They can’t handle the truth [Reader Post]

By 39 Comments 1,296 views

Spending time at Huffington Post can be one interesting experience. It is impressive to watch an entire segment of society engaging in self-indulgence and self-delusion. If Barack Obama told them Mitt Romney was an alien from Remulak and his house had to be burned down and he had to be destroyed they’d do without so much as a thought. When confronted with facts, they simply deny them. They stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell “LALALALALALALA.” “Liar” is the word of the day for Mitt Romney.

A sampling:


As if we didnt already know but this further proves the man to be a big liar. He isnt even a good liar. Lying about somethng so rediculous. This man has no character at all.


I see potential felony fraud allegations on the horizon with the SEC.


The lies are starting to close in and all those people representing you are going to start telling the truth or start to back away…just a matter of time.

Jim Roos in SC

Fact check-Smack check. Let’s do a REALITY check.


Looking down the page I see a lot of Romney supporters in panic mode trying to change the subject rather than address Mitt Romney’s lies and his possible commission of a felonies in the process.

What is the truth? The truth is that Romney has been telling the truth, says the NY Times:

President Obama and the Democrats are questioning whether Mr. Romney really left Bain in February 1999, when he took over the Olympics. And Mr. Romney and the Republicans are insisting that he ended his day-to-day management role at Bain after taking the Olympics job.

At stake is whether Democrats can hold Mr. Romney responsible for a series of now-controversial investments Bain made during the period in question, including in companies that specialized in outsourcing, laid off some of their workers or declared bankruptcy.

Great levity ensued when Ed GIllespie described Romney as having “retired retroactively” but that was exactly what happened:

The complications arise in part from the ways in which Bain was organized. When Bain Capital was originally created, Mr. Romney was given full control of the private equity firm’s new management company, Bain Capital Inc. When Mr. Romney went on leave in 1999, he retained ownership of that entity — and with it, in theory at least, the power to control Bain Capital’s funds.

At the time, Mr. Romney appeared to be leaving open the possibility that he would return to Bain. His leave was originally characterized as part time, and he told The Boston Herald in 1999 that he would be providing input on investment and personnel decisions in his absence.

Campaign and company officials now say that the Olympics job quickly became all-consuming and that Mr. Romney delegated his management powers to the active partners, most of them longtime friends and colleagues. And in recent years, Mr. Romney has been far more definitive in characterizing his departure.

“Since Feb. 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,” reads a footnote to Mr. Romney’s most recent federal financial disclosures.

HuffPo went into hyperventilation when it was noted that Romney’s signatures appeared on scores of documents but there was a legal reason for that:

“Mitt’s name were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Edward W. Conard, a Bain partner at the time, said during an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday. “And it took several years for us to sort out how to put the management team in place.”

“It’s a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions,” said Harvey L. Pitt, who served as S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush. “When Bain takes positions in public companies, they’re required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings. If they didn’t show them on those filings, they would have broken the law. But it has nothing to do with who’s actually running Bain Capital.”

And the clincher:

Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period. And financial disclosures filed with the Massachusetts ethics commission show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain Capital Inc. — effectively his own till — as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner.

Had Romney not done these things he would have run afoul of the SEC and would have had a bucket load of trouble.

Then Romney chose to save the 2002 Olympics and is being trashed by the left for doing that. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to suggest Romney is a felon:

Mitt Romney either lied in federal filings that show he worked at Bain Capital through 2002 and could be guilty of a felony, or has lied to the American people in saying he left the company in 1999, the Obama campaign is arguing in light of news reports on the firm’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Romney has been vindicated by many sources- (twice), WaPo (also twice), CNN (also twice) and ABC News.

And Obama refuses to apologize for the “felon” smear. This is from the miscreant who claims he wants to return decency to politics.

The truth is there for all to see. If Obama had anything it would be on the table already, but I for one would not be at all shocked to learn that David Axelrod had copies of all of Romney’s tax returns in his grubby hands already.

Have I mentioned that there were only 80,000 new jobs last month and more people are becoming disabled than are going into employment?

Maybe that’s why the Obama White House is demoralized and why Obama has to hack $10 magnets and beg that you send him money in lieu of a wedding gift. And maybe it goes a long way to explain why leaders in the democrat Senate think Obama has no idea what he’s doing.

One thing is for certain. They can’t handle the truth.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

39 Responses to “They can’t handle the truth [Reader Post]”

  1. 2


    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    I love the first comment. It’s a perfect start for this thread…. a link to an unbiased source like which uses Rachael Maddow as their research platform.

    With the weightlessness of arguments like that, conservatives don’t need to stick our fingers in our ears and go ‘LALALALA’ – we just sit quietly and consider the source.

    Thanx for setting the gold standard for the Liberals/Obama supporters in here! Now back to the facts……

  2. 3

    Nan G

    These Huffers are trying to aid Obama in his quest to suppress the white, blue-collar vote.
    Note, I did not say prevent their vote.
    Voter suppression, in this case, means to make such a group of voters feel as though their vote will be a waste of time, irrelevant, not worth the trouble.
    As a result of over three years of Obama’s class-distinction/class warfare rhetoric we’ve got a very divided electorate.
    Some of the groups in this electorate Obama wants to come out and vote.
    But the white, blue-collar voters…
    Obama is behind the divisiveness that tries to convince such voters that ”only Obama has their back,” even if they don’t like Obama, they might not see Romney as the street lingo Obama uses, ”having their back.”

    The Fallacy of the Bandwagon works in two directions.
    Obama is using it as often as he can in both ways:
    1. to make his various parts of the electorate feel as though they are part of some mysterious larger whole, and they better climb on BY VOTING.
    2. to try to make members of Romney’s electorate groups feel as though NOTHING they might do (like donating, volunteering or VOTING) will result in a win.

    Just like Obama’s overuse of the Straw Man Fallacy, this one is being caught onto by many people.
    Enough people know to trust their own eyes and pocketbooks over a politician’s rhetoric.

  3. 4


    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    That is quite a blog that you’ve found there, Lib1. You can make your inane comments there constantly with no fear of anyone contradicting them, according to the blog owner’s rules.

    And a little info for you, Lib1. “Ultra-conservatives”, as you call us, don’t exactly care for Romney all that much. We wouldn’t even bother with defending him if it wasn’t for all the crap Obama is throwing all over the big picture of his economic failure on the wall. All we are doing is cleaning that up so that people can focus on what Obama doesn’t want the people to see. That he, and his policies, are, and have been, a massive failure.

  4. 6

    Hard Right

    For real fun, go to the Daily Kos and use the search word “Jews”. (bring a barf bag because the anti-semitism there is thick)

  5. 7


    If the Pulitzer prize, administered by one of the farthest left liberal/progressive university in America, and voted on by a board comprised of some of the biggest liberal/progressives in the paper news business, is the arbiter, or standard, of all things good and right in print and internet news media, thanks, but I think I’ll pass on that.

    Not to mention the fact that there are literally thousands of newspapers and other news media outlets who haven’t won the Pulitzer. Should I discount all of them, too, because of that?

  6. 9


    @C Andrew Scott

    Has the New York Times returned Duranty’s Pulitzer, yet?
    Has the Pulitzer Committee revoked it and demanded its return?

    Until the NYTimes returns it, they continue to prove how despicable an organization they are.
    Until the Pulitzer Committee revokes it, they prove they are a bunch of Leftist apologists for mass murder.
    Therefore, a Pulitzer has Zero meaning, except to Leftist shills, Communists, anti-Western “intellectuals,” Euro-Trash and Soros-paid Proglodytes posting in the comments sections of conservative blogs.

  7. 10

    C Andrew Scott

    @Thor: i don’t equate all conservatives with racists. do you equate all liberals with communism?

    i understand this is a “conservative” blog. i also understand that their is no such thing as an “un-biased” news source. that being said…if you want to accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being a “liar” go right ahead. it’s alot of finger-pointing and name-calling. but when facts are presented to dispute your argument, even in the slightest…your argument loses credibility.

  8. 11

    Mike O’Malley

    Has the New York Times returned Duranty’s Pulitzer, yet?

    Genocide, negation and the New York Times. Indeed! One day the New York Times may meet its long deserved fate in Chapter 7 but until than its long trail of tears will go on.

  9. 13


    @C Andrew Scott

    I did not use the word “Liberal,” I wrote “Leftist.” Do you understand the difference?

    I did not call you a “liar,” either. Take that freakin chip off of your shoulder, before someone knocks it off, for you.

    As to the rest of your response to me? Typical Leftists projection; the Left cannot argue from a point of Reason, as most of their “ideology” is emotion-driven. The Left nearly always resorts to ad hominem, because they cannot face facts, left alone dispute them.

    Fact: the New York Times and Walter Duranty covered-up the Soviet massacre of Ukrainian Kulats.
    Duranty’s stories about the Potempkin villages and the “superior Soviet farming methods” won him, and the Times, a Pulitzer. That one Prize, for hiding a genocide, taints all of the Pulitzer Committee’s choices, forever. Just like Albert Speer was a fantastic architect, except for that Nazi thing. Any toxin poisons the punchbowl.

  10. 15


    @C Andrew Scott:

    so because of this…you disregard the award completely, and all of it’s other winners?

    What’s amusing is the implication you suggest that by not having received the award, that the news outlet should be disregarded, or discounted. Why is that amusing? Because of the thousands of news outlets that haven’t received the award.

    In truth, the award is useless in determining who to listen to, or read from. Which kinda makes your #5 post useless too.

  11. 16

    C Andrew Scott

    @johngalt: do you also disregard every Nobel Peace Prize winner, because you don’t approve of one?

    my point, which has been completely ignored, is…there is NO “unbiased” news source. this thread was predicated with “biased” news sources and if anything is provided which supports the argument you are trying to make…it is disputed with accusations and rhetoric like “Leftist shills, Communists, anti-Western “intellectuals,” Euro-Trash and Soros-paid Proglodytes”.

    provide me with a truly “un-biased” source…and i will concede and bow to your infinite wisdom.

  12. 17


    @C Andrew Scott:

    Your point? Didn’t realize that you had one. Your first posting asked about FOX news having a pulitzer, which leads one to think that you discount any news media sources that don’t. Do you?

    If your point was that which you are stating now, that there is no unbiased news sources, then you have a strange way of making it. That is, not saying anything about it, until your retort to Thundergod in your post #10. Do not blame others for not seeing your point if your way of presenting it is poor in form.

    And I seriously doubt that anyone here will state that there is an unbiased news source. Not that it means anything, politically. Everyone has biases, no matter where they were born, their upbringing, education, friends, family influences, or even their own original thoughts. Indeed, they have biases precisely because of those things. And as such, a reporter, news anchor, or other news person will knowingly, or unknowingly, inject biases into their work.

    You should be more upset at the typical MSM news person who doesn’t believe their news is biased. Or the liberal/progressives who don’t believe their is a heavy bias towards the left in most news outlets.

    My statement in #15 stands, that the Pulitzer is useless in determining who to read or listen to, which makes your post in #5 useless, which is the exact posting I was referring to, in which you never mentioned anything about a bias in the news, which means your “point” wasn’t what I was addressing, because it wasn’t even there.

  13. 18


    I believe Romney is GENUINE – Why??? Because he Actually HAS A RECORD and doesn’t need to LIEhere is no earthly way possible Romney can

  14. 19


    I believe he is genuine also, and it seems that many governors and leader of companies

  15. 20

    Mike O’Malley

    @C Andrew Scott:

    my point, which has been completely ignored, is…there is NO “unbiased” news source

    OK, that is a reasonable claim. However at #5 above @C Andrew Scott: you were trying to dismiss Fox News out-of-hand, were you not? Because Fox News was not accredited by a notorious Left-wing Journalist group. You were arguing were you not that one could simply ignore disagreeable news reports from Fox because Fox (unlike the New York Time) has not been duly credited by the “Gatekeeper Guild for Approve Journalism”?

    With this in mind, in this situation the bias that should be questioned and recognized is your own.

  16. 21

    C Andrew Scott

    @johngalt: again…i provide a view that Romney DID lie. it has nothing to do with whether Fox or any of your other “un-biased” sources has a Pulitzer prize or not…it’s that this source DOES.

    my apologizes for zeroing out Fox news…but while i know this is a “conservative” blog, i also got the impression it was one that prided itself in FACT and not biased journalism.

    for the 3rd time…i’ll request a source of NON-BIASED information…since obviously the source i provided will be discounted as “accredited by a notorious Left-wing Journalist group”.

  17. 22

    C Andrew Scott

    @Mike O’Malley: you are correct. my dismissal Fox was, as you said, “out of hand”…but only because in this forum, any “liberal” media is immediately dismissed.

    i was trying, and obviously ignored in that attempt, to suggest that there is no “un-biased” journalism…dating back to the days of Joseph “Joey the Jew” Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst…and even further back before the birth of our nation.

    what i’ve seen over and over in the crass, slanted essays on this blog is not always intelligent argument, but sometimes hateful bashing and derogatory diction. my apologies for trying to engage in debate.

  18. 23



    Personally, I’m not tackling the Herculean task of defending all things Romney. But there’s only two relevant points I can see from drj’s post.

    1: By and large, and certainly those highlighted, HuffPo readers are gullible and uninformed fools, and wouldn’t know the truth if it they had their noses rubbed in it. uh… can’t disagree there. Not sure it’s breaking news, but no argument from me.

    2: The quest to place Romney in the position of responsibility is to highlight Bain deals that dared to outsource.

    Are any of you missing the gallows style humor in that? Obama getting on his high and mighty steed about outsourcing?? Ya gotta be kiddin’ me….

    Why even CAS’s own PolitiFact source incriminates Obama doing the same. You know, the loan to Fiskers when the plan was always to build the cars in Finland? But of course, that’s not all… how about the GM factories in China? Talk about outsourcing…

    A dose of reality. In a global trading economy, as long as federal regulations make outsourcing more inviting for business health and growth than keeping the jobs domestic, outsourcing will happen. What a laugh to think either of these two jokers can claim the high moral ground on that issue with the voters. And if anyone thinks they can, they can’t handle the truth either.

  19. 24


    @C Andrew Scott:

    Did you miss it where I said this:

    And I seriously doubt that anyone here will state that there is an unbiased news source.

    Even those of us that post here who believe FOX news is the most un-biased, realize that bias is relative to who is judging it, and as such, all news reporting is biased in some shape or form.

    The one aspect of news reporting that we hammer on constantly, in regards to the MSM, is that they refuse to report the negatives surrounding Obama and the Democrats, unless it’s unavoidable. One could, of course, say that FOX does the same with the GOP, depending on your perspective, but the majority of the news media, whether in print or on the airwaves, carries the water for Obama and the Democrats.

    Would I rather have exact, current, factual, and relevant reporting by everyone? Heck yeah, and I think most here would agree with me, including you.

    I wasn’t calling out any other aspect of your comments other than that it seemed that you were putting much stock into whether or not a particular media entity had received the Pulitzer. If that wasn’t your point, then ok. If it was, then that comment you made in #5 is, as I said, useless, particularly in a discussion about the relative merits of the various news organizations.

    And you can keep asking your question about providing an unbiased news source. No one is going to take the bait, I think, because no one would disagree with that. Again, though, it’s all relative to a person’s own political or personal viewpoint.

  20. 25

    C Andrew Scott

    @johngalt: not “bait”, Mr. Galt. but again…conservatives will shoot down anything the “Liberal” media says as “lies” and then it makes me wonder…what if they are telling the truth? i’m well aware that there are biased sources on both sides. i try my best to avoid the extremes of either, knowing that hyperboles, sensationalisms, and flat out erroneuos facts are presented.

    my attempted (yet missed) point in #5 is valid…because the title is “They can’t handle the truth”.
    perhaps the other “they” can’t either, but we’ll never know will we…since we can’t even agree on what the “truth” is.

    and @MataHarley: …i wasn’t trying to defend Obama. i was just using another example where fingers are pointed, accusations are made, and is there any evidence to support either of them? yes? no? maybe?

    What a laugh to think either of these two jokers can claim the high moral ground on that issue with the voters. And if anyone thinks they can, they can’t handle the truth either.

    i completely agree.

  21. 26

    Richard Wheeler

    J.G. Understandably your responses are always very precise. Possible you’ve been an engineer your entire adult life?
    When I was a young stockbroker with Merrill Lynch, spouting price earnings ratios and the like a guy came in with an armful of stock charts he’d personally drawn up. Swore they were the best way to determine future stock movement. This was 1973—- unheard of heresy. By now chartists outnumber fundamentalists among prognosticators. He was an engineer. I enjoy reading your posts though I often disagree. Keep up the good work. Be as fair and balanced as possible and I’ll bump you to Mata/Aye status.
    BTW I feel Tom best expresses the Dem. viewpoint at F.A.

  22. 27


    @C Andrew Scott:

    my attempted (yet missed) point in #5 is valid…because the title is “They can’t handle the truth”.
    perhaps the other “they” can’t either, but we’ll never know will we…since we can’t even agree on what the “truth” is.

    If that is your point, then I’d agree, at least in part. However, I fail to see the relevance of including the Pulitzer prize in that posting. As I said before, there are thousands of news media sources that haven’t received one, and so we shouldn’t count that as a standard on what constitutes “truth” in news, as the availability of the award itself is limited to a handful a year.

  23. 28


    @Richard Wheeler:

    Understandably your responses are always very precise. Possible you’ve been an engineer your entire adult life?

    Yes, you could say that considering my educational background and jobs I’ve held.

  24. 29

    C Andrew Scott

    @johngalt: again, John…my apologies. that was a poor attempt at political spin. Politifact won a Pulitzer for their unbiased writing. they have been wrong before and printed retractions or apologies.

    i do not take what they print as “gospel”…but i was trying to find an example of respected (and of course, that is determined by who respects them) journalism.

    @Richard Wheeler: did you work in NYC? i held memberships at both the CME & CBOT in Chicago.

  25. 30


    @C Andrew Scott:

    (and of course, that is determined by who respects them)

    Today, with the atmosphere, politically, that we live in, that statement is more true than most believe.

    Unfortunately, it is also true that the bias in the various news sources is greater than most would believe.

    So, who can we believe? I’d say no one. At least without checking, rechecking, and verifying facts. That, of course, is the hallmark of a truly objective thinker.

    Another problem that we have is that many people cannot separate fact from opinion, as given by the various news sources, and this includes the people reporting the news as well. Fact is referenced as opinion, and opinion is given as fact, depending upon one’s viewpoint.

    And no, I haven’t worked in NYC. It would take an extreme situation for me to even visit there. My background is nuclear and mechanical engineering, working for the Navy, a package-boiler company, and currently a coal(petcoke) gasification power plant.

  26. 31



    @C Andrew Scott, I didn’t address any of your comments specifically above, nor do I think you are supporting Obama. I remember your political leanings well from the past, so I suffer no delusions as you being one of the O’faithful.

    To this observation:

    i was just using another example where fingers are pointed, accusations are made, and is there any evidence to support either of them? yes? no? maybe?

    I’m a bit confused as to the direction this thread has gone, frankly. As I pointed out above, drj highlighted the Huffpo forum, specifically those he copy/pasted, as unable to handle the truth. I can’t disagree with that. Most, however, have attempted to expand that focus group more broadly.

    If you are talking about your injected topic of unbiased news sources… well, I agree that’s an oxymoron to the nth degree. Nor would I consider any awards as the certification of excellence.

    These days, I can’t abide most news shows from any network. Frankly I’ve dumped watching them with any regularity, and just catch some financial news networks in the morning to watch the DJIA/Nasdaq rollercoaster, and see if Europe has imploded yet. I find Neil Cavuto a refreshing blend of astute and entertaining. The rest of the political and financial news, I pick up from various Internet news sources around the world.

    The way I try to process news is I’ll get the round up, focus on a topic that I think isn’t petty in it’s foundation (no dearth of those lately, but it is election season…), then try to catch multiple internet media perspectives on the same until I can figure out what’s really behind the yellow journalism headline. If you combine enough outlets, you might find some semblance of what’s really going on.

    I can point out an inane CNN “breaking news” report this AM. The blazing headline on the blurb? Romney riles Brits, calling security problem ‘disconcerting’ INRE the Olympics security, and the fact they didn’t complete the training in time for the start of the games.

    They cut to a woman on the street who, in response to the question about Romney’s statement, can produce no British political official that is even miffed, let alone “riled” about Romney’s observation. In fact she did an informal poll amongst the festivarians on the street, and the winning majority answer was, “who is Mitt Romney?”. LOL I love our country, but sometimes we do have this mistaken idea that we are the center of the universe.

    But how everyone constructs that as “truth” depends upon where you come from in your own political belief system. I’d say that you, johngalt and myself have no disagreement that “truth” – other than inarguable facts like it’s raining, or not, where you are standing that moment – can be subjective.

  27. 32

    C Andrew Scott


    I love our country, but sometimes we do have this mistaken idea that we are the center of the universe.

    may i borrow this quote?

    yes…you are correct, i do lean left most of the time, but i would not say that i am “one of the O’faithful”. i did not vote for him before and while i can’t say for sure, i have no plans to vote for him in November (see my conversation with Bee regarding the electoral college). i see positives and negatives regarding both Obama and Romney (and Paul, for that matter).

  28. 36

    Richard Wheeler

    C. Andrew Scott I trained with Merrill in N.Y. but worked as a broker in L.A. and Newport Beach.
    Ck. in with your hard throwing monkeys today. Economic news terrible, Dow up 200.

  29. 37

    C Andrew Scott

    @Richard Wheeler: oh, i still follow. plenty of friends and family back in Chicago still scraping nickels each day.

    i saw time in every pit at both exchanges working for an options firm. i got my feet wet in the agriculture & currency markets; did most of my trading in the NASDAQ and S&P futures pits.

    ahh…the good ol’ days of “open outcry”. sometimes, i feel like a dinosaur. the language of arbitrage is nearly a dead one.

  30. 38

    Political stumble of the day:

    REPUBLICAN presidential candidate Mitt Romney has quickly caused a stir on his overseas tour by questioning whether Britain is prepared to pull off the Olympic Games without problems.

    “It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out,” Romney told NBC News, and he called the late-developing concerns over security staffing “disconcerting”.

    Romney, a former businessman and one-term governor who managed the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, is largely untested on the world’s political stage, and he hopes to assert himself in a tight and highly expensive presidential race with foreign visits that also include Israel and Poland.

    He ended up putting British Prime Minister David Cameron at least briefly on the defensive.

    In response to Romney’s remarks, Cameron said: “We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.”

    He apparently was referring to Utah, the site of the Games Romney managed. The lively British media pounced. “PM delivers Olympic putdown to Romney,” The Times newspaper in London trumpeted.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *