Smear Romney! Axelrod Tweets Media Its Marching Orders
Evil 1
2012/07/05 15:21:37
We’ve got to make sure people fully appreciate Mitt Romney is not some safe alternative. --Obama Senior Advisor, David Plouffe
On Tuesday, no less than the Twitter account owned by the President of the United States tweeted out a link to an article written by Vanity Fair's Nicholas Shaxsone. The article is nothing more than a smear-job laced with innuendo about Romney's finances. It's also meant as bait for a corrupt media eager to join in the Obama campaign's mission as defined by Plouffe above.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign changed tactics just a bit. They probably didn’t expect Breitbart News to report the fact that Shaxson is a hard-hard-hardcore leftist and a cheerleader for the Occupy movement, so yesterday David Axelrod launched this series of tweets:
Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/05...
Top Opinion
-
Reichstolz 2012/07/05 15:43:26
+4When you have nothing good to say about yourself, you must make the focus your opponent. Politics 101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't have to like them.
I posted facts.
Mitt Romney does in fact where magic underwear.
And that brings up another question.
Can we really trust a President who wears magic underwear?
Any thesis or proposition has an implied antithesis.
And the antithesis IS in fact pertinent to the initial proposition.
The FACT that Romney wears magic underwear is the antithesis of a Smear.
Fact:
Saint Mitt wears magic underwear.
And that brings up another question:
Can we really trust a President who wears magic underwear?
And you obviously don't know what a lame duck is . . . as the term relates to a president.
Why are Romney supporters such evil dolts?
. . . Does anyone know?
lame duckNoun:
1.An official (esp. the president) in the final period of office, after the election of a successor.
2.An ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing.
Secondly if Obama got back in for four more years he would be a lame duck President.
So who is the dolt? Look in the closest mirror for that answer.
And why are Obama supporters total morons? We know. It's because they possess the intelligence of a sheep and can't think.
So what?
Do you have a point? Or is everything you say pointless?
DOLT
You didn't know what lame duck was and now you try to prove otherwise. Typical tap dancing by a liberal when they are proven wrong. Too bad it won't work, unless you're a dolt such as yourself and thinks it will.
Furthermore in your initial post you stated Romney wore 'magical underwear' and that was a fact. That statement in and of itself is ridiculous. And if you can actually say it's factual produce a viable source to back up your 'magical underwear' claim. You are a perfect example of an Obama supporter. Unintelligenct, ill-informed and the mentality of a 8 year old. How pathetic.
It's part of his religion.
Just ask him. He'll tell you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And yes, Several million dolts will in fact vote for Romney.
http://www.ldschurchtemples.c...
I'm a "doit?"
. . . . ?
OH I get it. I know what you mean.
I am a can-do kind of guy . . . and so is Obama.
. . . As opposed to the millions of can't-do obtructionist Right Wing Thugs who infest this nation.
You know, as we see numerous surveys confirming such obvious reality as (a) the fact that the more stupid someone is the more likely they are to embrace conservative ideology and (b) the fact that the Right Wing is currently experiencing a profound perceptual disconnect with reality, it is not at all surprising that Romney's handlers will do anything to avoid factual truth. But it is still sad that there are some who will buy it.
You remember that post I put up a week or two ago about how there is a growing disconnect between the Right Wing and reality? I have to say I appreciate the efforts you've been making to prove its accuracy. How can you even keep a straight face when your posts come from Breitbart?
You ought to read the Vanity Fair article. You might learn something about your candidate.
http://www.vanityfair.com/pol...
And again you slam Brietbart. At least this time you didn't slam a dead man in your ridiculous remark. And again I will point out that 99.9% of the time you use a source it is either HuffPo or Addictinginfo. How can you say anything about Brietbart when you rely on pathetic, ridiculous, biased sources such as those. You are doing a stellar job today of showcasing your hypocrisy.
And maybe you should look at the facts about your candidate and you might learn something. Such that he is a blatant liar, hypocrite and fraud. But you wouldn't believe them if Obama himself admitted to it.
"Astonishing story about Mitt's Bermuda tax shelter and his efforts to keep it secret, apparently skirting MA law. [cite]" [True.]
"A Swiss bank account. A dozen funds in the Cayman Islands. And now, a Bermuda tax shelter he failed to report." [True.]
"How many of these revelations will it take for the media to demand a full accounting of Mitt's tax returns and finances?" [A legitimate question, especially given the free ride the Right Wing media has been giving Romney.]
"Or will his campaign continue to stonewall and keep him secure within the MPP--the Mittness Protection Program?" [Another legitimate question - see above.]
So where is the "smear"? "Obama is a communist" is a smear because it is not true. "Romney is a polygamist" would be a smear because it is not true. But "Romney outsourced thousands of American jobs" is not a smear because it is true. "Romney drove dozens of US businesses into bankruptcy" is not a smear because it is true. "Romney has tax sheltered offshore bank accounts that may violate US or Massachusetts law" is not a smear because it is true.
That whole reality vs fantasy thing really has you guys perplexed, doesn't it.
As for Breitbart, he was an evil man who caused harm to...
"Astonishing story about Mitt's Bermuda tax shelter and his efforts to keep it secret, apparently skirting MA law. [cite]" [True.]
"A Swiss bank account. A dozen funds in the Cayman Islands. And now, a Bermuda tax shelter he failed to report." [True.]
"How many of these revelations will it take for the media to demand a full accounting of Mitt's tax returns and finances?" [A legitimate question, especially given the free ride the Right Wing media has been giving Romney.]
"Or will his campaign continue to stonewall and keep him secure within the MPP--the Mittness Protection Program?" [Another legitimate question - see above.]
So where is the "smear"? "Obama is a communist" is a smear because it is not true. "Romney is a polygamist" would be a smear because it is not true. But "Romney outsourced thousands of American jobs" is not a smear because it is true. "Romney drove dozens of US businesses into bankruptcy" is not a smear because it is true. "Romney has tax sheltered offshore bank accounts that may violate US or Massachusetts law" is not a smear because it is true.
That whole reality vs fantasy thing really has you guys perplexed, doesn't it.
As for Breitbart, he was an evil man who caused harm to many people, and the world is better off that he is dead. It's a shame that the hatemongeing he made his career on continues even after he is gone.
As for your remarks about a dead man. It just proves how low and pathetic you are and how low you will go to push your BS and support the Liar in Chief.
Your statement about the dead prove who the evil man is and that would be you. Now as I have stated repeatedly it is impossible to have a worthwhile, cognizant, intelligent and factual discussion with you as of late so I won't even try. And based on your pitiful remarks about a man who is dead and cannot even defend himself I will choose not to carry on a discussion with you as I refuse to lower myself to your repugnant level. Have a nice day.