or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Election Day U.S.A. - Page 3

post #81 of 254

Obama victory infuriates Pakistani drone victims

 

Quote:
The roars celebrating the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama on television give Mohammad Rehman Khan a searing headache, as years of grief and anger come rushing back.
 
The 28-year-old Pakistani accuses the president of robbing him of his father, three brothers and a nephew, all killed in a U.S. drone aircraft attack a month after Obama first took office. "The same person who attacked my home has gotten re-elected," he told Reuters in the capital, Islamabad, where he fled after the attack on his village in South Waziristan, one of several ethnic Pashtun tribal areas on the Afghan border.
 
"Since yesterday, the pressure on my brain has increased. I remember all of the pain again."

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 #82 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Obama victory infuriates Pakistani drone victims

 

 

And, of course, crickets from the Obama supporters.

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 #83 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Obama victory infuriates Pakistani drone victims

 

 

And, of course, crickets from the Obama supporters.


I'm totally against Obama's foreign policy. But Romney's certainly would have been worse. That DOESN'T mean that Ron Paul would make a good choice. There are other factors at stake. You know very well that although I'm absolutely relieved that Obama won, I would much have preferred Kucinich, who shares a non-interventionist foreign policy stance with RP.

post #84 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I'm totally against Obama's foreign policy. But Romney's certainly would have been worse. That DOESN'T mean that Ron Paul would make a good choice. There are other factors at stake. You know very well that although I'm absolutely relieved that Obama won, I would much have preferred Kucinich, who shares a non-interventionist foreign policy stance with RP.

 

So you were AGAINST Romney instead of FOR a candidate you believed in. Like most other American voters.

 

Here's the thing. Obama has an interventionist foreign policy like George W. Bush before him. Therefore, if you voted for Obama, whether or not you say you agree with it, you voted to support Obama's interventionist foreign policy.

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 #85 of 254

Foreign policy, although a thorn in my side, is a secondary issue to me compared to the economy, and especially to defeating the trickle down lie (to which you are a charter subscriber). And I did write in Kucinich. That doesn't mean that I don't care who won in his stead.

post #86 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Foreign policy, although a thorn in my side, is a secondary issue to me compared to the economy, and especially to defeating the trickle down lie (to which you are a charter subscriber). And I did write in Kucinich. That doesn't mean that I don't care who won in his stead.

 

Your primary issue (the economy) is directly affected and influenced by your secondary issue (foreign policy). But I greatly admire your willingness to write in your preferred candidate - it does demonstrate a willingness to think outside the false dilemma presented to us by the establishment.

 

And I'm a "subscriber" to the "trickle down lie"? Can you please clarify your rhetoric?

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 #87 of 254
Quote:

I'm totally against Obama's foreign policy. But Romney's certainly would have been worse. That DOESN'T mean that Ron Paul would make a good choice. There are other factors at stake. You know very well that although I'm absolutely relieved that Obama won, I would much have preferred Kucinich, who shares a non-interventionist foreign policy stance with RP.

 

There's honestly no way to prove it would be worse. Obama has done nothing different than Bush. You and I had discussions about this PRIOR to his taking office for his first term and you later even conceded I was right. Pax America continues on unabated and that is because the interventionist streak aka "warmongering" is very much a part of the authoritarian left. This is why we the World Trade Center and U.S.S. Cole were attacked during the Clinton years and why our troop levels are only shifted during the Obama years. The only thing that changes is the left stops pointing fingers and holding people accountable when they see a (D) next to the candidate.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Foreign policy, although a thorn in my side, is a secondary issue to me compared to the economy, and especially to defeating the trickle down lie (to which you are a charter subscriber). And I did write in Kucinich. That doesn't mean that I don't care who won in his stead.

 

Most of these economic matters are directly tied to foreign affairs. If you accuse Romney of keeping his money in off-shore accounts, why is that an advantage? It's called our economy and our foreign policy. If China is manipulating trade and we are losing jobs and our manufacturing base why does that happen? It's called our foreign policy along with our trade policy. Why do we spend so much on our military? It's called our foreign policy. Why haven't we addressed immigration reform or dealt with our borders? It's called foreign policy combined with domestic policy.

 

All those things relate to massive amounts of wealth being spent or transferred. All of them only seem secondary because people don't want to think about the big picture. They want token efforts, wealth transfers or whatever other band-aid rather than a solution.

 

Our band-aid box is almost empty.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #88 of 254

Trumptman, take a screen shot, because I agree with a lot of this. And with tonton. Who you agree with, too, but it's hard to spot our commonalities sometimes.

 

Anyway, some of it's balls IMO (you've got a bit of revisionism because the Tony Blair / Clinton interventionist bullshit is a recent addition to the left-wing toolkit, not a structural part of it) but yeah, Obama has done nothing different to Bush.

post #89 of 254

Gary Johnson runs most successful Libertarian campaign in party’s history

 

Quote:
He may have received only about 1 percent of the national vote, but Gary Johnson is already the most successful White House candidate in the Libertarian Party's nearly 41-year history.
 
"Ours is a mission accomplished," Johnson told FoxNews.com. "We put a true small-government, individual-freedom option on the ballot in virtually every state and have assembled an organization that will carry that message forward."
 
With final vote tallies still being calculated, Johnson's current total of 1,139,562 puts him significantly ahead of any of his party's nine other presidential candidates.
 
Interestingly, the only other Libertarian Party candidate to receive more than 1 million votes was Georgia Public Service Commission candidate John Monds, who received 1,076,726 votes, or 33.4 percent of the vote, during his 2008 campaign.
 
The most successful third-party candidate runs have historically been done by independents, most famously by Ross Perot in 1992 (19,743,821 votes, 18.91 percent) and John Anderson in 1980 (5,719,850 votes, 6.61 percent).
 
1980 was also a good year for Libertarian candidate Ed Clark, whose 921,128 votes and 1.06 percent share of the total vote was the most successful performance by a presidential candidate in his party until Tuesday night.
 
Still, the Libertarians' first-ever presidential candidate, John G. Hospers, is their most successful candidate by a different measurement. Though he received only 3,674 total votes, he's still the only Libertarian Party presidential candidate to win an Electoral College vote.
 
Most candidates from the Libertarian Party, which was founded in December 1971, have typically garnered about 500,000 votes in their respective runs.
 
Johnson said he's buoyed by the results and plans to maintain his role as an advocate for limited government policies. However, when asked, he was unwilling to say whether his historic performance was enough to guarantee another run in 2016.
 
"It's too soon to be talking about 2016," he said.

 

I am honored to have been among those who voted for him. Hopefully the momentum will continue to build and we will see a true liberty candidate with enough support to really shake up the establishment in 2016.

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 #90 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Some advisors to Mittens said that he is more interested in spending time with his family than working with Obama.  Yep.  The guy who wanted to be president.

 

 

Romney devoted seven years of his life to running and then lost. Leave the man alone to be with his family.

 

Trying to set up Romney as a cause of Obama's future failures is despicable.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #91 of 254

Obama takes Florida.

 

332 - 206 Electoral

 

Mittens and the GOP failed.  And they have no clue as to why.

 

- - - - -

 

Nate Silver was the guest on The Daily Show.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-november-7-2012-nate-silver

 

Lots of other good stuff: primarily raw video of Fox proving how, well Foxy they are.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/8/12 at 2:03pm

 

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 #92 of 254

I think Bergermeister is the clear leader in gloat points. jimmac is a close second.

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 #93 of 254

Rove is claiming Obama suppressed votes.  Simply impossible to be humble and admit you lost.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/megyn-kelly-karl-rove-obama_n_2094796.html?utm_hp_ref=media

 

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 #94 of 254

Indeed.  Still divorced from reality they are.

 

“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 #95 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Romney devoted seven years of his life to running and then lost. Leave the man alone to be with his family.

 

Trying to set up Romney as a cause of Obama's future failures is despicable.

 

Right.  Idle remarks on the internet are really going to crush the spirits of Mitt and his family. "Despicable" is just the word.  I mean, have we no decency?   All Mitt has left is his vast personal wealth and a lifetime of comfort and ease for him and is family, never, ever having to suffer the consequences of any of the policies he championed.  The very least the internet can do is wish him well and politely ignore his manifest failings as a human being.  To do less would be unChristian, I would think.

 

Now, lets get back to discussing how Obama is going to kill us all.

post #96 of 254

 

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 #97 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 

Right.  Idle remarks on the internet are really going to crush the spirits of Mitt and his family. "Despicable" is just the word.  I mean, have we no decency?   All Mitt has left is his vast personal wealth and a lifetime of comfort and ease for him and is family, never, ever having to suffer the consequences of any of the policies he championed.  The very least the internet can do is wish him well and politely ignore his manifest failings as a human being.  To do less would be unChristian, I would think.

 

Now, lets get back to discussing how Obama is going to kill us all.

 

 

I love it.  Mittens needs time off.  Had he been elected he'd be busy for the next four years.

 

Again, another reason nobody should have voted for him.

 

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 #98 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

I love it.  Mittens needs time off.  Had he been elected he'd be busy for the next four years.

 

Again, another reason nobody should have voted for him.

 

Obama never takes vacations.

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 #99 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Indeed.  Still divorced from reality they are.

 

In fairness, Rove is under serious [and well justified] criticism from conservatives for being the problem rather than the solution, so he's got to put out an explanation out there, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

When Donald Trump - of all people - hits you with a zinger than leaves everyone stunned, you're under heavy fire.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #100 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

In fairness, Rove is under serious [and well justified] criticism from conservatives for being the problem rather than the solution, so he's got to put out an explanation out there, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

When Donald Trump - of all people - hits you with a zinger than leaves everyone stunned, you're under heavy fire.

 

Both of them are despicable creatures.

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 #101 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

I love it.  Mittens needs time off.  Had he been elected he'd be busy for the next four years.

 

Again, another reason nobody should have voted for him.

 

Weak. This is why so many despise liberals as people in this country, they actually have to run from the label.

 

What is so hard to understand about leaving someone to grieve about losing a long-cherished dream?

It takes extremely small people to have so little decency after a victory.

 

Also, Romney spent an entire two years saying that Obama wasn't up to the economic challenges the country faced. You guys really think Romney should want to serve in an administration he fundamentally disagrees with? Why do you guys think you need him? Because you believe he was right all along?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #102 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

All Mitt Obama has left is his vast personal wealth and a lifetime of comfort and ease for him and is family, never, ever having to suffer the consequences of any of the policies he championed.

 

Ummm...ohh...wait...I thought to were referring to Obama.

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 #103 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

All Mitt Obama has left is his vast personal wealth and a lifetime of comfort and ease for him and is family, never, ever having to suffer the consequences of any of the policies he championed.

Ummm...ohh...wait...I thought to were referring to Obama.

Wasn't the issue under discussion how Romney would survive the criticisms being leveled at him? What does that have to do with Obama?
post #104 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Wasn't the issue under discussion how Romney would survive the criticisms being leveled at him? What does that have to do with Obama?

 

Forgive me. I got confused. I thought, for a moment, we were discussing people who will be (along with their families) insulated, by their great personal wealth, from having to suffer the consequences of the policies they championed. Naturally Barack Obama came to mind.

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 #105 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Forgive me. I got confused. I thought, for a moment, we were discussing people who will be (along with their families) insulated, by their great personal wealth, from having to suffer the consequences of the policies they championed. Naturally Barack Obama came to mind.

 

It is indeed easy to get the two of them mixed up if you aren't blinded by the partisan rhetoric.

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 #106 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Wasn't the issue under discussion how Romney would survive the criticisms being leveled at him? What does that have to do with Obama?

Forgive me. I got confused. I thought, for a moment, we were discussing people who will be (along with their families) insulated, by their great personal wealth, from having to suffer the consequences of the policies they championed. Naturally Barack Obama came to mind.

No problem - I notice it's happened quite a lot the past couple of days. Does Obama have "great personal wealth"? He's certainly not in Romney's league, by a factor of about 20.
post #107 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


No problem - I notice it's happened quite a lot the past couple of days. Does Obama have "great personal wealth"? He's certainly not in Romney's league, by a factor of about 20.

 

He's a multi-millionaire. Definitely a member of the so-called "1%".

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 #108 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No problem - I notice it's happened quite a lot the past couple of days. Does Obama have "great personal wealth"? He's certainly not in Romney's league, by a factor of about 20.

He's a multi-millionaire. Definitely a member of the so-called "1%".

Seems to be worth around $10M - certainly well off, but not really vast. He's definitely top 1% in income, and probably around the lower end for top 1% in wealth.
post #109 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Seems to be worth around $10M - certainly well off, but not really vast. He's definitely top 1% in income, and probably around the lower end for top 1% in wealth.

 

Says the people campaigning to hike taxes on small business owners making $250,000. If you guys weren't so serious, this would be funny.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #110 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

It is indeed easy to get the two of them mixed up if you aren't blinded by the partisan rhetoric.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Ummm...ohh...wait...I thought to were referring to Obama.

 

Yeah.  Easy to mix them up.  Both born black to single parent homes of very modest means, earning every bit of their success despite the impediment of class and race, can hardly tell them apart.   Or, if you prefer, both leveraging their origins of enormous privilege to get the chance pull the levers of finance in order to line their own pockets by ruining the lives of working people while squirreling away a fortune in off-shore accounts and never revealing relevant financial history despite running for the highest office in the land.  You're right, no matter how you look at it, identical.

post #111 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Says the people campaigning to hike taxes on small business owners making $250,000. If you guys weren't so serious, this would be funny.

 You know, you guys should confer and get your random, expedient snark synchronized.  He can't be "just like Romney" while simultaneously being the socialist scourge of decent job creators, can he?

post #112 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 You know, you guys should confer and get your random, expedient snark synchronized.  He can't be "just like Romney" while simultaneously being the socialist scourge of decent job creators, can he?

 

Perhaps you should learn context.

 

Muppetry and Jazz are debating their relative wealth. I'm point out that Obama likes to lump everybody making $250,000+ as well off.

 

So when Muppetry tries to lowball $10M as "certainly well off, but not vast", that's hilariously stupid, in the light of his own team's economic theories.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #113 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

He can't be "just like Romney" while simultaneously being the socialist scourge of decent job creators, can he?

 

Sure he can. Why not? It's only in the extraordinarily narrow view of the political spectrum that Romney and Obama are vastly different. They are both big government statist Keynesians of slightly different flavor.

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 #114 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

You're right, no matter how you look at it, identical.

 

Oh wow. Is it Create a Straw Man Day?

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 #115 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

He can't be "just like Romney" while simultaneously being the socialist scourge of decent job creators, can he?

 

Sure he can. Why not? It's only in the extraordinarily narrow view of the political spectrum that Romney and Obama are vastly different. They are both big government statist Keynesians of slightly different flavor.

 

Agreed. They could certainly be regarded as similar by many metrics. The conventional political economic spectrum is fairly narrow.

post #116 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

 You know, you guys should confer and get your random, expedient snark synchronized.  He can't be "just like Romney" while simultaneously being the socialist scourge of decent job creators, can he?

 

Perhaps you should learn context.

 

Muppetry and Jazz are debating their relative wealth. I'm point out that Obama likes to lump everybody making $250,000+ as well off.

 

So when Muppetry tries to lowball $10M as "certainly well off, but not vast", that's hilariously stupid, in the light of his own team's economic theories.

 

But "well off" is a long way from "vastly wealthy" by anyone's definition, isn't it? And your accusation of hilarious stupidity notwithstanding, I was contrasting Romney's estimated net wealth of $200M+ with Obama's of around $10M and pointing out that they are rather different. You may choose to regard a net worth of $10M as vastly wealthy, but then you start to run out of adjectives to describe Romney's wealth, let alone that of more seriously wealthy people.

post #117 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Seems to be worth around $10M - certainly well off, but not really vast. He's definitely top 1% in income, and probably around the lower end for top 1% in wealth.

 

Says the people campaigning to hike taxes on small business owners making $250,000. If you guys weren't so serious, this would be funny.

 

Are you disagreeing on the numbers, or just struggling to find something sarcastic to say?

post #118 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But "well off" is a long way from "vastly wealthy" by anyone's definition, isn't it? And your accusation of hilarious stupidity notwithstanding, I was contrasting Romney's estimated net wealth of $200M+ with Obama's of around $10M and pointing out that they are rather different. You may choose to regard a net worth of $10M as vastly wealthy, but then you start to run out of adjectives to describe Romney's wealth, let alone that of more seriously wealthy people.

 

So we're seriously parsing the difference in wealth between a guy who has $10M (and will likely have much more than that in the years after his presidency) and a guy who has $200M? We're seriously implying that somehow the guy with $10M is going to be much less insulated from the consequences of his terrible policies?

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 #119 of 254

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 #120 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But "well off" is a long way from "vastly wealthy" by anyone's definition, isn't it? And your accusation of hilarious stupidity notwithstanding, I was contrasting Romney's estimated net wealth of $200M+ with Obama's of around $10M and pointing out that they are rather different. You may choose to regard a net worth of $10M as vastly wealthy, but then you start to run out of adjectives to describe Romney's wealth, let alone that of more seriously wealthy people.

 

So we're seriously parsing the difference in wealth between a guy who has $10M (and will likely have much more than that in the years after his presidency) and a guy who has $200M? We're seriously implying that somehow the guy with $10M is going to be much less insulated from the consequences of his terrible policies?

 

No, "we're" probably parsing whether it's possible to have a conversation without you snidely changing the subject, and are back to my original point that the subject of discussion was how Romney would be just fine after losing the election, not Obama's wealth. You brought Obama into the conversation in your usual fashion and I questioned the relevance of that, since he didn't lose the election. It degenerated from there to your latest question predicated on the assumption that Obama's policies are terrible. I'll leave you to keep spinning that discussion wherever you wish to take it, because I'm pretty sure now that you prefer playing word games to actually debating anything, and I'm not interested in participating in that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.