When Obama stopped in at Master Lock in Milwaukee,

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
download

When Obama stopped in at Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin last week, he was walking the plant and stopped to talk with a plant employee and looked up at the banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him, "It is great to be in a union shop, especially one as old as this union is " - - - - pointing to the banner. He then said, "A Union shop since 1848" - - - and then he went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your union support.

The worker then said to Obama that it was the flag of the State of Wisconsin - - which was founded in 1848.

This was only reported by a local radio station in Milwaukee (1130AM) and not by the major news networks - - - they didn't want to embarrass this "got no clue" President!

Since they didn't do their job of reporting on this presidential visit, the only way for the news to get around is by us - on the Internet.

Do your job; I just did mine, so voters will know what really happened here and just

HOW BRIGHT THIS PRESIDENT REALLY IS !!!??? NOT!!


Pathetic

images
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
When Willard stopped in at Wal Mart in Statesville , Georgia last week, he was walking the store and stopped to talk with a store employee and looked up at the banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him, "It is great to be in a place that suports the KKK.

pointing to the banner. He then went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your KKK support.

The worker then said to Willard that it was the flag of the State of Georgia not the KKK banner.


ga_fi.gif
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
When Willard stopped in at Wal Mart in Statesville , Georgia last week, he was walking the store and stopped to talk with a store employee and looked up at the banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him, "It is great to be in a place that suports the KKK.

pointing to the banner. He then went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your KKK support.

The worker then said to Willard that it was the flag of the State of Georgia not the KKK banner.


ga_fi.gif

FAKE

:nono:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
download

When Obama stopped in at Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin last week, he was walking the plant and stopped to talk with a plant employee and looked up at the banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him, "It is great to be in a union shop, especially one as old as this union is " - - - - pointing to the banner. He then said, "A Union shop since 1848" - - - and then he went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your union support.



The worker then said to Obama that it was the flag of the State of Wisconsin - - which was founded in 1848.

This was only reported by a local radio station in Milwaukee (1130AM) and not by the major news networks - - - they didn't want to embarrass this "got no clue" President!

Since they didn't do their job of reporting on this presidential visit, the only way for the news to get around is by us - on the Internet.

Do your job; I just did mine, so voters will know what really happened here and just

HOW BRIGHT THIS PRESIDENT REALLY IS !!!??? NOT!!


Pathetic

images

REAL


:)
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Ronnie

Seriously '


You're hate for Obama is clouding what is true and not true for you.

With very little effort I find out that it wasnt Obama that said that about the flag. It was a Politico reporter.

damn I am worried about yu dude



Brian Beutler-February 20, 2012, 11:57 AM28270

When President Obama spoke to workers in Wisconsin last week, Politico accidentally made itself the story. The paper?s reporter mistook the Wisconsin state flag for the seal of a local union, and cited it as an illustration of President Obama?s pro-union bias.

Politico cleaned the egg off its face by wiping the story from the Internet. But the gaffe made the rounds among actual union officials in the state and now that the laughter?s subsided, they?ve turned it into a membership drive.

?When national news blog Politico came to Milwaukee to cover Pres. Obama?s visit, they incorrectly identified the Wisconsin flag as the ?flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848.? Many people got a chuckle at the embarrassing mistake, but we think it really represents something larger,? reads a new AFSCME petition. ?So let?s say it loud and say it proud! Join as a charter member of ?Wisconsin Local 1848? today. We?ll share up-to-the-minute information on statewide issues that affect us all.?

And there?s a t-shirt to go along with it
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Ronnie

you owe me a apology for posting false information in a election year.

no wonder you dont go after Willard for his hidden billions.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Democrats repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney for his secretive offshore financial arrangements on Sunday, on the heels of a major Vanity Fair story detailing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's Swiss bank account and various holdings in the Caribbean.

"He is the first and only candidate for U.S. president with a Swiss bank account, with tax shelters," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "There is just no way to explain it."

Although Romney has closed the Swiss bank account and insists he paid normal U.S. taxes on all of his financial arrangements, both he and his GOP allies have had trouble explaining why Romney orchestrated such complex financial holdings in secretive tax-haven nations.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), also appearing on "Face the Nation," did not respond directly to Durbin's discussion of Romney's tax status,


Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), appearing with Jindal, repeatedly castigated Romney over the issue.

