Romney: Obama 'Angry and Desperate'

Nothing new for Obama, he's never been able to talk about the policies, or give new ideas. All he's ever done is make up trash about someone.

I was actually surprised that this article came from ABC. Although I don't agree with Romney on many issues I do agree with him over 83 percent over Obama at 33 percent. I am not better off after 4 years then I was before. I am happy to see Romney is finally opening up and getting angry and talking about real issue. It is ok if he makes a mistake in his speeches because he doesn't use a screen to get that message across. Over 90 percent of African Americans will vote for Obama. This is a fact. What if 90 percent of white America vote Romney just because of race?

suntzu02908 wrote:

I was actually surprised that this article came from ABC. Although I don't agree with Romney on many issues I do agree with him over 83 percent over Obama at 33 percent. I am not better off after 4 years then I was before. I am happy to see Romney is finally opening up and getting angry and talking about real issue. It is ok if he makes a mistake in his speeches because he doesn't use a screen to get that message across. Over 90 percent of African Americans will vote for Obama. This is a fact. What if 90 percent of white America vote Romney just because of race?

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Why would Attorney General Eric Holder drop these charges against such a radical group? The Answer is Barack Hussein Obama.

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a
piority of the present DOJ.

C Adams.Former Attorney at Law for the DOJ.

All we shall hear is mud slinging, and ridicule during this campaign.

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>

.

bushies didn't think it was worth pursuing either. It is more likely that Breitbart hired them. The photo-op was over without anyone being impacted, but you weenies talk about it like it had any impact. While the repugs are disenfranchising hundresd of thousands of citizens.

The wrote:

<quoted text>
bushies didn't think it was worth pursuing either. It is more likely that Breitbart hired them. The photo-op was over without anyone being impacted, but you weenies talk about it like it had any impact. While the repugs are disenfranchising hundresd of thousands of citizens.

How could you all say the POTUS,and his Minions,are
Racist????? What reaction from the DOJ,If White
Supremacists Dressed in KKK Garb,Were out side
a Voting Booth ,Brandishing Nite Sticks??????

(Answer) They would be locked up,Charged,so fast
their noses would bleed..

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Why would Attorney General Eric Holder drop these charges against such a radical group? The Answer is Barack Hussein Obama.

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a
piority of the present DOJ.

C Adams.Former Attorney at Law for the DOJ.

BTW,This is a statement by the former Lawyer
who was handling the Case for the DOJ....Before
you all go all stupid on me???? He quit because
of reverse Racism???

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>

From politifact- nonpartisan source.

The decision to narrow the scope of the civil case was made during the Obama administration. But we traced the timeline back to when the call was made on criminal civil rights charges. That call was made during the Bush Administration. We rated the claim False.

So quit lying and STFU

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

blah blah blah wrote:

<quoted text>
From politifact- nonpartisan source.
The decision to narrow the scope of the civil case was made during the Obama administration. But we traced the timeline back to when the call was made on criminal civil rights charges. That call was made during the Bush Administration. We rated the claim False.
So quit lying and STFU
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

Perez Atty for Obama Lied?? Google it Fool!!!
And you STFU!! Liar!!

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>

lying.

Here are results of the DOJ's extensive investigation into these allegations. In a March letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Robin Ashton of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility wrote that their investigation found that "department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct," and that there was "no evidence" that their decisions were improperly affected by political considerations or by the race of the defendants.

This clark guy was selling a book, by the way.

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>
Google it Fool!!!
!!

"it fool" and your handle came up.

As usual the right wing fringe has its own separate reality and made up facts.

the president won by 10 million votes - the clowns had no effect except to give you loons something to wet your pants over and to encourage your racist base.

I googled wrote:

<quoted text>
"it fool" and your handle came up.
As usual the right wing fringe has its own separate reality and made up facts.
the president won by 10 million votes - the clowns had no effect except to give you loons something to wet your pants over and to encourage your racist base.

In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.

In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false.…

But what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony. At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing, is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered.

So Perez lied for Obama re the Case??????????

There you go Racist Fool!!!

quit wrote:

<quoted text>
lying.
Here are results of the DOJ's extensive investigation into these allegations. In a March letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Robin Ashton of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility wrote that their investigation found that "department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct," and that there was "no evidence" that their decisions were improperly affected by political considerations or by the race of the defendants.
This clark guy was selling a book, by the way.

WRONG,FOOL!!

In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.

In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false.…

But what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony. At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing, is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered.

So Perez lied for Obama re the Case??????????

blah blah blah wrote:

<quoted text>
From politifact- nonpartisan source.
The decision to narrow the scope of the civil case was made during the Obama administration. But we traced the timeline back to when the call was made on criminal civil rights charges. That call was made during the Bush Administration. We rated the claim False.
So quit lying and STFU
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

FOOL!! CHUMP,YOUR SOURCES AINT WORTH SH8T!!

In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.

In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false.…

But what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony. At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing, is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered.

So Perez lied for Obama re the Case??????????

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>

case of lie, repeat lie on your part. You have no source cited.

another wrote:

<quoted text>
case of lie, repeat lie on your part. You have no source cited.

The Fool,can not read or Comprehend..
So try to understand this? Chill out
your Man is finished OK?? LOL..

Got some good news a PA Judge just ruled that voter
ID is perfectly justified,and does not impede or
cause any hardship to voters/minorities?? Obama
and Holder are having a real bad day?? POTUS to
AG,WTF??? What do we come up with now to F...k
the Republican Voters?? LOL>.

suntzu02908 wrote:

I was actually surprised that this article came from ABC. Although I don't agree with Romney on many issues I do agree with him over 83 percent over Obama at 33 percent. I am not better off after 4 years then I was before. I am happy to see Romney is finally opening up and getting angry and talking about real issue. It is ok if he makes a mistake in his speeches because he doesn't use a screen to get that message across. Over 90 percent of African Americans will vote for Obama. This is a fact. What if 90 percent of white America vote Romney just because of race?

No, I vote for the better man-which is Romney. Obama lied and tricked people into believing him, no one knew his CHANGE would be for the worst. He's a Communist!!!

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>

.

your source liar? Reliable? impartial?

see the light wrote:

<quoted text>

He's a Communist!!!

is just plain stupid - even for a texan

see the light wrote:

<quoted text>No, I vote for the better man-which is Romney. Obama lied and tricked people into believing him, no one knew his CHANGE would be for the worst. He's a Communist!!!

The worst part is his building of cattle cars in secret factories to deport all white people ot Kenya!!

The WH is buying votes one group at a time, the Obama wars have failed one after the other.
I hope the election is allowed to happen.