GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well... either that or there are the places that simply don't give a rats ass who wins. Namely the countries and people who neither want to see Christians in power, nor women and homosexuals with freedom.

It's a lose-lose situation, eh?
 
If he thinks Trump is "good people" then I really question his judgment. His lack of, um, something-else-I-won't-name is well established.

Mitt Romney will not 'repudiate' Donald Trump, even as the billionaire has resumed his public flirtations with "birtherism," according to the AP.

Romney told reporters Monday:

You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.
 
I need to get 50.1 percent and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people more than happy to sell my soul and ignore decency and all common sense in order to do it.


I was going to say whore myself out to Trump, but that wouldn't be nice..would it. As true as it might be.
 
Sure by American standards.

What turned generational Democrats into Reagan Democrats?
What was the creation of the DNC in the 90's in response to?
What happened to Southern Democrats?
Where are the Catholic pro-life Democrats in national politics?
How many Blue Dog Democrats are left in the House? 20?
Who replaced Scoop Jackson as a Democratic Hawk? Joe Lieberman, oh wait he was primaried out of the party and is now an independent.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi... yes, the far-left is running the Democratic Party.

Some good points here but I respectfully disagree that Obama is far left. To me all the evidence suggests that he is a man with no fixed principles or core beliefs whatever. He seems to be cruising to victory though. It really is rather depressing.
 
Some good points here but I respectfully disagree that Obama is far left. To me all the evidence suggests that he is a man with no fixed principles or core beliefs whatever.

I'm glad that Mitt Romney isn't that at all.
 
Some good points here but I respectfully disagree that Obama is far left. To me all the evidence suggests that he is a man with no fixed principles or core beliefs whatever. He seems to be cruising to victory though. It really is rather depressing.

I'm not sure which is more absurd. The part about no fixed principles or core beliefs or the part about cruising to victory.
 
The notion that Obama has no fixed values simply because he hasn't been by-the-book through thick and thin is ridiculous. He's got a job to do as president, which includes doing what is best for the nation. Whether or not he's doing that job well is up for debate, sure. But if you ask me, he's doing his job. The next time the president starts making judgments on his 'fixed values' alone is when shit starts to turn south.
 
Any person with real principles would find it impossible to demonstrate some kind of 'core belief' while actually being somewhat effective in this fucked up system.
 
Obama is living proof that the only qualification in this era to be POTUS is the ability to make a speech.

As for those who asked me why I think Obama has no core principles, where to start?

Gitmo? Iraq? Wall Street money?

Where, precisely, have you people been?
 
No politicians have principles. But you have to discuss these things in context. Everything is relative inside the political vacuum of DC.
 
No politicians have principles. But you have to discuss these things in context. Everything is relative inside the political vacuum of DC.

That's not true. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinch have principles.

And I would argue with anyone, even though I wouldn't expect them to agree with me, that Richard Nixon had principles. LBJ, mean old bastard that he was, had principles. He promised to fulfill Kennedy's mandate and he did it, every single bit - and more.

Nixon, LBJ, Robert Kennedy even, were, so to speak, honest gangsters. Everyone knew they were gangsters but still voted for them. Everyone knew deals had been done and votes and been bought - because that was just the way it worked.

Its the modern shiny suit politicians that we need to be careful of. Obama, Edwards, Cameron, Sarkozy, Blair - all those silver tongued, well-groomed assholes. The ones that promise hopey changey stuff. The PR & marketing industry has a lot to answer for, is all I'd say.
 
That's not true. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinch have principles.

You really do live in a dream world.

If by some miracle Ron Paul ever got elected he would have to make the most compromises out of everyone. It's part of the reason he can run on such a platform, he knows he'll never get the seat.

As for those who asked me why I think Obama has no core principles, where to start?

Gitmo? Iraq? Wall Street money?

Where, precisely, have you people been?

You can still have principles and be realistic. Reality is that compromise is part of the job. It's a job like no other, in a time like no other.

Gitmo - reality is that it was already put in place, sometimes undoing something is harder than enacting something. It's why the Affordable Care Act will not be repealed, at least not overnight. It's just a platform for Republicans to run on. Hell Romney's the architect, he doesn't want it repealed.

Iraq - where precisely have you been? Did you really think this was going to happen overnight? Really?

Wall Street Money - well he's done more than previous presidents, but not enough. Wall Street has had a grip on Washington for decades, you don't stop something that is that intertwined overnight.

So let's come back to reality and truly discuss these issues rather than posture about platitudes.
 
You really do live in a dream world.

If by some miracle Ron Paul ever got elected he would have to make the most compromises out of everyone. It's part of the reason he can run on such a platform, he knows he'll never get the seat.



You can still have principles and be realistic. Reality is that compromise is part of the job. It's a job like no other, in a time like no other.

Gitmo - reality is that it was already put in place, sometimes undoing something is harder than enacting something. It's why the Affordable Care Act will not be repealed, at least not overnight. It's just a platform for Republicans to run on. Hell Romney's the architect, he doesn't want it repealed.

Iraq - where precisely have you been? Did you really think this was going to happen overnight? Really?

Wall Street Money - well he's done more than previous presidents, but not enough. Wall Street has had a grip on Washington for decades, you don't stop something that is that intertwined overnight.

So let's come back to reality and truly discuss these issues rather than posture about platitudes.


Facts? Good, lets address them. I'm glad you've come around to a fact-based analysis.

Obama was backed by Wall street money all the way, that's why he got in.

Under Bush 1, not that I am particularly a fan of the man, but just to point out, literally hundreds of ex S&L executives went to jail - these are the facts. Under Obama - zero, zilch, nada.

Obama never misses an opportunity to suck up to his financiers from Wall Street, hell, when the JP Morgan cock-up came out recently, his response was, they are a very good and well-run bank. Even Bush II said Wall Street went crazy. Bush II introduced legislation to deal with corporate fraud - quite a few senior executives went to jail during his tenure.

Obama is so blatantly, obviously, demonstrably, corrupt its practically unreal.
 
financeguy said:
Facts? Good, lets address them I'm glad you've come around to a fact-based analysis.

Obama was backed by Wall street money all the way, that's why he got in.

Under Bush 1, not that I am particularly a fan of the man, but just to point out, literally hundreds of ex S&L executives went to jail - these are the facts. Under Obama - zero, zilch, nada.

Obama never misses an opportunity to suck up to his financiers from Wall Street, hell, when the JP Morgan cock-up came out recently, his response was, they are a very good and well-run bank. Even Bush II said Wall Street went crazy. Bush II introduced legislation to deal with corporate fraud - quite a few senior executives went to jail during his tenure.

Obama is so blatantly, obviously, demonstrably, corrupt its practically, unreal.

If you want to start talking facts I'll be more than glad to engage. But you're gonna have to show tighter correlations than this.

You can't just say 'none have gone to prison' without showing evidence that there should have been and a blind eye was turned. If you want to discuss then let's do it like educated adults, not conjecture and conspiracy theories.
 
If you want to start talking facts I'll be more than glad to engage. But you're gonna have to show tighter correlations than this.

You can't just say 'none have gone to prison' without showing evidence that there should have been and a blind eye was turned. If you want to discuss then let's do it like educated adults, not conjecture and conspiracy theories.

We've been here before, haven't we? We know how this movie ends.

- BVS asks for evidence.

- Evidence is produced

- BVS ignores evidence, engages in ad hominems, questions motives of researchers producing said evidence on the basis of something allegedly objectionable they said 80 years ago and/or accuses said researchers of being conspiracy theorists or suspected GOP voters, changes subject, yada yada yada

- Ad lib to fade

If you really and truly want me to produce the evidence and promise to take it seriously and not filtered through your bias, then, fine, but I'm not bothered otherwise.
 
financeguy said:
We've been here before, haven't we? We know how this movie ends.

- BVS asks for evidence.

- Evidence is produced

- BVS ignores evidence, engages in ad hominems, changes subject, yada yada

- Ad lib to fade

If you really and truly want me to produce the evidence and promise to take it seriously and not filtered through your bias, then, fine, but I'm not bothered otherwise.

If you're not capable or ready then fine, but I'm not going to play this childish game with you of talking about me in third person throughout the forum.

If you don't want to engage with me or produce evidence when I ask then engage with others and fulfill their requests. Don't pretend it's just me asking.
 
If you're not capable or ready then fine, but I'm not going to play this childish game with you of talking about me in third person throughout the forum.

If you don't want to engage with me or produce evidence when I ask then engage with others and fulfill their requests. Don't pretend it's just me asking.

Yeah, thought so. You're basically a moral coward.

< Makes mental note not to view posts from people that one already has put on ignore list. Reminds self to trust earlier, and correct, instinct >.
 
T

Its the modern shiny suit politicians that we need to be careful of. Obama, Edwards, Cameron, Sarkozy, Blair - all those silver tongued, well-groomed assholes.

Good thing Mitt isn't anything like that.
 
Caleb8844 said:
Came kind of close with the "you need help :wave:" though.

It was personal yes, and I shouldn't have. But I think someone calling someone names like "moral coward" because they ask you to engage more intelligently does need help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom