Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


The first portion of this blog post is a guest post from former blogger extraordinaire, Amy Proctor.   During her days as the Bottom Line Up Front blogger, she had a big audience and was interviewed on radio and television.  But she is also the wife of a Master Sergeant in the Army and has a quiver full of children to raise and she loves photography.  So now she concentrates on taking awesome pictures.
I am pleased to have a cd of her husband, Johnny, playing his upbeat Beach Boys-style music and it is excellent and music I play to make me smile.  Come Christmas I shall be purchasing an Amy Proctor photo book.  For now, I am giving her a platform to speak:

I am very disappointed in Mitt Romney’s performance last night at the final presidential debate against Barack Obama. Obama’s record on foreign policy is weaker than is record on the economy, and that’s really saying something. I found it excruciatingly painful to watch Obama sit there and paint himself as this great foreign policy leader with great instincts and some kind of a good record, somehow. The worst part was that Romney just sat there and let him do it.

Pure agony.

I’m going to lay out a handful of examples of what Mitt Romney should have said to Obama last night, in no particular order.

- When the topic of Benghazi, Libya came up, Romney should have said,

“Mr. Obama, you may think I responded too quickly but the fact is that I WAS RIGHT while you are STILL trying to figure out what happened in Benghazi. I understood this was a terrorist attack before all the details were in, as did most of the American people, while you spent weeks blaming it on an anti-Islam You Tube video. Not only that, your administration from US Embassy in Egypt immediately apologized for the video and Hillary Clinton made a video that was shown in Pakistan apologizing for the video, which cost American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars."

"So Mr. President, after all this time, you still haven’t gotten it right and I was right from the beginning. This is an example of the innate instincts a real leader must have, and you do not have them.”

- In 2009, the Iranian people rose up in protest against the fixed election which called Mahmoud Ahmadenijad the leader and the Iranian people courageously stood up against the bogus results and took to the streets in protest as Iranian police killed many protesters. Obama’s reaction? “"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran". While Obama did not congratulate Ahmadenijad, he legitimized the results of the election with his comments and did not offer support to the pro-Democracy movement in Iran as they protested in the streets.

So when Obama denied that he didn’t stand with the Iranian people, all Mitt Romney had to say was,

“The American people don’t need to take my word for it. Just go to You Tube and search ‘2009 iran obama are you with us’ to see video of the Iranian pro-Democracy demonstrators crying, ‘OBAMA, ARE YOU WITH US OR WITH THEM?’ The people of Iran certainly believed they were abandoned by the President.”

- When Barack Obama ridiculed Romney for making a negative comment in London about how the 2012 Olympics were being organized, saying he alienated our best ally, Romney should have replied,

“Mr. President, if you want to talk about alienating our allies, you have done an outstanding job of alienating Afghan, Iraqi and Israeli allies. In 2008 you said publicly on 60 Minutes that Hamid Karzai had a ‘bunker mentality’ and wasn’t leading the fight in his country against the terrorists while in 2009 your administration publicly accused Karzai, the elected leader of Afghanistan and partner in a war, of being unhinged and mentally unstable. In 2008 your secretary of state to be Hillary Clinton publicly called for Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki to be replaced calling him incompetent, while your constant opposition to the war as a ‘mistake’ even after taking office has placed a wedge between the leadership of Iraq and the U.S. So Mr. President it is no wonder they could not reach a Status of Forces Agreement with you after such humiliating comments and its no wonder that Karzai is increasingly resistant to U.S. intervention in his country for the same reason.”

“Finally, when it comes to alienating our allies, what is your explanation for your administration exposing the Pakistani doctor who led us to bin Laden who now sits in a Pakistani prison for 30 years? How can any country ever cooperate with the United States again in a covert operation to track down terrorists if that is how you treat your friendly sources?”

- When Obama praised himself for ending the war in Iraq, Mitt Romney should have responded,

“Mr. President, you did not end the war in Iraq, you simply ended U.S. presence in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is making a big comeback in Iraq now and much of our gains are being unraveled so that you could keep a political promise to your base to end the war, but you’ve done no such thing. The war is still alive in Iraq and the sacrifices of our troops are being reversed.”

“And in Afghanistan, more troops have died in your first 2 years as Commander in Chief than under the previous 8 years combined.”

“And speaking of keeping promises to your base, Mr. President, didn’t you promise that the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay would be closed within one year of you taking office, yet it is still up and running? If you cannot keep your promises to the American people, why should they trust you with another 4 years?”

- When Obama praised himself or the killing of Osama bin Laden, why didn’t Mitt Romney say,

“Mr. President, if you had your way with your opposition to President Bush’s terrorist surveillance program, to CIA prisons abroad and enhanced interrogation programs of terrorists, Osama bin Laden would not have been killed. It is thanks to the Bush policies that bin Laden was tracked down and killed. And George W. Bush would have credited the Navy SEALS for killing bin Laden, he wouldn’t have taken the credit himself.”

- When Obama accused Romney of being Bush 2.0 on foreign policy, Mitt Romney should have said,

“Mr. Obama, the Middle East is going up in flames. When you took 0ffice, the Bush administration foreign policy created a wave of pro-Democracy movements across the area. With the deposing of Saddam Hussein, now deceased Libyan leader Momar Kaddafi voluntarily gave up its WMD program and urged other Arab nations to do the same, saying, ‘Have you learned nothing from Iraq? You could be next!’ The Syrian occupation of Lebanon was ended as Lebanese forced the occupiers out of their country. Egypt experienced its first ever democratic election in its history. Syria and Iran were becoming increasingly isolated. Millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq had been freed."

“Now, terrorism is spreading in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and a once long standing ally in Egypt has been overthrown with your encouraging. An imperfect leader, who worked to suppress the uprisings of radical groups in Egypt and who maintained a peace treaty for several decades with Israel has been overthrown because of your prompting, and has been replaced by the radical Muslim Brotherhood, who wish to institute the oppressive Shariah Law and whose stated objective is to crush Israel. This is not a democracy movement; this is the spread of terrorism. And this is how we treat our ally in Egypt?”

“In the years prior to your presidency, American citizens lived freely and openly in Egypt. Military families and diplomats and their families lived in safety as if they were living in South Korea or Germany. Can U.S. citizens live safely in Egypt today, Mr. President?”

- When Obama denied he apologized for America in his 2009 tour of Europe and the Middle East, saying he visited Israel in 2008 as a candidate, Mitt Romney should have said,

"Mr. President, I think it's great that you visited Israel... as a candidate. But as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you have NOT visited Israel when you toured the Middle East in 2009, you said, and I quote, that 'America has shown arrogance, been divisive and even derisive'..... but the American people don't have to take my word for it, they can search You Tube for '2009 obama apology tour' and watch you say it for themselves."

Now folks, this is just a handful of examples. Why Romney didn't refute any of these lies posed by Obama is a devastating mystery to me. Obama is low hanging fruit ripe for the picking.

But ultimately if this has no bearing on the elections, then I don't care. But if it does, this hurts.

I refuted every one of Obama's lies as the debate was going on and it was easy..... didn't you?
There were rallies for Religious Liberty all over this nation on October 20th - over 140 cities participated.   Yet the Mainstream Media barely said anything about them or gave them much coverage.   This is a blogpost on one in Crown Point, Indiana:
"Stand Up for Religious Freedom" ? Actually Rallying for ALL Freedoms!
One of the Democrats who attended spoke out about Obamacare.   The HHS Mandate is in violation of the First and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.   Cue Woodrow Wilcox:


Anonymous said...

"Mr. Obama, you may think I responded too quickly but the fact is that I WAS RIGHT while you are STILL trying to figure out what happened in Benghazi. I understood this was a terrorist attack before all the details were in"

Did either of you bother to read Romney's comment? Where do you think he said it was a terrorist attack, or indicate that he "understood" that it was a terrorist attack?

Anonymous said...

Ooh, I see you have a Mourdock for Senate banner up there. You must be thrilled with all the publicity he's getting!

radar said...

We all knew it was a terrorist attack. Obama and his administration knew there had been two previous attacks at that embassy, they knew that a plan to attack was probably on 9/11 and they still wanted to have minimal security for appearances sake? The lives of those four people? Sacrificed to the Obama agenda. Their blood is on his hands but the liberal media ignores all the atrocities of the Obama Administration such as:

Fast and Furious

Refusing to enforce immigration laws

Suing States for passing marriage laws

Intentionally blocking Gulf cleanup plans

Ignoring the 9/11 terrorist attack plans and then pretending it was all because of a video, then spending our money to broadcast an apology for the VIDEO while all the time knowing it was a terrorist attack. (Credit for the attack was taken within two hours by a Jihadist group)

Breaking bankruptcy laws to rob Indiana pensions while "bailing out" Chrysler, which was primarily a payoff to union officials and a gift to Fiat and the Italian government

"Bailing out" GM while actually sending US jobs to China

Supporting ACORN while they helped collapse the housing industry, deliberately engaged in voter fraud and were caught encouraging prostitution with underaged girls just to make an underwater loan

Holder stepping in to keep Black Panthers out of jail after they were tried and convicted of voter intimidation

DNC officials helping people vote illegally. Notice that a congressman's son got his hand caught in the voter cookie jar? That is the tip of the iceberg.

Democratic machines rule over big cities with horrible ghetto situations, gangs, housing and infrastructure collapsing but they've brainwashed the poor that the Democrats are their friends. Yeah, friends that converted you into serfs!

Democrats have become fascist socialists as an organization and the horror story is easy to tell- a Communist Secretary of state, a Black Liberation Theologian as President, a complete buffoon as VP and a bunch of liberal loonbat czars. Kagan may be the most ridiculously unqualified person ever to sit on the Supreme Court bench and Eric Holder should be behind bars rather than being Attorney General. He breaks the law more than defending it.

radar said...

Mourdock is being spun by the liberal media. He simply believes that the child produced by rape is not the criminal. The rapist should have the book thrown at him but why should the baby be given the death penalty?

There are thousands of couples lining up desperate to adopt babies that are unwanted. A child of rape given up for adoption will have loving parents and a life to live. The woman who was raped? Is she not glad she was allowed to live? Why execute the baby?

You see, in this society we became baby murderers in 1973 and that set the stage for more murders in the future. If the Democratic Socialist party has their way, we'll soon have death panels that decide when someone is too old to spend medical dollar on and put them to death for the crime of being old. Social Security cannot last if it is not changed so the society that kills babies will soon kill grandma.

Then it is a short trip to euthanasia for children with Down's Syndrome and other illnesses rather than spending health care dollars on them.

Once Big Brother has the reins, even the people who put him in charge may find themselves run over by him down the road. Those of you who vote to let government control everything are foolish in the extreme.

Power to the people? That is what the USA was designed to do. We are the voters! We need to take the power back from Washington, where it does NOT belong!

Anonymous said...

"Mourdock is being spun by the liberal media. He simply believes that the child produced by rape is not the criminal. The rapist should have the book thrown at him but why should the baby be given the death penalty?"

That's one way to spin it, sure. So I guess you agree with Mourdock's statement that rape pregnancies are the will of God?

It's fun seeing you spout this laundry list of foamy-mouthed rants, but just as an aside, you didn't really go anywhere near that question that you were asked, did you?

"Did [...] you bother to read Romney's comment? Where do you think he said it was a terrorist attack, or indicate that he "understood" that it was a terrorist attack?"

It's not there. Romney didn't say it. The sad fact is that Obama came closer to saying it than Romney did, but both of them were smarter than you and, given the lack of clear info at the time, used appropriate language.

Romney's actual blunder was that - in one of his many moments of political opportunism - he tried to blame the Obama administration for saying something before they had even made their statement.

Anonymous said...

I can't resist pointing this out:

Romney was trailing for most of the campaign this year. Then came the first debate, in which Obama handed Romney a victory by showing up basically comatose. I think this gave Romney a chance to present himself as a moderate. And because Obama was snoring at the lectern, he didn't correct Romney on the numerous misrepresentations. So Romney started looking good to a lot of people.

The polls started trending in the opposite direction, and there was hope for Romney. Then the rest of the debates happened, as well as the natural realization that Romney's so-called plans were simply hot air, etc. So the trend stopped, and in part reversed.

Now Obama's chances are increasing again, quite substantially.

Romney's not out of the running yet. Not quite. But close. He has less than two weeks. Twelve days of media time. Daily news cycles. He has a slim chance, dwindling by the day.

The last thing he needs right now is an unnecessary distraction that puts the GOP in a bad light.

Enter the Christian right, in the form of your buddy Mourdock. Another stupid rape comment. Two days' worth of news cycles (so far) eaten up by having to deny it, distancing himself from it - but it leaves a bad taste. An opening for Obama to state a simple truth on national media: "Rape is rape. It's a crime." Nobody can disagree with that - but suddenly the spectre of Todd Akin is on people's minds again, and we're reminded that the religious right can kind of quibble over what is legitimate rape, and did she perhaps enjoy it and that's why she got pregnant and so on. It's reprehensible. And the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of the religious right, a.k.a. anti-science folks like you.

So when you watch the election being called for Obama twelve days from now, I hope you're aware that in the last leg of a long, long journey, it was Christian fundies like you and your hero Mourdock that ruined Romney's last chance.

I'll even go a step further in my predictions: Obama wins. Economy recovers in ongoing cycle (which is expected by economists anyway). Pattern becomes even clearer to voters: GOP bad for economy etc. Dems good for economy. The old alliance of Wall Street fiscal conservatives and the religious right (and Tea Party whackos) falls apart, and in a two-party system they can't survive.
But don't worry - just like you're better off now than you were when Bush skipped out of the Oval Office, you'll be better off four years from now as well.

And we have, among many others, Mourdock to thank for that.


radar said...

I was correct when I predicted the havoc Obama would wreak should he win.

If Romney wins, the economy perks up and companies expand and invest and fuel prices will drop.

If Obama wins then Taxmaggedon will only be the start of the destruction of the economy and any of you who are not very very rich will wind up suffering and cussing yourself out for being such fools as to vote for an anti-American determined to make us another Socialistic former successful nation. We'll go the way of Greece and be facing national bankruptcy.

I will be right and you will be wrong. End of story.

radar said...

Your hero is a liar.

radar said...

Mourdock has something a few of you could stand to add on - character built on a solid moral foundation. He agrees that rape is wrong, he just believes that the baby is not the criminal.

BTW the so-called "friends of women" aka Democrats? They know that abortions and birth control pills greatly increase the likelihood of breast cancer down the road. But they don't care, just want to get the votes by any means necessary.

Anonymous said...

"He agrees that rape is wrong, he just believes that the baby is not the criminal."

That happens to be your own spin (though I suspect you just copied it from somewhere - googling "baby is not the criminal" sure gets a lot of hits...).

What Mourdock actually said was that the pregnancy resulting from rape is what God intended. Do you agree with his statement? So far you're miles short of a denial...

"If Romney wins, the economy perks up and companies expand and invest and fuel prices will drop."

Yeah, as if by magic, right? Thanks to Romney's dazzling smile and dysfunctional plan?

We've had four years of Obama and we're better off than we were at the end of the GOP era, that's for sure. You're welcome.

Next up: four more years. We'll see how your predictions hold up. Which ones did you think came true by the way?

And your buddy Mourdock will have played a small but significant role in Obama's re-election.

Ooh that's gotta hurt.

radar said...

What can I say to a guy who thinks things are good under Obama? Nothing I could say that would not be rude. Amazing! The 23 million Americans looking for work and the 25% plus increase in food stamp users would call you insane!

Anonymous said...

eIt's okay to be rude. Share your feelings.

The country went from losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of the last GOP president's term to a current period of growth. Perhaps the growth could be stronger, but it's consistent with the weaker recoveries that usually follow financial crises. And the stimulus could have had more of an impact if the GOP hadn't insisted on reducing the spending with the highest multiplier effect, so they have no cause to complain now.

But since we've seen the period go from surpluses to deficits and financial disaster under Bush and a period of recovery under Obama, why on Earth would you want to return to those policies, especially since Romney has nothing better to offer? His financial plan is non-existent, and that's supposed to be his strong suit.

And I take it you agree that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is God's intention? You're still skirting around the issue.

radar said...

Special Operations Speaks

He spoke to the US Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and again just walked away.

The third day the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."

Don't forget to vote!

That old man is depending on you!!!

radar said...

A child is formed and he is human. If rape was the cause, it is not the fault of the child.

Ethel Waters, the remarkable singer, was the result of rape.

James Robinson, head of a great ministry, born of rape.

Rebecca Kiessling, conceived in rape now leads a foundation devoted to helping victims of rape and their children and lists various stories of the children of incest and rape who have gone on to have productive lives.

Again I say, why should the child be punished? Why should he receive capital punishment because of the crime of another? Most women who abort their babies later fall into depression over it AND they are more likely to have breast cancer as well.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so you agree that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is God's intention? It seems like that's what you're saying, but for some reason you don't like giving a straight answer.

And about Romney's statement, you can't find any part of that statement where you think he said it was a terrorist attack, or indicate that he "understood" that it was a terrorist attack... right?

So we have Obama calling it an act of terror and Romney not calling it that - the opposite of what the right wing blogosphere will have you believe.

Sorry, but the chances of the lying duo of Romney/Ryan fooling the voters are dwindling by the day. You're going to be disappointed come election day.

christian soldier said...

The human child in the womb should not be murdered because of the actions of a pervert--
as to the pervert whether it be a rapist or a pedophile -must be executed immediately ...
my take-

as to bho's complicity to the murder of Americans in Benghazi..I wrote a lengthy post on that issue and you know I usually do not write lengthy posts!
BTW-don't often comment because the code process is difficult to read ...

radar said...

Thanks, Carol! I will go read your blogpost and probably put a link on my next post as well?

Frank_Brunner said...

What is the proper Christian response to a dishonest politician like Romney?

The ends justify the means?

If so, then what use is your morality? What is the use of this so-called absolute morality?

This is a serious question by the way. An honest answer would be an appropriate response.

radar said...

I will be serious. As a Christian I am not excited about Romney being a Mormon, but you are suggesting that he is a dishonest politician while the record indicates that he has a spotless record. So you will have to establish that he is dishonest. His record is one of honesty and incredible generosity as far as I know.

With Obama, we have proof of his dishonesty several times over and Benghazi may rise to the level of treason.

Frank_Brunner said...

The record doesn't seem to indicate that Romney is spotless when it comes to honesty at all. On the contrary.

In recent days Romney has suggested that Chrysler, one of the companies saved by Obama's bailout, is going to move American jobs overseas. This is clearly not true, but instead of apologizing and recanting the statement, he has spread this lie even more.

So that right there is most definitely a very blatant spot in Romney's "spotless record". Wouldn't you say?

Is the stance you take on something like this that it's okay for Romney to be dishonest, because he's on your side politically?

radar said...

Frank Brunner, you have it backwards, Chrysler did already move jobs overseas as well as partial ownership. Romney is telling the truth. GM also moved jobs overseas.

You need better research. Barack Obama broke the law to steal funds from Chrysler investors and used American tax dollars and a lot of borrowing from China to "save" the auto industry. It was all BS.

radar said...

Again, where is the outrage over Obama and his administration watching Americans die on the tv screen in the situation room during the Benghazi terrorist attack, refusing to provide any help and then pretending that there was some video that caused people to riot. Lies!!!

You see the bloody handprints on the wall of the Embassy/CIA compound and think about those four Americans who asked for help while Obama watched for awhile and then just went to bed. Imagine yourself surrounded by terrorists and being hit with mortar fire and having the slow realization hit that POTUS and his Administration were not going to help or allow anyone else to help, either? I can imagine those Seals laser-spotting the enemy position and waiting...and waiting...and then dying.

radar said...

Meanwhile you close your eyes and pretend Benghazi didn't happen and then pretend that Chrysler and GM jobs aren't going overseas. I can get you a good price on the Brooklyn Bridge if you are interested?

Frank_Brunner said...


perhaps you could please explain specifically what you intended to mean by "Chrysler did already move jobs overseas as well as partial ownership" and "GM also moved jobs overseas"? This sounds like dire circumstances indeed. Point me to the facts if you please.

As I understood it, Chrysler was adding jobs in the US (incidentally, thanks to Obama's bailout) and was also adding jobs in China, but those are specifically to produce cars that will be sold to the Chinese market. Which to me sounds like bingo to a US company, good job!

Perhaps you missed that Romney has been very specific (in person and in his ads) about making statements that create a wholly different impression, and if the aforementioned facts aren't true, that would make him a very dishonest politician indeed. Hence my question of how a True Christian would deal with the subject of dishonesty? Would he argue that it is in the service of a greater truth? Would he condemn it? Would he pretend the dishonesty didn't exist?

So far, I have my answer.

"Barack Obama broke the law to steal funds from Chrysler investors and used American tax dollars and a lot of borrowing from China to "save" the auto industry."

I'm dismayed to hear this. Which law did Obama break?

Why put "save" in quotes? A large number of jobs were saved, under a plan that Obama advocated and Romney rejected. Romney was wrong, Obama was right - what's left to argue? What is the actual argument left on the table?

Please explain how Chrysler and GM jobs are going overseas. It should be easy to do since you think it's so obvious that you pull that tired old Brooklyn bridge line. I look forward to your considered answer.



Anonymous said...

I'd call Romney saying he's not going to have campaign events and then having one anyway, calling it some kind of "relief" event, buying a bunch of stuff and handing it out to people so they can hand it back to Romney for a photo-op kinda dishonest, yeah.

Oh and surely you didn't miss that Ryan's speech at the Republican convention was full of lies and distortions? Happy to point them out for you if you missed them.

"Spotless record"... distortion or delusion.

radar said...

Obama broke the law in the Chrysler "bailout" and then it gets worse. Responsible citizens research. Go and look and see that Fiat was given large parts of Chrysler and Italians are now getting American jobs.

That GM has now built a big plant in China is a fact you cannot refute.

The lies and distortions belong to the Obama Administration.

300 killed by Fast and Furious
4 dead in Benghazi while the Administration watched for almost 7 hours in real time via drone.

Troops left without proper support in Afghanistan dying at a record rate.

Terrorist attacks on embassies and Americans afraid to travel to Islamic countries while the Administration gives money to them?

Monstrous! Also, no one with a brain says Ryan lied. Biden and Obama lied during the debates. But then they were lying before the debates, why change now?

radar said...

Why should I think that people who believe in evolution should be able to think critically anyway? Of course they will vote for Obama. They probably think CO2 caused Sandy as well...and believe in ghosts and crystal balls and horoscopes.

Frank_Brunner said...

So in response to my question about how a Christian would deal with a dishonest politician, you reply with abundant dishonesty. I suppose that answers my question about your so-called absolute morality. You don't have one.

I followed the link you posted, but it doesn't explain which law Obama supposedly broke. Which law was it?

US auto companies are adding jobs in the US, but are also adding jobs abroad for products sold abroad. This is a win for those companies as well as for US workers, and most notably it wouldn't have happened if we had gone the path Romney proposed. Obama was right in pursuing this path, whether you like it or not.



radar said...

No, Frank, I posted a Wall Street Journal link that shows that you and Obama are the liars. Obama broke bankruptcy laws and the Supreme Court found in favor of Richard Mourdock and Indiana. But Obama had already stolen the money from Indiana pensions and given it to cronies and union officials and Fiat automobile corporation.

Neither GM nor Chrysler needed government information and I can speak with some understanding here. I was in the Auto Industry for 15 plus years, starting on union side but also going to management. I worked auditing and planning and quality control and supervisory and had access to every aspect of auto company planning during the last company audit. I know the business.

Obama jumped in to steer Chrysler and GM in the direction he wanted them to go and to protect bad union contracts. Fiat was given part of Chrysler because they supposedly had advanced technology. Later it turned out they did not, and Obama sent a couple of billion dollars to Fiat to help them develop the technology they supposedly had already.

Obama thinks he can throw money at alternate energy companies. Fourteen such companies have been given giant gulps of American cash and then gone belly-up. You see, business and innovation don't work that way. People work hard on inventions, find investors, and if the invention works it finds a market. Nobody in government gave Henry Ford a big wad of cash to develop the Model T.

Frank Brunner, you are among the liars. Don't lecture me on Christian principles. You don't even understand the things you talk about. Obama deliberate broke bankruptcy laws to rip off secured creditors and the Supreme Court affirmed his crime. They had to do so or every bankruptcy case done in the last 50 years would be going back to court. Only his position kept him from being forced to give back the money. Meanwhile his own Attorney General breaks the law and refuses to enforce laws on the books. They are crooks. End of story.

Mitt Romney has a 38 year record of working hard, giving lots of money away, saving businesses and the Salt Lake Olympics. Paul Ryan is a math wiz who can help come up with a budget, something the Democrats under Obama haven't done, which in itself is amazing lack of responsibility.

Frank_Brunner said...

I can tell you I do not very much appreciate being called a liar without you even making the effort to explain which of my statements you consider untrue and providing evidence thereof. That is not very gentlemanly of you.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney's dishonesty and deception regarding the auto industry are well documented and he has been called to task by the executives of those very same companies. Perhaps you know better than them, or perhaps you have a suitable conspiracy theory you could plug in here.

Which bankruptcy law did Obama break? You continue to beat around the bush. Did he break a law? Which one and how?

"business and innovation don't work that way. People work hard on inventions, find investors, and if the invention works it finds a market"

Perhaps this comment is well-intended, but surely it hasn't escaped your attention that, for example, the space program and the defense industry have yielded a number of very useful innovations and technologies over the years. I look forward to a swift retraction of your comment as I'm sure you see that it is quite indefensible.

And if you can't take a clear stand on deception and dishonesty no matter who practices it then your so-called absolute morality isn't worth the paper it's written on.



Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney has a 38 year record of working hard,"

The man is fond of his holidays too, it must be said.

"giving lots of money away,"

For "charity" you mean? Most of it to the Mormon church, which it then uses to propagandize a faith you disapprove of. But somehow you think this is a good thing?

"saving businesses"

Or destroying them.

"and the Salt Lake Olympics."

For which he helped himself to vast amounts of government funding.

"Paul Ryan is a math wiz who can help come up with a budget,"

He hasn't yet come up with one that actually adds up.

"something the Democrats under Obama haven't done, which in itself is amazing lack of responsibility."

Haven't come up with a budget? Nonsense.