ExiledInIllinois Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 What smoke do you see? Totally NOT what you are smoking. It is an expression. But that isn't important right now... Just keep your eyes out for the fire.
Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Totally NOT what you are smoking. It is an expression. But that isn't important right now... Just keep your eyes out for the fire. That's an expression? Gee I didn't know that. Let me rephrase the question. What smoke do you see? Edited August 4, 2012 by Chef Jim
IDBillzFan Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Let me rephrase the question. What smoke do you see? Vinny Barbarino response in 3...2...1...
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Point is he was probably making money from Bain longer than he said he was. Seriously? You CLEARLY don't know enough about it to discuss it.
Doc Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Bainers are braindead. Whether you believe he left the company in 1999 or not, it doesn't matter. Bain created more jobs than they outsourced. IOW, a net gain of jobs was realized, which contrasts with this current administration that has seen more people leave the workforce.
B-Man Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Why isn’t President Hopenchange denouncing Reid’s attack on Romney?by Ed Morrissey Good question. I can think of three answers: * Obama and his campaign asked Reid to make the attacks in order to get the smear out without having Obama’s/Team Obama’s own fingerprints on it * Obama didn’t initiate it, but he’s comfortable with the smear and desperate to get some traction on Romney * Obama’s afraid to tell Reid to stop, and risk angering his class-warfare base The last one is a little difficult to believe, especially with prominent progressives in the media scolding Harry Reid for his baseless attacks and ridiculous, changing explanation of his source(s). Obama could use this as the nearly-proverbial “Sister Souljah” moment and recapture the high ground on Hope and Change by telling Reid publicly to either produce real evidence or stay out of the presidential race altogether. If Option 3 is really the truth, then Obama’s silence on this issue is a damning indictment of his leadership in political reform. And if it’s not, then Options 1 and 2 are even more damning of his leadership and promises of healing the partisan rancor in the nation. Hot Air .
Doc Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Hot Air Why would Barry denounce Harry's baseless attack? Barry loves a good lie as much as the next liar.
IDBillzFan Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Hot Air I love this.... ...then Obama’s silence on this issue is a damning indictment of his leadership in political reform. Obama. Leadership. Gets me every time.
tomato can Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Harry Reid speculated that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years and has refused to substantiate his claim. Has he abused his office, placed it in disgrace and is he guilty of libel? How can this snake actually direct the operations of the Senate? How can even you die hard liberals tolerate his actions? Don't you feel sleazy even being connected to him? How many of you will denounce his comments, and how many of you will side with him or stay silent and quietly agree with his outrageous comments? Sure his comments were out of bounds! It's politics! Both sides do it and do it often. I seem to remember Sean Hannity prying into John Kerry wifes finances when he was running for office. Hannity thought it was totally in bounds to probe her finances to make sure she was paying her fair share and she wasn't even running for office. He felt that because Kerry might raise taxes on the wealthy that he needed to get a look with his own eyes to make sure she was paying her fair share. The dems cried foul and the repubs claimed fair game. My point is both sides throw mud! Lets not act suprised.
....lybob Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 How long have they been demanding a Birth certificate and college transcripts- Republicans like to punch but cry when punched back. btw since Romney's dad was born in Mexico I wonder if there was a stink about it when he ran for president.
tomato can Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 It's his fault that other people hold him to a burden of proof that he's not required to meet, and accuse him of fraud when he meets the legal burden he's required to meet? You are absolutely correct he is not required to meet that burden of proof. However he is trying to win an election. He needs to win the swing states and the hearts and minds of the independent voters. The dems know this and they are putting doubt into the minds of the swing state voters and independents. Both sides do this. Whether it be the canidates military record or their personal finances they are going to try and put doubts in the minds of the voters. In the minds of politicians everything is fair yet they all cry foul. The dems have hung one on Mitt. He can keep playing defense or choose to ignor it. Or he can go on the offense and release his returns to the voters and eliminate the doubt that has been placed in the minds of a lot of voters that he is not ethical and that he didn't pay his fair share. Lets face it politics is a dity game and politicians often fib. President Obama promised 10 million green jobs while running for office in 2008. I smelled bullsh_t when he made that claim back in 2008. Friday morning on the front page of yahoo finance there was an article about Mitt promsing 12 million new jobs by the end of his first term if elected President. Not sure I am buying that claim either. Being completely honest and ethical aren't politicians strong points. The dems used the trump card on Mitt not paying his fair share.
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Sure his comments were out of bounds! It's politics! Both sides do it and do it often. I seem to remember Sean Hannity prying into John Kerry wifes finances when he was running for office. Hannity thought it was totally in bounds to probe her finances to make sure she was paying her fair share and she wasn't even running for office. He felt that because Kerry might raise taxes on the wealthy that he needed to get a look with his own eyes to make sure she was paying her fair share. The dems cried foul and the repubs claimed fair game. My point is both sides throw mud! Lets not act suprised. Hannity is not a elected official.
tomato can Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Hannity is not a elected official. True. The elected officals that were guests on the show didn't denounce it as out of bounds or a low blow either. I'm not dedending Harry's comments. It was a low blow. But this is politics and these guys on both sides will call it fair game or cry foul.
truth on hold Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Hannity is not a elected official. Too busy collecting $100 million+ --------------- Hannity's new syndication contract, announced Monday (July 21), calls for his afternoon Talk program to be syndicated via ABC Radio Networks (owned by Citadel) through the end of the year. But in December, Premiere will take over syndication of the three-hour program to all non-Citadel-owned stations and lead the advertising sales. Hannity's contract with ABC Radio Networks expired recently and rumors have been swirling every since. For Premiere, grabbing Hannity gives the radio network a blockbuster afternoon Talk block beginning with Rush Limbaugh at Noon, followed by Hannity at 3 p.m. While Limbaugh reportedly got a $400 million contract over eight years with Premiere, Hannity's was somewhat less, about $100 million over the next five years, according to various reports. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2008/07/21/sean-hannity-gets-100-mil_n_114026.html -------- Gets huge payout while enjoying press protections to spew garbage hate mongering and beating the drums of war to the ignorant masses. That's a Better deal than any politician! Edited August 5, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Too busy collecting $100 million+ --------------- Hannity's new syndication contract, announced Monday (July 21), calls for his afternoon Talk program to be syndicated via ABC Radio Networks (owned by Citadel) through the end of the year. But in December, Premiere will take over syndication of the three-hour program to all non-Citadel-owned stations and lead the advertising sales. Hannity's contract with ABC Radio Networks expired recently and rumors have been swirling every since. For Premiere, grabbing Hannity gives the radio network a blockbuster afternoon Talk block beginning with Rush Limbaugh at Noon, followed by Hannity at 3 p.m. While Limbaugh reportedly got a $400 million contract over eight years with Premiere, Hannity's was somewhat less, about $100 million over the next five years, according to various reports. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2008/07/21/sean-hannity-gets-100-mil_n_114026.html -------- Gets huge payout while enjoying press protections to spew garbage hate mongering and beating the drums of war to the ignorant masses. That's a Better deal than any politician! We're still awaiting even a single post of substance from you here. Everything you've written is "Boo! Scary boogeyman! Boo!"
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 We're still awaiting even a single post of substance from you here. Everything you've written is "Boo! Scary boogeyman! Boo!" It can be a busy day when you are confiscating guns and censoring the press. Enjoy press protections? What is that supposed to mean?
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 It can be a busy day when you are confiscating guns and censoring the press. Enjoy press protections? What is that supposed to mean? It means "Goddamn First Amendment!"
Doc Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 You have a link to that Hannity thing? Not that I don't trust your memory...aw, who am I kidding? I don't trust ANYONE'S memory! Link?
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 It means "Goddamn First Amendment!" You forget the bill of rights is a "living" document. The First? So yesterday! I Read they had to like print stuff! No way does it apply to TV!
Recommended Posts