The Real Barack Obama?

Amerika

I guess this is the week of dueling video/audio in the race for POTUS.

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, then State Senator Barack Obama spoke out against the "propaganda" that said government doesn't work, and that there is a need to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

Hmmm… Isn’t the Redistribution Of Wealth the basic platform of Marxism, and a tenet of Socialism? I sure know it's not Capitalism.

Lookin' like those of us on the other side of the fence might have been right all along.

DB21

Oh my, Amerika, you seem to be taking a leaf from the book of the right leaning media by taking less than a sentence from and Obama speech completely out of context.

The rest of that line is very, very important; "...pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody's got a shot."

Far from socialism I would imagine, as a socialist believes in such a system on EVERY level.

Amused,
DB21

20Cent

He's the worst socialist, Marxist Kenyan Muslim I've ever seen.

Amerika

DB21 wrote: »

The rest of that line is very, very important; "...pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody's got a shot."

Sure looks like that "level" is Income.

And it didn't take long for my side to come out with an ad, showing him to also be a liar... with a December 2011 60 Minutes interview where Obama denied that his policies had anything to do with redistribution at all.

20Cent

So are Romney Ryan proposing no tax for anyone?
Like Romney now?

Benny_Cake

Perhaps Obama was influenced by that notorious extreme leftist, James Madison, who in 1792 called for "the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.".

Duck Soup

This is devastating. A taped open conversation from the last century in which he damningly says:

What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative and thinking what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion, I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody’s got a shot.

He ain't gonna recover from this one.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I guess this is the week of dueling video/audio in the race for POTUS.

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, then State Senator Barack Obama spoke out against the "propaganda" that said government doesn't work, and that there is a need to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

Hmmm… Isn’t the Redistribution Of Wealth the basic platform of Marxism, and a tenet of Socialism? I sure know it's not Capitalism.

Why yes, redistribtuion of wealth is at the core of Socialism. However to say that anyone who believes that wealth should be more evenly distributed is a Socialist is complete nonsense. By your logic anyone who wants to improve society is a Socialist. You simply don't understand what socialism is, that's the real problem.

Lookin' like those of us on the other side of the fence might have been right all along.

Nope, as usual you're wrong.

Be like Nutella

fair play for throwing some digs back : )

But I've found that most politicians on the left in my lifetime from anywhere including France, Spain, certainly the US and Ireland... none of them are true socialists as we were taught in school history. They just don't believe in pure unadulterated capitalism... Obama is the same. In my view, if you believe in pure 'free market no reigns' 'rich deserve to be rich' and 'all will be fine if we just trust the market' capitalism, as if the market itself has any intention on trying to maintain a balanced society, then there's something wrong with your brain because it is not in my view an innately human ideal, you may disagree and think life is dog eat dog end of that's your 'right'.

Extreme positions are rarely supportable... neocons, far right people, extreme far left people... there's a reason why these positions are called 'extreme'... it's because those positions are counter productive to the greater good which although we don't generally, as people, spend our whole time working for - we DO tend to care to some degree for, that's called moderation and that's what most 'lefty' people want - a free market, sure.. but don't trust the market to serve society completely.. it won't... it's not freakin sensient!!
The market allows situations to arise which are counter to the greater good of society sometimes and visa versa and it is in my view one of governments responsibilities to react to negative market forces which produce very negative situations such as massive monopolies and massive divergence of wealth between segments of society... but not in an extreme socialist sort of way although I may be incorrectly labeled so by blinder wearing far rightish people.. but in a moderate and intelligent way that maintains some consideration to the greater good of society.

There never has been pure socialism (each attempt has been corrupt to its core from day one!) OR pure capitalism (because people get pissed off from day one!) and there never will be. They are just ideals and they would never work (as per failed communist experiment if we want to label USSR as that to some degree). You may HATE hand outs but I HATE the 'rich boys club!' that doesn't make you a capitalist pig nor me a pure socialist... it makes me a quasi centristy can't be pigeon holed very easily complicated fukcer as most of us in fact are... and as most of the politicians we love and hate are... including Obama and Romney (counter to some extreme descriptions which suited me in other situations he is not in fact Satan himself)

This whole thing, modern civilization is a big experiment of sorts... far right and far left don't work - we've tried that. Obama is no pure socialist and Romney as hard as he tried to seem like it is not actually scrooge himself... he's just some rich dude acting like 'some rich dude' acts.

