View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 45 of 111 FirstFirst ... 354142434445464748495595 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #1101
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    With the most electoral votes in the country, it kinda all ready does...
    I mean, as it is, without capturing the swing states, you need a total of 37 other states to make up for it. Thats a little extreme.
    And that will move into a even smaller system in which you focus merely on the population centers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    The fudge is this nonsense? Yes, it does. Every vote matters because that 5% or whatever dem vote from Idaho will count, it will be added to the national dem vote.
    Yes your vote will be one of 40 million, however if you are living in Idaho with a population of 1.5 million, that means nothing compared to say living in Los Angelas that has twice that population. I mean why campaign in the vast majority of states out there, when the candidates can stay in a handful of cities and pick up a good percentage of the populous?


    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    Because states no longer matter, its population area. Instead of swing states, you have swing cities. New York, San Fransico, Los Angles, even Las Vegas.
    Of those only one state Nevada is even considered a swing state. The others the candidates visit merely for rubber chicken dinners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    But every vote counts because it isn't being thrown out the window if your party doesnt win the state. It all gets pooled in overall the national vote.
    It make it so the President is truly elected by the people.
    I mean, Senetors are directly elected, so why not the highest office in the land?
    And may I point out that your vote does not matter, it is written off by the candidates. Again I ask why would a candidate focus on more than 5 or so cities that make up a good amount of the population than visit other cities or states?

  2. #1102
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And that will move into a even smaller system in which you focus merely on the population centers.
    Because candidates dont focus on a select amount of states right now anyways? how is it any different? because they dotn visit every city in a state, only like one or two. Unless you're Ohio.

    Yes your vote will be one of 40 million, however if you are living in Idaho with a population of 1.5 million, that means nothing compared to say living in Los Angelas that has twice that population. I mean why campaign in the vast majority of states out there, when the candidates can stay in a handful of cities and pick up a good percentage of the populous?
    Why campaign in the vast majority of states when you can stay a number of states and pick up a good percentage of the electoral votes?

    And may I point out that your vote does not matter, it is written off by the candidates. Again I ask why would a candidate focus on more than 5 or so cities that make up a good amount of the population than visit other cities or states?
    What do you mean 'written of by the candidates'? Just because they wont campaign in your city, doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. As it is, Idaho isn't even campaigned in. So what difference would it make other than allowing everyone's votes to count rather than only the votes of a state majority?
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  3. #1103
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GMT -4
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    I read it.
    What do you think the chances of a tie in the electoral college run?
    Really I don't see that happening off the top of my head I do not know of a path to exactly 270 votes, so frankly very unlikely. I guess if Pennsylvania was won and not Virginia and then Iowa or Nevada you would hit 270 exactly. Like I said Pennsylvania is unlikely to flip over. Its at Obama by 5. It could happen, but even I would raise an eyebrow and it would be dangerously close if it were to go. I would rather not have my state become another Florida.

    Personally, Obama's view on foriegn polocy is a more puncual and powerful force for making allies and ending strife in the middle east.
    SirIllo, as someone who likes to imagine himself as more credible then the average joe in IR your not very clear on what you are saying here with the Middle East and Obama's policy in the Middle East. Please clarify. In terms of the Middle East there is little that can be done. Personally I am uncomfortable with out drone warfare in places such as Yemen. It does not sit well with my idea of sovereignty and respect for other countries no matter how weak. Syria is often the source of a lot of argument in recent times, but in the grand scheme of things it is unimportant. Countries to watch are Iran and Pakistan. Turkey is also a nation to watch, but not for the same reasons as Iran and Pakistan. Just try to specify please that is a very general statement. What parts of Obama's Middle Eastern policy do you find superior.

    Something that really bothers me is Afghanistan. We tell them when we will leave so all you do is lay back and focus on what will still be there the Afghans. In IR there is an idea tied to game theory the shadow of the future it exists in all real IR situations. You do not know when the "game" will end usually at least, but announcing when you will leave gives the other player in this case Al-Queda knowledge of when the game ends. All they have to do is bide their time unto the end and weaken the remaining player Afghanistan. I mean this war has gone on long enough and has proved a massive drain on resources so it should end. On the other hand we should not announce it withdrawing in 2014 is more then long enough you just don't tell your enemy when you will call it quits or say good enough in this case. Mabye this will come to more of a head in the last debate we shall see.
    The one thing that does not abide by majority rule is a person's conscience
    To Kill A Mockingbird

    It is no matter, let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mew, and dog will have his day.
    Hamlet Act V Scene I

  4. #1104
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Except that is my whole point, places like California which has a heavy population would get far more attention and importance placed on it.



