or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 22

post #841 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I put up with this shit in 2004 from SDW.  His party asserted a mandate.  Suddenly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.  Admit it.

 

Then you're arguing with the wrong person. Don't look to me to defend what either SDW or Republicans said or did in 2004. I didn't make those arguments.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #842 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Then you're arguing with the wrong person. Don't look to me to defend what either SDW or Republicans said or did in 2004. I didn't make those arguments.

Under the definition that the other party used in 2004, would you agree that Obama has a mandate in 2012?  Disregard whether you agree personally--just objectively answer whether Republicans are being reasonable in denying a mandate this time based on their own use of the term in 2004.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #843 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Under the definition that the other party used in 2004, would you agree that Obama has a mandate in 2012?  Disregard whether you agree personally--just objectively answer whether Republicans are being reasonable in denying a mandate this time based on their own use of the term in 2004.

 

Yes. No.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #844 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yes. No.

Thank you.  I appreciate your honesty here.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #845 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Thank you.  I appreciate your honesty here.

 

The issue, as I see it though, is that both made/are making bad arguments (RE: "mandate") and the continued use of bad arguments and claims doesn't make them better. Nor does making a bad claim as "payback" to a previous bad claim make the either claim right or good.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #846 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


I don't even care about that. Of course his proposal is a joke. That's not even the point here. The real point is the attitude that Obama and his disciples have copped which looks a like they think he was elected king. This is nothing new for Barack Obama of course. He was copping this attitude from day one.

 

Good point.  I have been getting that sense.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

MJ, you ignore the Gerrymandered House.  You ignore how Republicans acted in 2004.  You ignore the polls that have shown for years that a vast majority of the American public wants to raise taxes to address the deficit and debt, not cut medicare and social security.  I suppose the will of the people doesn't matter to you in that regard. 

 

MJ already addressed the gerrymandering question, but I'll address the other points.  How exactly did Republicans "act" in 2004?  Secondly, even if the polls show what you claim, does that mean raising taxes is the right thing to do?  Does that mean it will work, when in fact, we know it never does?  Does the fact that people don't want any cuts or changes in Medicare and SS mean that's a fiscally solvent and responsible position?  

 

The majority of the people wanting something doesn't mean its right.  The majority elected Barack Obama, after all.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I put up with this shit in 2004 from SDW.  His party asserted a mandate.  Suddenly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.  Admit it.  The Republicans played the mandate card in 2004 based on a closer election with far fewer voters and now object to it in 2012.  

 

 

Turnout 56.2%[1]
  George-W-Bush.jpeg John F. Kerry.jpg
Nominee George W. Bush John Kerry
Party Republican Democratic
Home state Texas Massachusetts
Running mate Dick Cheney John Edwards
Electoral vote 286[2] 251[2][3]
States carried 31 19 + DC
Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444
Percentage 50.7% 48.3%
 

 


538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 57.5%–60% (voting eligible)[1][2]
  Obama portrait crop.jpg Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 6 cropped.jpg
Nominee Barack Obama Mitt Romney
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Illinois Massachusetts
Running mate Joe Biden Paul Ryan
Electoral vote 332[a] 206[a]
States carried 26 + DC 24
Popular vote 65,387,700 60,724,464
Percentage 50.9% 47.3%

 

If 2004 was a mandate, 2012 is.  F*cking deal with it, Republicans.  You lost.  

 

 

I think Republicans are clearly making efforts to "deal" with it.  In fact, the party has already begin its soul searching on the matter.  As for the "mandate," it's predictable that you would ignore context and differences in the political environment.  In 2004, the GOP held on to all three branches of government and gained seats in both the House and Senate.  In 2012, the Democrats held the White House and Senate, while the GOP held the House.  Additionally, Obama was the first President ever reelected with fewer popular and electoral votes than he had the first time.   Putting this together, do you honestly still think Obama got a mandate?  

 

The issue, BR, is that just like your President, you seem more interested in trying to make your opposition look bad than in actually discussing anything important.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #847 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post


 

If 2004 was a mandate, 2012 is.  Fucking deal with it, Republicans.  You lost.  

 

 

 

But the election was stolen by ACORN!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/acorn-republican-voters_n_2239298.html

 

When will they accept the system of government we have?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #848 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

When will they accept the system of government we have?

 

Who are "they" and "we"?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #849 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Who are "they" and "we"?

 

These are good questions.

 

Particularly because, at this time, the ones that seem uninterested in accepting the form of government we have are the Democrats.

 

They appear to think we have some kind of imperial or dictatorial form in which a President (only ones with a "D" next to their name of course) have absolute power after having won an election with 51% of the vote and where the party with some control of another branch of the government ought to simply step aside and allow said president to do whatever he wishes.

