took ill, and had Soptic's job at GST not been eliminated, she would have continued to be covered on his policy.

Regards,

D-Ray

No, I think you're some kind of idiot Teabagger.

The issue is his wife's coverage.

"I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn't have health care."

So the government operated county hospital failed to give a minimum standard of care? I'm not seeing how her husband's job loss can remotely be connected to her cancer death.

It is possible (and plausible from Soptic's statements) that he had opted for the individual policy vs. the family coverage, a choice which is offered on a lot of plans. The family coverage premiums can be 3 or 4 times what the individual coverage costs and I believe Soptic claims that he (they) could not afford to have her on his plan.

This works the same in places with universal coverage like in Canada, where only very basic stuff is covered, but a lot of the 'extras' like ambulance service, followup drugs, continued care, extended treatment, private hospital room, etc etc are not covered and the patient needs their own private insurance.

You probably wish.

His wife's coverage (and lack of was mentioned in the quote). Sorry. Please try again.