A tad more subtle than "Daisy" but we'll see how effective it is...

Must be Election season in VideoSift. Ugh...

Why is telling the truth considered an attack?

It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/

You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http
/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html


Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.

Sorry Mitt you been exposed!

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, July 14th, 2012 3:02pm PDT - promote requested by pumkinandstorm.

guessing that he didn't "ship" jobs anywhere. he just closed and restructured businesses - typically by reducing wages, benefits, or other related labor costs - like the number of employees on the payroll.

in the end, the void in industry gets filled, it just does so elsewhere - like china, or mexico.

good ad.

*commercial

Adding video to channels (Commercial) - requested by ant.

If singing off key makes you a bad American, let's lynch Ke$ha.

>> ^nock:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http

/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.


The Obama campaign hasn't actually provided any evidence that their accusations are true. That Romney signed a few documents while they were transferring ownership of the company doesn't prove Romney was actually running the company. He was working 112 hour work weeks running the Olympics; how was he supposed to have an active role at Bain?

There is also the evidence of three confidential offering documents distributed to potential investors, two in 2000, 1 in 2001, in which Romneys name is conspicuously absent from. If he was really running the company, his name would have been on them:

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

This came out on the 12th, it's been days.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-12/politics/32633322_1_bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure

"But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'

"Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings."

And the source of this info, from the same article.

"Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time."

I don't know about you, but sole stockholder, chairman of the board, president and CEO with 100% ownership and control sounds to me like he might have had something to do with it. Even if he was in a coma he had legal ownership and responsibility for it. The "I wasn't there" argument is a bit thin, and if he gave different info at different times between FEC and SEC filings he may have committed a crime.

I always think they are playing some kind of game when they bring forward presidential candidates that seem more like whack jobs you read about on the internet than someone who'd be running your country. And then one who ends up being the best of the bunch is........basically the definition of a one percenter and is pretending he's not. Exactly the group most people in the country have a severe distrust of.....and they pick a guy whose company is the definition of "all short term profits" when it comes to make decisions for the "improving" of companies other than their own....than usually end up costing jobs, bringing on debt and later killing off the company they "improved" under said debt after being sold.

Seems kinda............the exact opposite of who and what should be getting put forth in front of the voters huh. Much like all the Copyright laws and other spying things that keep getting passed yet massive disapproval from the general population when they actually understand what is being voted on.

And very few in the media seems to notice how nuts all of this is. Insanity doesn't describe it properly.

Doonesbury always has quotes on its website. Following are things heard a Rmoney fundraiser:

"Is there a V.I.P. entrance? We are V.I.P."
-- guest at a Romney event in the Hamptons

"Tell them who's on your yacht this weekend! Tell him!"
-- Carol Simmons, a guest at a Romney Hamptons fundraiser

"Obama's a socialist."
-- Ted Conklin, speaking from his gold Mercedes outside a Romney Hamptons fundraiser

"I don't think the common person is getting it. Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them."
-- guest at a Romeny Hamptons fundraiser, speaking from her Range Rover

"Even though my official title was president of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2012. See?"

- Mitt Romney, 2016

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"Even though my official title was president of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2012. See?"
- Mitt Romney, 2016


Too true to be funny... prescient.

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

Why is telling the truth considered an attack?


Why wouldn't it be?

An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.

What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.

Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!

>> ^Quboid:


Why wouldn't it be?
An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.
What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.
Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!


Agreed, it is by far the worst aspect of American politics. I think there should be an advertising regulation covering political ads that you cannot mention your opponent, all you can do is promote your own policies, although that would probably violate the first amendment in the US. Maybe just have the candidates sign an agreement?

They're both the fucking problem. I wish Ron Paul could be president.

The future looks pretty fucking bleak now.

Fixed.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"Even though my official title was President of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2008. See?"
- Barak Obama, 2012

The guy lies about every position he takes, refuses to commit to anything, lies about his own past, lies about his opponent and his opponent's record, and I expect he will lie about everything else that comes out of his mouth.

But god damn it, if you even so much as drop a hint at the truth about him, you're a god damned liar and need to shut your face immediately because only republicans should be allowed to shit on the truth!

The President is going to have to do a lot worse than this before he's even in the same league as his opponent when it comes to dishonesty.

>> ^My_design:

Fixed.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
"Even though my official title was President of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2008. See?"
- Barak Obama, 2012




Cute, except that Obama hasn't actually used this excuse once already.

Good point!

It's really *livemusic


>> ^speechless:

music

Simple questions for people who're standing up in defense of Mitt:

Does Mitt think Bain was wrong to do these things? If not, why try to hide behind technicalities and grey areas? He's said before that attacks on Bain capital are the same as attacks on capitalism itself, why not just stand up and defend capitalism?

If he thinks they did do wrong, doesn't that still reflect poorly on his leadership since he choose a bad (and as-yet unnamed) successor to entrust his company's operations to?

For that matter, who did he entrust his company's operations to? Who does rightfully deserve blame for Bain's wrongdoings?

Moreover, what policies would a President Romney implement that would deter companies like Bain from doing similar things in the future?

I don't like these type of ads either and would prefer some sort of regulation.

But for now Obama & Co need to find some way to communicate with a population that only understands these type of childish demonstrations. God knows Romney & Co don't hesitate and do a pretty "good" job at these, and they don't even care about facts.

Here's an interesting editorial from a moderate conservative:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/brooks-more-capitalism-please.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212_20120717

Excerpt:

The accuracy of the ad has been questioned by the various fact-checking outfits. That need not detain us. It’s safest to assume that all the ads you see this year will be at least somewhat inaccurate because the ad-makers now take dishonesty as a mark of their professional toughness.

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.

>> ^renatojj:

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.


I don't disagree with that. I don't like where we tend to put the blame though, on the politicians and such rather than on ourselves. It's our own damned fault.

TV News used to do some investigative journalism, and it used to be a loss leader for the networks and done for a public service to earn them the right to the frequencies they were offered free of charge. But with 60 minutes and others of the sort the networks learned they could turn a profit and examine more personal issues then with Crossfire and others of the sort they lost even the public service requirements which they had on broadcast.

From Vince Foster murder allegations to blowjobs, 911 conspiracy theories and Swiftboating, death panels, foreign born, communist, socialist, we took it all in and never changed the channel or turned off the TV, and it DID shift our votes and opinions.

The fault is with us. We bought all of the deregulation arguments which allowed our current media and corporate system, we kept electing people who would do it some more even as the impact of our prior choices should have been getting more clear, and we kept responding to and watching ever more extreme and confrontational "news" shows and ads. Any politician who even tried to play nice, honest, and so on was simply steamrolled over and we never bothered to notice. And now we complain that we got the system we asked for.

No argument at all, both parties and the whole system these days sucks. And it's our own damned fault. We watched the shows, we voted them in, then reelected them, we echoed every conspiracy theory and accusation, and we never demanded better. We had every opportunity to see it coming and people have been warning us about it for years. We just couldn't be bothered to care.