The Right Scoop
This woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a compulsive barefaced pathological liar!...just like Stephanie Cutter & Bill Burton & John Burton!
Anderson caught Schultz in more than one lies...the above is one, another one is when she was asked about the Super PAC Ad in which the DNC blamed / suggested Romney for being the cause of Joe Soptic's wife's death! These people are so shameless, they should go & crawl under a rock & hide their swine faces! You folks should choke on your lies!!
Ms. Compulsive Liar, you are NOT speaking on behalf of all women!
You are a disgrace to many women!
No credibility...SCUMBAG!!
The National Debt X PINOCCHIO!!
$ 1 6 , 0 5 2 , 5 4 4 , 5 1 8 , 5 4 9 . 1 2 debt......proud of your guy, Obama?
Get lost, liar!!!!
You are wrong Frank - It only takes a little common sense, discipline and business intelligence.
Something SERIOUSLY MISSING in Washington. Romney can fix it. He is a BUSINESSMAN. Not a moronic politician who got in a position of power because of being a member of the "Lucky Sperm Club" or "affirmative action hiring" of completely unqualified people
Regardless of who the President becomes this country will never get out of debt; the good Lord himself could not do it - shame on those folks in congress who are not concerned about the people!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Democrat party chose DWS as their spokesperson. Doesn't speak much for them, does it?
I am a 51 year old "woman". I have seen and heard people like her for the last 3 1/2 years, I am Done!!!!! Vote them out!!!!
The reason DWS sent out a fund-raising email full of lies is that they can't make their case based on facts and truth, and so must use fraud to get money from people, and fraud to get people to support them.
DWS is a lying, dishonest, crook, and should be impeached and imprisoned for slander and fraud.
I don't believe in abortion with a few exceptions. It seems that DWS believes in abortion on demand. Debbie was born in 1966 and before Roe v Wade. If she were born just seven years later, we may be having only one conversation about a pathological liar instead of two!
Sooner or later she'll blow a gasket over her lies. She knows "the sky is falling" on her parade and all her truthless cackling is not going to change it. Our job is to make that blown gasket as public as possible!
Sooner or later she'll blow a gasket over her lies. She knows "the sky is falling" on her parade and all her truthless cackling is not going to change it. Our job is to make that blown gasket as public as possible!
Debbie Waserman Shultz Gets Called Out....On Her Inaccurate Statements That Are In Fact... Based On An LA Times Post THAT SHE Purposely MISQUOTES...TO MISLEAD Women VOTERS In An E Mail Asking For Campaign Contributions For OBLAMEO...Paul Ryan Has Handed Her...HER BUTT EVERYTIME She Debates Him....SHE LIES!!!!! A LOT!!! Pretty SAD That FACTS Are TWISTED In This Manner....PATHETIC...If You Ask Me
She talked over him every time Anderson tried to point out her lies and misquotes.
because she is grossly shameless....''the TRUTH doesn't matter'.....IT DOES MATTER PINOCCHIO!!...you don't know what TRUTH means because you live your life by lying!....scornful liar!
She's a fraud.....can you imagine if she was your roommate?.... she'll steal your boyfriend, your food, your money.. & your brilliant ideas!//wonder if she plagiarized while in College/university?
Cooper didn't "obliterate" this lying lib. He allowed her to continue to make her point, even at the end she said that "the bottom line is that Romney's campaign wrote an anti-abortion clause in the platform." He even danced around the fact that she is nothing but a dishonest lying shill for the liberal socialist party when he said that she "maybe by mistake" put the sentence portion from the L.A. Times in her email when she PURPOSELY misquoted the paper.
Cooper should have called her a liar, continued to call her a liar till she either apologized or walked off in frustration. When it comes to facing down the Democratic destroyers of our Republic the media just chills at the prospect of losing the favor of these people. One of these days they will discover what it's like to be really free.
Hmm...similar to taking the ..."you didn't build that" comment out of context. Both sides are complete idiots. We need a better government
How was it taken out of context? Ive read the entire paragraph. The ONLY way that is taken out of context is if you include the "what he really meant" spin afterwords.
I actually watched it in real time, and he was clearly talking about infrastructure (the roads and the sidewalks that lead to your business.) I don't get paid to defend or bash any candidate and I don't have a dog in the fight. I just really don't understand why these guys are constantly misunderstood and taken out of context.
So Romney's people were in the room, and offered no changes to the abortion plank. And somehow that means they don't approve of the abortion plank?
Care to rethink that, David?
Why weren't they arguing for Romney's position?
She falls back on the talking points and lies whenever she has no substance to take a stand on.
This occurs virtually every time she opens her mouth.
