US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
Wadeski said:
Halb said:
unrepentant said:
Tea party nutter Richard Mourdock made the perfectly reasonable claim tonight that "pregnancy from rape is something that God intended to happen".
Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
What a completely reasonable man.Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
The bats
t insane wing of the GOP may well do Romney in, if he continues to trail with women. You can go truthful/honest/sane and declare the bloke a raving loony and lose all the votes and quite possibly lose your own election or you endorse to ensure the votes come your way. Politics is a brutal b
h because claiming to be a moral loser flushes you down the pan quicker than a Ratner in the lux goods business.Your only alternatives are to investigate whether coming out against the guy and making a play to the opposition voters would work or would just hand ammunition to the opposition anyway and gain you nothing...or stay shtum. Trouble is staying shtum just opens you up to a whole world of negative PR ass kicking as the opposition then gets all the momentum to attack you as they see fit.
Somebody in the central command of the GOP needs to get a hold of it and sort out the bats
t lunatic wing. The original Teapartyers had a very viable message and they struck genuine cords. Frankly it was an election winning message. Non-political, purely economic and based around the concept of politicians are incompetent liars who we dont trust with our money. Being a de-centralised, fairly anarchical movement though it was immediately susceptible to others more organised with an agenda.The GOP is on the very of trying to make itself unelectable whilst that lot rampage unchecked through it. If Romney loses this, then they should do the sensible thing and take the next 4 yrs to sort themselves out.
Who was commenting on here about the "not optimal" comment that Obama made during the Daily show? Well, I just caught up with that episode, and for fks sake, talk about take something WAAAAAY out of context. He was talking about the systems in place being 'not optimal' as there were clearly issues. A bit of a cheap shot, methinks.
ks sake, talk about take something WAAAAAY out of context. He was talking about the systems in place being 'not optimal' as there were clearly issues. A bit of a cheap shot, methinks. GCH said:
jeff m2 said:
I hope you don't live in Wisconsin
Under Wisconsin’s election fraud law, it is a Class I felony to intentionally show your marked ballot to any person.
Haha- actually they sent two (something to do with federal vs full ballots) - the one photographed is not the one that was sent back, so no laws broken Under Wisconsin’s election fraud law, it is a Class I felony to intentionally show your marked ballot to any person.
Just wanted to post it to annoy captain kangaroo as it is a NJ ballot
Edited by GCH on Wednesday 24th October 10:15
Regardless, NJ isn't going to go for Romney anyway so my vote is rather symbolic (even if I do live in a congressional district as of now that does go republican).
Very funny. 
DJRC said:
Wadeski said:
Halb said:
unrepentant said:
Tea party nutter Richard Mourdock made the perfectly reasonable claim tonight that "pregnancy from rape is something that God intended to happen".
Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
What a completely reasonable man.Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
The bats
t insane wing of the GOP may well do Romney in, if he continues to trail with women. You can go truthful/honest/sane and declare the bloke a raving loony and lose all the votes and quite possibly lose your own election or you endorse to ensure the votes come your way. Politics is a brutal b
h because claiming to be a moral loser flushes you down the pan quicker than a Ratner in the lux goods business.t crazy to us but they're pretty mainstream in the GOP. This wacko has been endorsed by Ryan and Romney. In Ryan's case we can be pretty certain that he shares Mourdock's views on all this stuff. Romney endorsed the batst wing of his party when he chose their flag bearer as his running mate.Here's the crazy wacko being lauded by Paul Ryan.
Guam said:
Ah only the GOP make cheap shots then
It was a dumb gotcha for an experienced politician to get caught in, like the 47% stuff from Romney <and that was not said for a wider audience whereas Obamas was>, those that live by bullst die by it!
Oh lest we forget the "Binder" controvesy lol.
Ah, the they do so we do too? Just commenting on something I remembered. Did you see the interview? If I recall it was you that made a big deal out of it, and seemingly according to the daily show so did McCain, despite not having seen the show. It was a dumb gotcha for an experienced politician to get caught in, like the 47% stuff from Romney <and that was not said for a wider audience whereas Obamas was>, those that live by bulls
t die by it!Oh lest we forget the "Binder" controvesy lol.
It was not a gotcha, they were talking about the systems in place. So it is OK to talk 47% as long as it is for a private room full of people? Come on Guam, even you can't be that blind. I note you never responded to my point re:UN telling the US who to vote for.
Balanced... Like one fat person on a seesaw.
unrepentant said:
DJRC said:
Wadeski said:
Halb said:
unrepentant said:
Tea party nutter Richard Mourdock made the perfectly reasonable claim tonight that "pregnancy from rape is something that God intended to happen".
Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
What a completely reasonable man.Stop crying you silly little girl, it was God's will that you were raped!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/201...
With perfect timing Mitt Romney made an ad endorsing this reptile just this week!
The bats
t insane wing of the GOP may well do Romney in, if he continues to trail with women. You can go truthful/honest/sane and declare the bloke a raving loony and lose all the votes and quite possibly lose your own election or you endorse to ensure the votes come your way. Politics is a brutal b
h because claiming to be a moral loser flushes you down the pan quicker than a Ratner in the lux goods business.t crazy to us but they're pretty mainstream in the GOP. This wacko has been endorsed by Ryan and Romney. In Ryan's case we can be pretty certain that he shares Mourdock's views on all this stuff. Romney endorsed the batst wing of his party when he chose their flag bearer as his running mate.Here's the crazy wacko being lauded by Paul Ryan.
kwit view by the majority of reasonable folks across the States.DJRC said:
Mermaid said:
Wants wars forthwith, economic & the other kind.
He isnt going to start any bloody wars ffs. Where the hell do ppl come up with this crap? Who the hell do ppl think he is going to invade??& to believe he will not escalate the Syrian situation (in his own words, Iran's only friend & Republicans wanting more arms support) is a tad naive.
It was not a gotcha. Would you care to show us the transcript and show us how it was a gotcha? You know a gotcha is a question designed to get an 'unfavourable' response? Stewart and BO were talking about the systems in place with the response, and how THAT was not optimal. The context was taken either mistakenly, or purposefully the other way by the opposition. I suggest you watch the show and have a look again.
You seem to take issue with UR, but you and he seem to be pretty much the same, on different sides. You posted plenty of crappy cartoons, and the like. The fact you have begun to post articles with garish headlines, such as the UN me, whilst utterly missing what was actually said puts you squarely in the same camp I'm afraid. Romney's aids suggested to him to remove the ban on waterboarding, etc, hence the UN spokespersons response to it. It was not the UN telling the US how to vote etc. You say you post these things so people can voice their own opinion. Of course you do. Why else would you do it?
You talk a lot about being neutral, etc, but to me, you are far from it. You are just as much a mouthpiece as UR is, and that was the reason I left this thread.
Well, I'm out again. Toddle pip.
You seem to take issue with UR, but you and he seem to be pretty much the same, on different sides. You posted plenty of crappy cartoons, and the like. The fact you have begun to post articles with garish headlines, such as the UN me, whilst utterly missing what was actually said puts you squarely in the same camp I'm afraid. Romney's aids suggested to him to remove the ban on waterboarding, etc, hence the UN spokespersons response to it. It was not the UN telling the US how to vote etc. You say you post these things so people can voice their own opinion. Of course you do. Why else would you do it?
You talk a lot about being neutral, etc, but to me, you are far from it. You are just as much a mouthpiece as UR is, and that was the reason I left this thread.
Well, I'm out again. Toddle pip.
OK, I responded to 2 of your articles. The UN one, and the 'optimal' one.
UN - You posted an article stating that the UN was telling the US how to vote. Here is your post, and my response, (that you never responded to)
They said this because Romney, and his advisors have on several occasions stated they would rescind the ban on waterboarding, etc, see this article.
So, the UN was not telling the US how to vote, merely as I said, waterboarding would be reintroduced under a Romney administration.
'Optimal' - Your post was this;
A gotcha? I think not.
Seemingly responding to 2 articles you posted makes me bad in some way though, as you chose not to respond about the articles themselves, but divert to 47%, and binders. So, either you do not like people actually voicing an opinion to the articles you post, or you do not like people pointing out the errors in the articles themselves.
So, I am out. You go ahead and keep an eye out for my other posts demanding articles or evidence. I have provided my arguments in this post. Take it or leave it.
UN - You posted an article stating that the UN was telling the US how to vote. Here is your post, and my response, (that you never responded to)
TheHeretic said:
Guam said:
This is bound to play well in the US, they love the UN telling them what to do
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/21/UN-W...
Bit of journalistic license there. The guy did not say "Do not elect Romney", he said "the reintroduction of waterboarding under a Romney administration would..."http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/21/UN-W...
So, the UN was not telling the US how to vote, merely as I said, waterboarding would be reintroduced under a Romney administration.
'Optimal' - Your post was this;
Guam said:
MMMM does this count as a gaffe
I suspect viewing an Ambassadors death as not Optimal may cause an issue or two?
"The all-night terror attack on the U.S. Consulate that killed four Americans last month in Libya was "not optimal," President Obama said Thursday.
The president made the comment during an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." The president defended his administration's handling but vowed to get to the bottom of what happened, after host Jon Stewart pressed him on the administration's initial response to the tragedy.
Stewart said: "I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response -- at least to the American people as far as all of us being on the same page."
Obama, though, responded: "Here is what I will say -- if four Americans get killed, it is not optimal. And we are going to fix it." U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the strike.
Obama went on to say: "And what happens during the course of a presidency, you know, the government is a big operation -- at any given time, something screws up and you make sure you find out what's broken and you fix it."
The president in recent days has aggressively defended the administration's handling of the incident, while acknowledging officials' understanding of what happened evolved in the days following the strike. The administration has taken heat over security requests that were denied in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack, and for asserting at first that the strike was a spontaneous demonstration spun out of control in response to an anti-Islam film. Officials now say it was a coordinated act of terrorism.
Obama, though, said Thursday "we weren't confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed. I wasn't confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened."
Obama also said, "I wasn't confused about the fact that we were going to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice. So, as I said during the debate, nobody is more interested in figuring this out than I am."
The issue of Libya flared during the latter half of that debate on Tuesday. Obama told Romney that the suggestion anyone in his team would "play politics" on the issue is "offensive."
However, Romney sharply questioned Obama's actions in the aftermath of the strike -- including his decision to go on a fundraising tour shortly after the attack.
"The president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser," Romney said. "These actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/obama-o...
Even in that article, it states the context of the question, which was not about the deaths not being optimal, but the response by the administration, which you and others have lambasted them plenty on this, and other threads. After seeing the show a few hours ago, I responded, as I could clearly see that the context you, and Fox, (shock horror), were making it out to be was nowhere near the reality. I posted a few days after the fact as I thought it was worth mentioning. It was clearly not a gotcha question either. Here is the question in full that Fox never gave;I suspect viewing an Ambassadors death as not Optimal may cause an issue or two?
"The all-night terror attack on the U.S. Consulate that killed four Americans last month in Libya was "not optimal," President Obama said Thursday.
The president made the comment during an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." The president defended his administration's handling but vowed to get to the bottom of what happened, after host Jon Stewart pressed him on the administration's initial response to the tragedy.
Stewart said: "I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response -- at least to the American people as far as all of us being on the same page."
Obama, though, responded: "Here is what I will say -- if four Americans get killed, it is not optimal. And we are going to fix it." U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the strike.
Obama went on to say: "And what happens during the course of a presidency, you know, the government is a big operation -- at any given time, something screws up and you make sure you find out what's broken and you fix it."
The president in recent days has aggressively defended the administration's handling of the incident, while acknowledging officials' understanding of what happened evolved in the days following the strike. The administration has taken heat over security requests that were denied in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack, and for asserting at first that the strike was a spontaneous demonstration spun out of control in response to an anti-Islam film. Officials now say it was a coordinated act of terrorism.
Obama, though, said Thursday "we weren't confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed. I wasn't confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened."
Obama also said, "I wasn't confused about the fact that we were going to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice. So, as I said during the debate, nobody is more interested in figuring this out than I am."
The issue of Libya flared during the latter half of that debate on Tuesday. Obama told Romney that the suggestion anyone in his team would "play politics" on the issue is "offensive."
However, Romney sharply questioned Obama's actions in the aftermath of the strike -- including his decision to go on a fundraising tour shortly after the attack.
"The president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser," Romney said. "These actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/obama-o...
My Stewart said:
“Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.”
A gotcha? I think not.
Seemingly responding to 2 articles you posted makes me bad in some way though, as you chose not to respond about the articles themselves, but divert to 47%, and binders. So, either you do not like people actually voicing an opinion to the articles you post, or you do not like people pointing out the errors in the articles themselves.
So, I am out. You go ahead and keep an eye out for my other posts demanding articles or evidence. I have provided my arguments in this post. Take it or leave it.
Edited by TheHeretic on Wednesday 24th October 16:38
Guam said:
TheHeretic said:
Who was commenting on here about the "not optimal" comment that Obama made during the Daily show? Well, I just caught up with that episode, and for fks sake, talk about take something WAAAAAY out of context. He was talking about the systems in place being 'not optimal' as there were clearly issues. A bit of a cheap shot, methinks.
Ah only the GOP make cheap shots then ks sake, talk about take something WAAAAAY out of context. He was talking about the systems in place being 'not optimal' as there were clearly issues. A bit of a cheap shot, methinks. It was a dumb gotcha for an experienced politician to get caught in, like the 47% stuff from Romney <and that was not said for a wider audience whereas Obamas was>, those that live by bulls
t die by it!Oh lest we forget the "Binder" controvesy lol.
Every time I load this thread all I see are snide remarks from the Obama fan boys, the most vocal of whom refuses to even discuss facts or policies. Granted we are all guilty, well, most of us anyhow but this whole general tone of sarcasm and this smartass attitude that radiates from the top on down really puts me off.
pokethepope said:
Victor McDade said:
So what has Trump got up his sleeve?
After all that hype, a big bag of fk all. Suprise suprise. This "birther" nonsense is getting really old. Not to say that I am a fan of Obama by any stretch of the imagination, but for f
ks sake why not focus on actual issues instead of this horsest?Captain Cadillac said:
The most annoying thing to me about this whole election is that it's been childish cheap shot after childish cheap shot, and from where I sit Obama's crowd is the bigger of the two sinners if you will.
Every time I load this thread all I see are snide remarks from the Obama fan boys, the most vocal of whom refuses to even discuss facts or policies. Granted we are all guilty, well, most of us anyhow but this whole general tone of sarcasm and this smartass attitude that radiates from the top on down really puts me off.
Go on then skip, defend Richard Mourdock. That's a policy issue, discuss it. Maybe you agree with Mourdock and Akin and a lot of your fellow republicans and believe that rape is God's will and there are legitimate rapes and er... some other sort of rape? Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney obviously do, they endorsed him for the US senate. Every time I load this thread all I see are snide remarks from the Obama fan boys, the most vocal of whom refuses to even discuss facts or policies. Granted we are all guilty, well, most of us anyhow but this whole general tone of sarcasm and this smartass attitude that radiates from the top on down really puts me off.
You could also discuss the bailout of the auto industry which as you well know saved Chrysler and which Romney was against......
This is much more important to the election that some nonsense from Trump...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-d...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-d...
Captain Cadillac said:
pokethepope said:
Victor McDade said:
So what has Trump got up his sleeve?
After all that hype, a big bag of fk all. Suprise suprise. This "birther" nonsense is getting really old. Not to say that I am a fan of Obama by any stretch of the imagination, but for f
ks sake why not focus on actual issues instead of this horsest?Donald Trump is a class A media w
e with a new series to promote. Nothing he has to say is of the slightest relevance and he should be denied the oxygen of publicity. Having said that, apparently Piers Moron has him on his show tonight. Perhaps Moron can do one good thing before he's (hopefully) extradited back to the UK to share a cell with Rebekah Kemp / Brooks / Wade and tell Trump he's an obnoxious who would do us all a favour by joining a trappist monastery.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff