T1B

Mikey wrote:At least now he's urging people to donate canned goods, which is fine for your local food pantry but which none of the relief agencies, private or public, actually want.

that's because cash is much easier than canned goods to steal in large amounts

Mikey wrote:

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:Romney thinks the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in disaster relief.

I wonder if he'll go to New Jersey tomorrow and reiterate his strong statement on that from a couple of months ago.

At least now he's urging people to donate canned goods, which is fine for your local food pantry but which none of the relief agencies, private or public, actually want.

What are you going to obsess about after the election ?

Probably the same thing I obsess about now -- good wine and great food.

I assume you'll still be obsessing along with mvscal over the fact that we have a mvscal President.

And when Romney wins you and the rest of the libtards can head for the shower rod. If you decide not to do the shower rod, and want to inflict your liberal sniveling on us for at least the next 4 years, invest in lots of cotton so your pussy bleeding does not make your floors slippery and you fall and hurt yourself.

Derron wrote:
And when Romney wins you and the rest of the libtards can head for the shower rod. If you decide not to do the shower rod, and want to inflict your liberal sniveling on us for at least the next 4 years, invest in lots of cotton so your pussy bleeding does not make your floors slippery and you fall and hurt yourself.

I'll have to admit, you spell pretty well for someone with the mental development of a four year old.

KC Scott wrote:I'm voting Romney

Unfortunetly, while he will win the popular vote, he won't have enough electoral votes take the election

You should be proud. You're right in there with derron.
Unfortunetly, he spells better.

Not to further the IKYABWAI, but if I were a Republican, I'd be pretty loathe to accuse the Democrats of a lack of class in this election cycle, what with any number of Republican surrogates referring to Obama as a Kenyan Muslim Islamofascist Socialist (nevermind the inherent contradictions in there), etc.

Then again, there's always been a sort of double standard when it comes to negative campaigning -- nary a peep when the Republicans do it, but all sorts of doo-doo hitting the fan whenever Democrats do it.

KC Scott wrote:Yea, and no Dems have accused Romney or wearing Magic Underwear or having 4 more hidden wives

Get a Clue Terry

Thing is, Romney does wear magic underwear and have 4 more hidden wives.

I have it on good authority.

Mikey wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I'm voting Romney

Unfortunetly, while he will win the popular vote, he won't have enough electoral votes take the election

You should be proud. You're right in there with derron.
Unfortunetly, he spells better.

More from the party of tolerance and diversity.

When your take has no substance, go to the spelling smack.

So you would rather elect a serial liar, somebody about whom you have no idea what his actual position is on any issue because he's been all over the map on every single one depending on who he's addressing.

Your choice. Roll the dice.

At least you know where Obama stands on some issues.

Derron wrote:

More from the party of tolerance and diversity.

You're talking about party of tolerance? When was the last time I called you a sniveling bleeding cunt because of your political opinions?

Go away you sniveling bleeding cunt.

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I'm voting Romney

Unfortunetly, while he will win the popular vote, he won't have enough electoral votes take the election

You should be proud. You're right in there with derron.
Unfortunetly, he spells better.

More from the party of tolerance and diversity.

When your take has no substance, go to the spelling smack.

Interesting point, Dohron. We should embrace your alternate spellings of words because it makes our little message board seem more diverse.

Mikey wrote: Thing is, Romney does ... have 4 more hidden wives.

I have it on good authority.

1. are they hot?

2. do they intend to act as the national mommies?

Mikey wrote:So you would rather elect a serial liar...

For realz?

Now i KNOW you're trolling, you GOPer, you.

KC Scott wrote:

Mikey wrote:So you would rather elect a serial liar, somebody about whom you have no idea what his actual position is on any issue because he's been all over the map on every single one depending on who he's addressing.

Your choice. Roll the dice.

At least you know where Obama stands on some issues.

IMO Romeny is a Centerst - he was as Gov of MA and would be as POTUS

To win the GOP nomination you have to cowtow to the Far right / teabagging lunatic fringe. Sad but true.

By the same token Obama did same on the left to get by Hillary / Billary in 08. Many of those "promises" went by the wayside once he got into office. He was lambasted by the left from everything to Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan to extending the Bush tax cuts

It's the nature of politics

There's a big difference.

Obama definitely made some promises that he didn't keep. At least he was consistent in his positions, and I believe that he did at least intend to keep them, but was shut down constantly by a Congress whose leadership publicly stated that their number one goal was to stifle anything that he might try to do. And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years. He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Romney, on the other hand, consistently talks out of both sides of his mouth. He'll give completely opposite positions to two different groups just weeks apart. Or will say one thing to a small special interest group and completely reverse himself to a national audience. He's a sleazy, cynical, manipulating huckster who is only in it for his own and his cronies' gain. How anybody can put an ounce of trust this guy is beyond me. Centerst? Maybe, but how do you know? He may be out to hand the country over to the LDS for all I know.