RMD

If you're going to quote him please include the entire statement, not just parts you can misconstrue into a misleading statement.

Amerika

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Perhaps Obama was influenced by that notorious extreme leftist, James Madison, who in 1792 called for "the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.".

Sorry, but I'm not all that familar with many of the writings of Madison, except for this one (a favorite of the Tea Party)

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

Amerika

RMD wrote: »

If you're going to quote him please include the entire statement, not just parts you can misconstrue into a misleading statement.

I don't believe it to be misconstrued at all.

And curious... Does that type of thinking also apply to the missing two minutes from the Romney video which is currently all the rage?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Nope, as usual you're wrong.

That Barack Obama has displayed over the course of his career some troubling socialistic tendencies?

sarumite

I was thinking about this one myself. I was wondering how long is too long. In terms of relevance.

That tape is from 14 years ago. I was in my early 20's back then. 14 years of working and life experience has changed me. You could take something I said back then and try and apply it to me now it just wouldn't fit. The person I was back then is not the person I am today.

Benny_Cake

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Nope, as usual you're wrong.

That Barack Obama has displayed over the course of his career some troubling socialistic tendencies?

Yes, you're completely wrong about that. If Obama is a socialist, he has been a most disappointing one. I really think you need to read a little about socialism before you start throwing the word about.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

That Barack Obama has displayed over the course of his career some troubling socialistic tendencies?

I agree. Medicare and Social Security should be stopped, immediately. Military spending should be reduced by 95%. Less big government! I'm sure the democrats would be more than happy to welcome the tens of millions of seniors flocking to their party as a result. Or is that why Republicans don't actually follow their principles?

Amerika

sarumite wrote: »

I was thinking about this one myself. I was wondering how long is too long. In terms of relevance.

That tape is from 14 years ago. I was in my early 20's back then. 14 years of working and life experience has changed me. You could take something I said back then and try and apply it to me now it just wouldn't fit. The person I was back then is not the person I am today.

I would somewhat agree as I was a liberal in my younger, more naive days (shock, horror). That's why the 60 minutes interview is so daming... becasue that was only a few years back. So either Obama was lying, or perhaps he did too many drugs as a youth to remember what he thought as a State Senator 10 years earlier.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I guess this is the week of dueling video/audio in the race for POTUS.

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, then State Senator Barack Obama spoke out against the "propaganda" that said government doesn't work, and that there is a need to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

Hmmm… Isn’t the Redistribution Of Wealth the basic platform of Marxism, and a tenet of Socialism? I sure know it's not Capitalism.

Lookin' like those of us on the other side of the fence might have been right all along.

You have to actually imagine things there to dishonestly represent what he was talking about. Q'uelle surprise!!!

Note that Obama is discussing the need to pool and redistribute government resources. Not wealth. Perhaps if you could be bothered to actually listen to what you linked to? Naaaaa....

It's not like the US has had any success in fields like vaccination, flood control, firefighting, rural electrification, a state university system, or national parks.....

If you're looking for more evidence that Obama is a secret commie socialist Marxist, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I would somewhat agree as I was a liberal in my younger, more naive days (shock, horror). That's why the 60 minutes interview is so daming... becasue that was only a few years back. So either Obama was lying, or perhaps he did too many drugs as a youth to remember what he thought as a State Senator 10 years earlier.

What's amusing is what politicians believe rarely ends up becoming policy once they're elected.

The GOP likes to make it seem like voting for Obama will make the sky overcast with black clouds and lightening and suddenly everyone will be on the soup line, working for the same $7.25 whether they be burger flipper or rocket scientist.

In reality the view is more akin to using government policy to instigate the "trickle down" that the GOP touts so much. Oh yes, let the rich hoard their wealth. It will trickle down. Eventually. When they're done playing the flash trading game.

Brussels Sprout

"Liberal candidate believes that some of wealthier Americans' income should go to help poorer people."

That swings it, he's just lost the Koch brothers' votes.

Amerika

I see the Democrats and Republicans of the House, in bi-partisanship, just passed the Buffett Rule Act (different from the Buffett Rule Tax). Under the legislation, wealthy taxpayers (or anyone for that matter) could easily check a box on their tax returns and voluntarily pay more in taxes than they owe to the IRS in order to pay down the national debt. I like it! Put up or shut up! Let’s see if the Democrat controlled Senate even brings it up for a vote, and if it passes the Senate, if the President vetos it.

Einhard

Hmmm, according to an article by the Republican David Brooks that I read today, government transfers to individuals (ie. redistribution) has grown faster over the past half century under Republican administarions that Democratic. Coupled with the fact that Democratic administrations have created far more jobs with less time in office than their GOP counterparts, I think you ought to be grateful to the Dems Amerika, and be thankful that one party at least is prepared to pay more than lip service to Republican core beliefs. It's just a shame that party isn't the Republican party.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010,
that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation,
entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over
the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster
under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=4

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That Barack Obama has displayed over the course of his career some troubling socialistic tendencies?

Yes, you are completly wrong about that, mainly because your understanding of what constitutes Socialism is poor.

How about you reply to a complete post for once? I explained exactly what I meant earlier on in that post.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I would somewhat agree as I was a liberal in my younger, more naive days (shock, horror). That's why the 60 minutes interview is so daming... becasue that was only a few years back. So either Obama was lying, or perhaps he did too many drugs as a youth to remember what he thought as a State Senator 10 years earlier.

A laughable accusation.

Kinski

sarumite wrote: »

That tape is from 14 years ago. I was in my early 20's back then. 14 years of working and life experience has changed me. You could take something I said back then and try and apply it to me now it just wouldn't fit. The person I was back then is not the person I am today.

Here the author says he is 25, here that he is 50...which you would think goes without saying, but Nietzsche felt the need to point that out somewhere.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

I guess this is the week of dueling video/audio in the race for POTUS.

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, then State Senator Barack Obama spoke out against the "propaganda" that said government doesn't work, and that there is a need to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

Hmmm… Isn’t the Redistribution Of Wealth the basic platform of Marxism, and a tenet of Socialism? I sure know it's not Capitalism.

Lookin' like those of us on the other side of the fence might have been right all along.

Fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof.

Fiction

Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author

Propaganda

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

Just a few words you should study before you post anything.



Cue, a not so witty similar post followed by a wink to deflect from the insanity of it all.

Overheal

Jon Stewart's very good monologue on this week of politics

Chaos on Bull**** Mountain

Amerika wrote: »

Sure looks like that "level" is Income.

And it didn't take long for my side to come out with an ad, showing him to also be a liar... with a December 2011 60 Minutes interview where Obama denied that his policies had anything to do with redistribution at all.

I see they also continue to double down on the "you didn't build that" line.

Here again, is the full quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

Obama wrote:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build [roads and bridges]. Somebody else made that happen.

Amerika wrote: »

I don't believe it to be misconstrued at all.

And curious... Does that type of thinking also apply to the missing two minutes from the Romney video which is currently all the rage?

So post the two minutes.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof.

Fiction

Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author

Propaganda

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

Just a few words you should study before you post anything.



Cue, a not so witty similar post followed by a wink to deflect from the insanity of it all.

Hmmm… I post an audio of Barack Obama in his own words. And note that his comments have some of the tenets of Marxism and Socialism. You tell me, is that Fact, Fiction or Propaganda? If anything other than Fact, please explain to my why?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… I post an audio of Barack Obama in his own words. And note that his comments have some of the tenets of Marxism and Socialism. You tell me, is that Fact, Fiction or Propaganda? If anything other than Fact, please explain to my why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g

In his own words, as you say.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Yes, you are completly wrong about that, mainly because your understanding of what constitutes Socialism is poor.

How about you reply to a complete post for once? I explained exactly what I meant earlier on in that post.

Please tell me what constitutes pure Socialism and which country is completely Socialistic? If there is none, then I guess countries have different degrees of Socialism, including ours. And if you don’t believe Barack Obama is not trying to fundamentally change and move the needle away from our mostly center right country towards the socialistic spectrum, there is not much I can do about it.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

In his own words, as you say.

Yup, the clips with Mitt Romney speaking in your clip are indeed Fact.

Be like Nutella

Holy crap is that an ad that's gona out on TV in the states?

that'll wreck him.... not that he needs any help doing that himself

I usually hate all slimey ads but that's pretty good in all fairness - so many flipidy flops your head would be spinning

Duck Soup

Perhaps the greatest wealth redistribution measure of the last 40 years has been the Earned Income Tax Credit. It gives a tax credit to low income earners and, if the tax credit exceeds the amount of tax that would otherwise be owed, the low income earner, far from paying tax, gets a refund. It is paid for from the tax of those higher income earners who do pay income tax and as such is a straightforward redistributive measure.

Originally put in place in 1975, it was expanded greatly in 1986. Who was the pinko who introduced this redistributive measure in 1975? That would have Republican president, Gerald Ford. Who was the neo-commie who decided to shower a lot more poor people with a lot more of rich people's money? That would have been arch-socialist, Republican President Ronald Reagan, who called it "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

Socialist SOBs, the pair of 'em.

Overheal

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Holy crap is that an ad that's gona out on TV in the states?

that'll wreck him.... not that he needs any help doing that himself

I usually hate all slimey ads but that's pretty good in all fairness - so many flipidy flops your head would be spinning

i wish it would but i think its restricted to youtube, much like "John McCain vs John McCain" which was even more damning.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So post the two minutes.

Alas, if only I could. But apparently the dog ate it.

Lets go through this:

David Corn of Mother Jones released what he claims is the "complete" audio and video of the secretly recorded Mitt Romney speech at a private fundraiser, never admitting there is a missing segment.

Our lovely media, in their blind rush to discredit Mitt Romney, fails to do any due diligence, and make it the grand scandal of the election.

William Jacobson, a blogger notices there is a gap in the tape, in MID-SENTENCE immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes and goes into the part about China, and he calls Corn out for his deception.

Corn then admits there is a 1-2 minute gap in the tape.

So when originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape. But Corn then states: “When we posted the complete tape, we stated there was a gap of one to two minutes, or less, according to the source. That seemed to be the appropriate time to do so.” Which is a lie because he did not admit to it until the blogger caught him on it, and only then did he change his tune to “two” complete parts.

Mitt Romney asks for the full audio/video to be released.

Corn says that his source told him the recorder experienced technical problems and shut off on its own right in the middle of Romney’s answer, and he had to work with the device to get it going again which not until Romney already was into a different topic.

Now that source must be a truly remarkable person because the placement of the camera on the table did not change at all between the two clips. Therefore when the recording device suffered it unknown failure, the source was able to fix it and place it back down EXACTLY in the same place and position afterwards. (I don’t know of anyone who experiences a technical problem with an electronic recording device wouldn’t at least pick it up and look to see why.)

I think anyone with any common sense would call Corn and his source liars, and I believe Corn knows there was post editing done to the recording... but that doesn’t fit his agenda! I also think the media are disingenuous and biased, and incompetent for refusing to get to the bottom of this.

It can easily be determined by getting the original recording device, but I would bet big bucks the video no longer exists on it. Surprise, Surprise!

Unfortunately the damage is already done against Romney. And no amount of apologies or corrections will ever change the initial media hysteria.

Mjollnir

What? The Romney campaign edited out two minutes of that vid where Obama talked about competition, innovation & free markets?

Gasp! I am shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13971913-in-rest-of-98-clip-obama-speaks-of-competition-and-the-marketplace

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Alas, if only I could. But apparently the dog ate it.

Lets go through this:

David Corn of Mother Jones released what he claims is the "complete" audio and video of the secretly recorded Mitt Romney speech at a private fundraiser, never admitting there is a missing segment.

Our lovely media, in their blind rush to discredit Mitt Romney, fails to do any due diligence, and make it the grand scandal of the election.

William Jacobson, a blogger notices there is a gap in the tape, in MID-SENTENCE immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes and goes into the part about China, and he calls Corn out for his deception.

Corn then admits there is a 1-2 minute gap in the tape.

So when originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape. But Corn then states: “When we posted the complete tape, we stated there was a gap of one to two minutes, or less, according to the source. That seemed to be the appropriate time to do so.” Which is a lie because he did not admit to it until the blogger caught him on it, and only then did he change his tune to “two” complete parts.

Mitt Romney asks for the full audio/video to be released.

Corn says that his source told him the recorder experienced technical problems and shut off on its own right in the middle of Romney’s answer, and he had to work with the device to get it going again which not until Romney already was into a different topic.

Now that source must be a truly remarkable person because the placement of the camera on the table did not change at all between the two clips. Therefore when the recording device suffered it unknown failure, the source was able to fix it and place it back down EXACTLY in the same place and position afterwards. (I don’t know of anyone who experiences a technical problem with an electronic recording device wouldn’t at least pick it up and look to see why.)

I think anyone with any common sense would call Corn and his source liars, and I believe Corn knows there was post editing done to the recording... but that doesn’t fit his agenda! I also think the media are disingenuous and biased, and incompetent for refusing to get to the bottom of this.

It can easily be determined by getting the original recording device, but I would bet big bucks the video no longer exists on it. Surprise, Surprise!

Unfortunately the damage is already done against Romney. And no amount of apologies or corrections will ever change the initial media hysteria.

Indeed.

That being the case it's a blow to journalism. I don't like that anymore than I like the "You didn't build that" meme.

But it appears Romney's "double down" is doing more damage on that. See, if he had actually attacked the recording from the start this would now have more credibility. Then again, he can't really do that when he just ran an RNC around "you didn't build that", because it would really be putting his foot in his mouth, to play the game by one set of rules and then cry foul when he's on defense.

See, if the Romney campaign hadn't been so big on "you didnt build that" they would actually still have a card left to play in defense of this new video footage. Unfortunately for them, they don't. They spent it on a wooden chair.

Kind of a damn tragedy for politics and journalism all around. edit: and yes, if the Romney campaign is doing it AGAIN with the '98 video, then they haven't really learned their lesson.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Carcharodon wrote: »

Fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience via proof.

Fiction

Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author

Propaganda

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

Just a few words you should study before you post anything.


Hmmm… I post an audio of Barack Obama in his own words. And note that his comments have some of the tenets of Marxism and Socialism. You tell me, is that Fact, Fiction or Propaganda? If anything other than Fact, please explain to my why?

Assumptions, presumtions and biased opinion never backed up by consistent facts, that is what you spout

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Alas, if only I could. But apparently the dog ate it.

Lets go through this:

David Corn of Mother Jones released what he claims is the "complete" audio and video of the secretly recorded Mitt Romney speech at a private fundraiser, never admitting there is a missing segment.

Our lovely media, in their blind rush to discredit Mitt Romney, fails to do any due diligence, and make it the grand scandal of the election.

William Jacobson, a blogger notices there is a gap in the tape, in MID-SENTENCE immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes and goes into the part about China, and he calls Corn out for his deception.

Corn then admits there is a 1-2 minute gap in the tape.

So when originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape. But Corn then states: “When we posted the complete tape, we stated there was a gap of one to two minutes, or less, according to the source. That seemed to be the appropriate time to do so.” Which is a lie because he did not admit to it until the blogger caught him on it, and only then did he change his tune to “two” complete parts.

Mitt Romney asks for the full audio/video to be released.

Corn says that his source told him the recorder experienced technical problems and shut off on its own right in the middle of Romney’s answer, and he had to work with the device to get it going again which not until Romney already was into a different topic.

Now that source must be a truly remarkable person because the placement of the camera on the table did not change at all between the two clips. Therefore when the recording device suffered it unknown failure, the source was able to fix it and place it back down EXACTLY in the same place and position afterwards. (I don’t know of anyone who experiences a technical problem with an electronic recording device wouldn’t at least pick it up and look to see why.)

I think anyone with any common sense would call Corn and his source liars, and I believe Corn knows there was post editing done to the recording... but that doesn’t fit his agenda! I also think the media are disingenuous and biased, and incompetent for refusing to get to the bottom of this.

It can easily be determined by getting the original recording device, but I would bet big bucks the video no longer exists on it. Surprise, Surprise!

Unfortunately the damage is already done against Romney. And no amount of apologies or corrections will ever change the initial media hysteria.

Unfortunately for you, what IS on the tape is damning enough, and there is no reasonable cause to assume that something was left out that would put what he said in some radically different context such that the nature of his remarks are suddenly, magically, seen in a different light than how he obviously meant them.

Tilting at windmills and ginning up false equivalencies are all, it would seem, the right wing has left.

Pity. It stinks of desperation.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Assumptions, presumtions and biased opinion never backed up by consistent facts, that is what you spout

Let's try this again... Fact, Fiction or Propaganda?

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Mitt Romney asks for the full audio/video to be released.

Unfortunately the damage is already done against Romney. And no amount of apologies or corrections will ever change the initial media hysteria.

They should release the full video. Right after the election, when Mitt releases his tax returns. :cool:

Ann Romney: We've 'given all you people need to know'

Overheal

I'm afraid Amerika that these are some pretty fair counterpoints: Romney wants "2 minutes" of the video added in, but campaigns on "you didn't build that", pulls up a video from 1998, and yet only releases 2 years of his own tax returns.

So, I'm sorry. Guy is not going to play fair he can't cry about being treated unfairly.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I'm afraid Amerika that these are some pretty fair counterpoints: Romney wants "2 minutes" of the video added in, but campaigns on "you didn't build that", pulls up a video from 1998, and yet only releases 2 years of his own tax returns.

So, I'm sorry. Guy is not going to play fair he can't cry about being treated unfairly.

Romney should not have to ask for it, the media should be demanding it be revealed! Perhaps the media really isn't biased and they have more pressing matters at hand like finding out what Snooki or Honey Boo Boo are eating for lunch today.

Amerika

To coincide with this thread... A great read just out by The Washington Examiner which conducted a four-month inquiry, and interviewed many of his supporters and detractors, studied numerous court transcripts, government reports and other official documents. I think the title says it all "The Obama You Don’t Know."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/introduction-the-obama-you-dont-know/article/2508080

RMD

Amerika wrote: »

I don't believe it to be misconstrued at all.

And curious... Does that type of thinking also apply to the missing two minutes from the Romney video which is currently all the rage?

You did, you made it sound like a far-left style comment when it's centre-left like most democratic policies.

What's Romney have to do with anything? The 2 minutes should have been included, it's irrelevant though in this topic. This is about Obama, my post was about you leaving out vital information.

nagirrac

Relative to how much flip flopping Romney has done during his politcal career Obama has been remarkably consistent. Romney is turning out to be a disasterous candidate for all the reasons he was attacked by Republicans during the primaries. He is a moderate at heart and when he tries to pander to the right he flounders. Obama will eat him alive in the debates.

Duck Soup

nagirrac wrote: »

Relative to how much flip flopping Romney has done during his politcal career Obama has been remarkably consistent. Romney is turning out to be a disasterous candidate for all the reasons he was attacked by Republicans during the primaries. He is a moderate at heart and when he tries to pander to the right he flounders. Obama will eat him alive in the debates.

It looks like they're pinning everything on the debates, to the point that appearances in swing states are few and far between recently while he does debate prep.

That seems to me to be wildly optimistic. At best, Romney can hold his own - although I'd doubt even that happening in the foreign policy debate, which is the final one before voting - and at worst, he's "Do you want to bet $10,000?" bad. All he can do is (a) hope that some scripted zinger lines come off, (b) he doesn't stray into any this-slayed-'em-at-the-country-club ad libs and (c) Obama admits, live on air, to eating white babies alive during satanic rituals. Then maybe he has a shot.

Duck Soup

Incidentally, while it occurs to me, it seems to me that over the duration of the campaign, the real Mitt Romney is slowly unrolling. He's doing more fundraisers than campaign stops because he's more comfortable working a room full of millionaires and billionaires than pressing the flesh with the oiks. His TV interviews are similarly sparse as he lacks control of the situation, instead favouring huge ad spend to get his message across. The only time he has a press conference these days seems to be to do damage limitation.

Similarly, that he's so focussed on the debates shouldn't be a surprise if you think of them as quasi new business pitches. He can assemble facts and figures, make his presentation and look corporate. You can't help but feel though that his staff would be delighted if he can make it through each debate without an off-script comment digging a hole big enough for a campaign to fall into.