Romney’s Solar Flareout

"An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to "Obama’s political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees."

THIS PART IS TRUE

"■It claims the “inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ ” But that’s not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged “schemes,” no public charges have been made, at least not yet."

SO WHAT DID THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAY?

NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE - BY HOLDER? :laugh:

"■The ad highlights the struggles — company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs — at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated."

SO WHY IS OBAMA GIVING MONEY TVERSEAS COMPANIES?


"■The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors."

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE SOURCE MAKE IF THE FIGURES ARE TRUE?

I NOTICE THAT NO FACTS ARE GIVEN IN THIS FACT CHECK :laugh:

 

Honest reporting is not in his best interest.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_lost_annenberg_years_co.html

 

And Scopes is financed by Soros.

Is there a fact checking organization that is not owned or run by liberals with an agenda?

 

What I would like to know is how these liberal thugs have become the standard for fact verification when they have an OBVIOUS bias?

And the media reports their mess as though it's the Gospel. (smh)

 

I don't know how this got by me before...

REALLY?

Can you show even one such post about Obama and Fact Check?

 

What amazes me is that there are any straws left for the libs to "grasp", seems they should have been used up hundreds of posts ago!!??:laugh::sleep::flower:

 

I can I posted them. Of course the response by crabby could not be more childish.

 

The only ones I have seen concern subjects that it would be ludicrous, for any organization that says it checks facts, to disagree with.

 

There have been a series of ads in our TV market by the Obama side about Romney shipping jobs overseas and Bain. It is a terrible commercial. If Obama really believes in the policies and his idiot Congress have implemented, then he should be running ads that tell the American people what he has accomplished, and why it makes us a better nation and better citizens.

The last positive campaign ad I remember was in 84 when Reagan ran for reelection, called "Morning in America."

What a novel idea, focusing on the positive instead of the negative. No doubt Romney will be guilty of the same thing. Never any new ideas. Only bash the other person.

 

So far Obama has been the one putting out the negative ads.

Romney has been pretty clean in that regard to date with Obama.

Obama has very little choice given his lack of accomplishments.

Romney will do well to keep his campaign positive to differentiate himself from Obama.

I would say that the average voter is tired of negative campaigning.

 

A good post. The only thing I would differ with is your statement about Obama's lack of accomplishments. I do not think they do this country any good, but they are accomplishments, including health care reform, two Supreme Court appointments, lessening the involvement in Iraq (that one is ok). My point is, that is his record, and he should run on it before attacking Romney.

On Romney's side, he might as well not let negative campaigning make him so angry. Four months is a long time, but IMO, he is going to have something to really be mad about election night. (yes, I am voting for him)

 

Are you being anti-semitic?

 

No, but you appear to be by assuming that "liberal thug" "media" equals Jews. :laugh:

 

Who do you think Soros, Annenberg, and the media are? Roman Catholic? Muslim? JWs? Morman?

No, they're liberal Marxist Jews. (Annenberg goes back to Jewish mafia)

 

Not all Jews work in the media.

Not all media people are Jewish.

You are taking two people in the larger population of media people and focusing on the fact that those two people are Jewish...

And then painting the larger group - both the larger group of Jews and the larger group of the media - based soley on race as something that it is not...

And that my friend is the very meaning of racism...

Or in this case "anti-semitism".

BTW - too bad how your little comment - which was meant to be a dig at someone else - backfired on you.

 

No backfire at all, I baited you and you came running, you did EXACTLY as I knew someone would. I wasn't digging at anyone, making a point that escapes you. Anyone can say anything about RC, JW, Muslim (especially Muslim right now), Morman, but don't dare state the facts concerning JEWISH DOMINANCE in any area. Is there a name or term for this sort of willful ignorance? I know you all have all sorts of names and accusations to level at me.

The very same Marxist entity that runs Hollywood.........also owns the media.

 

All I can say is "WOW".

It is willful ignorance not to share in your sterotyping?

"Jewish dominance"?

Again - WOW!

 

'Painting the larger group'; where do you see that I've done that?