Romney - the big spending, Pro-Abortion, anti-gun, pro same-sex marriage candidate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reactions
1,489 305 5
#71
Man, Romney's delivery of every line of his speech was weird. It's like every time he stopped talking, I was waiting for the punchline.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#72
Yes, Republicans are awful. It's just a crying shame the only other alternative most people think they have is Democrats.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#74
Actually an empty chair, or rather, an empty suit, is a pretty apt metaphor for Obama.

(I haven't even watched any of the convention, Guild Wars 2 too good)
 
Reactions
3 0 0
#75
You want to the masses, who have skyrocketed Honey Boo Boo (or whatever it's called) Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras to record high ratings to know there's more than 2 parties in the political system?

Funniest thing I've heard in a while.
 
Reactions
517 183 3
#76
Actually an empty chair, or rather, an empty suit, is a pretty apt metaphor for Obama.
Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,642 1,232 23
#77
Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.
Most anti-gay Republicans do get it both ways.

HEYOOOOO!
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#78
Look, conservatives can either say he does too much and makes the government too big, or you can say he doesn't do enough and he's basically an empty suit. You can't have it both ways.
By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.
 
Reactions
969 73 2
#80
By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.
So your saying Obama was George Walker Bush?
 
Reactions
517 183 3
#82
By "empty suit" we don't mean he doesn't do anything. We mean he has no character or ideas of his own, and people project their image of what they want onto him, while the power players behind him pull his strings.
Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize you were using the wrong definition for your comment.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#84
Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize you were using the wrong definition for your comment.
Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.[DOUBLEPOST=1346447332][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm pretty sure Bush was the dark reflection. Obama is, at his worst, grey.
Actually, it would probably be most accurate to say that he is Bush concentrated.
 
Reactions
517 183 3
#85
Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.
...which gets back to what I was saying. The man is either an evil anti-American tyrant overstepping his authority with huge government expansions and socialism, or he's a dimwit who hasn't accomplished anything. You can't have it both ways.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#86
...which gets back to what I was saying. The man is either an evil anti-American tyrant overstepping his authority with huge government expansions and socialism, or he's a dimwit who hasn't accomplished anything. You can't have it both ways.
Just because Dr. Doom never gets his way completely doesn't mean he still isn't a villain.
 
Reactions
969 73 2
#87
Just because Dr. Doom never gets his way completely doesn't mean he still isn't a villain.
Dr. Doom ALWAYS gets his way. Everything he does is designed to always benefit him. It's also an incorrect analogy for this situation, because he isn't viewed simultaneously as the biggest threat to the world AND it's biggest idiot. Your ether competent or incompetent. You only get to pick one.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#88
Dr. Doom ALWAYS gets his way. Everything he does is designed to always benefit him. It's also an incorrect analogy for this situation, because he isn't viewed simultaneously as the biggest threat to the world AND it's biggest idiot. Your ether competent or incompetent. You only get to pick one.
I never said he was competent, but yes, Dr. Doom probably wasn't the best analogy. I'm very thankful that Obama actually isn't good at his job, because if he was, we'd all be right and proper screwed.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been Dr. Drakken.[DOUBLEPOST=1346448602][/DOUBLEPOST]Posted without comment.

 
Reactions
168 64 7
#90
Well, if you want to get all merriam-webster on me, the dictionary definition is "an ineffectual executive."

Seems to fit as well. Despite having filibuster-proof majorities in both house and senate for his first two years, he's accomplished surprisingly little, and had to compromise away most of what he did accomplish.[DOUBLEPOST=1346447332][/DOUBLEPOST]

Actually, it would probably be most accurate to say that he is Bush concentrated.
It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. As Scarborough well knows, the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. While state politician Christie can possibly be forgiven such an error, someone with Joe Scarborough’s reach and influence ought to have better than a 71% margin of error.
As Mother JonesKevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

Give that chicken some cab fare when you get done with it. It's the least you could do.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#91
It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. As Scarborough well knows, the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. While state politician Christie can possibly be forgiven such an error, someone with Joe Scarborough’s reach and influence ought to have better than a 71% margin of error.
As Mother JonesKevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

Give that chicken some cab fare when you get done with it. It's the least you could do.
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were dependable democrat votes in any situation, so at worst they had 61.

Regardless, it never even came to fruition because the democrat party itself splintered and lost its nerve, many of them fearing for their own seats in the inevitable 2010 midterm backlash and thus deciding not to toe the party line in the hopes that they might be spared.
 
Reactions
24 0 0
#93
You want to the masses, who have skyrocketed Honey Boo Boo (or whatever it's called) Jersey Shore and Toddlers and Tiaras to record high ratings to know there's more than 2 parties in the political system?

Funniest thing I've heard in a while.
Uh, not quite right there. Jersey Shore did, at its absolute height, reach about 9 Million viewers per episode which would place it as doing pretty damned well by any measure. But "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" got 2.9 Million viewers to beat the Republican National Convention's cable coverage. It was the number one show on Cable that night. That same night on broadcast TV: a rerun of "The Big Bang Theory" got 6.170 million viewers, a new episode of ABC's "Wipeout" got 3.490 million, and the Republican National Convention got 8.23 million viewers split between NBC and ABC. As an added "for instance", the dismal failure "Viva Laughlin" got cancelled after only two episodes had aired with an average 7.8 million viewers. Last season's abysmal failure "The Playboy Club" netted 3.47 million viewers in it's final week.

Never, ever mistake "number one with a bullet on a cable" with " well known and popular in the real world". Generally speaking, the most popular shows on cable do not hold a candle to the reach of broadcast television and the bar for "wild success" on cable is insanely low in comparison.

EDIT: Gilgamesh , what is there to disagree with? Go look at TV By The Numbers yourself if you don't believe me.
 
Reactions
283 99 0
#94
I really can't tag this guy as one way or the other. His opinions change constantly, and I don't understand what he's actually going to do! As Lil Rummy said: Bush may have made bad decisions, but at least he stook with him.

This guy makes made me compliment Bush. This is how non-confident I am in his leading abilities.
 
Reactions
525 66 0
#95
I really can't tag this guy as one way or the other. His opinions change constantly, and I don't understand what he's actually going to do!
That's because he's a political chameleon, changing his opinions to suit his environment. Put him in Massachusetts, he lays the groundwork for Obamacare. Put him in the Republican national stage, and he'll loathe abortion, shout about government being too big, and drive a Hummer that runs on the blood of baby pandas - literally anything to get elected. I know most politicians are like that, but if dogs could vote, Romney would eat Alpo.
 
Reactions
283 99 0
#96
I am definitely not voting for this schmuck. Of course...after Christi got elected I took a strong vow against voting for anyone especially presidential campaigns due to the complete idiocy of the voting system but still. Seriously though, American democracy is a damn sham.
 
Reactions
1,443 631 32
#98
I read the headline as "why women should be paid equal to men" and was very confused.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#99
Looks like the Romneys have a great attitude towards women...

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/

How is it possible that this guy could win this thing!?! Seriously, even selling your soul to the devil shouldn't let you dodge stupid shit like this.
AHEM.

From Freewoodpost's disclaimer:

Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.
Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.
Ya'll been ONIONED.

Remember to check for corroboration when your source isn't a major news outlet. Sometimes even when it is.
 
Reactions
1,489 305 5
Reactions
525 66 0
AHEM.

From Freewoodpost's disclaimer:



Ya'll been ONIONED.

Remember to check for corroboration when your source isn't a major news outlet. Sometimes even when it is.
FACEPALM. Yep. Saw it posted on another forum, where people thought it was real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top