NATION

PASSWORD

Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Who do you support in the USA presidential election?

Mitt Romney
451
22%
Barack Obama
1114
54%
Gary Johnson
106
5%
Jill Stein
118
6%
Ron Paul
264
13%
 
Total votes : 2053

User avatar
Kohlastan
Envoy
 
Posts: 299
Founded: Feb 08, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Kohlastan » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:38 pm

Minnysota wrote:
I don't recall Romney ever being a "good steward". I just recall him being a gigantic douche who I would like to punch.

:bow: this
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
Please note I'm too lazy to check for correct grammar and spelling
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

User avatar
Revolutopia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5741
Founded: May 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Revolutopia » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:54 pm

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Revolutopia wrote:
To be fair, Romney also has executive experience by being governor of Massachusetts. However, there is the point of how Romney refuses to comment at all on his term as governor.


Romney has disowned his experience. Realistically, that's what he SHOULD be running on - but it's an embarrassment to him if he's running as a 'fatally conservative' (or whatever cute phrase that was, I can't remember. I like mine, though) candidate.

Still, only one of them has Presidential experience.


Severely Conservative, it also probably doesn't help that he was kind of a failure at being governor.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.-FDR

Economic Left/Right: -3.12|Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

Who is Tom Joad?

User avatar
Not Safe For Work
Minister
 
Posts: 2010
Founded: Jul 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Not Safe For Work » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:57 pm

Revolutopia wrote:
Not Safe For Work wrote:
Romney has disowned his experience. Realistically, that's what he SHOULD be running on - but it's an embarrassment to him if he's running as a 'fatally conservative' (or whatever cute phrase that was, I can't remember. I like mine, though) candidate.

Still, only one of them has Presidential experience.


Severely Conservative, it also probably doesn't help that he was kind of a failure at being governor.


Severe. That's it. I remembered it was something that you normally use to describe horrible road traffic accidents and injuries.
Beot or botneot, tath is the nestqoui.

User avatar
Revolutopia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5741
Founded: May 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Revolutopia » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:59 pm

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Revolutopia wrote:
Severely Conservative, it also probably doesn't help that he was kind of a failure at being governor.


Severe. That's it. I remembered it was something that you normally use to describe horrible road traffic accidents and injuries.


A subtle hint about his future presidency?
Last edited by Revolutopia on Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.-FDR

Economic Left/Right: -3.12|Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

Who is Tom Joad?

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:00 pm

TaQud wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote: :)

Ah isnt it beatiful? Dont go halfway down the leftist/rightist hall, go all the way down in support.

What it looks like compared to everyone else's...

Who took the trouble to do all of that? :blink: :clap:

User avatar
Freedom of United Trevor
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 418
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Freedom of United Trevor » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:27 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Freedom of United Trevor wrote:I just saw Obama2016 movie last night so here is what I saw if Obama is reelected

The Nuclear weapons will drop to 0 in America

A third world with a evil USA

The dept higher to 16 trillion way then his first term

His father Obama Senior influence him

That's what I saw.

That's what they want you to see. They don't want you to see a reformed health insurance system with costs coming down and coverage extended. They don't want you to see the budget controlled. They don't want you to see the US regaining the international respect that was thrown away by the previous administration. It's pure propaganda.


well yes but its hard work till November

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:41 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Freedom of United Trevor wrote:I just saw Obama2016 movie last night so here is what I saw if Obama is reelected

The Nuclear weapons will drop to 0 in America

A third world with a evil USA

The dept higher to 16 trillion way then his first term

His father Obama Senior influence him

That's what I saw.

That's what they want you to see. They don't want you to see a reformed health insurance system with costs coming down and coverage extended. They don't want you to see the budget controlled. They don't want you to see the US regaining the international respect that was thrown away by the previous administration. It's pure propaganda.

Like 99% of the crap the GOP says.

User avatar
Drexel Hillsville
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jul 24, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Drexel Hillsville » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:16 am

Divair wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:That's what they want you to see. They don't want you to see a reformed health insurance system with costs coming down and coverage extended. They don't want you to see the budget controlled. They don't want you to see the US regaining the international respect that was thrown away by the previous administration. It's pure propaganda.

Like 99% of the crap the GOP says.


Like 99% of the crap either side says...
Generation 30 (The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

User avatar
PapaJacky
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1478
Founded: Apr 16, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby PapaJacky » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:06 am

Oh lord, here comes the self-righteous anti-partisan "declarer of propaganda" people...

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:35 am

Drexel Hillsville wrote:
Divair wrote:Like 99% of the crap the GOP says.


Like 99% of the crap either side says...


Image

False Equivalency is a helluva drug!
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
New Chalcedon
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12226
Founded: Sep 20, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby New Chalcedon » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:37 am

Oh Mitt, are you trying to lose? Dissing the troops? Really?
Fuck it all. Let the world burn - there's no way roaches could do a worse job of being decent than we have.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:55 am

New Chalcedon wrote:Oh Mitt, are you trying to lose? Dissing the troops? Really?


It's an expose on his mindset. He'd treat the military no different than any business he bought under Bain.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:58 am

Jocabia wrote:
Freedom of United Trevor wrote:I just saw Obama2016 movie last night so here is what I saw if Obama is reelected

The Nuclear weapons will drop to 0 in America

A third world with a evil USA

The dept higher to 16 trillion way then his first term

His father Obama Senior influence him

That's what I saw.

It was an awesome movie. Brilliantly and masterfully put together. I think he is a genius.

And I came to that conclusion by throwing away Obama's entire first administration and instead focusing on one word from the title of one of his books. We vet Presidents before they become President. Just like we interview people for a job before they have the job. After someone gets the job, we look at their job performance, not their background. Why is the Presidency any different?

This process has somehow been flipped on its head by Republicans. We're supposed to vet Obama, by looking at the behavior of his cousins, or people he was linked to, or his parents, or something someone he knew once said, but we're not actually supposed to look at the policies he supported (particularly not those he supported and Republicans didn't or those that he and Romney and/or Ryan and/or every Republican in Congress supported). And we're not supposed to look at Romney as if he is a NEW candidate to the job and actually interview him. Nope, when you apply for a job, apparently, you don't get interviewed. Instead you only try to prove that the job should be available, i.e., suggest that Obama does not deserve another term.


the weird thing is that they have decided that we didnt vet mr obama the first time around (if we had we never would have voted for him) so they want to do it now as if the hadnt been president for 4 years already.

its stupid because we dont VET the president. we vet candidates so we can make our best judgement of what he would do if he gets the job. we know what president obama will do with the job. we already like it or hate it or land somewhere in the middle. thats why no one really gave a shit when it was rubbed in our faces that george w bush was derelict in his national guard duties. we already either loved him or hated him as president. what he had done in the past was irrelevant by then.

mr romney needs to be vetted because we dont know what he would do as president. HE doesnt know what he would do as president.
whatever

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:01 am

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Revolutopia wrote:
Severely Conservative, it also probably doesn't help that he was kind of a failure at being governor.


Severe. That's it. I remembered it was something that you normally use to describe horrible road traffic accidents and injuries.


if he were a real massachusettsian he would have said he was "wicked conservative".
whatever

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:04 am

New Chalcedon wrote:Oh Mitt, are you trying to lose? Dissing the troops? Really?


that comment should lose him the election.

you talk about what is important. what was important was how much money "the military" was getting. not the troops.
whatever

User avatar
Not Safe For Work
Minister
 
Posts: 2010
Founded: Jul 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Not Safe For Work » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:52 am

Ashmoria wrote:
Not Safe For Work wrote:
Severe. That's it. I remembered it was something that you normally use to describe horrible road traffic accidents and injuries.


if he were a real massachusettsian he would have said he was "wicked conservative".