 

The reality is that Obama has no more governing power than he did before the election.

 

Arguably he may have more political power in the sense that he can "take his case to the people" and can make a case to punish Republicans who get in his way at the next election. Sure. That's fine. But it's also more than a little hypocritical of them to then blame Grover Norquist when he is effectively threatening the same strategy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #850 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

 

But the election was stolen by ACORN!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/acorn-republican-voters_n_2239298.html

 

When will they accept the system of government we have?

 

Hahahaha!  Those stupid Republicans.  I mean, it's not like ACORN still exists under different names.  It's not like they commit and encourage mass voter fraud.  Right?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #851 of 1062
Someone is so stupid they don't know the difference between registration fraud (which is easy and encouraged by a system that rewards registrars) and voter fraud (which is much more difficult and rare).
post #852 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Someone is so stupid they don't know the difference between registration fraud (which is easy and encouraged by a system that rewards registrars) and voter fraud (which is much more difficult and rare).

 

And someone is so stupid that he doesn't see that distinction is pointless in the context ACORN was brought up.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #853 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Someone is so stupid they don't know the difference between registration fraud (which is easy and encouraged by a system that rewards registrars) and voter fraud (which is much more difficult and rare).

And someone is so stupid that he doesn't see that distinction is pointless in the context ACORN was brought up.   
So, does ACORN "commit and encourage mass voter fraud"? Your words. Relevant here.
post #854 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So, does ACORN "commit and encourage mass voter fraud"? Your words. Relevant here.

 

Dude, give it a rest.  The point is that ACORN still effectively exists. Jesus.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #855 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So, does ACORN "commit and encourage mass voter fraud"? Your words. Relevant here.

Dude, give it a rest.  The point is that ACORN still effectively exists. Jesus.  
Then perhaps that's what you should have limited your statement to, instead of making an inaccurate politically motivated jab.
post #856 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Then perhaps that's what you should have limited your statement to, instead of making an inaccurate politically motivated jab.

 

Perhaps I'll decide what to post, thanks.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #857 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Then perhaps that's what you should have limited your statement to, instead of making an inaccurate politically motivated jab.

Perhaps I'll decide what to post, thanks.  
Even if it's inaccurate bullshit, apparently.
post #858 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Even if it's inaccurate bullsh*t, apparently.

 

Wow, you're really at an "11" today, aren't you?  Let me try this again:  The point of my statement was solely to illustrate that ACORN still effectively exists, but under different names and structure.  In that statement, I used the term "voter fraud."  This was meant to include all types of fraud, from registration fraud, to actual voting fraud.  While the former certainly seems to outnumber the latter, there is evidence of both.  Either way, you are deliberately focusing on this one ancillary point while ignoring the main one.  ACORN exists, and Republican voters are not stupid for thinking so.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #859 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Wow, you're really at an "11" today, aren't you?  Let me try this again:  The point of my statement was solely to illustrate that ACORN still effectively exists, but under different names and structure.  In that statement, I used the term "voter fraud."  This was meant to include all types of fraud, from registration fraud, to actual voting fraud.  While the former certainly seems to outnumber the latter, there is evidence of both.  Either way, you are deliberately focusing on this one ancillary point while ignoring the main one.  ACORN exists, and Republican voters are not stupid for thinking so.  

 

Acorn does not "effectively still exist", unless you mean any effort to enfranchise the poor must be regarded as "Acorn."  There are a few state level organizations; they exist in states that weren't remotely competitive for Romney (principally California and NY).  There is zero evidence that there is or ever has been "massive voter fraud" of the sort used by the right to drive their voter suppression efforts, which in fact have disenfranchised millions.  I trust the irony is of no interest to you.

 

I'm really not seeing how "Acorn stole the election" as an example of breathtaking stupidity is mitigated by claiming some version of Acorn sort of still exists here and there and imagining that the kind  of "voter fraud" ascribed to them-- putting bogus names on registration forms, which are promptly tossed out as invalid--- somehow has the power to sway the outcome of a presidential election.  In fact, your muddled defense of that absurd idea seems to be "they did so steal the election, or at least it's plausible to imagine they did" which ought to be embarrassing for you.  But then this entire thread arises out of being massively, unrepentantly wrong, insisting that wrong is right given enough arm twisting, and anyway, one should have been right if the world were only more in keeping with one's desires/delusions/prejudices, so I'm guessing shame isn't something that troubles you? 

post #860 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

Acorn does not "effectively still exist", unless you mean any effort to enfranchise the poor must be regarded as "Acorn."  There are a few state level organizations; they exist in states that weren't remotely competitive for Romney (principally California and NY).

 

Yes, it does exist...just not under the ACORN umbrella.  That's because their reputation was in tatters after they were exposed.   

 

 

Quote:
There is zero evidence that there is or ever has been "massive voter fraud" of the sort used by the right to drive their voter suppression efforts, which in fact have disenfranchised millions.  I trust the irony is of no interest to you.

 

lol.gif  The evidence of voter registration fraud and actual voting fraud in overwhelming.  There is video evidence.  There is audio evidence.  There is paper evidence.  

 

 

Quote:
I'm really not seeing how "Acorn stole the election" as an example of breathtaking stupidity is mitigated by claiming some version of Acorn sort of still exists here

 

The point was that someone claimed ACORN doesn't exist.  My only point is that's not really true.  I don't happen to agree with the statement "ACORN stole the election," but I also wouldn't agree that it's "breathtakingly stupid." 

 

 

 

Quote:
 and there and imagining that the kind  of "voter fraud" ascribed to them-- putting bogus names on registration forms, which are promptly tossed out as invalid--- somehow has the power to sway the outcome of a presidential election.

 

I don't know if it did or didn't, but I suspect not.  I do think fraud and other tactics (intimidation, kicking observers out of polling places, voting in places with Obama murals on the wall, etc) played a role that was probably larger than past elections.  

 

 

Quote:
 In fact, your muddled defense of that absurd idea seems to be "they did so steal the election, or at least it's plausible to imagine they did" which ought to be embarrassing for you.

 

Since that's not my idea, I'm not embarrassed at all.  

 

 

Quote:
  But then this entire thread arises out of being massively, unrepentantly wrong, insisting that wrong is right given enough arm twisting, and anyway, one should have been right if the world were only more in keeping with one's desires/delusions/prejudices, so I'm guessing shame isn't something that troubles you? 

 

I was clearly wrong.  I don't know what I would "repentant" about.  I relied on several factors in my prediction, most notably the turnout estimates of Rove, Morris, et al.  These turned out (ha!) to be completely wrong.  Of course, there were other points I based my prediction on...ones that seemed reliable.  These included the fact that no President had been reelected with 7.3%+ unemployment since FDR, the bipartisan and historically accurate Battleground Poll (predicted a 52-47 Romney win), and the University of Colorado study that has been correct in its predictions every year since 1980--except this year.  

 

So clearly, things didn't turn out like I predicted or wanted.  But that doesn't mean the reasoning I put forth was unsound.  It's simply that other factors played a bigger role.  Obama's divisive campaign did a masterful job of carving up and targeting constituent groups.  He did a great job of implementing the "Kill Romney" plan.  Romney had some gaffes, which the Obama sycophant media all too eagerly blew out of proportion.  Obama's base turned out better than I expected, while Romney had trouble carrying parts of his base (various Tea Party factions and evangelicals for example).  We also had some morons with some awesome timing--Akin and Murdock.  

 

And it's true, the GOP did not make enough of an effort to really engage blacks and latinos.  That has to change.  They need to reframe the debate so that it's not portrayed as whether or not to help, but how to help.  It's not their principles as a party are wrong (though I don't agree with the whole platform).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #861 of 1062

We need a new breed of thoughtful Repubs here who don't spout trash despite the evidence. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #862 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

 thoughtful Repubs 

 

 

A rare entity, indeed.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #863 of 1062

No such politicians exist now.
 

post #864 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

We need a new breed of thoughtful Repubs here who don't spout trash despite the evidence. 

 

As if you would understand evidence?  As if you're thoughtful?  During the election, there was a new anti-Romney thread every day, complete with 36 point red font and screaming headlines.  You clearly don't understand the effects of massively expanding government spending, nor tax increases, nor a hostile policy towards domestic energy, nor embracing Islamist governments, nor complete incompetence on foreign policy in general.  You have no interest in discussing what would actually solve our problems and lead to prosperity for more of our people.  What you're interested in is attacking any Republican and/or Conservative as an idiotic bigot.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #865 of 1062

You keep insisting you "know" things that prove to be untrue.  Then you say you were perfectly reasonable to believe those things because the information you had was compelling.  Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your information isn't very good?  

 

I mean, if that happened to me over and over again, I'd start to suspect that my choices of sources were suspect. 

post #866 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

You keep insisting you "know" things that prove to be untrue.   

  

 

Such as?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Then you say you were perfectly reasonable to believe those things because the information you had was compelling.  Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your information isn't very good?

 

I said the information turned out to be wrong, not the reasoning.  I don't think you can generalize by stating "my information."   This is a telling comment, because you're implying that I get my information only from right-wing sources and "the bubble."  

 

 

Quote:

 

I mean, if that happened to me over and over again, I'd start to suspect that my choices of sources were suspect. 

 

 

 

Over and over again?  There are two major instances in the last 12 years (here) that I can recall being totally wrong in my predictions:  WMD in Iraq, and this election.  I'm sure there were other smaller things I missed, but these are the major ones.  In the case of the former, I felt the evidence was compelling on Saddam having WMD.  Apparently, so did the Director of the CIA, the troops who had gas masks with them, many leading Democrats (Kerry, Clinton, et al), Israeli, German, French and British intelligence, etc.   In the case of this election, I relied on the turnout predictions of Morris, Rove and others.  They were wrong.  

 

Now, do I plan to take Morris with a grain of salt from now on?  Of course.  Who wouldn't?  Will I be so quick to dismiss polls with D+11 samples as skewed?  Of course not.  One thing this election has shown is that the "new" electoral reality is probably here to stay.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #867 of 1062

You closed your eyes and plugged your ears while everyone else said Morris & Rove were mouthpieces for the Republican party and they were selling you a bowl of liquid horseshit, which you lapped up hungrily.  You made every excuse in the book not to trust real statisticians.  Hell, you called an entire department at Princeton University partisan.  

 

You were exercising magical thinking in believing Morris & Rove.  You religiously believed them because you didn't like the alternative--reality.

 

 

 

Quote:
Now, do I plan to take Morris with a grain of salt from now on?

Grain?  Why don't you just throw him into the salt mine and never look back?  Those who you trust for your information failed you--by design.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #868 of 1062
According to SDW, anyone who criticizes the Republicans is partisan, even if they're right. The fact is, as has been said before, reality has a Liberal bias.
post #869 of 1062
SDW won't read this (because it comes from a biased source -- albeit one that loves to criticize Obama) but it tells the real story about media bias.

Media is trying so hard to appear "neutral" that it is actually ignoring anti-Republican news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/dan-froomkin/republican-lies-2012-election_b_2258586.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
Quote:
But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

Edited by tonton - 12/10/12 at 12:07am
post #870 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

SDW won't read this (because it comes from a biased source -- albeit one that loves to criticize Obama) but it tells the real story about media bias.
Media is trying so hard to appear "neutral" that it is actually ignoring anti-Republican news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/dan-froomkin/republican-lies-2012-election_b_2258586.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

 

lol.gif  Yeah, that's the problem.  It's that the media was trying to hard to be neutral about the GOP's "radical shift to the right."  

 

Really, tonton...this is just hilarious.  Tell me, has it occurred to you that the people claiming the above are the same ones who created the narrative of the GOP being radically right-wing?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #871 of 1062

Created the narrative?  You mean, reported the facts?  These were well-respected Republican thinkers that wrote the book and are now being blacklisted by the media.  This just shows the religious/cult mentality of the Republican party--any dissenter is shunned.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #872 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Created the narrative? 

 

Yes.  

 

Quote:
 You mean, reported the facts?

 

No.  

 

Quote:
These were well-respected Republican thinkers that wrote the book and are now being blacklisted by the media.

 

So?  That doesn't mean they were right. 

 

 

Quote:
 This just shows the religious/cult mentality of the Republican party--any dissenter is shunned

 

Right, the same party whose Speaker is purging conservatives from committee chairmanships and is offering to raise taxes by 800 Billion.  Makes sense to me.  

.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #873 of 1062

Yes, after some of the more sane Republicans were kicked out via primary challenges thanks to Grover Norquist and the ultra-extreme tea partiers.  Looks like the Republicans are attempting to rein in some of the crazy that you won't acknowledge exists.

 

Until you can admit that Romney led one of the most dishonest--if not the most dishonest--campaigns in all of US history, you will not have learned your lesson from this election.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #874 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

SDW won't read this (because it comes from a biased source -- albeit one that loves to criticize Obama) but it tells the real story about media bias.

Media is trying so hard to appear "neutral" that it is actually ignoring anti-Republican news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/dan-froomkin/republican-lies-2012-election_b_2258586.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

lol.gif   Yeah, that's the problem.  It's that the media was trying to hard to be neutral about the GOP's "radical shift to the right."  

Really, tonton...this is just hilarious.  Tell me, has it occurred to you that the people claiming the above are the same ones who created the narrative of the GOP being radically right-wing?  
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they're right?
post #875 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they're right?

 

 

Didn't Mitten's top advisor recently lament a hard to the right shift in at least one of Mitten's policies?  I guess he's wrong, too!


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/10/12 at 4:03pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #876 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, after some of the more sane Republicans were kicked out via primary challenges thanks to Grover Norquist and the ultra-extreme tea partiers.  Looks like the Republicans are attempting to rein in some of the crazy that you won't acknowledge exists.

 

First, I reject the notion that the Tea Party is "extreme."  A candidate supported by such groups might not be a good candidate (see: Christine O'Donnell), but that doesn't necessarily make him or her extreme.  

 

Secondly, I reject your comparison of mainstream fiscal conservatives with so-called "extremists."   

 

 

 

Quote:
Until you can admit that Romney led one of the most dishonest--if not the most dishonest--campaigns in all of US history, you will not have learned your lesson from this election.

 

That's just silly.  Romney didn't run anything approaching a "dishonest" campaign.  He ran to the right for the primary, and toward the middle for the general.  His positions were consistent, it's just that he framed them with different rhetoric.  Meanwhile, your President made the election about scary conservatives who want to take away birth control.  Talk about dishonest.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Didn't Mitten's top advisor recently lament a hard to the right shift in at least one of Mitten's policies?  I guess he's wrong, too!

 

I don't who that is, nor which policy you're referring to.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #877 of 1062

wow you were right on the money! 

I want to hire you as a fact finder.

 
post #878 of 1062

Mittens' campaign manager:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/romney-immigration-rhoades-campaign-managers-conference_n_2232577.html


Edited by Bergermeister - 12/16/12 at 1:29am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #879 of 1062

Priceless, not starring Mitt Romney-

 

 

"Nine news outlets that covered the election sent a joint letter Monday to former Romney campaign officials to contest expenses billed to their reporters.

BuzzFeed, which is among the outlets that signed the letter, first reported on the dispute last week.

The outlets are requesting that the campaign provide a specific price breakdown for every event that cost them $200 or more. Until then, the letter reads, "some of our organizations have alerted American Express that we are contesting these charges."

The letter was sent to former campaign manager Matt Rhoades, and senior advisers Kevin Madden, Stuart Stevens, Beth Myers, Eric Fehrnstrom, and Russ Schriefer, among others.

Here's the letter:

To: Romney For President campaign
From: Members of the Romney press corps

To Whom It May Concern:

We’ve dealt with numerous campaigns over the past decades and understand that we pay a premium to travel with a candidate. But recent invoices from your campaign have raised serious questions about the charges you have forwarded to us for travel with Mitt Romney.

We are not quibbling over charter flights or hotel bills. We are focused on what appear to be exorbitant charges for food, filing centers/holds and ground transportation.

Some examples: $745 per person charged for a vice presidential debate viewing party on Oct. 11; $812 charged for a meal and a hold on Oct. 18; $461 for a meal and hold the next day; $345 for food and hold Oct. 30.

These costs far exceed typical expenses on the campaign trail. Also, it was clear to all present that the campaign’s paid staff frequently consumed the food and drinks ostensibly produced for the media. Were any of the costs of these events charged to the campaign itself, to cover the care and feeding of its staff? We would like to see how exactly the costs were determined for any specific event above $200, including the amounts you were charged and to whom you in turn assessed charges.

We have similar concerns about ground transportation costs, which at times exceeded $1,000 a day and were far higher per capita than what the campaign charged during the primaries--despite the larger numbers of reporters, photographers and television crews travelling and dividing the costs. One news organization contacted two of the bus agencies used by the campaign; it was clear from their reporting that the costs you charged us far outdistanced what you paid for the transportation.

In order to travel with the candidate, reporters were required to agree to costs in advance without knowing specifically what those costs would be. The trade-off in any such agreement is that the campaign will not exceed the normal bounds of propriety in charging news organizations. In this case, that is seriously in question.

Some of our organizations have alerted American Express that we are contesting these charges. We look forward to your response.

Cathleen Decker
Campaign 2012 Editor
Los Angeles Times

Jerry Seib
Washington Bureau Chief
The Wall Street Journal
Dow Jones Newswires

Richard Stevenson
Political Editor
New York Times

Paul Singer
Politics Editor
USA Today

David Millikin
Director for North America
Agence France-Presse

Kevin Merida
National Editor
Washington Post

Beth Fouhy
Senior Editor, Politics and National News
Yahoo

McKay Coppins
Political editor
BuzzFeed

Richard McGregor
Washington Bureau Chief
Financial Times

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/news-outlets-send-letter-to-romney-campaign-contes
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #880 of 1062
Thread Starter 

Scandalous!  Reprehensible!  Disgusting!  Unprecedented!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win