T1B

Mikey wrote:a bitter vindictive fuck

Obama's 'revenge' remark reverberates on presidential campaign trail

“No, no, no. Don't boo. Vote,” Obama told a crowd in Springfield, Ohio. “Voting is the best revenge.”

There ya go.

Mace wrote:Obama is using Romney's own words in his ads like "repealing Roe v Wade"

Why don't you go ahead and link me up to Romney wanting to "repeal Roe v Wade" and then explain how SCOTUS opinions are "repealed."

TIA

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:Obama is using Romney's own words in his ads like "repealing Roe v Wade"

Why don't you go ahead and link me up to Romney wanting to "repeal Roe v Wade" and then explain how SCOTUS opinions are "repealed."

TIA

The quote is in one of the many ads and came out of his mouth. It may have been taken out of context but it's what he said.

I asked for a link to Romney's speech expressing a desire to "repeal Roe v Wade" and an explanation of how he would make that happen not what Obluegums said about it in his campaign ad.

Here you go, you bitter little fuckpuppet.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=stric ... 69&bih=882

mvscal wrote:Why don't you go ahead and link me up to Romney wanting to "repeal Roe v Wade"

Repeal isn't the correct verb, but...

and then explain how SCOTUS opinions are "repealed."

I can only do so much.

mvscal wrote:I asked for a link to Romney's speech expressing a desire to "repeal Roe v Wade" and an explanation of how he would make that happen not what Obluegums said about it in his campaign ad.

I would venture to say that he would appoint conservative judges to the SC that would "overturn" Roe v Wade. Happy now?

KC Scott wrote:Vote for st. louis whack job akin?

Seriously?

definitly much better to have an out & out thief representing your state than a nut job, right?

Cuda wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Vote for st. louis whack job akin?

Seriously?

definitly much better to have an out & out thief representing your state than a nut job, right?

ELMINATED


Hint: I speeled it wrong on purpose.

Mace wrote:
The quote is in one of the many ads and came out of his mouth. It may have been taken out of context but it's what he said.

And we all know that is what in those ads has to be the gospel truth, and that presenting something out of context would never happen. Kind of like what happens here at T1B.

KC Scott wrote:Vote for st. louis whack job akin?

Seriously?

He was denounced and asked to pull out of the race by Romney, Bond and the Ghost of Ronnie himself

Another Teabag nutcase the anti-choice crowd thinks can over turn the law and will of the people

Then those folks would be confused, Scott. There isn’t a prayer (sorry, figure of speech) of Roe v. Wade being overturned anytime soon. What your “Tea-bag nutcase” CAN do, however, is help overturn Obamacare and restore the Will of the People.

As I explained before, Scott, it’s more a vote against Claire.

You and I do not agree on the Affordable Care Act. You think it’s a good idea to legally compel people pay for health care insurance. I don’t believe that it is Constitutional to do so, despite Judge Robert’s opinion. No blood, no foul. We agree to disagree.

During the Town Hall Summer of ’09, Claire McCaskill arrogantly and condescendingly scolded Missourians for voicing their overwhelming displeasure with her support of Obamacare and her lock-step liberal voting record. On December 23rd of that year, she voted for the law’s passage.

And in November 2010, state-wide Democrats paid for her vote. For many, she’s not done paying yet.

I can almost forgive McCaskill using her private plane almost 90 times at tax-payer expense; her failure to pay $287,000 in property taxes over four years on the same “damn plane”; even the curious redirection of $20M in stimulus funds to her husband’s real estate company.

But I cannot forgive Claire’s vote for Obamacare. Tardd Akin’s words, while merely reprehensible at best, don’t hurt. Claire McCaskill’s vote does.

^^^ exactly.

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:I asked for a link to Romney's speech expressing a desire to "repeal Roe v Wade" and an explanation of how he would make that happen not what Obluegums said about it in his campaign ad.

I would venture to say that he would appoint conservative judges to the SC that would "overturn" Roe v Wade. Happy now?

Oh, OK. I would venture to say that you're full of shit. Abortion has been legal for 39 years. During that timeframe, the White House has been controlled by pro-life Presidents for 20 years and yet Roe v Wade is still on the books without even a whiff of a challenge. Anyone voting for a candidate based on his position on abortion is a moron.

As to what kind of SC justices Romney would appoint, I would suggest taking a look at his track record in Massachewshits.

Mikey wrote:

Truman wrote:

Mikey wrote:My my we are a bitter vindictive fuck, aren't we?

I dunno. Are we?

Excoriate Akin, but forgive Claire. Gotcha.

So Tardd Akin's words have a far greater impact on our country than Claire McCaskill's vote? Ponderous.

I think you're right, Mikey: We ARE bitter vindictive fucks.

All I did was ask if you were voting for Akin.

Seems you got a llliiittttttllllle bit defensive about it.
Why would that be?
Was it my tone of voice that set you off?

Well, you got a well-reasoned explanation for my vote in an earlier post, which for some reason compelled you to drag me down to your level in your reply. Heck, I thought agreeing with you might make you feel a little better about yourself. Apparently not.

Mikey wrote:Tru would prolly vote for Jerry Sandusky if he was running against McCaskill.

Fail. Sandusky can't run in Missouri. Tell me you knew...

Truman wrote:

Well, you got a well-reasoned explanation for my vote in an earlier post, which for some reason compelled you to drag me down to your level in your reply. Heck, I thought agreeing with you might make you feel a little better about yourself. Apparently not.

I guess you did agree with me. It must be my bitter vindictive side coming out.

Funny this year how it seems like so many are reduced to voting against somebody instead of for somebody else.

mvscal wrote:Oh, OK. I would venture to say that you're full of shit. Abortion has been legal for 39 years. During that timeframe, the White House has been controlled by pro-life Presidents for 20 years and yet Roe v Wade is still on the books without even a whiff of a challenge. Anyone voting for a candidate based on his position on abortion is a moron.

As to what kind of SC justices Romney would appoint, I would suggest taking a look at his track record in Massachewshits.

He said overturning Roe v Wade would be his preference, and that's not taken out of context. I would agree that anyone who votes for Obama based on that single issue is a moron, but there are plenty of those around.

Mikey wrote:Funny this year how it seems like so many are reduced to voting against somebody instead of for somebody else.

This.



Here's to bitter vindictive (old) fucks like us, Mikey!

Truman wrote:

Mikey wrote:Funny this year how it seems like so many are reduced to voting against somebody instead of for somebody else.

This.



Here's to bitter vindictive (old) fucks like us, Mikey!

Amen to that.

We'll be hoisting a few tonight at the Mikey shack no matter what the results are.

Mikey wrote:

Truman wrote:

Mikey wrote:Funny this year how it seems like so many are reduced to voting against somebody instead of for somebody else.

This.



Here's to bitter vindictive (old) fucks like us, Mikey!

Amen to that.

We'll be hoisting a few tonight at the Mikey shack no matter what the results are.

Sounds like a plan! Gotta feeling the sun is scheduled to rise somewhere tomorrow, and Tax Day will still be April 15th, regardless...

88 wrote:I am leaving to go vote right now. The polling place is conveniently located in a building directly behind my office. I will let you know how long it takes, and if there are any attempts to disenfranchise me and Mrs. 88 in this heavily Democratic district (formerly represented by Dennis Kucinich). Wish me luck.

Good luck. I hope you make it back OK. Don't forget your equipment.

Mace wrote:He said overturning Roe v Wade would be his preference, and that's not taken out of context.

Yeah, well...personal preference isn't the basis for public policy and I'm sure Reagan, Poppy and Chimpy felt the same way.

I would agree that anyone who votes for Obama based on that single issue is a moron, but there are plenty of those around.

It goes both ways. Anyone voting for Romney based on that single issue is also a moron and you're right, there is certainly no shortage of morons.

It's a red meat distraction for both sides of the issue and it doesn't make a single iota of difference who you vote for based on abortion only.

KC Scott wrote:it doesn't matter if he recanted Wags - it's how he thinks and how most of the Anti-Chice crowd thinks

All Republicans should just STFU on any issue related to womens health / contraception etc. - it's what is going to cost us the election

More intelligent statement than I have heard from anyone voting red in quite a long time. How about you run for office next election.

except that it's not what you "think" or believe that mean a damn thing... it's actions that define a person.

But I wouldn't expect a blithering idiot like you to understand that.

KC Scott wrote:I don't understand the GOP strategists not seeing what the electorate wants -

The GOP Message: Smaller Govt. -that means less Govt. intervention in peoples lives and individual choices. Yet their platform wants to dictate to 50% of the population that they have no choice in matters involving their own health and bodies

Kansas Citians are like diapers... they both need to be changed often, and for the same reasons.

KC Scott wrote:
And you will see, unfortunetly, that they will define a Socialist regime for 4 more years

I love Socialism...

mvscal wrote: During that timeframe, the White House has been controlled by pro-life Presidents for 20 years and yet Roe v Wade is still on the books without even a whiff of a challenge.

Roe was 7-2 you vapid Racist black cock stroking fuck chair.

KC Scott wrote:Not sure who reads the NY Post, but at least he got a little support up there in Liberal NE

Rupert Murdoch owns the NY Post. Tell me you knew.

One quick question. If Romney was all that and a bag of chips, why the hell didn't he even win his home state, or any where in New England for that matter?
Seems to me if a guy can't win his home state, he shouldn't have even won the nomination from his party.

Paul Ryan didn't help him in Wisconsin either.

Mace wrote:Paul Ryan didn't help him in Wisconsin either.

Wisconsin remains blue. Walker won the recall because there were a lot of people that didn't necessarily support him, but still felt the recall was wrong. The Baldwin win was probably a bit more surprising than Obama's, but proves that the state leans Democrat.

KC Scott wrote:

kcdave wrote:One quick question. If Romney was all that and a bag of chips, why the hell didn't he even win his home state, or any where in New England for that matter?
Seems to me if a guy can't win his home state, he shouldn't have even won the nomination from his party.

He won Utah

I know this may be hard to believe, but Utah is not the home state of every Mormon. Mitt's a Michigander. Not that it matters, since he lost it, too. And Utah may still be the most red state there is, so any (R) on the ballot would've won it.

Smackie Chan wrote:Mitt's a Michigander.

How long do you have to grow up/live somewhere to be considered a "-gander?" By that logic, that means Mgo is a Florida-gander.

If you go to a party store to get pop, you're probably a Michigander.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Mitt's a Michigander.

How long do you have to grow up/live somewhere to be considered a "-gander?" By that logic, that means Mgo is a Florida-gander.

Not sure about the rules of duration. To be considered a gander, you must be a male goose. Not sure about Mgo's history - he may be a Floridian for all I know.

As for Mittens, he was born in Detroit, raised in Bloomfield Hills, and lived in MI until after he graduated from high school. Whatever the criterion is to be considered a Michigander, I'd say he meets it. He's definitely not a Utahn simply by virtue of being a Mormon and that his mom was born there. I suppose he could be considered a Masshole since he was Governor and still maintains a residence there. Even though I've lived in VA for a few years, I consider myself a Californian since I was born & raised there. Do you consider yourself a Michigander or a Washingtonian?

Smackie Chan wrote: Do you consider yourself a Michigander or a Washingtonian?

It depends on what team is doing better.

Smackie Chan wrote:Do you consider yourself a Michigander or a Washingtonian?

I consider myself a native Michigander, but now since I reside in God's Country, I am a Washingtonian.

Screw_Michigan wrote:I reside in God's Country

Which god? Ares?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:I reside in God's Country

Which god? Ares?

Is that the God of Jizz Mopping?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Do you consider yourself a Michigander or a Washingtonian?

I consider myself a native Michigander, but now since I reside in God's Country, I am a Washingtonian.

You reside in this country’s a-hole which makes you just another shitstain.