PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney is not a Wimp




Frank DeMartini
10-04-2012, 01:13 PM
Here is my article about the ass whipping President Obama was given by Mitt Romney last night. I hope you enjoy the read. I enjoyed writing it.


http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/10/romney-is-not-a-wimp/

cajuncocoa
10-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Glad you enjoyed writing it.

I'm not voting for Romney.

wgadget
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
Me nuther.

LibertyEagle
10-04-2012, 01:22 PM
I'm not voting for either of them. They are just 2 peas in the same big government, warmongering, sovereignty-destroying, currency-devaluating, traitorous pod.

kathy88
10-04-2012, 01:23 PM
*sigh*

amy31416
10-04-2012, 01:24 PM
Not reading the article, nor will I be voting for Romney or Obama.

angelatc
10-04-2012, 01:24 PM
He can turn water to wine, and I still won't vote for him.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-04-2012, 01:25 PM
Here is my article about the ass whipping President Obama was given by Mitt Romney last night. I hope you enjoy the read. I enjoyed writing it.


http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/10/romney-is-not-a-wimp/

He fled to France in order to avoid fighting in the same war he supported (Vietnam). Nope, still a wimp.

LibertyEagle
10-04-2012, 01:28 PM
Frank, yes, Romney did well in the debate. At least the second half. But, surely you know that he has been on all sides of almost every issue. It is like he sticks his finger up in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing and then changes his position to match it.

I can understand you preferring he win, as opposed to Obama. But, what I cannot understand is how you can believe that he would actually be good. You have to know that he is nothing but a big government Rockefeller-Republican. Surely. :confused:

Todd
10-04-2012, 01:35 PM
So because of one damn debate where he got his mojo on and has been channeling his inner Ron Paul..... he's suddenly "Da man"? :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist
10-04-2012, 01:43 PM
Yay, Red Team!

:rolleyes:

DGambler
10-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Romney did very well in the debate, that doesn't change the broken fingers, arrests, bullying, lying, stealing, cheating and rule changing that went on.... how the hell would you expect me to vote for someone like that? Obama is no better.

My options are GJ or no one. A write in vote for RP is a throw away vote in GA, or I'd write him in.

kathy88
10-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Frank, yes, Romney did well in the debate. At least the second half. But, surely you know that he has been on all sides of almost every issue. It is like he sticks his finger up in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing and then changes his position to match it.

I can understand you preferring he win, as opposed to Obama. But, what I cannot understand is how you can believe that he would actually be good. You have to know that he is nothing but a big government Rockefeller-Republican. Surely. :confused:

I think you're talking to yourself. Check the post history.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2012, 01:47 PM
I think you're talking to yourself. Check the post history.

60 posts of self-spam, amirite?

AuH20
10-04-2012, 01:54 PM
At least he "saved" the House of Representatives last night. I could care less what happens after this because it should be tight from this point onward. Romney showed that he's presidential material, though I'm not so sure that helps any of us in the long run.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-04-2012, 02:00 PM
Romney showed that he's presidential material, though I'm not so sure that helps any of us in the long run.

You're not sure?

acptulsa
10-04-2012, 02:02 PM
Not a wimp. Not a statesman. Not a conservative. Not a contender. Beneath our consideration.

So, who's Fox sending up to bat in four years? Is it too early to stick a fork in that one, too?


60 posts of self-spam, amirite?

Official Resident Establishment Republican Astroturf. In person. Always in favor of the Official Fox Approved Candidate, but never has a clue how to sell that crap to the independent voters.

Henry Rogue
10-04-2012, 02:02 PM
Here is my article about the ass whipping President Obama was given by Mitt Romney last night. I hope you enjoy the read. I enjoyed writing it.


http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/10/romney-is-not-a-wimp/
Ban him for pointless trolling.

Brian4Liberty
10-04-2012, 02:04 PM
Mitt Romney is not a Wimp

Yep. It was the gay kid who Romney held down and shaved his head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142469/Mitt-Romney-held-gay-taunt-classmate-cut-hair-school-attack.html), that kid was a wimp. Romney is a tough guy.

DeMintConservative
10-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Yep. It was the gay kid who Romney held down and shaved his head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142469/Mitt-Romney-held-gay-taunt-classmate-cut-hair-school-attack.html), that kid was a wimp. Romney is a tough guy.

Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

acptulsa
10-04-2012, 02:28 PM
And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

Speak for yourself. I base my vote on things like consistency vs. flip flopping, and honesty and conservatism vs. prototypical (and failed) socialized medicine experiments and falling Big Dig ceiling tiles...

Like we told you and told you and told you during the primaries, the real deal is a lot easier to sell to independent voters than a very pale imitation of the failed crap you're already stuck with.

If you're not the incumbent, you don't win a debate (or, at least, you don't gain from it) by doing a better job of saying the exact same damned thing.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2012, 02:32 PM
And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues

I've given it plenty of consideration.

http://i.imgur.com/rMHo7.jpg

green73
10-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Greenwald:


Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America's presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.

But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation's most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.

Most of what matters in American political life is nowhere to be found in its national election debates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit

The Free Hornet
10-04-2012, 02:35 PM
Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

Unconfirmed? That story has collaborators (witnesses/participants) including Romney:


"They talk about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school," Romney said. "And they describe some that you just say to yourself, back in high school I just did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by it, obviously I apologize."

“I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize," he added.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/romney-bully-gay-bullying_n_1506382.html

Anti Federalist
10-04-2012, 02:39 PM
Greenwald:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit

Deserves the whole piece:




A third party could end the US presidential debate deceit

The issue is not what separates Romney and Obama, but how much they agree. This hidden consensus has to be exposed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit

Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America's presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.

But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation's most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.

Most of what matters in American political life is nowhere to be found in its national election debates. Penal policies vividly illustrate this point. America imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation on earth by far, including countries with far greater populations. As the New York Times reported in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5% of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."

Professor Glenn Loury of Brown University has observed that these policies have turned the US into "a nation of jailers" whose "prison system has grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history". The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik called this mass incarceration "perhaps the fundamental fact [of American society], as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850".

Even worse, these policies are applied, and arguably designed, with mass racial disparities. One in every four African-American men is likely to be imprisoned. Black and Latino drug users are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned at far higher rates than whites, even though usage among all groups is relatively equal.

The human cost of this sprawling penal state is obviously horrific: families are broken up, communities are decimated, and those jailed are rendered all but unemployable upon release. But the financial costs are just as devastating. California now spends more on its prison system than it does on higher education, a warped trend repeated around the country.

Yet none of these issues will even be mentioned, let alone debated, by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That is because they have no discernible differences when it comes to any of the underlying policies, including America's relentless fixation on treating drug usage as a criminal, rather than health, problem. The oppressive system that now imprisons 1.8 million Americans, and that will imprison millions more over their lifetime, is therefore completely ignored during the only process when most Americans are politically engaged.

This same dynamic repeats itself in other crucial realms. President Obama's dramatically escalated drone attacks in numerous countries have generated massive anger in the Muslim world, continuously kill civilians, and are of dubious legality at best. His claimed right to target even American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations, without a whiff of transparency or oversight, is as radical a power as any seized by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yet Americans whose political perceptions are shaped by attentiveness to the presidential campaign would hardly know that such radical and consequential policies even exist.

That is because here too there is absolute consensus between the two parties.

A long list of highly debatable and profoundly significant policies will be similarly excluded due to bipartisan agreement. The list includes a rapidly growing domestic surveillance state that now monitors and records even the most innocuous activities of all Americans; job-killing free trade agreements; climate change policies; and the Obama justice department's refusal to prosecute the Wall Street criminals who precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.

On still other vital issues, such as America's steadfastly loyal support for Israel and its belligerence towards Iran, the two candidates will do little other than compete over who is most aggressively embracing the same absolutist position. And this is all independent of the fact that even on the issues that are the subject of debate attention, such as healthcare policy and entitlement "reform", all but the most centrist positions are off limits.

The harm from this process is not merely the loss of what could be a valuable opportunity to engage in a real national debate. Worse, it is propagandistic: by emphasising the few issues on which there is real disagreement between the parties, the election process ends up sustaining the appearance that there is far more difference between the two parties, and far more choice for citizens, than is really offered by America's political system.

