October 9, 2012

Paul Ryan FAILED To DISCLOSE Investments On Ethics Forms

Full Of Shit!!


Vice-presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan’s tax returns contained investments he failed to disclose on his Congressional financial disclosures. His tax returns reveal the amount of profit or loss, but we still don’t know the value of the underlying investment.





[Personal Financial Disclosure, “Schedule III – Assets and Unearned Income,” Office of the Clerk for the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, Amended 2009, 2010, Amended 2010, 2011,Amended 2011]

2010-2011: Ryan Reported A Cumulative Income Loss Of $178 From Stake in TLS Partners LLC. According to Ryan’s 2010 and 2011 individual tax return, he took a cumulative $178 loss in income from a stake in TLS Partners LLC. Ryan’s investment in TLS Partners LLC is detailed in the table below:

see tables at link




[Personal Financial Disclosure, “Schedule III – Assets and Unearned Income,” Office of the Clerk for the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,Amended 2009, 2010, Amended 2010, 2011, Amended 2011]

2010-2011: Ryan Took A Cumulative $164 In Income From Investment In Longfellow Energy LP. According to Ryan’s 2010 and 2011 individual tax return, he took $164 worth in investment income from his stake in Longfellow Energy, LP. Ryan’s investment in Longfellow Energy is detailed in the table below:






cont'


http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/10/wire/research/paul-ryan-failed-to-disclose-investments-on-ethics-forms/


.

October 8, 2012

The Ultimate Mitt Romney FLIP-FLOP Collection

October 7, 2012

Chris Matthews Goes After Jack Welch In Brutal Battle Over Unemployment Numbers

POS Jack Welch exposed as a moron Romney SHILL!!



BOSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jack Welch, the lionized former chairman of General Electric Co, provoked cries of outrage in Washington on Friday when he appeared to accuse the White House of manipulating September job figures for political gains.
White House officials dismissed as "ludicrous" a tweet Welch sent to his more than 1.3 million followers that suggested U.S. President Barack Obama's administration rigged the data as a way of recovering from a poor Wednesday night showing in a debate against Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger for the White House.


"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," Welch said in a posting on Twitter, apparently referring to Obama, who formerly served as a senator from Illinois.



- The tweet was by no means Welch's first criticism of Obama on his Twitter feed, where he has regularly spoken out in favor of Romney, as well as weighing in on sports. During the presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, on Wednesday night, Welch tweeted: "HOW can anyone vote for Obama after this performance..he has demonstrated his incompetence."

October 7, 2012

NO ON PROP 32: Not What It Seems

&feature=player_embedded







Billionaire homophobes and school privatizers are behind drive to weaken California unions



There's a lot of big money behind California's Proposition 32, which should tell you right away how much to believe its backers' claims that the ballot initiative is about getting money out of politics. Most recently, Charles Munger, Jr., the son of the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, this week gave $9.9 million to a committee aimed at simultaneously supporting Prop. 32 and defeating Gov. Jerry Brown's tax measure; Munger has now given a total of $20 million to those two fights. Meanwhile, good-government groups like the League of Women Voters are lining up against Prop. 32 along with the unions it explicitly targets.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/10/league-of-women-voters-stars-in-new-prop-32-ad.html



Prop. 32 eliminates a key union fundraising tool. Then it restricts direct contributions to candidates by unions and some kinds of corporations. That's meant to look like "getting special interest money out of politics," in the hope that you won't notice that corporate big money could still put unlimited amounts of money into outside spending and Super PACs, while unions would have lost the ability to compete financially (to the small extent they currently do). California Republicans are hoping that if this passes, they'd finally be able to start winning statewide elections.



Munger is not the only super-rich guy supporting Prop. 32. According to Frying Pan News, the go-to source for reporting on who's behind this initiative, other major donors include major supporters of Prop. 8 and of education privatization via vouchers.







For instance, Larry T. Smith, "a prominent proponent of 'gay-to-straight' conversion therapy for minors ... personally donated $50,000 to help support Prop. 8 and funneled even more money to the campaign through his political action group, the Family Action PAC." Fellow Prop. 32 donor Howard Ahmanson gave $1.4 million to Prop. 8, as well as giving "millions to both creationist and school-voucher causes." Also on the school vouchers front, Timothy C. Draper has given $100,000 to support Prop. 32:






cont'


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/07/1140524/-Billionaire-homophobes-and-school-privatizers-are-behind-drive-to-weaken-California-unions



.

October 7, 2012

NO ON PROP 32: Not What It Seems

&feature=player_embedded







Billionaire homophobes and school privatizers are behind drive to weaken California unions



There's a lot of big money behind California's Proposition 32, which should tell you right away how much to believe its backers' claims that the ballot initiative is about getting money out of politics. Most recently, Charles Munger, Jr., the son of the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, this week gave $9.9 million to a committee aimed at simultaneously supporting Prop. 32 and defeating Gov. Jerry Brown's tax measure; Munger has now given a total of $20 million to those two fights. Meanwhile, good-government groups like the League of Women Voters are lining up against Prop. 32 along with the unions it explicitly targets.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/10/league-of-women-voters-stars-in-new-prop-32-ad.html



Prop. 32 eliminates a key union fundraising tool. Then it restricts direct contributions to candidates by unions and some kinds of corporations. That's meant to look like "getting special interest money out of politics," in the hope that you won't notice that corporate big money could still put unlimited amounts of money into outside spending and Super PACs, while unions would have lost the ability to compete financially (to the small extent they currently do). California Republicans are hoping that if this passes, they'd finally be able to start winning statewide elections.



Munger is not the only super-rich guy supporting Prop. 32. According to Frying Pan News, the go-to source for reporting on who's behind this initiative, other major donors include major supporters of Prop. 8 and of education privatization via vouchers.







For instance, Larry T. Smith, "a prominent proponent of 'gay-to-straight' conversion therapy for minors ... personally donated $50,000 to help support Prop. 8 and funneled even more money to the campaign through his political action group, the Family Action PAC." Fellow Prop. 32 donor Howard Ahmanson gave $1.4 million to Prop. 8, as well as giving "millions to both creationist and school-voucher causes." Also on the school vouchers front, Timothy C. Draper has given $100,000 to support Prop. 32:






cont'


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/07/1140524/-Billionaire-homophobes-and-school-privatizers-are-behind-drive-to-weaken-California-unions



.

October 7, 2012

Obama: 'Thank Goodness Somebody Is Finally Getting Tough On Big Bird'

ELMO TOO??......

October 5, 2012

Did Romney ‘WIN’ The Debate?

"..In the debate that I saw, Romney seemed to be on the defensive, in large part, due to the incoherence and incompleteness of his arguments. And that reflected itself in his body language. He shifted nervously, blinked rapidly and displayed a forced smile. It looked like he was about to tear up during his closing remarks. I saw a man struggling at the end of his rope. By contrast, Obama looked, well, presidential. He was never flustered and mounted vigorous defenses of his policies, offering details about what he had done and what he would do. Yet, he didn’t sound overly defensive or whiny, a big risk in such a setting.



One could fault Obama for not being more aggressive with host Jim Lehrer, who curiously seemed determined to stop the President from exceeding his time limit while letting Romney ramble on. But that is more a criticism of Lehrer, who behaved like PBS types often do – they go weak in the knees when a Republican talks about slashing the subsidy for public broadcasting, as Romney pointedly did. So, I came away from watching the 90-minute debate thinking that Romney had come as close to melting down in front of a huge national audience as anyone I have ever seen in my half century of watching presidential debates. Pundits often fall back on the cliché that “no one landed a knock-out punch,” but this was as close to having one candidate lying on the mat as I have ever seen, although it was mostly Romney doing the damage to himself.



Yet, immediately after the debate – even on liberal-leaning MSNBC – Republican commentators were given the floor and allowed to set the tone of the meeting. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow deferred to GOP campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who gushed over Romney’s performance. The verdict was “Romney won.” Everyone on the set except for Al Sharpton fell in line. Ed Schultz blasted Obama for not lashing out at Romney and especially for not blasting Romney’s portrayal of 47 percent of the U.S. population as irresponsible moochers. For the past several days, pretty much every pundit I watched had predicted that the “the 47 percent” comment would be the centerpiece of the debate, but I never thought that was likely, having watched Lehrer handle other debates. He almost never goes for the “gotcha” question, favoring bland policy discussions.




- The Times also did a solid job of assessing the claims and counter-claims from the two rivals. And the Times’ lead editorial took Romney to task for his mendacity and Obama to task for not holding the Republican accountable. But how to explain the behavior of the TV commentators, especially those on MSNBC, whose instant “spin” on behalf of Romney surely influenced the opinions of millions of Americans in their own assessments of who won? Though MSNBC has done a relatively good job of creating some balance in a cable TV environment that Fox News has tilted sharply to the right, its hosts are under corporate pressure to present themselves as neutral newscasters in situations like Wednesday’s debate. (Remember the trouble that Keith Olbermann encountered.) So, aspiring careerists like Rachel Maddow can be expected to demur in a situation like Wednesday night. After all, for her there are grand career opportunities, like a regular gig on NBC’s “Meet the Press” or possibly even replacing David Gregory as the host, a big step indeed. So she immediately turned to Steve Schmidt, who did what you would expect a Republican political operative to do in such a case. He spun the outcome for Romney and did so with such confidence that he seemed to influence the remarks of MSNBC show anchors, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews, who promptly fell in line.






cont'


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/04/did-romney-win-the-debate/

October 5, 2012

BWHAHAHAHA: Romney & Obama Tell Jim Lehrer: "Shut The F*** Up" (Jimmy Fallon)

Aaaah,,...priceless!

October 5, 2012

Commander in Chief

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/04/964241/truman-ad-veterans-romney/

October 4, 2012

Oops!! Romney Called Out Scott Brown as the GOP OBSTRUCTIONIST He Is

Aw, their love affair is on the rocks!!....



http://underworldknits.tumblr.com



Wednesday night during the first presidential debate in Denver, Mitt Romney said Scott Brown was sent to DC to stop ObamaCare, calling out Brown as a Republican obstructionist sent to DC to do the Republicans’ bidding. Scott Brown has been selling himself as a moderate Independent to the Massachusetts voters.


From CNN’s transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html




ROMNEY: First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary — elected a Republican senator to stop Obamacare, you pushed it through anyway.


In a blue state, passing himself off as a bipartisan moderate is a must. Brown was still trying to sell himself as a moderate during his October 1 debate with Elizabeth Warren:





Mitt Romney didn’t mind taking Scott Brown down last night, by saying that Brown was sent to DC to stop ObamaCare. Anything to win.




http://www.politicususa.com/romney-called-scott-brown-gop-obstructionist.html