Too close to home.

Same reason he didn't describe himself as 'mad conservative'.

*nods*
Beot or botneot, tath is the nestqoui.

User avatar
Orcoa
Senator
 
Posts: 4455
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Orcoa » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:29 am

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Freedom of United Trevor wrote:I just saw Obama2016 movie last night so here is what I saw if Obama is reelected

The Nuclear weapons will drop to 0 in America

A third world with a evil USA

The dept higher to 16 trillion way then his first term

His father Obama Senior influence him

That's what I saw.


Even worse, he-who-shall-not-be-named will return and seize power again, and only the Boy Who Lived can stop him.

And Sauron will rise again with his army of darkness...oh wait that is Romney, sorry about that :lol:
Image
I SEE YOU


Oh Shit! I have enraged Romney! Run for your lives! :lol:
Long Live The Wolf Emperor!
This is the song I sing to those who screw with me XD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXnFhnpEgKY
"this is the Internet: The place where religion goes to die." Crystalcliff Point

User avatar
Jocabia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5273
Founded: Mar 25, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Jocabia » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:11 am

Ashmoria wrote:
Jocabia wrote:It was an awesome movie. Brilliantly and masterfully put together. I think he is a genius.

And I came to that conclusion by throwing away Obama's entire first administration and instead focusing on one word from the title of one of his books. We vet Presidents before they become President. Just like we interview people for a job before they have the job. After someone gets the job, we look at their job performance, not their background. Why is the Presidency any different?

This process has somehow been flipped on its head by Republicans. We're supposed to vet Obama, by looking at the behavior of his cousins, or people he was linked to, or his parents, or something someone he knew once said, but we're not actually supposed to look at the policies he supported (particularly not those he supported and Republicans didn't or those that he and Romney and/or Ryan and/or every Republican in Congress supported). And we're not supposed to look at Romney as if he is a NEW candidate to the job and actually interview him. Nope, when you apply for a job, apparently, you don't get interviewed. Instead you only try to prove that the job should be available, i.e., suggest that Obama does not deserve another term.


the weird thing is that they have decided that we didnt vet mr obama the first time around (if we had we never would have voted for him) so they want to do it now as if the hadnt been president for 4 years already.

its stupid because we dont VET the president. we vet candidates so we can make our best judgement of what he would do if he gets the job. we know what president obama will do with the job. we already like it or hate it or land somewhere in the middle. thats why no one really gave a shit when it was rubbed in our faces that george w bush was derelict in his national guard duties. we already either loved him or hated him as president. what he had done in the past was irrelevant by then.

mr romney needs to be vetted because we dont know what he would do as president. HE doesnt know what he would do as president.

And his response to our attempts to vet him, "Fuck you, I don't work for you."

Seriously, if Obama had declared that he shouldn't have to tell the American people what he's going to do as President and that he would only show his tax returns to the people who were actually offering him a job (like McCain) we would have seen Fox News burst into a million pieces.

There is partisan and there is just refusing to hold anyone to any kind of a standard. At some point, it's our fault as a people that we allow an organization like Fox "News" to call themselves a news organization. It's embarrassing.
Sgt Toomey wrote:Come to think of it, it would make more sense to hate him for being black. At least its half true..
JJ Place wrote:Sure, the statistics are that a gun is more likely to harm a family member than a criminal

User avatar
New Chalcedon
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12226
Founded: Sep 20, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby New Chalcedon » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:15 am

Jocabia wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:
the weird thing is that they have decided that we didnt vet mr obama the first time around (if we had we never would have voted for him) so they want to do it now as if the hadnt been president for 4 years already.

its stupid because we dont VET the president. we vet candidates so we can make our best judgement of what he would do if he gets the job. we know what president obama will do with the job. we already like it or hate it or land somewhere in the middle. thats why no one really gave a shit when it was rubbed in our faces that george w bush was derelict in his national guard duties. we already either loved him or hated him as president. what he had done in the past was irrelevant by then.

mr romney needs to be vetted because we dont know what he would do as president. HE doesnt know what he would do as president.

And his response to our attempts to vet him, "Fuck you, I don't work for you."

Seriously, if Obama had declared that he shouldn't have to tell the American people what he's going to do as President and that he would only show his tax returns to the people who were actually offering him a job (like McCain) we would have seen Fox News burst into a million pieces.

There is partisan and there is just refusing to hold anyone to any kind of a standard. At some point, it's our fault as a people that we allow an organization like Fox "News" to call themselves a news organization. It's embarrassing.


I think Fox News is either immune to, or (more likely) uncaring of, the double standard involved. After all, there are now Fox talking heads who are calling on Obama to release his college transcripts...whilst blithely ignoring Mr. Romney's refusal to release more than 1 year's tax return.
Fuck it all. Let the world burn - there's no way roaches could do a worse job of being decent than we have.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:53 am

Jocabia wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:
the weird thing is that they have decided that we didnt vet mr obama the first time around (if we had we never would have voted for him) so they want to do it now as if the hadnt been president for 4 years already.

its stupid because we dont VET the president. we vet candidates so we can make our best judgement of what he would do if he gets the job. we know what president obama will do with the job. we already like it or hate it or land somewhere in the middle. thats why no one really gave a shit when it was rubbed in our faces that george w bush was derelict in his national guard duties. we already either loved him or hated him as president. what he had done in the past was irrelevant by then.

mr romney needs to be vetted because we dont know what he would do as president. HE doesnt know what he would do as president.

And his response to our attempts to vet him, "Fuck you, I don't work for you."

Seriously, if Obama had declared that he shouldn't have to tell the American people what he's going to do as President and that he would only show his tax returns to the people who were actually offering him a job (like McCain) we would have seen Fox News burst into a million pieces.

There is partisan and there is just refusing to hold anyone to any kind of a standard. At some point, it's our fault as a people that we allow an organization like Fox "News" to call themselves a news organization. It's embarrassing.


in the end the american public will decide if they are willing to elect a man who is so secretive.

if they do, god help us all, eh?
whatever

User avatar
Nordengrund
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7531
Founded: Jun 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nordengrund » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:23 pm

I'm no longer pulling for Romney, I am now rooting for Ron Paul.
1 John 1:9

User avatar
Silent Majority
Minister
 
Posts: 2496
Founded: Jun 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Silent Majority » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:24 pm

Nordengrund wrote:I'm no longer pulling for Romney, I am now rooting for Ron Paul.


He's not even going to be on the ballot...
“It is the ultimate irony of history that radical individualism serves as the ideological justification of the unconstrained power of what the large majority of individuals experience as a vast anonymous power, which, without any democratic public control, regulates their lives.”
― Slavoj Žižek

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:24 pm

Nordengrund wrote:I'm no longer pulling for Romney, I am now rooting for Ron Paul.

Image
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Desperate Measures
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10149
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Desperate Measures » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:25 pm

Nordengrund wrote:I'm no longer pulling for Romney, I am now rooting for Ron Paul.

Yay! More of that please.
"My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music."
- Vladimir Nabokov US (1899 - 1977)
Also, me.
“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic”
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky Russian Novelist and Writer, 1821-1881
"All Clock Faces Are Wrong." - Gene Ray, Prophet(?) http://www.timecube.com
A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:25 pm

Silent Majority wrote:
Nordengrund wrote:I'm no longer pulling for Romney, I am now rooting for Ron Paul.


He's not even going to be on the ballot...

Not to mention he's racist, homophobic, and more.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Dimetrodon Empire, Enormous Gentiles, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Fractalnavel, Grinning Dragon, Mutualist Chaos, New Ciencia, OTOMAIN, Rary, Shidei, The Astral Mandate, The Black Forrest, The Jamesian Republic, The North Polish Union, Umeria

Advertisement

Remove ads