Check Out The New Ad From The 'O' Team!
|
|
|||||
|
67 votes
|
|
62% | ||
|
11 votes
|
|
10% | ||
|
30 votes
|
|
28% | ||
Top Opinion
-
DeborahLakeHelen 2012/09/23 23:37:59Undecided
+34Odumbo has nothing left but shallow accusations. Just how much cash has Obama squirreled away in those Swiss bank accounts of his? How much money has he funneled to his Muslim Terrorist buddies? Obumma has spent more of our money on his frivolous vacations and ludicrous schemes than any other president in history. Not to mention all the lies he's told, and the lies he's told to cover those. It's high time for him to GO!!!!
This is the typical Liberal lies we all have gotten used to. Fact is, they go mostly ignored now. Mitt's 2011 Tax Return is NOT 800+ pages, but 379 pages (that's a reason there for more simplified taxes) and his 2010 returns were 203 pages. As to where his money is, is of little importance. It is all private money and in a BLIND Trust (meaning, while it is his money, it is managed by someone else).
This is nothing more then more class envy and demonizing. BTW, are you as upset at the Liberals who have money stashed in Tax Havens? Your beloved SPLC has tens of millions stashed in the Cayman Islands. Then how about the Vatican bank scandal where US politicians have been caught hiding slush funds robbed from the tax payers?
Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment, which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from,...
This is the typical Liberal lies we all have gotten used to. Fact is, they go mostly ignored now. Mitt's 2011 Tax Return is NOT 800+ pages, but 379 pages (that's a reason there for more simplified taxes) and his 2010 returns were 203 pages. As to where his money is, is of little importance. It is all private money and in a BLIND Trust (meaning, while it is his money, it is managed by someone else).
This is nothing more then more class envy and demonizing. BTW, are you as upset at the Liberals who have money stashed in Tax Havens? Your beloved SPLC has tens of millions stashed in the Cayman Islands. Then how about the Vatican bank scandal where US politicians have been caught hiding slush funds robbed from the tax payers?
Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment, which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome.
The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury. Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals. Big money was found in each of the accounts.
The longer the beneficiaries have been in office, the greater the account balances were found to be. They range from a few million USD to more than a billion USD in the case of John Roberts. The total number of slush fund accounts so far identified at the Vatican Bank is said to be between 600 and 700. This number is likely to grow as international élite corruption investigations spread worldwide.
He keeps thinking it will just go away, but I hope it comes up again during the debates, when he will not be able to stonewall the questions.
He's a sad desperate man. Of course, he must be voted out.
Romney was right about the terror attack and bama keeps saying it was the video.
There's so much more.
Romney had no idea what he was talking about. The embassy in Cairo released a statement while it was under attack by a mob, and it said we should not hurt a religion's feelings, referring to the video.
Romney pounced on this and said it was from Obama himself, which was a lie. The truth is, Romney had no idea where it was from. He took a scrap of incomplete information and decided to use it to attack Obama. He was later embarrassed, and then he was under attack from his own party.
The embassy statement was later retracted by the State Department. By this time we had learned of the murders of the four men in the Benghazi consulate, which might have happened after Romney's boneheaded statement. He never did say anything about those men or their families.
Hillary Clinton gave her statement after the facts were known, and then Obama gave his. Romney had egg all over his face.
Later it became more clear that the attack had been planned in advance. Only then did the White House speak of that conclusion.
This is what a diplomat does. He or she waits until the facts are known before saying something that could come back to them later. This is one more reason Romney will never be president.
A statement issued in panic by an embassy does not represent anyone but the embassy personnel. The State Department retracted the statement as soon as it could, and the Secretary of State and the president later issued official statements after more facts were known and the situation became clearer.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney popped off before anything was known. That is called making a fool of oneself, and showing once again why he is not qualified to be commander-in-chief and head of state. Even members of his own party were critical.
Although everyone in the Middle East came out and said it was a terrorist attack on the 9/12 and the Obama administration was blaming the video for a week. Then he goes and calls it a bump in the road after 4 people are killed. So find something other than the same old rhetoric to spout. A Commander in Chief would have taken the intel and increased security at the Embassies in the Middle East. Acting on intel isn't foreign policy he could have increased security on embassy grounds since it is American soil, but perhaps it was more important to meet with his Hollywood friends.
The embassy in Cairo blamed the attack on the video in their statement, which was withdrawn by the State Department. Hillary Clinton and the president issued their own statements when more facts were known. They did not pop off before anything was known, ala Mitt Romney.
Granted, the terrorist connection was not yet known, and investigations are still ongoing. The administration did not willfully lie about anything. They just didn't know enough yet to make a statement. We all should have learned from the previous administration, which had a fleeting acquaintance with the truth in foreign policy.
Terrorism is immediately claimed after any kind of attack anywhere nowadays. Those are known as rumors, and they are not actionable intel. Terrorism was claimed after the Aurora, CO theater bombing, but it turned out to be one deranged individual. Should the president have immediately come out with a statement saying Al Qaeda was responsible for the shootings?
I realize you will attack Obama for anything and everything. You will always support Republicans like Romney, even though they would spit on you given the opportunity.
Beat the hell out of it!