    And in a different system, unless you live in a large city, your vote really doesn't matter





    No it really doesn't, as it just changes the strategy to go after the large cities and large cities alone. How can some entire states compete when one large city has more population than your entire state?

    Yes, it is true that candidates would go after big cities rather than small towns, but still, every vote is still pooled in and counted. Your vote will matter wherever you live, not just if you live in Iowa or Florida.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  5. #1105
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Lets look at what was said shall we?

    This is Obama at the debate:

    "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

    Romney replied with this

    "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror."

    Now lets see what was said, this was said at the end of his speech while talking about September 11th, specifically how brave Americans were on September 11th 2001.

    "Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

    Now here is the question, was that line referring to the attack? Or was it a throw away line in reference to September 11th 2001? Specifically since the preceding paragraphs were about September 11th 2001?

    Here is the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on September 20th

    "Q No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just –

    MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack,"

    After that we have Obama referencing the video at the UN, at Univision, and on The View. If Obama was talking about the consulate attack and not 9/11/2001 which is odd seeing how he spent the previous two paragraphs TALKING ABOUT 9/11/2001! Then why did the Press Secretary say they had not talked about it, and why did Obama refuse to call it a act of terror afterwards?

    The truth is Obama was not calling the attacks a act of terror, he was speaking of 9/11/2001 and "You're just going to have to deal with it."
    My point still stands that Obama said "act of terror." Romney made a fool out himself. It was hilarious.
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  6. #1106
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    My point still stands that Obama said "act of terror." Romney made a fool out himself. It was hilarious.
    Romney was speaking of Obama referring to the attack specifically as the attack of terror, that is what he specified as "It" as Obama was referring to it in his own comments. Yet as we can see from the transcript Obama was speaking of 9/11/2001 so you... have no point.

  7. #1107
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Romney was speaking of Obama referring to the attack specifically as the attack of terror, that is what he specified as "It" as Obama was referring to it in his own comments. Yet as we can see from the transcript Obama was speaking of 9/11/2001 so you... have no point.
    I kind of have to stand by BL on this, Romney was caught by a technicality. He wasn't 'incorrect' necessarily, he just chose the wrong word. But his point still stands.
    EDIT: I should probably clarify. See, Romney said it took 14 days for Obama to declare the the attacks were terrorist attacks. On the day after the attacks, all Obama said was that he wouldnt stand for acts of terror. But if he was referencing the 9/11 attack, then he really didn't admit it then.
    Not only that, but it was wrong of the moderator to argue with Romney like that. It wasn't her place.
    Last edited by Brutaka; 19th October 2012 at 4:32 AM.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  8. #1108
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka View Post
    I kind of have to stand by BL on this, Romney was caught by a technicality. He wasn't 'incorrect' necessarily, he just chose the wrong word. But his point still stands.
    EDIT: I should probably clarify. See, Romney said it took 14 days for Obama to declare the the attacks were terrorist attacks. On the day after the attacks, all Obama said was that he wouldnt stand for acts of terror. But if he was referencing the 9/11 attack, then he really didn't admit it then.
    Not only that, but it was wrong of the moderator to argue with Romney like that. It wasn't her place.
    Still, it was wrong for Romney to politicize the tragedy for political gain. It got him backlash from both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike, and then end up getting trapped by the President in front of the national audience at the second debate.

  9. #1109
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Still, it was wrong for Romney to politicize the tragedy for political gain.
    No it really isn't, it drives directly to the question of the President's leadership. By the way in 2008 Obama was willing to use soldier deaths in Iraq for political gain against McCain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    It got him backlash from both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike,
    Yeah lets stack up the attacks against Romney for criticizing Obama over Benguazi and compare it to the criticism that has been leveled at Obama by the left and right for lying on Benguazi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    and then end up getting trapped by the President in front of the national audience at the second debate.
    Only because the moderator overstepped her bounds and got it wrong.