Like I said, your choice. Roll of the dice.

Mikey wrote:
Obama definitely made some promises that he didn't keep. At least he was consistent in his positions, and I believe that he did at least intend to keep them,

Apologist. So we should give him another 4 years to lie to us about what he will do ?

but was shut down constantly by a Congress whose leadership publicly stated that their number one goal was to stifle anything that he might try to do. And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years.

Excuse and justification statement for previous take.

He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Moot point and another apologist justification statement. Sucks for him.

Romney, on the other hand, consistently talks out of both sides of his mouth. He'll give completely opposite positions to two different groups just weeks apart. Or will say one thing to a small special interest group and completely reverse himself to a national audience. He's a sleazy, cynical, manipulating huckster who is only in it for his own and his cronies' gain. How anybody can put an ounce of trust this guy is beyond me.

Party line statement. Your boy lied and could not get the job done like HE SAID he would, but that is OK. He is a Democrat after all. Vote for a proven incompetent community organizer, or somebody with actual real world experience.

Mikey wrote:

KC Scott wrote:

Mikey wrote:So you would rather elect a serial liar, somebody about whom you have no idea what his actual position is on any issue because he's been all over the map on every single one depending on who he's addressing.

Your choice. Roll the dice.

At least you know where Obama stands on some issues.

IMO Romeny is a Centerst - he was as Gov of MA and would be as POTUS

To win the GOP nomination you have to cowtow to the Far right / teabagging lunatic fringe. Sad but true.

By the same token Obama did same on the left to get by Hillary / Billary in 08. Many of those "promises" went by the wayside once he got into office. He was lambasted by the left from everything to Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan to extending the Bush tax cuts

It's the nature of politics

There's a big difference.

Obama definitely made some promises that he didn't keep. At least he was consistent in his positions, and I believe that he did at least intend to keep them, but was shut down constantly by a Congress whose leadership publicly stated that their number one goal was to stifle anything that he might try to do. And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years. He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Romney, on the other hand, consistently talks out of both sides of his mouth. He'll give completely opposite positions to two different groups just weeks apart. Or will say one thing to a small special interest group and completely reverse himself to a national audience. He's a sleazy, cynical, manipulating huckster who is only in it for his own and his cronies' gain. How anybody can put an ounce of trust this guy is beyond me. Centerst? Maybe, but how do you know? He may be out to hand the country over to the LDS for all I know.

Like I said, your choice. Roll of the dice.

What Mikey said. If a "centrist" Romney gets elected, as KC Scott believes, I can live with that, but he's made far too many statements catering to the far right douchebags for me to cast a vote for him. If he wins, I hope Scott is right. Scott was right in that it doesn't appear Romney will have the electoral votes to win.

Mikey wrote:So you would rather elect a serial liar, somebody about whom you have no idea what his actual position is on any issue because he's been all over the map on every single one depending on who he's addressing.

Your choice. Roll the dice.

At least you know where Obama stands on some issues.

The choice, as you put it, is between a serial liar who has been a demonstrable and catastrophic failure over the last four years with no prospect of producing anything other than more epic failure in the next four years or a squishy, flip-flopping moderate who has pandered to a conservative base to get elected.

If you are wondering about Romney, think Poppy Bush's second term or Bob Dole's first.

Mikey wrote: He's a sleazy, cynical, manipulating huckster who is only in it for his own and his cronies' gain. How anybody can put an ounce of trust this guy is beyond me.

Now that you narrowed down your argument to only include every politician from every party we can finally get specific....

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Not to further the IKYABWAI, but if I were a Republican, I'd be pretty loathe to accuse the Democrats of a lack of class in this election cycle...

Yea but 88 is a stupid hillbilly.

Mikey,
Congress didn't make him lie about busting my medical pot clients.

Mace wrote: he's made far too many statements catering to the far right douchebags for me to cast a vote for him.

Who gives a fuck what he says? You watch what they do. He has a clear record as governor of Assholechewshits. Personally, I think you'd have to be an idiot to expect him to govern in any other way. These guys don't change who they are.

lovebuzz wrote:ps: mvslingblade - fuck off with your pathetic misogynist BS.
I'll go ahead and wager that if your dick was in a mouth every once in awhile you just might not be such an insufferable bore.

So what are you Mother Theresa now trying to make the world less of a bore one stinking Ethiopian cock at a time?

Moving Sale wrote:Mikey,
Congress didn't make him lie about busting my medical pot clients.

Makes sense you would defend them as I have seen you in person several times smoking illegal pot. Conflict of interest?

Atomic Punk wrote:as I have seen you in person several times smoking illegal pot.

~gasp~ M.m.marijuana, you say?!? The Devil's Weed??!!! NO!! It....it can't be true.

I wonder what other illicit drugs he uses. You know, they say marijuana is a gateway drug.

mvscal wrote:
So what are you Mother Theresa now trying to make the world less of a bore one stinking Ethiopian cock at a time?

Jesus motherfucking Christ man.

88 wrote:...when lovebuzz is enticing me to strong drink.

Unless you own at least three goats, haven't bathed this month and wipe your ass with your hand, you're probably wasting your time.

Mikey wrote:So you would rather elect a serial liar(?)

We already did. Four years ago. Are you new here?

Mikey wrote:He's a sleazy, cynical, manipulating huckster who is only in it for his own and his cronies' gain.

more wisdom from Mikey.

You think he's going to make more money by running for and perhaps being elected POTUS?

Of course you do, you're a fucking moron.

Fact is, this effort will cost him considerable $$$ while he's had to divest himself from every money making venture he ever cared about. Meantime, he donates 30% of his income to charity.

But while you remain an idiot of the highest caliber, I too have asked myself why he wants to be President, and honestly, I don't know.

Who would he set himself up for this kind of abuse when in all reality, he could hold more power and influence than any President has or will ever have?

Mikey wrote:And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years. He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Really? Then what the fuck is this?

I keep trying to decide if you get dumber with everything you post, or if I get dumber reading everything you post.

well now, isn't 88 the chivalrous one?

I'd defend LB as well, but not in quite the same terms, as she didn't understand a thing you just wrote.

mv, she understands quite well.

I think you might actually meet the criteria, Whitey, or close enough anyway. You just might have a chance.

nah, spoken for.

I've been watching a fantastic series on History Channel called "The Men Who Built America". It's about industrial visionaries. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, etc. Conspicuously absent from a show about the men that built this country? Politicians. That's because these guys created jobs, built cities, and advanced civilization. Barrack Hussein Obama wants to bury this country w social programs and handouts to people that believe work is that inconvenience that stands between them and their entitlements. He's an embarrassment and a joke. He's never created anything but debt and he's working on a permanent and indentured underclass.

Dee Snutz wrote:I've been watching a fantastic series on History Channel called "The Men Who Built America". It's about industrial visionaries. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, etc. Conspicuously absent from a show about the men that built this country? Politicians. That's because these guys bought politicians and didn't have to bother with running for political office.

FTFY

Mace wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:I've been watching a fantastic series on History Channel called "The Men Who Built America". It's about industrial visionaries. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, etc. Conspicuously absent from a show about the men that built this country? Politicians. That's because these guys bought politicians and didn't have to bother with running for political office.

FTFY

There's an old saying. Money talks and bullshit walks. That' pretty much the definition of Capitalism. Check your geography, Mace. You're sitting in the heart of Capitalism.

Mace wrote:That's because these guys bought politicians and didn't have to bother with running for political office.

FTFY

oh dear, the dreaded FTFY post.

No, Mace. Politicians are beneath their contempt, to be ignored.

Truman wrote:

Mikey wrote:And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years. He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Really? Then what the fuck is this?

OK, so my memory is no longer perfect.



At least I'm not AP

I should have said almost never. A little more than five months in several blocks isn't time to get a hell of a lot done when the other side votes solidly against everything.

I keep trying to decide if you get dumber with everything you post, or if I get dumber reading everything you post.

No, your posts getting more like Wags by the day.

You'd be better off if you were AP.

Mikey wrote:I should have said almost never.

Almost never?!? At what point in his entire Presidency could it have ever mattered more than in that one single vote? It's a simple question that could phrased in another way.

Conservatives, would you concede everything else Obama wanted to block Obamacare?

Barry O'bone-nose won the only Congressional battle that mattered. Sorry if I don't weep tears for this allegedly perfidious Republican obstructionism. When is Barry going to hitch up his Big Boy Pants and take responsibility for a fucked up situation? Ever? It's just one piss weak excuse after another with these people.

Enough...

Mikey wrote:

Truman wrote:

Mikey wrote:And don't give me any shit about how he had a completely Democratic Congress for two years. He never had a 60 seat majority on the Senate that's required to get anything passed.

Really? Then what the fuck is this?

OK, so my memory is no longer perfect.



At least I'm not AP

I should have said almost never. A little more than five months in several blocks isn't time to get a hell of a lot done when the other side votes solidly against everything.

I keep trying to decide if you get dumber with everything you post, or if I get dumber reading everything you post.

No, your posts getting more like Wags by the day.

You'd be better off if you were AP.

Hey, what's going on here?

"Barack Obama has come a long way. Do you remember his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention? Kind of stirring.
He quoted the American motto: “E pluribus unum. ‘Out of many, one.’” He continued, “Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spinmasters, the negative-ad peddlers, who embrace the politics of ‘anything goes.’ Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.”
Nice, don’t you think?
These days, as he winds up his reelection campaign, he’s running an ad that says, “Mitt Romney: Not one of us.” The Obama super-PAC, disgustingly named “Patriot Majority,” is running an ad that denounces Romney as an “economic traitor.”

What a pathetic, ugly, hypocritical presidency. Good riddance (please)."

-Jay Nordlinger, National Review

I could not have said it any better.