PDA

View Full Version : Anderson Cooper proves Obama campaign a lying POS!



LWW
08-24-2012, 04:52 AM
WATCH IT ALL! (http://www.therightscoop.com/brutal-anderson-cooper-obliterates-dnc-chair-over-her-lies-about-romneys-stance-on-abortion/)

eg8r
08-24-2012, 07:22 AM
Is Debbie Obama's campaign? I know he made her out to be the liar she is, heck she even admitted to lying and said that it doesn't matter. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 09:23 AM
Shorter Anderson Cooper: The Democratic National Committee's use of a quote taken out of context for internal fundraising purposes to their own backers is a horrible offense against the LA Times, even though this was not a public ad, and it's misused only in private communications as alleged evidence in an overall true point. And he will not entertain any discussion as to why it is an overall true point, talking over that attempted discussion, to press the case defending the LA Times.

DWS does use loose language that amount to constructive lying, and she ought to stop. Because it is wrong, per se, and also that it offers opponents or concern troll media types the opportunity to focus on the misstatement rather than the main and true case in chief.

Not a AC viewer, I can only hope he is such a bulldog when confronting the many serious lies of the Romney team and associates, which are not restricted to internal e-mail fundraising messages, but broadcast in the millions of dollars to the public.

LWW
08-24-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is Debbie Obama's campaign?

eg8r </div></div>

She's chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 09:53 AM
It does knock the right wing claim that the mainstream media is in the tank for the Dems right out of the park, true enough.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Political Animal Blog
August 24, 2012 11:41 AM Deconstructing A “Devastating” Interview

So Republicans—even the normally clear-eyed David Frum—are gloating today over an Anderson Cooper interview of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz that supposedly leaves her shivering in embarrassment and exposed as a liar. Cooper badgers Wasserman-Schultz endlessly for “misquoting” an L.A. Times story in order to suggest (wrongly, Cooper says) that Romney and his campaign control the Republican platform language on abortion. How could that be, asks Cooper? Isn’t this the same language the GOP platform has had for years? CNN had a reporter in the room, and he didn’t see no “control” of abortion language by Romney Folk! Ah, these lying politicians….

Man, if this is a “gotcha” moment, then the definition of “gotcha” has been debased to the vanishing point. As someone involved in Democratic conventions (including on two occasions the platform process) for a long time, I can confidently assert that it is a fact, of which the entire CNN staff appears ignorant, that not a sparrow falls to the ground in the drafting of a national party platform that is not approved by the nominee and his or her staff. That Team Mitt did not choose to publicly challenge the traditional “constitutional ban with no exceptions other than life of the mother” language does not absolve it of responsibility for it. Romney’s extraordinary “flexibility,” shall we say, on the abortion issue over the years is hardly news, but the basic point that Romney is indeed complicit in an extremist platform if he doesn’t bother to explicitly distance himself from it is sound, even if Anderson Cooper doesn’t “get it.”

All I’d fault Wasserman Schultz for is letting herself get dragged down in the minutiae of this silly argument passing for tough journalism. “Rape and incest” exceptions notwithstanding, her basic point, that there is a vast gulf between the views on the right to choose of the two major-party candidates, is incontrovertible. It holds true for roughly 99.99% of the legal abortions currently performed in the United States, which Romney, Ryan, and all but a small handful of GOP pols want to ban by any means that come to hand, from discouragement and harassment of providers right on up to the constitutional amendment the platform endorses and the appointment of Supreme Court Justices determined to abolish reproductive rights altogether.

You’d think in the course of spending all this time “Keeping Them Honest” by rooting around in the pine straw of this issue, Cooper might have looked for the trees if not the forest.

Anyway, here’s the video; you can judge for yourself if this is, as Frum suggests), a triumphal example of the potential power of cable TV journalism. </div></div>

llotter
08-24-2012, 11:12 AM
It is a given that the Left lies to further its goals and I think Debbie did a pretty good job of simply ignoring the host's feeble attempt to call her on the lies. The Democrats are lying every day to help The Moron get elected in search of other morons, obviously.

eg8r
08-24-2012, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
DWS does use loose language that amount to constructive lying, and she ought to stop. Because it is wrong, per se, and also that it offers opponents or concern troll media types the opportunity to focus on the misstatement rather than the main and true case in chief.</div></div>What a load of crap. There is no "true case in chief" if it is all based on lies that she admitted to yet said they did not matter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not a AC viewer, I can only hope he is such a bulldog when confronting the many serious lies of the Romney team and associates</div></div>LOL, this coming from the person that refuses to be as tough on Dems as he is on Reps.

eg8r

eg8r
08-24-2012, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All I’d fault Wasserman Schultz for is letting herself get dragged down in the minutiae of this silly argument passing for tough journalism.</div></div>Another person that is soft on lefties. She did not get dragged down, she chose to lie. It was her choice.

eg8r

LWW
08-24-2012, 02:21 PM
Had she not lied aboutbanother leftist news source ... I doubtbthis event would have happened.

LWW
08-24-2012, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a given that the Left lies to further its goals and I think Debbie did a pretty good job of simply ignoring the host's feeble attempt to call her on the lies. The Democrats are lying every day to help The Moron get elected in search of other morons, obviously. </div></div>

Beyond that, she killed myth that the truth mattered to the DNC.

Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz may be Romney Hood's best weapon.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had she not lied aboutbanother leftist news source ... I doubtbthis event would have happened. </div></div>

I have never heard the LA Times ever mentioned in the pantheon of the great alleged liberal media as say, the NY variety, or the WaPost, and etc. Is that the rightie view of them, or is that you making it up?

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 02:44 PM
What a load of crap. There is no "true case in chief" if it is all based on lies that she admitted to yet said they did not matter.

The true case in chief is that even if Romney did not influence the abortion plank writing here, he did have people there representing him and his campaign, and they did ask for this or that change in other platform planks.

So, in this case, Romney chose to have his people NOT intervene in the language of this plank, about the same thing as she said, reversing it and still making it true.

Had his representative to that platform writing exercise suggested alternatives, weakening it, or asking for the exceptions Romney now claims he supports (and which Ryan glumly nods to falsely indicate agreement to), even had those not been approved, he could then have claimed his opposition to that language more credibly.

As it is, he knew about it, had a chance to try to shape it as his people tried to shape other planks, declined to engage his far right wing base on this issue, and therefore, owns it (more by default than by directing the language, true, and THAT was DWS's lie, not that he owns it, which is true).

Moreover, if Ryan becomes the POTUS, even if MR's pledge is sincere, that pledge would be mooted, as Ryan does NOT agree with it and has now since said so.

LWW
08-24-2012, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All I’d fault Wasserman Schultz for is letting herself get dragged down in the minutiae of this silly argument passing for tough journalism.</div></div>Another person that is soft on lefties. She did not get dragged down, she chose to lie. It was her choice.

eg8r </div></div>

And the we have confirmation ... the OBAMANATION will step over the truth to embrace the lie.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 03:05 PM
DWS does use loose language that amount to constructive lying, and she ought to stop. Because it is wrong, per se [...]

As neither eg8r nor I gave her a pass, and neither did AC, who is it you claim in OBAMANATION is confirmed as stepping over the truth to embrace the lie?

Isn't it actually no one, but your imagination?

eg8r
08-24-2012, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The true case in chief is that even if Romney did not influence the abortion plank writing here, he did have people there representing him and his campaign, and they did ask for this or that change in other platform planks.</div></div>And as pointed out a few times AC reminds her that they never said anything about the abortion part which is what we are discussing. That part has been in place for years.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in this case, Romney chose to have his people NOT intervene in the language of this plank, about the same thing as she said, reversing it and still making it true.</div></div>You are merely guessing. You have no idea if he said anything to them or not on this issue. She lied and you are trying to defend a lie that she admitted to doing.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 04:57 PM
You're a little short sighted here, as all of that makes it worse for Romney.

Yes, the plank has been in the platform forever ('76, to be less hyperbolic). So of course Romney knew where they were going with it this time as well.

He did have his people in place to push for anything he wanted as to the planks. Silence when you are represented there with people who will push for changes you want is assent. If he wanted changes, he would have had his people speak up. He didn't want any changes. He didn't have his people speak up, although they attended the platform committee meetings and did speak up on other things.

DWS did not agree she was lying, but rather said it made no difference, or didn't matter. It's too post-modern for me to accept it, but her claim was that by <s>misquoting</s> accurately quoting the LAT [to false effect, out of context], she was telling the truth, ultimately. They weren't agreeing with that, and were instead directly disagreeing with her, but it's quite true that Romney's people were there to direct the platform committee as to what he wanted done. Their breach of asking that anything be done is proof of what they wanted done, which is what happened. So it was under Romney's watchful eye (through surrogates) and at his direction, whenever he wished to intervene by providing directions. His failure to direct otherwise is his implicit direction to do what they all knew they would do going in.

Romney's trying to say he voted 'present,' (neither yes nor no), and also deny he was present at all, a typical conundrum sort of lie he specializes in.

Romney's side isn't fit to complain on this, as the accurate quote used to mislead by leaving out the context was their very first ad concept ('if we keep on talking about the economy, we're going to lose'). This is a mirror image tactic, but misusing a media quote instead of misusing the CANDIDATE'S quote. And of course by the DNC, not the president (whereas Romney released his bs ad under his own name).

Qtec
08-25-2012, 04:49 AM
Yes the email is misleading but does it falsely represent Mitts position on the issue?
Mitt says he supports the right to abortion in certain cases. How does that square up with this statement?

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHWulL3Ydw&feature=player_embedded)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established definition of life beginning of life at conception?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. </div></div>

Just like Herman, Mitt wants to hold two opposing positions at the same time.

Q

Qtec
08-25-2012, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But laws that give legal rights to fertilized eggs go much farther than merely outlawing abortions. As ThinkProgress’ Marie Diamond noted, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they could also have the effect of outlawing common forms of birth control, since contraceptives like the pill and IUDs can prevent fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Personhood amendments consider these types of birth control a form of abortion, and could potentially even treat them the same as homicide.</span> If these amendments make terminating pregnancy a criminal act, they would also deter doctors from saving the lives of women with abnormal pregnancies because any doctor performing an abortion could risk prosecution.

Some of the Republican presidential field’s more radical candidates like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich have already voiced support for giving legal rights to unborn children, but it’s surprising coming from Romney considering that he was staunchly pro-choice for much of his political career.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said in 2002, “I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.”</span> Romney’s retroactive support for outlawing abortion via constitutional amendment, expressed to Huckabee, clearly seem to contradict his earlier vows to protect his state’s pro-choice laws. </div></div>

Mitt will flip-flop at the drop of a hat, on everything!

Q

eg8r
08-25-2012, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes the email is misleading but does it falsely represent Mitts position on the issue?</div></div>So if a (D) lies it is called misleading? As far as what was being discussed the abortion issues were not touched by Romney's people, no update at all. So her email was a complete lie.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2012, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But laws that give legal rights to fertilized eggs go much farther than merely outlawing abortions. As ThinkProgress’ Marie Diamond noted, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they could also have the effect of outlawing common forms of birth control, since contraceptives like the pill and IUDs can prevent fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Personhood amendments consider these types of birth control a form of abortion, and could potentially even treat them the same as homicide.</span> If these amendments make terminating pregnancy a criminal act, they would also deter doctors from saving the lives of women with abnormal pregnancies because any doctor performing an abortion could risk prosecution.

Some of the Republican presidential field’s more radical candidates like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich have already voiced support for giving legal rights to unborn children, but it’s surprising coming from Romney considering that he was staunchly pro-choice for much of his political career.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said in 2002, “I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.”</span> Romney’s retroactive support for outlawing abortion via constitutional amendment, expressed to Huckabee, clearly seem to contradict his earlier vows to protect his state’s pro-choice laws. </div></div>

Mitt will flip-flop at the drop of a hat, on everything!

Q </div></div>


Yep, and has flipped on everything.

It's like, "Just vote for me, don't ask me any questions. It's my turn, so just line up and hand me your vote. You'll find out later which Mitt you ended up with!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
08-25-2012, 08:37 AM
I'm wondering if Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is from Maryland?

Soflasnapper
08-25-2012, 09:27 AM
No indication of that random question being true.

Gayle in MD
08-25-2012, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering if Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is from Maryland? </div></div>



<span style='font-size: 20pt'> <span style="color: #990000"> Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</span> </span>

eg8r
08-25-2012, 11:06 AM
According to her biography...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Debbie Wasserman Schultz was born in 1966 on Long Island, NY.</div></div>

eg8r

Qtec
08-26-2012, 03:05 AM
She said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.” </div></div>

This is true. This is backed up by this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney <span style='font-size: 17pt'>are voting down substantive changes to the platform language<u> that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.</u></span> </div></div>

He did write the platform but he didn't get all what he wanted.
When it came to the no exceptions to abortion, his guys never challenged it. eg he owns it, although he claims its not his position on the issue.

Q

LWW
08-26-2012, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No indication of that random question being true. </div></div>

Actually there have been plenty ... but apparently she is not.

LWW
08-26-2012, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.” </div></div>

This is true. This is backed up by this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney <span style='font-size: 17pt'>are voting down substantive changes to the platform language<u> that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.</u></span> </div></div>

He did write the platform but he didn't get all what he wanted.
When it came to the no exceptions to abortion, his guys never challenged it. eg he owns it, although he claims its not his position on the issue.

Q


</div></div>

Can you not read?