  10. #1110
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    No it really isn't, it drives directly to the question of the President's leadership. By the way in 2008 Obama was willing to use soldier deaths in Iraq for political gain against McCain.
    Just like how Republicans politicized 9/11? Rudy Giuliani anyone?

    Yeah lets stack up the attacks against Romney for criticizing Obama over Benguazi and compare it to the criticism that has been leveled at Obama by the left and right for lying on Benguazi.
    Oh I'm sorry. The moment I heard President Obama went on an "apology tour" makes Romney's complaints about his foreign policy invalid.

    Only because the moderator overstepped her bounds and got it wrong.
    Even if you made complaints, it is too late because the damage has already been done. Romney tries to use the supposed winning hand against Obama only for the latter to counter it by letting him continue saying what Obama DID say and he fell right into his own trap. Romney could have killed the 47 percent comments but Obama used it as the final word.
    Last edited by Silver Soul; 19th October 2012 at 8:54 AM.

  11. #1111
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the Matrix
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    No it really isn't, it drives directly to the question of the President's leadership. By the way in 2008 Obama was willing to use soldier deaths in Iraq for political gain against McCain.



    Yeah lets stack up the attacks against Romney for criticizing Obama over Benguazi and compare it to the criticism that has been leveled at Obama by the left and right for lying on Benguazi.



    Only because the moderator overstepped her bounds and got it wrong.
    Yep, typical conservative debate tactics. Rather than admit your faction's many faults, simply pour mud on the enemy and play the "but they do it tooooo" card.
    And do you think that unto such as you;
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
    God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
    Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
    ~Omar al-Khayyām, poet of Persia.

  12. #1112
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    Yep, typical conservative debate tactics. Rather than admit your faction's many faults, simply pour mud on the enemy and play the "but they do it tooooo" card.
    You know, unless you're really, really good, you don't want to admit your own factions faults in a debate. It can weaken your arguments if you don't do it right and give your opponent ammo.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  13. #1113
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    But Romney was still wrong about what he said. Romney specifically said that Obama never said "act of terror" when in fact Obama did actually do exactly that. Romney messed up. You're just going to have to deal with it.

    Yeah, it's too bad for Romney that reality has a liberal bias.
    Tedious troll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Still, it was wrong for Romney to politicize the tragedy for political gain. It got him backlash from both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike, and then end up getting trapped by the President in front of the national audience at the second debate.
    There was nothing wrong with Romney attacking the Obama's administration's inability to defend either free speech or its own people. What is far more shameful is Obama's description as these murders as "not optimal". Shameful actions from a shameful man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    Yep, typical conservative debate tactics. Rather than admit your faction's many faults, simply pour mud on the enemy and play the "but they do it tooooo" card.
    Yes the Obama would be well above negative campaigning wouldn't they. Troll.

  14. #1114
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Just like how Republicans politicized 9/11? Rudy Giuliani anyone?
    I believe both sides started politicizing 9/11 at the end of the day. I mean is not Obama running around saying how he killed Bin Laden for political gain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Oh I'm sorry. The moment I heard President Obama went on an "apology tour" makes Romney's complaints about his foreign policy invalid.
    And how does that have anything to do with Benguazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Even if you made complaints, it is too late because the damage has already been done. Romney tries to use the supposed winning hand against Obama only for the latter to counter it by letting him continue saying what Obama DID say and he fell right into his own trap. Romney could have killed the 47 percent comments but Obama used it as the final word.
    Except A: Obama did not call the Benguazi attacks a terror attack we have already been over that.

    B: Romney addressed the 47% before Obama did in his final word, talking about how he cares about 100% of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula
    Yep, typical conservative debate tactics. Rather than admit your faction's many faults, simply pour mud on the enemy and play the "but they do it tooooo" card.
    Aww did I touch a widdle nerve that made you take this personally?

  15. #1115
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I believe both sides started politicizing 9/11 at the end of the day. I mean is not Obama running around saying how he killed Bin Laden for political gain?
    Obama did gave credit to those who carried out the mission. But hey, Bush got the 80 percent approval AFTER 9/11 attacks.

    And how does that have anything to do with Benguazi?
    Romney is trying to make himself look like the man for commander-in-chief when he has zero foreign policy, was in France during the Vietnam, and his foreign policy adviser is John Bolton.

    Except A: Obama did not call the Benguazi attacks a terror attack we have already been over that.

    B: Romney addressed the 47% before Obama did in his final word, talking about how he cares about 100% of people.
    And Romney flip flopped on that statement because the voters mostly saw the 47 percent comments as negativity and Romney didn't apologize for it after the videos came out.

  16. #1116
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Where I shouldn't be.
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I am somewhat unsure who to vote for. I am leaning toward Mitt Romney.

    Honestly, let's not be idiots here. Mitt Romney is a two faced, shady, greedy scumbag. He'll switch positions if it benefits him, and he did some pretty crooked things during his tenure at Bain capital. I'm not concerning myself with his moral integrity though. In the same way I didn't concern myself with Bill Clinton's extra-marital affair.

    All I care about is whether he has what it takes to put the U.S. economy back on track. While he may have done shady things, in the end what we can all agree on is that he took a large business on the verge of financial ruin and turned it into a major success. When we're talking about how to fix the economy, it's the results and the know how that matter. The man clearly knows what it would take for U.S. companies to succeed and thrive.
    Last edited by Wytrex; 20th October 2012 at 2:42 AM.

  17. #1117
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SirIllo View Post
    Personally, Obama's view on foriegn polocy is a more puncual and powerful force for making allies and ending strife in the middle east. Also, Biden's points in the VP debate were much more predominent than ryan's...
    Not everyone watches the vp debates though and honestly (as a first time voter, so what I say may not be taken to heavily) I'm more concerned about what our next president is going to be like than the Vice President


    ^You ever have that moment you realize you forgot to give credit? Sorry Irra!!^

  18. #1118
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Obama did gave credit to those who carried out the mission.
    And Bush did not credit the first responders? Is not the saying of the Obama campaign right now "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    But hey, Bush got the 80 percent approval AFTER 9/11 attacks.
    And 9/11 was a much bigger and much more tragic event?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Romney is trying to make himself look like the man for commander-in-chief when he has zero foreign policy,
    Sounds kind of like Obama circa 2008 doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    was in France during the Vietnam,
    Actually that is untrue Romney was in the draft lottery near the end and received a high number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    and his foreign policy adviser is John Bolton.
    And?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    And Romney flip flopped on that statement because the voters mostly saw the 47 percent comments as negativity and Romney didn't apologize for it after the videos came out.
    And yet if it were a big deal Romney would be losing right now wouldn't he? He would be down 6 in Gallup not up 6.

  19. #1119
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Where I shouldn't be.
    Posts
    14

    Default

    and his foreign policy adviser is John Bolton.
    John Bolton usually speaks the truth. He can have a really big mouth and that's what got him into trouble during his position as a diplomat, as it should have. As a diplomat you just can't fire off your mouth and say whatever you want, even if it is the truth. He's being hired as a foreign policy adviser though, which they don't really have a big responsibility to tip toe around sensitive subjects. Unless ofcourse your problem with him is that you believe he's a neoconservative, which simply isn't true.

  20. #1120
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the Matrix
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post

    Yes the Obama would be well above negative campaigning wouldn't they. Troll.
    1) Obama isn't my favoured President and the Democrats aren't my party of choice. They're centre-right reactionaries who play the role of illusory choice against the more fanatical, violent and dogmatic cabal to their right. Either way, US society is shafted and the elites win.

    Their boy has waged war, assassinated people (Americans and not), restricted freedom of information, taken corporate money, increased the use of drones, done nothing about guns, installed a Republican healthcare system (the Republicans are so hateful of Obama that they hate their own plan when he uses it, lol), continued the Bush tax cuts for the capitalist class, refused to write better regulatory laws for the financial sector and has supported a terrorist group in Iran. Sounds like a Bush and Reagen redux.

    Conservatives should love Obama because he's really one of them and if he didn't have brown skin and a Muslim father, maybe they would.

    In a way, I feel sorry for the right-wingers; they're trying their best to paint a moderate conservative as a radical, anti-American Marxist while trying to paint Romney, a white Obama clone, as some conservative hero.

    2) Name calling = no arguments. Come back when you've something more substantial to say. Don't bother responding if all you type is 'troll'.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Aww did I touch a widdle nerve that made you take this personally?
    Your refusal to answer my points is telling. Then again, it's the Republican way to indulge in this sort of behavior.
    And do you think that unto such as you;
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
    God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
    Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
    ~Omar al-Khayyām, poet of Persia.

  21. #1121
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Thought I share this in case no one did. Obama was having a rally in Virginia with woman voters and he decides to discuss a special "condition" Romney may have. It's called "Romnesia" and it can be covered by ObamaCare

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1987800.html

    We have got to name this condition he is going through. I think it is called Romnesia. I think that's what it is called. Now I'm not a medical doctor. But I do want to go over some of the symptoms with you because I want to make sure nobody else catches it.

    If you say you're for equal pay for equal work but you keep refusing to say whether or not you will sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work, you might have Romnesia.

    If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have a case of Romnesia.

    If you say you will protect a women's right to choose but you stand up in a primary debate and say you'd be delighted to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, then you have definitely got Romnesia.

  22. #1122
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    Your refusal to answer my points is telling. Then again, it's the Republican way to indulge in this sort of behavior.
    And what points are those? Saying I refuse to address my candidate's faults is some kind of Conservative tactic isn't a point, it is merely being a troll. The last thing you addressed to me ( Before your trollish comments ) is Obama's mandate, of which I did answer, and you did not reply. Your refusal to answer my points in that regard is telling.

    Edit: By the way you should take your own advice, name calling =/= argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul
    Thought I share this in case no one did. Obama was having a rally in Virginia with woman voters and he decides to discuss a special "condition" Romney may have. It's called "Romnesia" and it can be covered by ObamaCare
    Ahh the sweet sweet taste of desperation from a incumbent President.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 20th October 2012 at 3:34 PM.

  23. #1123
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the Matrix
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And what points are those? The last thing you addressed to me ( Before your trollish comments ) is Obama's mandate, of which I did answer, and you did not reply. Your refusal to answer my points in that regard is telling.
    1) What trollish comments did I make?
    2) So, poor people should go without healthcare until 2013? Had Obama waited until 2012 to seek a clear mandate the Republicans would again demonstrate their love and care for the lower masses by campaigning against their own plan that was adopted by the mildly conservative President. I bet they also would've played some sort of card like 'Obama is more interested in socialism than your job'.
    3) I was aiming before about how your boy was playing up the Benghazi thing. In the words of an Austrian politician, 'everything has been said, but not everyone's said it', so I won't reopen that relatively minor point.
    And do you think that unto such as you;
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
    God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
    Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.
    ~Omar al-Khayyām, poet of Persia.

  24. #1124
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    Thought I share this in case no one did. Obama was having a rally in Virginia with woman voters and he decides to discuss a special "condition" Romney may have. It's called "Romnesia" and it can be covered by ObamaCare
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Ahh the sweet sweet taste of desperation from a incumbent President.
    That's not desperation; that's humor. And love it when presidential candidates use humor to attack their opponents.
    I had already read that article, and I LOLed. Romnesia, funny stuff...
    Funny because it's so true...
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  25. #1125
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    1) What trollish comments did I make?
    Then again, it's the Republican way to indulge in this sort of behavior.
    Yep, typical conservative debate tactics

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyula View Post
    2) So, poor people should go without healthcare until 2013? Had Obama waited until 2012 to seek a clear mandate the Republicans would again demonstrate their love and care for the lower masses by campaigning against their own plan that was adopted by the mildly conservative President. I bet they also would've played some sort of card like 'Obama is more interested in socialism than your job'.
    Congrats on completely ignoring what I said.

    The argument is about the mandate, not what we should do with healthcare. Obama had one to fix the economy, he decided to use it on healthcare. The voters attacked him for not listening to him by giving him a Republican House

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutaka
    That's not desperation; that's humor. And love it when presidential candidates use humor to attack their opponents.
    I had already read that article, and I LOLed. Romnesia, funny stuff...
    Funny because it's so true...
    The VP is supposed to use crappy humor to attack their opponents. The President is supposed to be above that. When we start seeing Presidents sink to that level it is usually a sign of desperation. Case in point George HW Bush attacking Al Gore in 1992 by calling him "Mr. Ozone" and trying to make it sound like Bozo
    Last edited by BigLutz; 20th October 2012 at 8:06 PM.

Page 45 of 111 FirstFirst ... 354142434445464748495595 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •