GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 345 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Romney took charge last night! (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1086470)

Juicy J 10-23-2012 01:25 PM
Gas is $10.25 here

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2012 01:40 PM
These debates probably had little real effect other than reinforcing peoples opinions that were already formed.

I listened to the second and third debates.

Romney again avowed his desire to repeal Obamacare.

Obama went off topic in the last debate to justify the need for spending on higher education and basic research.

Surprisingly, Romney objected to the federal grants to private business for some of this research to be done outside of higher educational institutions. So, government owned or supported institutions are more capable that private business? Hypocritical to Romney's confessed position and that of his party.

Romney offered no real alternatives to any of the above in spite of the opportunity to do so.

Draw your own conclusions ...

What is really key to the next 2 or 4 years is the make-up of the congress that either candidate will have to work with as President. If Obama is re-elected the majority of the Congress may change. Conversely, if Romney is elected the current make-up of the Congress may be similar. If the latter happens it is not good for people in the adult industry -- that is a given.

No, the world won't end but your USA based businesses might very well or at least be mired in government bureaucracy. (More hypocrisy).

2012 10-23-2012 01:42 PM
Tagg, Mitt, Skitt and Shittle

KillerK 10-23-2012 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19269910)
These debates probably had little real effect other than reinforcing peoples opinions that were already formed.

I listened to the second and third debates.

Romney again avowed his desire to repeal Obamacare.

Obama went off topic in the last debate to justify the need for spending on higher education and basic research.

Surprisingly, Romney objected to the federal grants to private business for some of this research to be done outside of higher educational institutions. So, government owned or supported institutions are more capable that private business? Hypocritical to Romney's confessed position and that of his party.

Romney offered no real alternatives to any of the above in spite of the opportunity to do so.

Draw your own conclusions ...

What is really key to the next 2 or 4 years is the make-up of the congress that either candidate will have to work with as President. If Obama is re-elected the majority of the Congress may change. Conversely, if Romney is elected the current make-up of the Congress may be similar. If the latter happens it is not good for people in the adult industry -- that is a given.

No, the world won't end but your USA based businesses might very well or at least be mired in government bureaucracy. (More hypocrisy).
You act as if we have a real industry anymore, that the average webmaster actually makes any serious money. The Tubes have so much traffic its sick, and they don't share it. Atleast in the past the tgp/mgp sites shared the traffic.

Drake 10-23-2012 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19269525)
But Obama's big strength are blacks and hispanics. Blacks are nearly 100% voting for Obama no matter what. They interviewed some black folks and they didn't even care if he did stupid shit...they were voting for him because he is black.
This is an interesting statistic but I think it has more to do with policy and personality than race, but I could be wrong. How much black support did Herman Cain (Republican), Al Sharpton (Democrat), or Alan Keyes (Republican) get when they ran as presidential candidates? I've read that White presidential candidates who are Democrats normally get around 90% of the black vote.

epitome 10-23-2012 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19269855)
I guess Obama's demographic is the only one that does not realize we still use bayonettes.
Use is down and the last bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951.

Obama's exact quote was "We also have fewer horses and bayonets."

Now the Army used to use them more and hardly does now. The only ones left are the Marine's and they don't really use them that much... last real time was in 1951.

So was Obama lying?

Are there not less bayonets in use today?

You've posted numerous times on bayonets in this thread so it must really be eating you up. Just wanted to set you straight.

I'm sure somewhere on some military base or out in the mountains of Afghanistan someone is on a horse right now... doesn't mean we do not have less.

epitome 10-23-2012 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake (Post 19270010)
This is an interesting statistic but I think it has more to do with policy and personality than race, but I could be wrong. How much black support did Herman Cain (Republican), Al Sharpton (Democrat), or Alan Keyes (Republican) get when they ran as presidential candidates?
They didn't get much support but since Robbie says they interviewed a few it must be 100% voting for Obama! :1orglaugh

Barry-xlovecam 10-23-2012 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerK (Post 19269935)
You act as if we have a real industry anymore, that the average webmaster actually makes any serious money. The Tubes have so much traffic its sick, and they don't share it. Atleast in the past the tgp/mgp sites shared the traffic.

The past is gone and it's not coming back.

Gas prices are not going to be $1.50 again no matter who is elected.

Some adult businesses are making money and there is a consolidation of this industry going on.

Tubes should share their traffic? Wouldn't that be "socialism?" They monetize it and sell it that is raw capitalism.

madm1k3 10-23-2012 02:35 PM
You fucking idiots Romney is right, Syria is Iran's path to the sea!!!!

This debate was meaningless, I mean when has the USA ever been concerned about foreign policies. Its not like they go around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars, nope this was a waste of everyone's time.

Now for you Idiots who say war is important this isn't 2008, that was 4 years ago. I mean four fucking years, that's like all of high school yo. Quit acting like Bush is president, this is the now! Romney seems pretty credible, now I have to go the wallet inspector is at my door

Robbie 10-23-2012 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19270022)
They didn't get much support but since Robbie says they interviewed a few it must be 100% voting for Obama! :1orglaugh
Nope, since Robbie watches the news and that was front page stuff a few weeks ago. I didn't "say" anything. I just repeated the same info that we are all given. Grow up and stop attacking me. Address the issues instead. Have an interesting conversation instead of cackling to yourself and thinking how "clever" and "witty" you are. :)

Rochard 10-23-2012 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerK (Post 19269867)
Provided this data is correct, you are full of shit

George Bush?s average annual gas prices

2001 ? $1.61
2002 ? $1.47
2003 ? $1.69
2004 ? $1.94
2005 ? $2.30
2006 ? $2.51
2007 ? $2.64
2008 ? $3.01

Average price for gas over Bush?s eight years = $2.14/gal

Barack Obama?s average annual gas prices

2009 ? $2.14
2010 ? $2.52
2011 ? $3.57
2012 ? $3.72 (through August)

Average price for gas over Obama?s four years to date = $2.99/gal
You are cherry picking stats again. I said highest price for gas, not yearly average cost.
The highest national price for gas was September 2008 at $4.12.

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.ga...&Unit=US%20$/G

keysync 10-23-2012 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19270180)
You are cherry picking stats again. I said highest price for gas, not yearly average cost.
The highest national price for gas was September 2008 at $4.12.

http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.ga...&Unit=US%20$/G
It was $5.79 here a few weeks ago so.....

ThunderBalls 10-23-2012 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19269525)
But Obama's big strength are blacks and hispanics. Blacks are nearly 100% voting for Obama no matter what. They interviewed some black folks and they didn't even care if he did stupid shit...they were voting for him because he is black.
Got a link to that interview?

Robbie 10-23-2012 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 19270206)
Got a link to that interview?
Nope. There have been dozens of those on the news over the last few months.

epitome 10-23-2012 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270178)
Nope, since Robbie watches the news and that was front page stuff a few weeks ago. I didn't "say" anything. I just repeated the same info that we are all given. Grow up and stop attacking me. Address the issues instead. Have an interesting conversation instead of cackling to yourself and thinking how "clever" and "witty" you are. :)
You think I have more invested in these threads than I actually do.

ThunderBalls 10-23-2012 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270210)
Nope. There have been dozens of those on the news over the last few months.
FOX News is not news. :2 cents:

2012 10-23-2012 03:53 PM

JP-pornshooter 10-23-2012 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerK (Post 19269867)
Provided this data is correct, you are full of shit

George Bush?s average annual gas prices

2001 ? $1.61
2002 ? $1.47
2003 ? $1.69
2004 ? $1.94
2005 ? $2.30
2006 ? $2.51
2007 ? $2.64
2008 ? $3.01

Average price for gas over Bush?s eight years = $2.14/gal

Barack Obama?s average annual gas prices

2009 ? $2.14
2010 ? $2.52
2011 ? $3.57
2012 ? $3.72 (through August)

Average price for gas over Obama?s four years to date = $2.99/gal
take those numbers and look when the highest % increases happened.
and/or adjust these numbers for inflation/CPI
or perhaps you would not like the outcome?

JP-pornshooter 10-23-2012 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19269549)
And a testament to how horrible a candidate Romney is, that he can't even build a lead against an incumbent with such a weak economy. If the GOP ran anyone worth electing, this would have been a Republican landslide months ago. Bloomberg and the rest of the sane Republicans aren't crazy enough to get votes in the primary. Only crazies and liars can win the GOP nomination these days.

Santorum, Bachman, Newt, Romney, Herman Cain, GWB, Palin, McCain.... there has not been a serious conservative on the Republican ticket since Bob Dole/Jack Kemp in 1996. Think about that... Many voters today were less than 5 years old the last time the Republican party had sane fiscal conservatives as their nominees.

Run a real fiscal conservative with progressive views on social issues (like Bloomberg) and he has no chance of getting nominated... so Bloomberg, Christie, Rubio etc won't even run for election. It's pathetic. I'd love to vote Republican... just as soon as the GOP actually nominates one. :2 cents:
they should split the party
make one party a real republican party without the religious rights and the other nut cases.

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 19270223)
FOX News is not news. :2 cents:
Are you just trying to troll people?

Watch MSNBC, CNN, your local news, etc. If you've watched any news at all you have seen analysts asking black folks why they would vote for Obama when black unemployment is so high and he hasn't done anything for them yet. The answer is that they are going to vote for him anyway.

Last night after the debate there was a black new analyst on MSNBC who said that she was "sure" that in his second term Obama would finally address the needs of the black community.

Why are you trying to make a big deal out of that? Black people are rightfully proud of the first black American president. And they are going to vote for him no matter what. It's human nature and I don't blame them one bit.

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter (Post 19270264)
they should split the party
make one party a real republican party without the religious rights and the other nut cases.
I think that Libertarians represent that. Fiscally conservative, small govt., and socially liberal. Real freedom.

Relentless 10-23-2012 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter (Post 19270264)
they should split the party make one party a real republican party without the religious rights and the other nut cases.
And do the same with the Democrats.... Al Sharpton and Pelosi in one.... Hillary, Obama and Booker in the other...


Honestly... an election next time around between Hillary and Bloomberg... we can't lose.
I'd take either of them over this hot mess of liars and incompetents.

ThunderBalls 10-23-2012 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270269)
Are you just trying to troll people?

Watch MSNBC, CNN, your local news, etc. If you've watched any news at all you have seen analysts asking black folks why they would vote for Obama when black unemployment is so high and he hasn't done anything for them yet. The answer is that they are going to vote for him anyway.

Last night after the debate there was a black new analyst on MSNBC who said that she was "sure" that in his second term Obama would finally address the needs of the black community.

Why are you trying to make a big deal out of that? Black people are rightfully proud of the first black American president. And they are going to vote for him no matter what. It's human nature and I don't blame them one bit.

I'm not denying any of that, but you made a statement that black people were giving interviews saying they didn't give a shit what Obama did they were voting for him because he was black. I asked for a link and you failed to provide, yea I'm trolling. :1orglaugh

SuckOnThis 10-23-2012 04:31 PM
Anyone that disagrees with Robbie is trolling.

Even though he's ashamed to admit he's a republican and loves Romney he's on here daily defending him.

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 19270282)
I'm not denying any of that, but you made a statement that black people were giving interviews saying they didn't give a shit what Obama did they were voting for him because he was black. I asked for a link and you failed to provide, yea I'm trolling. :1orglaugh
Sorry I can't provide a link for interviews I saw on CNN and other news outlets while I ate lunch or was channel surfing. Search for yourself. I'm not your slave. :)

Minte 10-23-2012 04:33 PM
Romney looked and acted liked a president. Obama looked and acted like a smartass.

His line about the aircraft carrier and submarine was something I would expect from a GFY'er.

KillerK 10-23-2012 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysync (Post 19270204)
It was $5.79 here a few weeks ago so.....
I doubt he will comment on your ownage.

Relentless 10-23-2012 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19270327)
Romney looked and acted liked a president. Obama looked and acted like a smartass. His line about the aircraft carrier and submarine was something I would expect from a GFY'er.
Romney looked out of his element. He knows zero about military engagement or foreign policy. That's not his fault, it's not something he has had to deal with as a venture capitalist. He stood to lose zero of the people planning to vote for him and had no chance to win any from Obama. Meanwhile Obama knew he could not get Romney voters to side with him based on foreign policy, so he used the time to rev up his base and get Obama supporters more motivated to actually show up on election day. Romney and Obama had the same amount of support before and after the debate, but Obama likely improved voter turnout for his side while Romney did not.

The smart ass lines were not intended to make you change your mind, they were intended to make apathetic supporters more likely to go vote... and they seem to have been executed very effectively. :2 cents:

baddog 10-23-2012 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 19270013)
Use is down and the last bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951.

Obama's exact quote was "We also have fewer horses and bayonets."

Now the Army used to use them more and hardly does now. The only ones left are the Marine's and they don't really use them that much... last real time was in 1951.

So was Obama lying?

Are there not less bayonets in use today?

You've posted numerous times on bayonets in this thread so it must really be eating you up. Just wanted to set you straight.

I'm sure somewhere on some military base or out in the mountains of Afghanistan someone is on a horse right now... doesn't mean we do not have less.
I take it you did not read the link provided where it was suggested we use more bayonets now than in 1916.

tony286 10-23-2012 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19270327)
Romney looked and acted liked a president. Obama looked and acted like a smartass.

His line about the aircraft carrier and submarine was something I would expect from a GFY'er.
oh stop please stop. lets not kid ourselves Mitt could get up and piss all over the desk. You would say he acted like a leader when he has to go he just goes. Not excusing himself not like that weak muslim , socialist ,communist, business hating ultra liberal. lol

Relentless 10-23-2012 04:44 PM
In case people failed to notice... nobody is trying to change anyone's mind any more. The time of winning votes is over. Both candidates are now going to amp up their rhetoric to energize the people who WILL vote for them to actually GO out of their house to vote.

From this point forward it's all about getting people to vote (or not to vote), not about changing anyone's mind.

Minte 10-23-2012 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19270345)
oh stop please stop. lets not kid ourselves Mitt could get up and piss all over the desk. You would say he acted like a leader when he has to go he just goes not excusing himself not like that weak muslim , socialist ,communist, business hating ultra liberal. lol
And exactly the person I was thinking about when I referred to a GFYer chimes in.

Tony, you are simply wrong. If Romney got up and pissed on a desk, I would not even think about voting for him.

tony286 10-23-2012 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19270358)
And exactly the person I was thinking about when I referred to a GFYer chimes in.

Tony, you are simply wrong. If Romney got up and pissed on a desk, I would not even think about voting for him.
I doubt that.

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19270338)
Romney looked out of his element. He knows zero about military engagement or foreign policy. That's not his fault, it's not something he has had to deal with as a venture capitalist.
Obama had zero foreign policy experience at all when he took office as well. Most Presidents don't. The majority of presidents are former governors (like Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now presidential hopeful Romney).

It's real hard to beat a sitting President when it comes to foreign policy. They have access to information that the challenger does not. Probably why Romney chose to not be combative about it. Probably the smartest thing he could do in that situation.

And I agree...last night was all about firing up the base.

It is funny though...back before the first debate the media incorrectly reported that Romney was preparing "zingers" for the debates. All the liberal folks on here went ballistic over that and called Romney an idiot for doing that (which it turned out he didn't).

Then after the debate last night, the panel on CNN was talking about how great the "zingers" were that Obama practiced ahead of time (the bayonet and horse one) based off of Romneys speeches.
Not one of the people on GFY who called Romney an idiot for preparing "zingers" (though he didn't) had anything but praise for Obama's "zinger" lol
Matter of fact they've spent the whole day putting up political cartoons about how great Obama's pre-planned "zinger" is.

The hypocrisy is just incredible amongst Obama supporters/Romney haters. I've never seen a cult of personality type following like he has.

ThunderBalls 10-23-2012 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270323)
Sorry I can't provide a link for interviews I saw on CNN and other news outlets while I ate lunch or was channel surfing. Search for yourself. I'm not your slave. :)
Dude if you're going to react like a fucking prick every time someone questions anything you say when it comes to politics you should find new hobby, stress kills.

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBalls (Post 19270372)
Dude if you're going to react like a fucking prick every time someone questions anything you say when it comes to politics you should find new hobby, stress kills.
I have no stress. YOU are the one who came out of nowhere with your "Fox News" comment trying to insinuate that I was either lying or stupid. I'm neither one. You were the one who attacked my integrity. That makes you the prick. Not me.

