GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-28-2012, 10:26 AM   #141
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Great news! Romney got the all-important Kid Rock endorsement!
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 12:22 PM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM
Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?

Redirect Notice
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 01:43 PM   #143
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 09:36 PM
That is faulty comic logic.

The pursuit of the orgasm leads women to buy vibrators, which leads to zero abortions.

Although that probably just makes us sluts. Shameful.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 02:12 PM   #144
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?

Redirect Notice
Someone's trying to get street cred...
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 02:38 PM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 12:36 AM
That's what I was thinking, doesn't Santorum even get the context of that Kennedy speech?

WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich disagrees with Rick Santorum's harsh criticism of the famous speech on religion that John F. Kennedy delivered as he campaigned to become the nation's first Roman Catholic president.

Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy's words differently. Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy's 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.

Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech." He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn't obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct."

Gingrich does share Santorum's position on President Barack Obama, however. Gingrich said Obama's administration is "anti-religious."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 02:42 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?
I think they just happened to be at Daytona at the same time, don't think Lenny is endorsing Mitt. I doubt Mitt even knew who he was.

Did Mitt cause that explosion, fire..whatever it was? He probably had too much product in his hair and got too close to some sparks or a gas tank or something.

Any dogs strapped on top of any of those cars?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 03:02 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
....so having the best nominee for the whole country should be the desired outcome.
IMO, that's irrelevant, deep.

So let's accept the conventional wisdom, that despite selling his soul to get what he wants (the Rep nomination) that Romney - at his core- is genuinely "moderate" and would be more digestible to most of American than the others.

His agenda will still be dictated by the establishment in the Congress.
Look at what happened to GHW Bush when he thumbed his nose at them.
Pat Buchanan ran against the sitting President and did well for awhile, winning about 25% of the overall vote. That arguably hurt GHWB that November.
The Liberal Ted Kennedy wing did the same to Carter in 1980. And in both cases the sitting President was not re-elected. Gerald Ford was the sitting President in 1976, he was challenged by Reagan and lost to Carter.

The moral to the story is, I think Presidents will do anything they can to avoid those kind of large fissures in the party. And Romney would obviously always want to be re-elected in 2016. He would govern just like the rest of them. When it gets right down to the practical matter, there is no difference between those three candidates as to the real effect on the country in 2013.

The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 05:40 PM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
IMO, that's irrelevant, deep.

So let's accept the conventional wisdom, that despite selling his soul to get what he wants (the Rep nomination) that Romney - at his core- is genuinely "moderate" and would be more digestible to most of American than the others.

His agenda will still be dictated by the establishment in the Congress.
Look at what happened to GHW Bush when he thumbed his nose at them.
Pat Buchanan ran against the sitting President and did well for awhile, winning about 25% of the overall vote. That arguably hurt GHWB that November.
The Liberal Ted Kennedy wing did the same to Carter in 1980. And in both cases the sitting President was not re-elected. Gerald Ford was the sitting President in 1976, he was challenged by Reagan and lost to Carter.

The moral to the story is, I think Presidents will do anything they can to avoid those kind of large fissures in the party. And Romney would obviously always want to be re-elected in 2016. He would govern just like the rest of them. When it gets right down to the practical matter, there is no difference between those three candidates as to the real effect on the country in 2013.

The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.
I think the landscape has changed so much you can't use old models. All those comparisons were relevant up until the Cold War ended w Reagan.
We now find ourselves in many more gray areas where there are no simple answers.

I see Mitt being savvy the same way Bill Clinton was savvy in working w the opposing political party if he is to get elected POTUS.


Mitt is fit for office, those w sweater vests, cellulite, or attitudes need not apply.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 05:47 PM   #149
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post


Mitt is fit for office, those w sweater vests, cellulite, or attitudes need not apply.

<>
I just get the feeling that very few in your party really believe this. He's the alternative to Obama, but that's about it for most Republicans. He's the John Kerry of the GOP.
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:02 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I just get the feeling that very few in your party really believe this. He's the alternative to Obama, but that's about it for most Republicans. He's the John Kerry of the GOP.
No, Mitt is honorable, faithful to wife family and country.
Mitt made his own money - didn't marry it.
Mitt is no John Kerry.

Try again.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:34 PM   #151
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond

No, Mitt is honorable, faithful to wife family and country.
Mitt made his own money - didn't marry it.
Mitt is no John Kerry.

Try again.

<>
But no one is excited about him...
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 08:00 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??
anitram is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:52 PM   #153
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech."
So close...

Quote:
Gingrich does share Santorum's position on President Barack Obama, however. Gingrich said Obama's administration is "anti-religious."
...and yet so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.
I agree with this based on the reasons you put forth. I understand why you say that.

But at the same time, again, even though I know the chances of a Santorum or Gingrich victory are pretty well nil...I just still have that small fear in the back of my head.

Not that I wouldn't have that fear if Romney were the nominee. While I'm pretty well confident about Obama's re-election chances, I would also caution Democratic supporters to never ever get too cocky and think they don't need to worry anymore.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 12:56 AM   #154
More 5G Than Man
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 68,433
Local Time: 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??
I'm assuming <> merged the 2004 Democratic ticket into one man, criticizing Kerry for Edwards' infidelity. Or maybe he just wanted an opportunity to paste in another Romney-approved campaign plug.

Throwing it out there: I don't like Romney. I don't trust him. I find his stances shaky, inconsistent and opportunistic. I would never vote for the man. With party lines an increasingly strong influence, Romney's current "stances" will be a non-factor in his decision-making process.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:09 AM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Your damn right Mitt is no John Kerry. A man that volunteered to go to Vietnam while so many others, from Dick Cheney to Bill Clinton, got deferrals or dodged the draft in some manner. A man that was decorated for his valor in that same military service, for outright saving a man's life. A man that came home and did everything he could to try and stop the useless deaths in southeast Asia. And then he was 'thanked' by the superpatriotic chickenhawks and faux armchair generals on the Right when he ran for President and got his character assassinated.

He and Mitt are both smart, successful, very rich, aloof, detached, privileged, boring...and all the rest of it. But only one of them is a true American hero and patriot that put his fucking money where his mouth is. When John Kerry was fighting for his country in Vietnam, Mitt Romney was at home with the silver spoon in his mouth. That doesn't mean Mitt Romney couldn't be a good President, maybe he could. But he is damn sure not John Kerry.

And that is the short and polite version of this post.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:35 AM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
I think the landscape has changed so much you can't use old models. All those comparisons were relevant up until the Cold War ended w Reagan.
We now find ourselves in many more gray areas where there are no simple answers.
<>
It's not really a dynamic model. It's the hyper-partisan political paradigm in America. And it's the same as it was when Reagan was President, although probably a little worse. And that is the very problem we are dealing with.

Not because America is ideologically miles apart.
But because we are always given two choices that are miles apart, so as to contrast and win elections - because that's all that matters to these jagoffs.

Imagine Mitt Romney supporting a tax increase. Now, you tell me how the 'old model' doesn't apply if that were the case and I'll demonstrate how it would. Here's a hint: the Norquist Lobby would tear him apart.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:46 AM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 03:28 AM   #158
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM
lol
diamond is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 03:32 AM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
It's not really a dynamic model. It's the hyper-partisan political paradigm in America.

Imagine Mitt Romney supporting a tax increase..
That probably won't happen, but if it did, Mitt would be savvy enough to not call it a tax increase but package or word it differently...

wait
watch
and
see.


<>
diamond is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 03:55 AM   #160
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??
It's sad that there is truth out there but he like Kennedy was -a philanderer.

It's not told of because 85% of the press corp leans left and most in this forum find that acceptable, most here are not after equilibrium, equanimity or accuracy in reporting or even wanting to know the character of left leaning candidates.

Quote:
Repost: John Kerry's Divorce



More than a year-and-a-half ago I first posted about John Kerry's divorce, and as you can see from my top search word list it was a very popular topic for visitors. I doubt Kerry's past womanizing and gold-digging had much of an effect on the election, but there's no denying that people cared about the issue. Here's my original post.

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else, but am I the only one who thinks it's significant that John Kerry couldn't remain faithful to his first wife? Some people like to make a big deal about the "sanctity of marriage" with regards to gay marriage, but isn't Mr. Kerry's divorce in 1988 (after six years of separation) relevant to the same issue? What's more, the circumstances aren't particularly flattering for Mr. Kerry.

Most people seem to think Mr. Kerry's carousing in the 1980s isn't important, but for most of the decade he was still married.

During the period the Kerrys were separated, for instance, the senator apparently felt little constrained by his marital vows. Gossip columns at the time linked him to Morgan Fairchild, Cornelia Guest and even President Reagan's liberal daughter, Patti Davis. An upcoming Boston Globe expose will reportedly feature details of the Massachusetts Democrat's 1980s affair with a 25-year-old British reporter.
According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."

Most are consciously naive and give left leaning cheaters a pass as long as they support their pet issues-which speaks volumes.

<>
__________________

diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×