posted May 17, 2012 10:51 PM            

line-by line slight of hand by Karl Rove & Americans for Prosperity

posted May 18, 2012 01:08 PM            

New Wire Items

A Bogus Tax Attack Against Obama
Crossroads GPS claims that the president broke a promise to not increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year.

'Obama's Promise,' Part II
The rest of the story on that misleading ad from Crossroads GPS.

Peddling Innuendo, Exaggerations on ‘Obama’s Wall Street’
American Future Fund stretches the facts on the president's ties to Wall Street.

Bachmann’s Fundraising Whopper
Minnesota congresswoman makes a false claim about the redrawing of her congressional district.

Do ‘Most Americans’ Agree with Romney on Gay Marriage?
Americans are more closely divided on the issue than the Republican National Committee chairman suggests.

Chamber Continues to Mislead on Health Care Law
U.S. Chamber of Commerce miseducates voters about the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act
(FlackCheck.org produced two videos in response to the Chamber of Commerce ads. You can see them here and here.)

Group Skews Facts on Obama’s ‘Shameless’ Statements
A supposed veterans group goes too far in portraying the president as a glory hog after Osama bin Laden’s death.
(FlackCheck.org produced four videos in response to the Veterans for a Strong America ads. You can see them here, here, here and here.)

posted May 18, 2012 01:22 PM            

I notice you shied away from commenting on the lying O'Bomber ad saying Romney/Bain Capital bankrupted their steel mill...when Romney had been gone 2 years when they bit the dust.

Typical of leftists. They never want to talk about facts.

posted May 18, 2012 03:13 PM            

Onward and upward!

I told you a long time ago that I will no longer do your work for you. The last time was when I asked you to prove a statement...your reply "I don't have to prove anything".

posted May 18, 2012 03:36 PM            

though i know you won't, you never concede a millimeter.

who were the voices talking about when they said "he's a job destroyer?" if they weren't talking about romney? do tell.

posted May 18, 2012 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Jwhop, no. People with far more brain cells than you do actually pay attention to FactCheck.org, and it has won many awards. As you recall even Dick Cheney cited factcheck when defending himself against charges of being in bed with Halliburton. The propaganda argument (if you can call it that) continues to have neither merit nor basis in reality (it remains unproven by you just as it always has).

Once again you're just making a sweeping statement in hopes that your authority carries the message through.

---

posted May 18, 2012 07:09 PM            

Leftists do but then, they don't fit the stipulated requirements.

May 18, 2012
The 'War on Women' Implodes
By Janice Shaw Crouse

The so-called "War on Women" should have been a deadly hit, a fatal blow to the GOP's hopes to cut into the huge majority of the female vote that went for Obama in 2008. Or so Democrat strategists thought when the Democrats launched their campaign to persuade the public that the GOP was engaging in a "War on Women," they thought they had a sure thing. The planets were aligned just right for success. Their rallying cry was powerful; their victim was vulnerable; the media had their backs, and they are masters of deadly destruction in the art of political warfare.

With their troops armed to the hilt for battle, the Democrats and President Obama sent them forth to do battle in the imaginary GOP "War on Women." They assumed women all across the nation would fall into line behind them once they heard the battle cry.

The incumbent, as conventional wisdom goes, is virtually impossible to defeat; he can use the power of his office to control the terms of the debate to focus on his record of accomplishments. Except that this administration has such a dismal record -- from the economy to unemployment, from the housing crash to exorbitant gas prices -- from unsustainable debt to incomprehensible deficit -- their only hope depends upon diversionary tactics. Supposedly, a months-long campaign about a supposed Republican "War on Women" would pump up outrage among those vitally important, single-women voters and propel the president ahead in the 2012 polls. The Obama campaign thought they were whipping up a perfect storm to swamp the Republicans.

But their "perceptions" differ from the "realities" beyond their Washington, D.C.-New York-Los Angeles elite enclaves. Is the White House getting desperate and miscalculating?

This White House knows the facts -- women outnumber men, and they vote at higher rates than men. Election 2012 will be different from 2008 -- fewer women identify as Democrat in 2012 than in 2008. Plus, the president fares best among single women (54% of single women prefer Obama, as compared to only 35% of married women; 26% of single women prefer Romney, compared to 47% of married women). No wonder the Democrats want to push the idea of a "War on Women" that focuses on hot-button issues for single women.

After all, years of political strategy rests on the principle of divide and conquer. Democrats must fire up those single women who are necessary for victory in November. The public was bombarded with demagoguery and propaganda camouflaged as truth. It seemed like the perfect narrative: pro-life policies and shutting down Planned Parenthood's access to the federal trough would endanger women's health. Then there was the very emotional Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke skirmish. Single women in college -- even 30-something law school students -- who spend more than $3,000 a year on contraception should not be called bad names. Never mind that feminists have been staging demonstrations to appropriate, to own, the label "**** ." Headlines about the faux-battle over contraception were followed by Hilary Rosen's faux-mommy war. She claimed that Ann Romney, who raised five sons, has "never worked a day in her life."

In the midst of all the distortions and lies, truth came to light.

The president and his cohorts did not reckon with truth when they built a campaign on a lie. But truth is a strangely persistent thing. Winston Churchill described truth as "incontrovertible" and said, "Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." Fog, for a time, may conceal realities, but the realities remain.

At the same time that Hilary Rosen was taking pot shots at Mrs. Romney for "never working," news broke that President Obama, the champion of working women, pays female White House employees 18% less than the male counterparts he employees. The median annual salary for women in Obama's White House is $60,000, compared to the $71,000 median salary for the men.

Our Beverly LaHaye Institute figures show that women account for 92 percent of the jobs lost since 2008 -- in the past three years, it is the steepest decline than at any point since records were kept. Ironically, this job loss is among demographics traditionally in the President's base: unemployment is up among Hispanic women and up among Black women more than three percentage points (1.3 million women).

Despite the hard realities of these facts, it looked for a little while like the left was winning the PR battle. In an April CBS News/New York Times poll, women supported President Obama 49%, with Mitt Romney pulling in 43%.

But as Churchill said, truth is incontrovertible.

Early on in the so-called "War," the Hill Poll showed that "Forty-nine percent of likely voters said the presumptive GOP presidential nominee (Mitt Romney) respects women who have independent careers, while 27 percent said he doesn't and 24 percent weren't sure." President Obama garnered only 35 percent of those who thought he respects women with independent careers. According to the women voters in the poll, 46 percent thought Mitt Romney understands their issues, while only 41 percent thought President Obama does.

Reams of social science research support the idea that, when it comes to choosing a president, voters pick the person they "trust." Evidence is piling up that the campaign distractions are not working for the Democrats, that even the "true believers" are disillusioned. As Churchill said about truth, "in the end, there it is."

For President Obama, the truth hurts.

A poll released May 14, 2012, shows that women support Mitt Romney over President Obama 46 percent to 44 percent.

It appears that President Obama and the Democrats have lost this battle and are at risk of losing the war.

posted May 18, 2012 07:37 PM            

quote:

---

No one with even 2 brain cells to bounce off the insides of their cranium pay the slightest attention to fact check acoustic.

---

I know that having two brain cells is an enviable goal, but if you only have one brain cell perhaps it's better that you keep your mind occupied with things other than Factcheck.

posted May 18, 2012 07:45 PM            

Tell me where's the logic in comparing the mean income of Obama administration staffers?

quote:

---

The median annual salary for women in Obama's White House is $60,000, compared to the $71,000 median salary for the men.

---

posted May 21, 2012 08:07 AM            

O'Bomber, you and the rest of O'Bomber's Kool-Aid swilling chorus are so far off in leftist land even liberals can't stand you.

Cory Booker: ‘Stop attacking private equity’
Newark mayor praises the record of Bain Capital on Meet the Press
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 20, 2012

Newark Mayor Cory Booker credited Bain Capital with growing businesses and said attacks on private equity must stop, during “Meet the Press” Sunday.

As far as that stuff, I have to say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. It’s—to me, we’re just getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially, I know, I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses; this to me, I’m very uncomfortable.

Booker went on to compare the private equity attacks to attacks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, calling them a “distraction” and “crap.”

But the last point I’ll make is, this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough—stop attacking private equity, stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop. Because what it does is it undermines to me what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues. This is either going to be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s going to be a big campaign about the issues that the American public cares about.

Former Obama administration auto czar Steve Rattner also defended the record of Bain Capital last week, during a “Morning Joe” segment.

posted May 22, 2012 08:44 AM            

How odd don't you think acoustic...that I line up with women of all political views on this issue...that those who do the work should be paid equally while you and O'Bomber...both of whom are misogynists, don't!

Of course, this isn't anything new for O'Bomber. He did the very same thing with his campaign staff...paid the men much more than women on his campaign staff. Yet, this misogynist twit, whose main focus on economic issues have hurt women most, wants the women's vote.

posted May 22, 2012 11:16 AM            

Of course you resorted to labelling in lieu of defending the poor logic put forth in the article you posted. Fortunately, logic is immutable, so I'm going to show one last time just how wrong that bit of spin is.

To do this I'm going to create an imaginary, but completely plausible work group that we'll test in exactly the same manner as your article suggests. This department has more women than men employed, and each woman makes EXACTLY the same as her male counterpart.

Three Men:
Department head makes $80k/year
Manager makes $60k/year
Underling makes $40k/year

Four Women:
Manager makes (same as above) 60k/year
Underling makes (same as above) $40k/year
Underling makes (same as above) $40k/year
Underling makes (same as above) $40k/year

The men make a total of $180k combined. The women also make a total of $180k combined. However, because the men's total is only divided amongst three men the median salary for the males is $60k/year. Meanwhile, the women's $180k is divided by four women, giving a mean salary of $45k/year.

More women making exactly the same pay as their male counterparts, and yet their "mean annual salary" is less. This remains true if you drop the male department head down to management-level pay, too. Simply by virtue of there being less men.

There's nothing misogynistic about any of this. That's why not a single woman here raised a voice against the simple logic. It's absurd, and you're absurd for believing in it.

posted May 23, 2012 05:00 PM            

A tweet today.

posted May 23, 2012 05:43 PM            

How about this acoustic.

Lay off the "imaginary". We don't need anything from you little bubble world of unreality. stick to facts...if you don't mind and even if you do mind.

That which is "plausible" is not necessarily true either. It might be true or not even close to being true.

Facts please!

Here are some FACTS for you acoustic.

Hostile Workplace
Obama White House pays women less than men, records show

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was criticized for paying the women on his campaign staff less than the men, and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers.
http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

Does Obama pay women less than men?

Barack Obama has campaigned on the issue of “equal pay”, casting John McCain as a villain for not supporting federal legislation widening grounds and timing for pay-discrimination lawsuits. Yet Obama may have a fair-pay issue of his own. According to Fred Lucas at Cybercast News Service, women on his staff made $6,000 less than men on average. McCain, on the other hand, has more women in key positions — and the women on his staff average slightly higher salaries than the men:

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/

posted May 24, 2012 10:46 AM            

And let's think about how idiotic the notion is that Democratic-leaning women working for Obama are going to stand for being paid less than their peers. How likely is that scenario? How easy would it be for them to embarrass the administration? It's not happening, is it? Because there's no merit to a spin piece talking about AVERAGE salaries.

posted May 24, 2012 01:19 PM            

the opening post there stated that because hillary had been denied the nomination by the democrats in favour of obama, ALL WOMEN should be outraged.

when in fact, many women are smart enough not to vote for someone just because of his/her sex. being FEMALE does not necessarily make one a "women's candidate". most women would prefer that the first woman president be a GOOD PRESIDENT for obvious reasons, not just wear a skirt and lipstick.

hillary was never going to get the nomination. i was told that months before she was "robbed" of it...and she was. the establishment has always hated her and they were never going to give her the chance. kudos to her for going for it anyway, but while there are a lot of things i do like about hillary, i would not have voted for her, so i am glad not to have had to make that choice.

as to obama's unequal pay or equal pay for equal work at the white house, i am not really up on it. but i did hear romney's response to whether he would stand behind the lily ledbetter law...he didn't even know what it was, and when he checked with his informers, he still didn't know whether he would support it or try to undermine it.

posted May 24, 2012 01:22 PM            

Your "imagination" is running away with you.

Using imaginary situations is no credible substitution for FACTS.

I used FACTS..which you and other leftists can't deal with.