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.
thisAdvertisement

by 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.
this
by 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.

by 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.

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

by 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...


by 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.

by 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.

by 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.

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


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

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

by 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.

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

by 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.



by 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.

by 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.

by 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.

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

by 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.

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

by 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.

by Mavorpen » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:25 pm
Advertisement
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