How would the Romney campaign use this "obliteration"? Would he say, "I have no control over my party's platform? Would he (dare) suggest that he doesn't fully endorse this gruesome plank? Or that he does? For the imminent "leader" of his party, he definitely seems to be living up to Newsweek's cover--very wimpy.
How would the Romney campaign use this "obliteration"? Would he say, "I have no control over my party's platform? Would he (dare) suggest that he doesn't fully endorse this gruesome plank? Or that he does? For the imminent "leader" of his party, he definitely seems to be living up to Newsweek's cover--very wimpy.
What a bald-faced liar!!! She definitely has a way about her!! Just like a bull in a china shop . . . . if they don't get out of the way, run 'em over!! And she is an elected official!! What were those people thinking??
It is very simple .... I am a democrat but this woman is and always been a lying Bitch.
If she stays on the ticket, I am changing my vote ....
Hm, not sure I agree with Anderson here. The quote states that Romney's campaign directed these changes to be made, but that delegates for him had voted these changes down.
Ok. So, these changes are not in the final platform, but at the direction of his campaign would have been added, ie. sweeping changes to Roe v Wade. That the changes did not survive pre-election does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the man will not reintroduce them once elected, and given Paul Ryan's vacillating stance it can be assumed that a Romney presidency would indeed do what the DNC has suggested.
I think it is Anderson being a little disingenuous here, not the DNC. I can see where he is coming from, but the lifting of these seven words from their context does not in any way change the fact that the seven words were indeed mooted by Romney's campaign.
Wasserman Schultz is correct here. And reading the comments to this post, I wonder if Anderson might backtrack in his criticism.
And at the end of the day, if this is the most the DNC has done, given the outright lies on the side of the Right, I'm going to give them a pass.
As long as the subject is abortion, Republicans are losing. DWS cleaned Anderson Cooper's [and Romney's] clock because abortion was the only subject discussed. DWS got to repeat her talking points time and again and Cooper could only bleat that she had misquoted a newspaper in some stupid fund-raising email. Total fail on Cooper's part.
Were you watching the seem thing I watched. Debbie is such an idiot that the Obama team polled her for feedback, she came in last as spokeswoman for the Obama re-election team.
Debbie Wasserman-Schputz was schputtering towards the end. Hat tip to Mr. Cooper for putting her paws to the fire.
In normal times the Democrats would have fielded candidates like Romney and Huntsman. It's obvious the far-left radicals have hijacked the Democrat Party. To try to paint Mitt Romney as a right-winger is just making the Progressive radicals look ridiculous. Cooper did a good job of exposing their games.
How many of the posters here want to both ban abortion and eliminate government programs that support children? Seems to me that if you're in favor of the child coming into this world, you would also be in favor of helping take care of it.
I think most people here would like welfare controlled at the local level instead of the federal government taking our money, letting politicians skim their take off the top, and then sending it across the country to who knows where with no ability to control fraud and waste. The monitoring of the current federal welfare system is similar to Fast & Furious and I have my doubts that "children" are the recipients of much of the money.
Although welfare could be considered, I was thinking more about food stamps and WIC. I'm just trying to figure out how somebody can be in favor of requiring a woman to bring a child into the world and also in favor of denying her any assistance in providing for that child if the need is there. It reminds me of the 80s tag line "Protecting the right to life from conception to birth."
There are definitely problems with where the money goes and how it is spent, but the fraud and waste in SNAP and WIC are, from all I can find, much less than in traditional welfare programs. It's possible to lock those programs down even further, but only by requiring recipients purchase only certain brands of products (government choosing one business over another--not something I'd like to see). And I don't think returning control to the states is the answer, either. It's long been shown that when neighboring states treat their poor quite differently, the poor will move to the state with the best treatment, and thus increase costs to taxpayers in that state.
Oh, absolutely. I'd like to see a lot of the federal programs go back to the states. But I'd expect that some states will provide better social programs than other states. People will then move to the states with the best benefits; this has happened before. On the surface, it's a good thing for the states losing these people, because the cost of their social programs goes down accordingly. But many of the states that will probably lose population because their social programs provide less also depend heavily on sales tax receipts for funding (Texas is a prime example). At some point, the loss of population will begin to have a negative effect in tax receipts.
All those programs could be done more efficiently at the local or state level. I don't know anyone who is against taking care of the needy and I know many who give their time and money to do it voluntarily. I think I made my point....the feds take our money and spend it on whatever they want, usually something that benefits themselves more than the needy. Let's put an end to the money laundering and service duplication.
Speaking as a liberal democrat, DWS is a terrible advocate for my political beliefs. She is just bad. Like literally with no time or training how about...
"Well Anderson, Mr. Romney has taken many positions on many issues. In the 1990s he was pro-choice and promised to defend a woman's right to choose. But Romney told Mike Huckabee he would fight for a Personhood Amendment which, as you know would illegalize all abortions, in all cases, and make most forms of birth control illegal.
Recently he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate who cosponsored House Resolution 3 with Todd Akin that sought to redefine rape, and in recent interview Paul Ryan reaffirmed his anti-choice position no matter 'the method of conception'. Anderson I, as I think all women should, take this to mean that if Paul Ryan were to have his way American women would be forced by their government to carry their rapist's baby against the woman's will.
And my position is simply that when it comes to an individual's body, the individual is in the best position to make decisions about what happens to it, and a government bureaucracy shouldn't be one to make these decisions. But supposedly small-government conservatives like Romney, Ryan, and Akin disagree. Any more questions Anderson?"
Boom. Easy. But no, DWS does a crappy job every time she's on TV, and whenever she's interrupted she acts like she is about to flip her lid. She really needs to never be in front of a live television camera.
"And my position is simply that when it comes to an individual's body, the individual is in the best position to make decisions about what happens to it, and a government bureaucracy shouldn't be one to make these decisions." - Thomas Estes
Very interesting comment, obamatax is going to be the biggest government bureaucracy this nation has ever seen. As a liberal democrat I'm sure you support it.
"The Bottom Line", DWS, is that the DNC is LYING through its' teeth to make political points. When you wake up that morning in November, and you have been soundly defeated at the ballot box, you will lose your position as party chair...and the incumbent will begin packing for his move back to Chicago.
I'm a liberal. I hope Obama wins. Ripping sentences out of context like that is shameful, and the DNC chair comes across as both stupid and bull-headed.
DWS is such a hypocrite and a liar . When it comes to lying She Pelosi , and Reid are all the same.
Akin messes up - GOP pressure him to stand down. DWS messes up here - Dems defend her. You're not fooling the rest of the world. If it wasn't for Anderson Cooper, it would look like all Dems are as sleazy as DWS. #ViewFromAbroad
I feel slimy after watching Wasserman explain how the inaccuracy doesn't matter, and I'm liberal. This isn't what party representatives should be doing, and she's flat wrong that a candidate needs to follow the party platform to the T, as evidenced by Obama's nomination in 2008.
That really wasn't brutal at all. No one was "obliterated." I think she held up fairly well. She lost it a little in the middle, but towards the end she sort of acknowledged the incorrect quote and that helped her look better.
Gee, Anderson. I don't see where you have attacked Fox News for completely changing the meaning of their recap of a Politico article in which The Politico title “Obama doesn’t take SEAL group attacks ‘seriously’” on Fox News becomes “Obama Takes On Navy SEALS: ‘I Don’t Take These Folks Too Seriously’,” completely changing the setup to the piece.
Tell me this doesn't go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior! From the August 20 Fox Nation http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/22/fox-news-distorts-politico-headline/
Well, I certainly think the characterization of this exchange as Cooper "completely expos[ing]" Schultz and Schultz's actions as "lies" is pretty wildly inaccurate, probably coming from a Romney supporter grasping at straws.
While misquoting the LA Times is intellectually dishonest and reprehensible, as Cooper in fact notes, doing so wasn't at all necessary to make the DNC's case. And while Cooper's argument that the Republican Party's platform language is virtually identical to earlier platforms (though, interestingly, we never actually get to see that language, so we are asked to rely on his intellectual honesty about this), he never directly addresses Schultz's repeated insistence that Romney's representatives at the platform talks did nothing to alter that language when they had the opportunity to do so. And the two "lies" of which Schultz is here accused--quoting out of context and misrepresenting Romney's position--seem nit-picking compared to the constantly shifting and duplicitous character of the Romney campaign.
Furthermore, this exchange represents a lack of decorum and a rudeness that appears to have become pervasive in American culture. Over and over again, Cooper interrupts Schultz and talks over her, rarely allowing her to get out more than two sentences, let alone complete a thought. In this sense, the broadcast provides an example of telecommunication's worst influence on the people of our country.
In fact, Schultz seems to have used this interview bravely to reiterate and repeatedly bring home the DNC's important message that women's health and rights desperately need to be protected. Furthermore, I'm not at all sure Anderson Cooper wasn't in fact secretly happy to give her that chance.
He is, but that doesn't mean he absolutely has to support everything every other liberal does. That's the problem with the current political mindset. If you dare cross party lines you're a traitor. It would be nice if more people looked for the truth like he is doing here.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.