One way to solve this problem would be to allow credible third-party candidates into the presidential debates and to give them more media coverage. Doing so would highlight just how similar Democrats and Republicans have become, and what little choice American voters actually have on many of the most consequential policies. That is exactly why the two major parties work so feverishly to ensure the exclusion of those candidates: it is precisely the deceitful perception of real choice that they are most eager to maintain.

DeMintConservative
10-04-2012, 02:46 PM
Unconfirmed? That story has collaborators (witnesses/participants) including Romney:

OMG, he participated in high-school pranks! He must be an evil man! Plus, he's rich. Extra evil.

(and Romney says, like others, he had no idea the guy was gay - even in the article you quote).

The idea that a guy who participated in high-school pranks is a bully who isn't fit to serve for president or a bigot - which is suggested when people invoke that story and present as a fact he engaged on anti-gay bullying - is nothing but shameless, brainless, idiocy.

VBRonPaulFan
10-04-2012, 02:47 PM
it's pretty annoying when douchebags post stupid shit with links to their blog just to get clicks in hopes they'll get picked up in google searches.

romney is a statist asshole. the biggest thing i took away from last nights debate is how hard it was for them to convince anyone where they had any real disagreement.

DeMintConservative
10-04-2012, 02:51 PM
Speak for yourself. I base my vote on things like consistency vs. flip flopping, and honesty and conservatism vs. prototypical (and failed) socialized medicine experiments and falling Big Dig ceiling tiles...

Like we told you and told you and told you during the primaries, the real deal is a lot easier to sell to independent voters than a very pale imitation of the failed crap you're already stuck with.

If you're not the incumbent, you don't win a debate (or, at least, you don't gain from it) by doing a better job of saying the exact same damned thing.

What the heck are you talking about? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Even though I disagree with him plenty.

See, I don't believe in immanentizing the eschanton. I'm not a Marxist - not even a right-wing one and there are plenty. I know politics is a perennial struggle to pick the lesser evil. I think people who see a possibility of redemption on politics are totally clueless. I think anyone who believes we can reach good policy arrangements can't be taken seriously.

That's why I'm going to vote for Romney even though I disagree with him on most issues. Because, in the end, John Roberts and Antonin Scalia do have many problems but they're still marginally better than Sottomayor and Hagan. And politics will ALWAYS be about these small gains on the margin. I find people who believe otherwise, regarless of their ideological inclination, even if it's conservatism (necessarily a superficial and misguided one), repulsive.

Brian4Liberty
10-04-2012, 02:55 PM
Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

Allegedly? Romney apologized for it. And my post was a reaction to the title of this thread, not how I decide how to vote.

The Free Hornet
10-04-2012, 02:56 PM
OMG, he participated in high-school pranks! He must be an evil man! Plus, he's rich. Extra evil.

You said it was "unconfirmed". I demonstrate that it was confirmed by Romney himself. Now you backtrack to a different point. You can either retract your initial point ("unconfirmed") or STFU.

My interest is in the truth, not your blathering rhetoric of a misperceived class warfare ("... evil man! Plus, he's rich. Extra evil."). I doubt many here care that he is rich. Not enough to get your panties in a twist.

The Free Hornet
10-04-2012, 02:59 PM
The idea that a guy who participated in high-school pranks is a bully who isn't fit to serve for president or a bigot - which is suggested when people invoke that story and present as a fact he engaged on anti-gay bullying - is nothing but shameless, brainless, idiocy.

I quoted the article because you used the word "unconfirmed". In other words, you were factually wrong. Persisting in any other point is lying. My scope of commentary on your point was limited (to the confirmed vs unconfirmed issue).

It has nothing to do with whether or not gay bullying makes a person more or less suited for POTUS.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2012, 03:00 PM
I'm not in favor of gun control, so I won't be voting for either one.

Especially RMoney.

We've been playing in the margins for years now and it has gotten nowhere.

We are broke, bleeding out in endless wars and living in a police state nightmare that will become 100 times worse than what it is, when everything finally shits the bed.

You can have it, in fact, you can own it, evil, lesser or otherwise.

Not me pal, not anymore.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8



What the heck are you talking about? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Even though I disagree with him plenty.

See, I don't believe in immanentizing the eschanton. I'm not a Marxist - not even a right-wing one and there are plenty. I know politics is a perennial struggle to pick the lesser evil. I think people who see a possibility of redemption on politics are totally clueless. I think anyone who believes we can reach good policy arrangements can't be taken seriously.

That's why I'm going to vote for Romney even though I disagree with him on most issues. Because, in the end, John Roberts and Antonin Scalia do have many problems but they're still marginally better than Sottomayor and Hagan. And politics will ALWAYS be about these small gains on the margin. I find people who believe otherwise, regarless of their ideological inclination, even if it's conservatism (necessarily a superficial and misguided one), repulsive.

Brett85
10-04-2012, 03:01 PM
The debate last night basically confirmed two things for me.

1) Romney is not a believer in "limited government" as we define the term.
2) Romney's positions on the issues are still an improvement over Obama's.

acptulsa
10-04-2012, 03:02 PM
And politics will ALWAYS be about these small gains on the margin.

Politics used to be about those small gains on the margin. And while it was, it worked, and people went along with it. Some years ago, however, the corporations and the corporatists got greedy. And since that time, politics has been about those small losses along the margin, and trying to minimize those losses along the margin.

And that's the difference which is causing this movement to continue to grow in power, reach and voice. Because this is simply a good time for someone conservative enough to say, 'Enough!' We don't know how to help the rest of you grow a pair except by example. More of a loss in privacy civil liberties vs. more of a loss in fiscal civil liberties vs a bunch of other hair splitting is something for the apologists to work out. Our place is beside our line in the sand.

acptulsa
10-04-2012, 03:02 PM
The debate last night basically confirmed two things for me.

1) Romney is not a believer in "limited government" as we define the term.
2) Romney's positions on the issues are still an improvement over Obama's.

And the public is still going to say, 'Thanks but we already have one.' That's the problem with Republicans listening to Murdoch when Murdoch says, 'You be good ol' boys and nominate the closet Democrat.' It causes Republicans to become what Murdoch wants them to be: Losers.

ZENemy
10-04-2012, 03:04 PM
If Romney "won" the debate; Obama isn't the loser, the American people are.

Dick Chaney
10-04-2012, 03:04 PM
I am Dick Chaney and I do not approve of this thread.

AuH20
10-04-2012, 03:08 PM
What the heck are you talking about? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Even though I disagree with him plenty.

See, I don't believe in immanentizing the eschanton. I'm not a Marxist - not even a right-wing one and there are plenty. I know politics is a perennial struggle to pick the lesser evil. I think people who see a possibility of redemption on politics are totally clueless. I think anyone who believes we can reach good policy arrangements can't be taken seriously.

That's why I'm going to vote for Romney even though I disagree with him on most issues. Because, in the end, John Roberts and Antonin Scalia do have many problems but they're still marginally better than Sottomayor and Hagan. And politics will ALWAYS be about these small gains on the margin. I find people who believe otherwise, regarless of their ideological inclination, even if it's conservatism (necessarily a superficial and misguided one), repulsive.

I have no problem if your logic leads you to vote Romney. There isn't much of a choice in that you are limited between Romney and Obama. One of those 2 will be POTUS after November 6th.

bunklocoempire
10-04-2012, 03:11 PM
Hey choir, howzit!?

Which candidate is better for establishment?

4 more years of Obama with a constitutional 'R' challenger showing up in 2016 (in a field of Democrat-lite 'R's and with the new RNC delegate rules in place)

4 years of Romney with any constitutional 'R' challenger being held firmly at a distance by the GOP, msm, and the new delegate rules.

4 additional years of Romney.

Establishment is good with either Obama or Romney, but if establishment is smart they'll go with the candidate that ensures a better chance of control 4 years down the line.

Romney is that candidate.

Yay establishment.:rolleyes:

NOBP *with fingers crossed that the O wins*

Athan
10-04-2012, 03:12 PM
Here is my article about the ass whipping President Obama was given by Mitt Romney last night. I hope you enjoy the read. I enjoyed writing it.


http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/10/romney-is-not-a-wimp/
Don't care.
Draft Dodger Socialist vs Welfare queen Socialist should have used knives and guns against each other instead of mics and teleprompters. THEN it would have been a good "debate".

Brett85
10-04-2012, 03:19 PM
Hey choir, howzit!?

Which candidate is better for establishment?

4 more years of Obama with a constitutional 'R' challenger showing up in 2016 (in a field of Democrat-lite 'R's and with the new RNC delegate rules in place)

4 years of Romney with any constitutional 'R' challenger being held firmly at a distance by the GOP, msm, and the new delegate rules.

4 additional years of Romney.

Establishment is good with either Obama or Romney, but if establishment is smart they'll go with the candidate that ensures a better chance of control 4 years down the line.

Romney is that candidate.

Yay establishment.:rolleyes:

NOBP *with fingers crossed that the O wins*

The sad fact of the matter is that any "Constitutional candidate" has no chance to win the Presidency of the United States at the moment, given the hardcore statist positions that the American people have. Paul Ryan's support of vouchers for Medicare is considered to be an "estreme" position by the media and the American people. Just think what would be said if you had a candidate for President running on a platform of phasing out Medicare and Social Security? Any candidate running on a platform of abolishing the department of education would be derided on someone who "hates children" and "wants a dumb society." I hate to say it, but someone running for President on a Constitutional platform would get crushed by Obama even more than Romney is. That's because we're at a tipping point in our country where people not only don't support returning to the Constitution, but even want the government to pay for their housing, their food, their medical care, their contraception, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that Romney isn't losing because he's not a "Constitutional candidate," but because the American people are now basically in support of full fledged socialism.

DeMintConservative
10-04-2012, 03:19 PM
Politics used to be about those small gains on the margin. And while it was, it worked, and people went along with it. Some years ago, however, the corporations and the corporatists got greedy. And since that time, politics has been about those small losses along the margin, and trying to minimize those losses along the margin.

And that's the difference which is causing this movement to continue to grow in power, reach and voice. Because this is simply a good time for someone conservative enough to say, 'Enough!' We don't know how to help the rest of you grow a pair except by example. More of a loss in privacy civil liberties vs. more of a loss in fiscal civil liberties vs a bunch of other hair splitting is something for the apologists to work out. Our place is beside our line in the sand.


I have no use for the anti-corportations demagoguery (corporations are basically a collective of persons pushing for the same goal), but I actually prefer your phrasing over mine: politics have always been about minimizing losses and will always be.

Your second paragraph is immaterial. Not voting for Romney won't be an example of anything. It won't make the GOP voters become more conservative. It'll just push the country more to the left, push the SCOTUS more to the left, push the Overton Window more to the left, cost me and my family, friends and neighbours a steeper decline in our standards of living. There's simply no upside to it. None whatsoever. What you suggest is flat out magical thinking. I heard the same stuff four years ago - yet, even though McCain lost, Obama'12 is to the left of Obama'08 and Romney is running to the left of McCain (and run in the primary way to the left of Romney'08).

I'll take what I can instead of falling for unsubstantiated magical reasoning or over-emotional stances. If it's just getting a Clarence Thomas over a Ruth Ginsberg and a slightly less expensive welfare state, so be it. In the end, I still prefer the America of today over the Europe of today and it's not even close.

wgadget
10-04-2012, 03:34 PM
If I click on your article will I hear vigorous chants of "USA! USA!" in the background?

Philhelm
10-04-2012, 03:40 PM
He fled to France in order to avoid fighting in the same war he supported (Vietnam). Nope, still a wimp.

It's outrageous that the only candidate (other than Dick Perry) to have actually served in the military was given such hostile treatment for his non-interventionist philosophy. Salamander Gingrich and Mitt Obamney are cowards of the highest order (or is that lowest?).

bunklocoempire
10-04-2012, 04:02 PM
The sad fact of the matter is that any "Constitutional candidate" has no chance to win the Presidency of the United States at the moment, given the hardcore statist positions that the American people have. Paul Ryan's support of vouchers for Medicare is considered to be an "estreme" position by the media and the American people. Just think what would be said if you had a candidate for President running on a platform of phasing out Medicare and Social Security? Any candidate running on a platform of abolishing the department of education would be derided on someone who "hates children" and "wants a dumb society." I hate to say it, but someone running for President on a Constitutional platform would get crushed by Obama even more than Romney is. That's because we're at a tipping point in our country where people not only don't support returning to the Constitution, but even want the government to pay for their housing, their food, their medical care, their contraception, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that Romney isn't losing because he's not a "Constitutional candidate," but because the American people are now basically in support of full fledged socialism.

I'm not entirely sure why you would attach your comments to my post. None of your comments address anything of the 'top down' nature that I refer to.

:confused:

belian78
10-04-2012, 04:41 PM
Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.
No the reason our country is in the shape that it's in is we have people such as yourself that knows just how bad of a candidate Rmoney is, yet you defend him.

DamianTV
10-04-2012, 05:07 PM
Glad you enjoyed writing it.

I'm not voting for Romney.

Anyone that does is playing right into their hands and accomplishes nothing more than to maintain the Illusion of Choice.

puppetmaster
10-04-2012, 05:56 PM
If my vote was the last deciding vote in a tied election I would not vote Romney.

DamianTV
10-04-2012, 06:06 PM
Napolitano recently called Obama a failed president and Romney a failed candidate.

Brett85
10-04-2012, 06:08 PM
I'm not entirely sure why you would attach your comments to my post. None of your comments address anything of the 'top down' nature that I refer to.

:confused:

I was just pointing out that Rand Paul will have a very tough time getting elected in 2016, given today's political climate. We're living in a country where a President who gives us trillion dollar deficits every year gets a 50% approval rating from the American people. So I was just saying that hoping that Romney loses so that we'll get a Rand Paul Presidency in 2016 seems a bit far fetched. We have to to something to radically change the hearts and minds of the American people before they'll ever vote to make someone like Rand Paul President.

puppetmaster
10-04-2012, 06:13 PM
I was just pointing out that Rand Paul will have a very tough time getting elected in 2016, given today's political climate. We're living in a country where a President who gives us trillion dollar deficits every year gets a 50% approval rating from the American people. So I was just saying that hoping that Romney loses so that we'll get a Rand Paul Presidency in 2016 seems a bit far fetched. We have to to something to radically change the hearts and minds of the American people before they'll ever vote to make someone like Rand Paul President. well then I guess I hope we fall off the financial cliff sooner than later because I feel that I am better prepared to fight for liberty than my kids may be. A total collapse and revolution to follow will be tough but necessary to wake up enough people to regroup in liberty.

Aratus
10-04-2012, 06:17 PM
needless to say... the great VEEP debate is next...

RickyJ
10-04-2012, 06:21 PM
Is that why he ran to France during the Vietnam war claiming he was doing missionary work?

libertariantexas
10-04-2012, 10:42 PM
Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

You are right.

There are far better reasons to NOT vote for Romney.

Origanalist
10-04-2012, 11:19 PM
Glad you enjoyed writing it.

I'm not voting for Romney.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

acptulsa
10-05-2012, 06:27 AM
I have no use for the anti-corportations demagoguery (corporations are basically a collective of persons pushing for the same goal), but I actually prefer your phrasing over mine: politics have always been about minimizing losses and will always be.

Your second paragraph is immaterial. Not voting for Romney won't be an example of anything. It won't make the GOP voters become more conservative. It'll just push the country more to the left, push the SCOTUS more to the left, push the Overton Window more to the left, cost me and my family, friends and neighbours a steeper decline in our standards of living. There's simply no upside to it. None whatsoever. What you suggest is flat out magical thinking. I heard the same stuff four years ago - yet, even though McCain lost, Obama'12 is to the left of Obama'08 and Romney is running to the left of McCain (and run in the primary way to the left of Romney'08).

I'll take what I can instead of falling for unsubstantiated magical reasoning or over-emotional stances. If it's just getting a Clarence Thomas over a Ruth Ginsberg and a slightly less expensive welfare state, so be it. In the end, I still prefer the America of today over the Europe of today and it's not even close.

People like you are why twenty percent of the population had to do eighty percent of the freezing, the work and the dying during the American Revolution. People like you sat around on their fat asses saying, I don't like King George, but he has the biggest army in the world, so on paper he can't be beat. Therefore, I will roll over for him, lick his hand, and like it. Because things can never, ever change for the better, and there's no percentage in being a real, human man.

George Washington proved your type to be liars, and in the last six years, as the American public went from, 'What the hell is a Fed?' to, 'Why the hell shouldn't we use silver as money?' we proved your type to be liars once again. So, excuse us if we take your lovely little poems of alas and woe with a big grain of salt.