"Mitt Romney bets against America," O'Malley said. "He bet against America when he put his money in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and shelters and also set up a secret company, the shell company in Bermuda, which, by the way, in order to avoid disclosure, he put in his wife's name right before he became governor of Massachusetts."

The Vanity Fair article was written by Nicholas Shaxson, whose book about tax havens, "Treasure Islands," is considered a classic by many tax policy experts. Shaxson reported that it is extremely difficult to discern exactly how much money Romney stashed in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Switzerland, because these jurisdictions are notoriously secretive, affording wealthy individuals and corporations broad protections from U.S. tax authorities.

On "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, argued that Romney has been unnecessarily secretive about his financial holdings, noting that he has only released one year's worth of tax returns. While Romney has released only his 2010 tax returns and an estimate for his 2011 filing, his own father, George Romney, disclosed 12 years' worth of data when he ran for president in the 1960s. Obama, meanwhile, has released tax records dating back to 2000.

"I'd really like to see Mitt Romney release more than one year of tax records because there's been disturbing reports recently that he's got a ... secretive Bermuda corporation that no one knows anything about, investment in the Caymans," Wasserman Schultz said. "Americans need to ask themselves: why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account, and secretive investments like that?"

The Romney campaign pushed back against the criticism in a statement e-mailed to HuffPost. "Mitt Romney had a successful career in the private sector, pays every dime of taxes he owes, has given generously to charitable organizations, and served numerous causes greater than himself," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
.................................................................

:scared :scared

you would think the neo cons would demand not to get into this situation as we head to Nov.

Declare declare declare
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
TXfemmom 8 hours ago ( 1:19 PM)
3204 Fans


Mitt Romney has utilized every secretive manner in which to disguise and to protect his wealth from any form of transparency, and is the first and only candidate for the Presidency and there is a reason he is the first one, and that is because individuals who would do this are not thinking first and foremost about this country and fairness. Mitt Romney says he has paid all the taxes he should have paid, but with the secrecy and it is intense secrecy and refusal of these countries to release the information regarding the money, the investments, and the income generated with the money and investments residing there.

He manages to have an effective tax rate of less than 15.9% on the millions of income he reports, when most individuals in the country pay a much higher rate on a small portion of income compared to Mitt Romneys'.. Then, we have the variables included on how much is Romney making on the investments offshore which remain offshore and completely opaque, An individual who is running for the Presidency should not have investments and business dealing which are completely opaque and offshore in a manner where there is no way for our government to know whether the true profits have been reported and taxes paid.

The behavior of Romney on this alone alone makes him unsuitable for the Presidency. Anyone who feels comfortable with a potential President who feels it is suitable to conduct his business in this manner is accepting a candidate who does not put their character and their behavior in matters of money beyond reproach and makes it clear their own enrichment is the foremost consideration of their character. .
..............................................................


this blogger hits the nail right on top of the head.


:scared :scared
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
was Willard a draft dodger ???


The Hypocrisy Behind Draft Dodger Mitt Romney Lecturing America About Sacrifice

The concept of sacrifice has different meanings depending on context, but it denotes offering up something for a cause whether it is a deity, an ideology, or a country. True sacrifice is giving up something voluntarily such as a soldier jeopardizing their life for their comrades or a parent going hungry so their child can eat, and even animals jeopardize their own lives to protect their offspring. For the past year in America, there has been talk about shared sacrifice where everyone gives up something, whether it is paying more in taxes or supporting across-the-board cuts in programs for the greater good of the nation?s economic health. Republicans believe in shared sacrifice, but only if 99% of the population shares in sacrificing to benefit the wealthy, and their presumptive presidential candidate, Willard Romney, promises to sacrifice the economy and American?s tax dollars to further enrich the wealthy.

The idea of sacrifice is willingly giving up something, but Romney and his Republican cohorts believe in legislating sacrifice on ninety-nine percent of the population so the rich and their corporations prosper. Romney is even willing to sacrifice the economic health of the nation to benefit the richest Americans while him and his wealthy elitist friends reap the rewards. The notion of advocating for someone else to sacrifice is a pattern he has adhered to since he was a nineteen-year-old college student.

In 1966 during the Viet Nam war, Romney attended Stanford University in California and while hundreds-of-thousands of young Americans across the nation were protesting the war and the ever-expanding military draft, Willard was participating in a pro-draft demonstration to support sending young Americans to fight and die in South East Asia. While Romney?s classmates were protesting a test designed to help authorities decide who was eligible for the draft, he joined 150 other conservatives to show their support for expanding the draft. Willard did not just join demonstrators, he told a protest leader that ?he had some experience with the press, and that he would handle the press for him if he wanted him to.?

Romney?s experience with the press was most certainly from observing his father, George Romney, deal with the media while serving as head of American Motors and governor of Michigan until Richard Nixon appointed him Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. George Romney, like his son, was an advocate for the war but later changed his position, but Willard?s support for sending Americans to fight while he dodged the draft informs his cowardice and rank hypocrisy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting an unpopular war and advocating sending your classmates to sacrifice their lives for their country, and indeed, taking such an unpopular position would have merit if Willard enlisted in the military or put his name at the top of the list for the draft. Instead, he held the esteemed designation of Mormon missionary and was exempt from having to sacrifice anything for his country. After spending one year at Stanford, Romney went to France for 30 months to proselytize membership into his cult. It is a sign that Willard?s penchant for wanting others to sacrifice when he knows he will never have to is a lifelong trait he intends on maintaining if he is elected president.

Early in the Republican primary, when Romney talked about the virtue of self-sacrifice and serving in the military for the good of the country, he was asked if any of his five sons were serving. His response was that his 5 sons were serving their country by working to get him elected president. Americans should be worried that Romney assembled George W. Bush?s team that pushed for the war in Iraq to counsel him on starting a war in Iran so he can send their sons and daughters to make the ultimate sacrifice while his sons will never serve except as campaign workers or proselytizers for the Mormon faith.

The real danger of a characterless man like Romney is his intent on sacrificing Americans tax dollars and the economy to enrich the top 1% of income earners. Like his support for sending young Americans to fight in Viet Nam while he played Jesus in France, Romney?s economic scheme and Draconian budget will force 99% of Americans to sacrifice everything when he will never have to. Romney?s budget gives approximately $6.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy over ten years, and despite cruel spending cuts to programs that assist the poor with food and shelter, it will add at least $3.1 trillion to the nation?s deficit. In fact, like his time at Bain Capital when he sacrificed Americans? jobs and nearly 25% of the companies Bain managed, his economic plan will ruin the economy and send more jobs to China, Mexico, and South Korea while he reaps the profits. One has to wonder what other sacrifices Romney will force on the American people when he knows he will never have to give up anything, and instead will reap handsome profits from other Americans? sacrifice

Romney is despicable, and not just because he is wealthy. It is that he intends forcing 99% of Americans to make sacrifices while he sacrifices nothing except his time hiding his enormous wealth in off-shore accounts and secret Swiss banks. He has gained a much-deserved reputation as a flip-flopper, but he has maintained that most dishonorable trait of supporting other Americans? involuntary sacrifices when he is exempt from giving anything. There is a reason Americans dislike Romney the more they learn about him, and as the general election campaign heats up and more Americans learn that he dodged the draft after protesting to send other young Americans to their death in Viet Nam, they will despise him. As Americans learn that his economic plan entails every other American making sacrifices to enrich Willard Romney and his wealthy friends, they will discover that besides being a chicken-hawk and a coward, that he is nothing more than a low-life charlatan.
...........................................................

Maybe this is why Willard does not want anything to do with George W

two peas in a pod
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Two separate database reports from the National Student Clearinghouse have contradicted President Obama?s claim he attended Columbia University for two years. The reports have added to the intrigue generated by Obama?s unwillingness to discuss his time at the Ivy League institution, his refusal to release educational records, and the fact that many political science students and faculty there in the early 1980s say they don?t remember him.

Swirling amid the black hole of information are a host of theories about Obama?s whereabouts ? particularly during the 1981-1982 school year ? including speculation he was working for the CIA in Pakistan. :SIB

Now, the clearinghouse, with permission from Columbia, has decided to make an exception to its media policy and address WND?s inquiry into the discrepancy. Why do clearinghouse records indicate Obama was at the school only during the 1982-83 school year while Obama and Columbia?s spokesman have insisted he began attending the New York City school in the fall of 1981?

Janine Greenwood, vice president and general counsel for the clearinghouse, told WND there was a ?computer error? in their system that has been corrected. She said she confirmed with Columbia that Obama was at the university for two academic years, not one.

Greenwood said she ?tried to untangle this? discrepancy one year ago after two ?DegreeVerify certificates? from the Herndon, Va.-based clearinghouse ?obtained through a fee-based request ? indicated Obama attended Columbia College at Columbia University only in the 1982-1983 academic year, from Sept. 1, 1982 until May 31, 1983, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree May 17, 1983.

?All I know is [the record] was right originally, and somewhere along the line it went off the rails, and then it was right again,? she said.

?...........................................................

Ronnie

If Obama was a cia recruit and was in Pakistan working undercover, that would explain alot about not releasing records.

It would also help explain how he got to be POTUS in the first place. :0008

Maybe Illum could shed some light on this for us since he is knowledgable of that agency.


Now lets get Willard to release his billion dollar tax records like every President has done in the history of America.
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
Two separate database reports from the National Student Clearinghouse have contradicted President Obama?s claim he attended Columbia University for two years. The reports have added to the intrigue generated by Obama?s unwillingness to discuss his time at the Ivy League institution, his refusal to release educational records, and the fact that many political science students and faculty there in the early 1980s say they don?t remember him.

Swirling amid the black hole of information are a host of theories about Obama?s whereabouts ? particularly during the 1981-1982 school year ? including speculation he was working for the CIA in Pakistan. :SIB

Now, the clearinghouse, with permission from Columbia, has decided to make an exception to its media policy and address WND?s inquiry into the discrepancy. Why do clearinghouse records indicate Obama was at the school only during the 1982-83 school year while Obama and Columbia?s spokesman have insisted he began attending the New York City school in the fall of 1981?

Janine Greenwood, vice president and general counsel for the clearinghouse, told WND there was a ?computer error? in their system that has been corrected. She said she confirmed with Columbia that Obama was at the university for two academic years, not one.

Greenwood said she ?tried to untangle this? discrepancy one year ago after two ?DegreeVerify certificates? from the Herndon, Va.-based clearinghouse ?obtained through a fee-based request ? indicated Obama attended Columbia College at Columbia University only in the 1982-1983 academic year, from Sept. 1, 1982 until May 31, 1983, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree May 17, 1983.

?All I know is [the record] was right originally, and somewhere along the line it went off the rails, and then it was right again,? she said.

?...........................................................

Ronnie

If Obama was a cia recruit and was in Pakistan working undercover, that would explain alot about not releasing records.

It would also help explain how he got to be POTUS in the first place. :0008

Maybe Illum could shed some light on this for us since he is knowledgable of that agency.


Now lets get Willard to release his billion dollar tax records like every President has done in the history of America.

Good story Scott, there ALWAYS seems to be an ERROR when it comes to Barry Obama.

:mj07:

AE2113BE67D84D089015B1590922AA96.png
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,564
315
83
Victory Lane
Ronnie

not sure if you noticed but you didnt apologize for the lies you posted about the flag thing.

:popcorn2
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
That took me two minutes.

Do you realize why even conservatives laugh at you, skul? You make them look bad. They wish you would just go away. :mj07: :mj07:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
That took me two minutes.

Do you realize why even conservatives laugh at you, skul? You make them look bad. They wish you would just go away. :mj07: :mj07:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2201084/posts

http://69.84.25.250/...

http://www.usacarry.com/...
http://beforeitsnews.com/...
Snopes Exposed From Blogsphere

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus,you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I don't think you understand. The truth is what we are all after. If a website uncovers it and you cannot dispute it, who the fuck cares who funds it? I swear you are the slowest guy around. Everything you get in your mailbox you believe. JFC.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top