JP-pornshooter 10-23-2012 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19270276)
And do the same with the Democrats.... Al Sharpton and Pelosi in one.... Hillary, Obama and Booker in the other...


Honestly... an election next time around between Hillary and Bloomberg... we can't lose.
I'd take either of them over this hot mess of liars and incompetents.
but first the candidates have to make it through the primary, thats typically where any republican with some presidential qualities get knocked out by the religious rights.
would love to see someone like Tom McClintock get a chance.

tony286 10-23-2012 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19270327)
Romney looked and acted liked a president. Obama looked and acted like a smartass.

His line about the aircraft carrier and submarine was something I would expect from a GFY'er.
You got to think, he was this super governor that did so much for his state.They would know his leadership better than anyone else and he is 11 points behind Obama in that state.

Relentless 10-23-2012 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270371)
Obama had zero foreign policy experience at all when he took office as well. Most Presidents don't. The majority of presidents are former governors (like Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now presidential hopeful Romney). It's real hard to beat a sitting President when it comes to foreign policy. They have access to information that the challenger does not. Probably why Romney chose to not be combative about it. Probably the smartest thing he could do in that situation.
We agree completely, but Romney failed to say that. Go earlier in the thread and you'll see I posted exactly that notion. Romney should have said 'Four years ago Hillary and McCain tried to say you lacked any experience with foreign policy. How is it any less ridiculous for you to say that now than it was when you said they were incorrect last election."

That is the first thing he should have said and it would have stopped the bleeding. Instead Romney tried to show he could hold his own, like a overly aggressive boxer trying ignorantly to prove he can 'take a punch' instead of proving he knows 'how to avoid one'. :2 cents:

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter (Post 19270379)
but first the candidates have to make it through the primary, thats typically where any republican with some presidential qualities get knocked out by the religious rights.
.
Or you can just do what Romney did. Bullshit your way past the religious right and win the nomination. Unfortunately that gives your opposition plenty of firepower against you in the general election when you return to your original positions that you held for your whole life. lol

tony286 10-23-2012 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270371)
Obama had zero foreign policy experience at all when he took office as well. Most Presidents don't. The majority of presidents are former governors (like Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now presidential hopeful Romney).

It's real hard to beat a sitting President when it comes to foreign policy. They have access to information that the challenger does not. Probably why Romney chose to not be combative about it. Probably the smartest thing he could do in that situation.

And I agree...last night was all about firing up the base.

It is funny though...back before the first debate the media incorrectly reported that Romney was preparing "zingers" for the debates. All the liberal folks on here went ballistic over that and called Romney an idiot for doing that (which it turned out he didn't).

Then after the debate last night, the panel on CNN was talking about how great the "zingers" were that Obama practiced ahead of time (the bayonet and horse one) based off of Romneys speeches.
Not one of the people on GFY who called Romney an idiot for preparing "zingers" (though he didn't) had anything but praise for Obama's "zinger" lol
Matter of fact they've spent the whole day putting up political cartoons about how great Obama's pre-planned "zinger" is.

The hypocrisy is just incredible amongst Obama supporters/Romney haters. I've never seen a cult of personality type following like he has.
You assume if someone calls mitt out on his bullshit or likes obama is brainwashed ,mindless followers. How is that anyless insulting then what was said to you? How great of a leader is Mitt when they hate him in the state he supposedly did magically things?

Robbie 10-23-2012 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19270387)
Instead Romney tried to show he could hold his own, like a overly aggressive boxer trying ignorantly to prove he can 'take a punch' instead of proving he knows 'how to avoid one'. :2 cents:
I didn't see it that way.

The way I saw it was Romney pretty much agreed on 99% of what Obama did and disagreed on nuances of leadership and "signals" sent to other countries.

I was driving to the gym today and surfed the radio and heard some conservatives complaining that Romney had curled up in the fetal position and let Obama walk all over him.

So you see it as Romney was aggressive, I saw it as him being smart and not trying to speak on foreign policy in a debate with the current commander in chief, and conservatives saw him as being submissive.

LOL! I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Minte 10-23-2012 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19270381)
You got to think, he was this super governor that did so much for his state.They would know his leadership better than anyone else and he is 11 points behind Obama in that state.
And Obama was this super community organizer sucking off the government tit prior to running for state senator where he learned to suck a bigger government tit. And to get him there he was in one of my very least favorite groups of people. Educators.

Robbie 10-23-2012 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19270401)
You assume if someone calls mitt out on his bullshit or likes obama is brainwashed ,mindless followers. How is that unless insulting then what was said to you? How great of a leader is Mitt when they hate him in the state he supposedly did magically things?
No, I assume that since Obama followers never call him out on his own bullshit that they are brainwashed.

And they don't "hate" him in Massachusetts! It's a predominantly Dem state. Always has been, always will be. Nothing weird about that. Especially since in Ted Kennedy's last days on Earth he pretty much treated Obama like a son to him.
Massachusetts will definitely vote for Obama. It wouldn't matter who the Republican candidate was. I think you know that already.

Young 10-23-2012 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19270381)
You got to think, he was this super governor that did so much for his state.They would know his leadership better than anyone else and he is 11 points behind Obama in that state.
Massachusetts guy here.

Reagan won in Massachusetts twice and the first George Bush only lost the state by something like 7 points. George Bush might have had a better shot at Massachusetts if it wasn't Dukakis' home state.

Unlike Reagan and Bush, this is Mitt's home state!

The polls say 11 points but Mitt will lose by more than that. I'm guessing an 18 point margin.

tony286 10-23-2012 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19270405)
And Obama was this super community organizer sucking off the government tit prior to running for state senator where he learned to suck a bigger government tit. And to get him there he was in one of my very least favorite groups of people. Educators.
Actually he was someone who wanted to do serve for his country. The man was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He could of worked at any law firm in the country. He choose to serve. As far as the government tit you must mean Paul Ryan.

Relentless 10-23-2012 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270402)
I didn't see it that way. The way I saw it was Romney pretty much agreed on 99% of what Obama did and disagreed on nuances of leadership and "signals" sent to other countries. I was driving to the gym today and surfed the radio and heard some conservatives complaining that Romney had curled up in the fetal position and let Obama walk all over him. So you see it as Romney was aggressive, I saw it as him being smart and not trying to speak on foreign policy in a debate with the current commander in chief, and conservatives saw him as being submissive. LOL! I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Romney wasn't aggressive... he wanted to be aggressive... and he got decked for it. He should have been more strategic than he was, and less of an easy target. He got his base to become more apathetic about him while Obama made his own base more energetic. It is ironic that Romney claimed Obama gives mixed signals and lacks of a clear voice, when it was Romney in the debate who gave mixed signals and lacked a clear voice. By Mitt's own foreign policy standard, Obama fit the role better than Mitt.

JP-pornshooter 10-23-2012 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270388)
Or you can just do what Romney did. Bullshit your way past the religious right and win the nomination. Unfortunately that gives your opposition plenty of firepower against you in the general election when you return to your original positions that you held for your whole life. lol
i think thats the problem in general, people are very tired of candidates just saying what they feel need to be said to win election.
and do you really think a Mormon is not part of the religious right?
Mormons have great work ethic dont get me wrong, but they are religious.

topnotch, standup guy 10-23-2012 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19269383)
Oh, and Obama is pro-adult?
It's called benign neglect and it works for me :thumbsup

.

tony286 10-23-2012 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19270410)
No, I assume that since Obama followers never call him out on his own bullshit that they are brainwashed.

And they don't "hate" him in Massachusetts! It's a predominantly Dem state. Always has been, always will be. Nothing weird about that. Especially since in Ted Kennedy's last days on Earth he pretty much treated Obama like a son to him.
Massachusetts will definitely vote for Obama. It wouldn't matter who the Republican candidate was. I think you know that already.
Actually ive spoken about Obama being a disappointment many times ,you want to talk about facts not pundit opinions. I could all day. I'm not a blind follower by any stretch.If there was another dem running they would of gotten my vote or bloomberg if he would of run with his own money.. But you really cant play around with the supreme court so Barry gets my vote.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 AM.
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 345 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123