PDA

View Full Version : Elections Paging Conservatives: The 2012 Republican POTUS Candidates


Direckshun
09-26-2012, 08:23 AM
This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

JonesCrusher
09-26-2012, 08:30 AM
I can't remember the last good candidate we had for either side. It has been the lesser of two evils since I could vote.

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 08:39 AM
Weak compared to what, McCain / Palin?
Romney’s the right person for the GOP and I’m perfectly fine with the candidate. He’s better than anyone he went up against in the primary imo. He’s a hell of a lot better than this current abomination of a POTUS we have now. The biggest problem Romney and the Republican Party have is there are now too many retards that have no idea of what the current issues are and will just blindly cast their vote for the incumbent black muslim.
Regardless how this election goes your two clowns are going to get exposed over and over again in the debates but sadly the dumbass lazy folk referenced above won’t understand a damn thing being debated.

Swanman
09-26-2012, 08:45 AM
The biggest problem Romney and the Republican Party have is there are now too many retards that have no idea of what the current issues are and will just blindly cast their vote for the incumbent black muslim.

By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are a retard.

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 08:48 AM
What's funny is I only know a handfull of peeps voting for Obama and I know a shit load of people. Of those people everyone of them is a complete tool not because they voting for Obama, but they are voting for Obama because they are tools

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 08:49 AM
By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are a retard.

I was quoting Madonna you jackass.

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 08:57 AM
Weak compared to what, McCain / Palin?
Romneyís the right person for the GOP and Iím perfectly fine with the candidate.

If your goal is to win, then he's not the right candidate. And considering his role in mandataing health insurance and his positions on a number of relevant issues just prior to running for president, he's not the right candidate. Pre-presidential candidate Romney would fit in better with the Ds than the Rs.

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 08:58 AM
I think another thing that should be very telling is the differences in moral character between Obama supporters and Romney's.

headsnap
09-26-2012, 08:58 AM
It says a lot when it's the Left that's claiming you picked the wrong candidate...

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 09:00 AM
If your goal is to win, then he's not the right candidate. And considering his role in mandataing health insurance and his positions on a number of relevant issues just prior to running for president, he's not the right candidate. Pre-presidential candidate Romney would fit in better with the Ds than the Rs.


Oh, wait a minute I thought he was too far right for you libs.

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 09:03 AM
August 2012 "Romney / Paul too extreme" /cosmo
Sept. 2012 "Romney / Paul too left, should be a D" /cosmo

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 09:04 AM
Oh, wait a minute I thought he was too far right for you libs.

He is, now. But he used to describe himself as moderate and he basically was. On many issues he would have fit right in as a D. But obviously he had to sprint to the right to run as an R in the primaries and in a national election.

FishingRod
09-26-2012, 09:06 AM
I apologize for a semi hijack but the real lasting power of the POTUS is the appointment of judges. I’m too lazy to do the research this morning so, are any Supreme Court Judges likely to step down in the next 4 years due to age or health issues?

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 09:06 AM
August 2012 "Romney / Paul too extreme" /cosmo
Sept. 2012 "Romney / Paul too left, should be a D" /cosmo

No, not what I said. Not at all.

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:12 AM
I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I do think a businessman is more appropriate to repair our economy than a "community organizer".

Obama has been every bit as over his head and terrible as I feared and there aren't many legitimate candidates that I wouldn't vote for over him on either party.

LOCOChief
09-26-2012, 09:13 AM
No, not what I said. Not at all.


Of all people how in the world would a raging lib freak like yourself have any idea what is important to Republicans?

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 09:17 AM
Of all people how in the world would a raging lib freak like yourself have any idea what is important to Republicans?

Well, for one, by reading the rants of right-wing nuts like you on this board.

headsnap
09-26-2012, 09:19 AM
Well, for one, by reading the rants of right-wing nuts like you on this board.

just because we are not gushing over the cult of personality doesn't mean that we don't like the guy...

DaneMcCloud
09-26-2012, 09:19 AM
What's funny is I only know a handfull of peeps voting for Obama and I know a shit load of people. Of those people everyone of them is a complete tool not because they voting for Obama, but they are voting for Obama because they are tools

Where do you?

ChiTown
09-26-2012, 09:19 AM
I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I do think a businessman is more appropriate to repair our economy than a "US Apologist".

Obama has been every bit as over his head and terrible as I feared and there aren't many legitimate candidates that I wouldn't vote for over him on either party.

fyp

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:21 AM
Good Point.

It would be a nice change to have a President who is actually happy and proud to be an American.

Brock
09-26-2012, 09:22 AM
I think another thing that should be very telling is the differences in moral character between Obama supporters and Romney's.

ROFL

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 09:26 AM
Good Point.

It would be a nice change to have a President who is actually happy and proud to be an American.

How fucking stupid. Yes, what we need is someone with bigger lapel pins.

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 09:28 AM
just because we are not gushing over the cult of personality doesn't mean that we don't like the guy...

Sure you do. He's the least popular party nominee in long, long time (ever?)

ChiTown
09-26-2012, 09:29 AM
How ****ing stupid. Yes, what we need is someone with bigger balls.

agreed

ChiefsCountry
09-26-2012, 09:31 AM
It would be a nice change to have a President who is actually happy and proud to be an American.

Yep that is Obama's biggest flaw, which is saying alot. He does not seem to be proud to be an American at all.

headsnap
09-26-2012, 09:33 AM
Sure you do. He's the least popular party nominee in long, long time (ever?)

at least that's the narrative the left is pushing...




Ever... Seriously?!?!? McCain?

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:35 AM
How ****ing stupid. Yes, what we need is someone with bigger lapel pins.

It would be nice to have one without an "I'm sorry" button.
It might also be nice to have one who would meet world leaders during times of turmoil instead of sending the candidate who will run for the seat he's about to lose so he can go on The View.

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:35 AM
Yep that is Obama's biggest flaw, which is saying alot. He does not seem to be proud to be an American at all.

Obama acts more like a shamed family member of a convicted pedo than a Proud American.

DementedLogic
09-26-2012, 09:42 AM
I don't like Mitt Romney because of his liberal past. I don't believe for a minute that he is a conservative. His handlers are making him try to appear conservative, but it isn't fooling me. The problem with the Republican party is that the solid conservatives that are in good standing with the party never want to throw their hats in the ring. It is always the Neocons and people that aren't liked by the typical Republicans. Everyone hypes the next election cycle as the one when there are going to be a field of good candidates, but it never happens. I think that if Rand Paul runs in 2016, he will run away with the nomination and generate the most enthusiasm for a Republican candidate that we've seen since Reagan.'

If someone like Coburn or Demint threw their hats in the rings, I think they could generate a lot of enthusiasm as well.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 09:43 AM
fyp

You think Obama is a U.S. apologist?

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:44 AM
yes.

ChiefaRoo
09-26-2012, 09:44 AM
Obama has got to go for the good of us all.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 09:45 AM
yes.

Do you know what an apologist is? Have you ever heard of the term "Christian apologist?"

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:48 AM
He was apologizing all over the middle east last week because of their own barbarism.

|Zach|
09-26-2012, 09:51 AM
I think another thing that should be very telling is the differences in moral character between Obama supporters and Romney's.

Haha

|Zach|
09-26-2012, 09:52 AM
It says a lot when it's the Left that's claiming you picked the wrong candidate...

It seems that obvious this time around.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 09:54 AM
We're in a really surreal time fiscally. It seems as if an exponentially expanding sector of the populace are realizing that our path is unsustainable, but are in turn scared to death that, since we put ourselves on this path long ago, continuing to go down it is the only way to survive.

We guiltily realize that we cannot continue to rely on government entitlements at the level we do. But we also fear that without entitlements there will be no source for our needs.

We're like that sad sack at the blackjack table who know's we lost our shirt, but if we don't continue to play we're going to have to walk out of the casino empty handed.

So we know deep down we need to eat our vegetables, but we're in no mood for the greengrocer president. Give us some more of those free government twinkies, just for a little while longer.

Plus, the liberal chattering class both hate and love the social issues. If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

'The cool kids are saying this guy isn't right for us. I don't see it. He seems like a great candidate. But what if I'm wrong? What if we lose with him on the ticket?'

Add to this the ever burgeoning factor that a presidential campaign is not something good people have the stomach to submit their family to, and the Giulianis, Christies, Hunstmans, et al staying out of the race or dropping out early on.

I'm fine with Romney. I've never been particularly enthusiastic about him, but that's more a function of optics. If elected I have faith that he'll do a good job. But getting there, I've seen long ago that his vulnerabilities would be exploited much as they have to date.

He's wealthy. The manner he created his wealth is legitimate but hard to explain to traditional wage earners.

He's a solidly charitable and compassionate man, but his faith structure mandates that he not publicize that fact. So the way is cleared to distribute the narrative that he hoards his wealth and only cares about the wealthy, when the truth is the polar opposite.

He believes that individual, local, community compassion is superior to faceless federal entitlement, but he also believes that those actual acts of individual, local community compassion are private matters. This leaves the conundrum of a powerful message that should be widely applauded, but should not be promoted, just somehow understood. People aren't mind-readers, though.

In sum, I freely admit that he's an unpopular candidate, but fully believe that, if elected, would become a highly popular leader.

dirk digler
09-26-2012, 10:02 AM
It might also be nice to have one who would meet world leaders during times of turmoil instead of sending the candidate who will run for the seat he's about to lose so he can go on The View.

I don't get this meeting world leaders thing that the right keeps bringing up. You act like we live in the stone age or something.

Ever heard of the phone, email, or web conferencing? Try it sometime.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:03 AM
He was apologizing all over the middle east last week because of their own barbarism.

Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 10:04 AM
I don't get this meeting world leaders thing that the right keeps bringing up. You act like we live in the stone age or something.

Ever heard of the phone, email, or web conferencing? Try it sometime.

I KNOW!!!

That RWNJ Jon Stewart did a full segment on it last night.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:08 AM
I KNOW!!!

That RWNJ Jon Stewart did a full segment on it last night.

And then the King of Jordan said that the whole thing was probably being exaggerated and no actual country really cared that Obama didn't have personal meetings.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:14 AM
AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.


And yet liberals can make do with the taunts of 'Oh no, Obama was born in Kenya and hates America or something.' You're giving a pretty weak narrative of how the Republican party decides who its candidates will be. Most of these are huge exaggerations. For instance, Guiliani was never attacked for having gay friends by anyone as far as I remember; he was attacked for running entirely on 9/11.

CoMoChief
09-26-2012, 10:15 AM
Ron Paul would put a clown suit on Obama in a debate

ChiTown
09-26-2012, 10:18 AM
Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."

:rolleyes:

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:22 AM
I think Romney is the perfect candidate for the time and he'll make a very good President. Either Direckshun has me on ignore or I've been too coy about this.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 10:27 AM
And yet liberals can make do with the taunts of 'Oh no, Obama was born in Kenya and hates America or something.' You're giving a pretty weak narrative of how the Republican party decides who its candidates will be. Most of these are huge exaggerations. For instance, Guiliani was never attacked for having gay friends by anyone as far as I remember; he was attacked for running entirely on 9/11.

Your critique would have a little more traction if there was a concerted effort to mock Obama regarding glimmers of social conservatism.

"Hey atheists, your precious Obama goes to church!!"

"Hey gays, Obama's position on your right to marry is 'evolving' LOL!!"

Might also have a little more traction if the Democrats were less united in their position that their side winning was the prime directive.

Ostensibly, liberals are supposed to WANT leaders who form diverse friendships, believe in global warming, etc. But fuck if they're going to admit that reasonable people who aren't on their team are reasonable in the midst of an election. Save that for when the election is over and power is secured. There are few people Democrats love more than a Republican who loses.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:32 AM
Your critique would have a little more traction if there was a concerted effort to mock Obama regarding glimmers of social conservatism.

"Hey atheists, your precious Obama goes to church!!"

"Hey gays, Obama's position on your right to marry is 'evolving' LOL!!"

Might also have a little more traction if the Democrats were less united in their position that their side winning was the prime directive.

There's as much concerted effort to mock Obama for those things as there are in liberal efforts for your own complaints. In other words, not much at all, so find something more credible to complain about.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 10:32 AM
If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

Interesting insights, Baby Lee.

I actually don't think social issues matter as much to the conservative base these days -- I think they've been replaced by what we'll call the Obama Litmus Test.

This leads me to my theory about this weak-ass crop of GOPers who ran for POTUS, but I invite you to correct me since you're closer to the party's philosophies than I am.

My theory: the Obama Litmus Test has replaced social conservativism and even economic conservativism in the GOP.

Anything Obama does is bad in the eyes of conservatives, therefore if you're in favor of anything he's done, share positions with him, or have worked with him, you're a bad conservative.

The problem is that Obama has embraced what most people consider a center-left path (I'd consider it center-right, but I understand that no Republican/conservative in this forum will ever agree with me on that). The stimulus package was centrist. Healthcare reform was centrist. Instituting a bevy of new regulations to create barriers in the financial industry to help prevent another crash... centrist. Obama's jobs plan that was shot down, centrist. Cap and trade, centrist. These were all ideas that, for the majority of modern American life, were embraced by at least a good number of Republicans. But once Obama became President, they became bad, and standing up for them is bad.

So since a lot of the center (and in some cases, center-right) policy territory has been claimed by Obama, and that's inherently bad, immediately a bunch of your center-right candidates can't run, included in that is Chris Christie or Jon Huntsman. (And, honestly, Romney, who basically won this primary by default.) And your smarter rightwing candidates don't run because that philosophy historically doesn't fare well in a general election, and they're smart enough to keep their political capital before burning it in an unlikely run for the White House.

So you end up with a bunch of unacceptable fringe candidates like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cains, a few never-weres like Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich. Because anybody towards the middle is going to share more positions with Obama, which cannot be tolerated anymore in the GOP base.

Anyway, that's my take -- I wanted to see if anybody shared it but mainly I wanted to see why exactly the GOP ended up with the crop that it did this year.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 10:34 AM
There's as much concerted effort to mock Obama for those things as there are in liberal efforts for your own complaints. In other words, not much at all, so find something more credible to complain about.

Be fucked.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:35 AM
We're in a really surreal time fiscally. It seems as if an exponentially expanding sector of the populace are realizing that our path is unsustainable, but are in turn scared to death that, since we put ourselves on this path long ago, continuing to go down it is the only way to survive.

We guiltily realize that we cannot continue to rely on government entitlements at the level we do. But we also fear that without entitlements there will be no source for our needs.

We're like that sad sack at the blackjack table who know's we lost our shirt, but if we don't continue to play we're going to have to walk out of the casino empty handed.

So we know deep down we need to eat our vegetables, but we're in no mood for the greengrocer president. Give us some more of those free government twinkies, just for a little while longer.

Plus, the liberal chattering class both hate and love the social issues. If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

'The cool kids are saying this guy isn't right for us. I don't see it. He seems like a great candidate. But what if I'm wrong? What if we lose with him on the ticket?'

Add to this the ever burgeoning factor that a presidential campaign is not something good people have the stomach to submit their family to, and the Giulianis, Christies, Hunstmans, et al staying out of the race or dropping out early on.

I'm fine with Romney. I've never been particularly enthusiastic about him, but that's more a function of optics. If elected I have faith that he'll do a good job. But getting there, I've seen long ago that his vulnerabilities would be exploited much as they have to date.

He's wealthy. The manner he created his wealth is legitimate but hard to explain to traditional wage earners.

He's a solidly charitable and compassionate man, but his faith structure mandates that he not publicize that fact. So the way is cleared to distribute the narrative that he hoards his wealth and only cares about the wealthy, when the truth is the polar opposite.

He believes that individual, local, community compassion is superior to faceless federal entitlement, but he also believes that those actual acts of individual, local community compassion are private matters. This leaves the conundrum of a powerful message that should be widely applauded, but should not be promoted, just somehow understood. People aren't mind-readers, though.

In sum, I freely admit that he's an unpopular candidate, but fully believe that, if elected, would become a highly popular leader.

Wow, brilliant post. It almost brought a tear to my eye it hit the mark so hard.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:36 AM
Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."

How about "self-loathing Islamist sympathizer"? ;)

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Be ****ed.

It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 10:46 AM
Interesting insights, Baby Lee.


You have to know that I see this through a diametrically opposed prism.

Bush was demonized for being simultaneously EXTREME RW, and too centrist, often by the same critics, occasionally seemingly in the same breath.

Centrism is one thing, the path to centrism is another.

There's widespread consensus that fiscal liberalism isn't the answer, I'm not talking merits, I'm talking consensus. So let's call that 'the whole loaf'

There's a difference between;

'I think we should give away the whole loaf, would at least you let us give away 2/3 of the loaf.'

and

'We shouldn't being giving away the loaf, but if you insist I think we can live with giving away 1/2'

But the liberal argument seeks to gripe about both approaches fungibly.

'Our side isn't liberal, because he only got us 2/3 of a loaf, and besides who are you to talk of loaf responsibility when your last guy just tossing around 1/2 loaves willy-nilly?'

So people respond 'fuck it, lets stick to a no loaf policy. Loaf coveters hate us anyway.'

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:48 AM
It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

This post doesn't even make sense. No one outside of maybe the ronpauls has argued that the only alternative to Obamacare is no reform at all.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:50 AM
Baby Lee-like criticism of Romney:

I oppose Romney because he advocates for curbing costs of Medicare. It's not that curbing costs of Medicare is a bad idea, it's just that I know (or, I think I know) what he really wants is to get rid of Medicare altogether. And with Medicare gone, the conservatives will then be able to move to dismantling social security. And when that's gone, they will move to getting rid of temporary unemployment insurance, the Department of Agriculture, the income tax, the 14th Amendment, and nominate judges who completely obliterate commerce clause jurisprudence.

With all that gone, we can then return to market-based solutions for everything, including wages, labor determinations, and possibly reintroduce slavery.

It's not that I oppose Romney for curbing costs to Medicare. It's that I oppose Romney because it will lead to slavery.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 10:52 AM
It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

First, a Republican compromise alternative to a liberal proposal is not the same thing as a conservative policy. Not by a long shot.

Second, no reform at all is a lie. A bald faced lie.

But you know all this, and simply wish to mischaracterize and lie for a few precious inches of partisan ground.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:53 AM
This post doesn't even make sense. No one outside of maybe the ronpauls has argued that the only alternative to Obamacare is no reform at all.

What was the conservative alternative for health care reform? It was the Heritage Fund's policy, adopted by Romney. What did it become? Punitive damage caps?

bevischief
09-26-2012, 10:56 AM
I don't like Mitt Romney because of his liberal past. I don't believe for a minute that he is a conservative. His handlers are making him try to appear conservative, but it isn't fooling me. The problem with the Republican party is that the solid conservatives that are in good standing with the party never want to throw their hats in the ring. It is always the Neocons and people that aren't liked by the typical Republicans. Everyone hypes the next election cycle as the one when there are going to be a field of good candidates, but it never happens. I think that if Rand Paul runs in 2016, he will run away with the nomination and generate the most enthusiasm for a Republican candidate that we've seen since Reagan.'

If someone like Coburn or Demint threw their hats in the rings, I think they could generate a lot of enthusiasm as well.

We can only hope.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 10:56 AM
First, a Republican compromise alternative to a liberal proposal is not the same thing as a conservative policy. Not by a long shot.

I love this. If that was the Republican compromise alternative, then what other reason is the Democratic acceptance of the compromise alternative now an anti-conservative proposal accept that the name of the supporting party has been switched? It went from "Here's an acceptable compromise" to "Oh, now that you took the compromise, we can call it an evil, anti-American piece of legislation that needs to be opposed/overturned/vilified."

What other reason besides partisan lines is the cause for this? It was tried and found not workable? Absolutely not.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 10:57 AM
You have to know that I see this through a diametrically opposed prism.

Bush was demonized for being simultaneously EXTREME RW, and too centrist, often by the same critics, occasionally seemingly in the same breath.

Centrism is one thing, the path to centrism is another.

There's widespread consensus that fiscal liberalism isn't the answer, I'm not talking merits, I'm talking consensus. So let's call that 'the whole loaf'

There's a difference between;

'I think we should give away the whole loaf, would at least you let us give away 2/3 of the loaf.'

and

'We shouldn't being giving away the loaf, but if you insist I think we can live with giving away 1/2'

But the liberal argument seeks to gripe about both approaches fungibly.

'Our side isn't liberal, because he only got us 2/3 of a loaf, and besides who are you to talk of loaf responsibility when your last guy just tossing around 1/2 loaves willy-nilly?'

So people respond '**** it, lets stick to a no loaf policy. Loaf coveters hate us anyway.'

Right, which is why we end up with a pretty crappy crop of candidates for the GOP this year, I am led to believe.

To stick with your metaphor, whole loaf policy may be unpopular, but no loaf policy is similarly unpopular. The problem for the GOP, one imagines, is that the DNP has moved pretty close to 1/2 loaf territory, while the GOP has fully embraced no loaf policy.

That's going to do a couple things. That's going to drive off centrist or moderate conservatives from running for President (or at least cause them to pretzel themselves to pull it off), and the serious, honest hardcore conservatives know that their hard conservativism isn't popular in the mainstream choose to keep their political capital in tact instead of burning it in vain.

So you're left with a race that was at times dominated by Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. And won by Mitt Romney by default.

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 10:58 AM
I think Romney is the perfect candidate for the time and he'll make a very good President. Either Direckshun has me on ignore or I've been too coy about this.

Seems like attributes of a 'perfect candidate' would include not repeatedly coming off as an out-of touch elitist tool. Like it or not (and I often don't), a candidate has to be likable, and people don't like candidate who seems like a douchebag. Bottom line is that the electoral college map looks terrible for him, the national polls are getting worse, and he's going to lose. Perfect candidates aren't supposed to lose.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 11:00 AM
Baby Lee-like criticism of Romney:

I oppose Romney because he advocates for curbing costs of Medicare. It's not that curbing costs of Medicare is a bad idea, it's just that I know (or, I think I know) what he really wants is to get rid of Medicare altogether. And with Medicare gone, the conservatives will then be able to move to dismantling social security. And when that's gone, they will move to getting rid of temporary unemployment insurance, the Department of Agriculture, the income tax, the 14th Amendment, and nominate judges who completely obliterate commerce clause jurisprudence.

With all that gone, we can then return to market-based solutions for everything, including wages, labor determinations, and possibly reintroduce slavery.

It's not that I oppose Romney for curbing costs to Medicare. It's that I oppose Romney because it will lead to slavery.

Difference being, Romney's never said he wants Medicare gone, Social Security gone, or a return of slavery.

OTOH, Obama has, with his very own lips, gums, and vibrating vocal cords, stated that these compromises 'pave the way' to the 'desired end result'

Public option paves the way to single payer, paving the way to universal health care and government provided care as a right.

Environmental restrictions pave the way to cap and trade, paving the way to coal, nuclear and fossil fuels becoming so expensive that government programs can replace them with renewables.

Government intrusion into healthcare paves the way into a shared responsibility for healthy citizens, paving the way for governmental guidance of diet and exercise habits.

These are Obama enunciated rationales, not my personal fever dream concoctions. But again, you know this but prefer to mischaracterize and lie for your little precious patch of turf.

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 11:01 AM
My guy chose not to run. Chris Christie.

I think the republican message has more punch behind it if it comes from him.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:02 AM
My guy chose not to run. Chris Christie.

I think the republican message has more punch behind it if it comes from him.

He specified that he would not have been able to win in the 2012 Republican Party.

Too moderate. Would likely have failed the Obama Litmus Test, perhaps.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 11:04 AM
He specified that he would not have been able to win in the 2012 Republican Party.

Too moderate. Would likely have failed the Obama Litmus Test, perhaps.

Link?

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:05 AM
Difference being, Romney's never said he wants Medicare gone, Social Security gone, or a return of slavery.

OTOH, Obama has, with his very own lips, gums, and vibrating vocal cords, stated that these compromises 'pave the way' to the 'desired end result'

Public option paves the way to single payer, paving the way to universal health care and government provided care as a right.

Environmental restrictions pave the way to cap and trade, paving the way to coal, nuclear and fossil fuels becoming so expensive that government programs can replace them with renewables.

Government intrusion into healthcare paves the way into a shared responsibility for healthy citizens, paving the way for governmental guidance of diet and exercise habits.

These are Obama enunciated rationales, not my personal fever dream concoctions. But again, you know this but prefer to mischaracterize and lie for your little precious patch of turf.

I'm pretty sure you can attribute Ryan's updated budget as a gateway to his intended budget, which he revealed a couple years ago.

Moderate measures are just that, usually presented by one side as a gateway to a more ideological solution.

To pretend that's just a Democratic tactic is delusional.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:07 AM
Link?

Which part? His moderation is well documented (http://theweek.com/article/index/219787/5-reasons-chris-christie-cant-win-the-gop-nomination).

A link of him saying the GOP base is too far to the right for him to have a chance at winning?

patteeu
09-26-2012, 11:08 AM
What was the conservative alternative for health care reform? It was the Heritage Fund's policy, adopted by Romney. What did it become? Punitive damage caps?

I don't know what it is because it's a lot of different ideas from a lot of different people. That's what happens when your party has absolutely no ability to even propose legislation due to the small size of it's minorities in both houses of Congress. What I do know is that there were almost no Republicans saying that there was no need for reform. Newt Gingrich wrote a couple of books in which he describes his ideas.

I'm probably closer to the guy you criticize than most GOPers. I agree with mandates as a central part of a solution, but I still don't support Obamacare for at least 3 reasons.*

1) Obamacare does almost nothing to address the biggest problem in our health care system: out of control cost inflation. It provides the goodies (universal coverage, pre-existing condition coverage, coverage of kids to age 26, etc.) and leaves the tough part for later (controlling costs). I think we need to either come up with a comprehensive reform that does both at once or we need to lead with the tougher, more important reform.

2) The democrats seek universal, gold-plated coverage with an over-emphasis on prevention. I think we need to limit universal coverage to a more basic level (e.g. catastrophic coverage, child birth, obvious cases where science indicates there's a cost advantage in prevention, etc.) and leave other services to be privately acquired (e.g. cosmetic surgery, marginal preventative care, birth control).

3) And I *don't* trust democrats on this issue. I believe that by leaving the cost control piece out of their reform, they're setting it up to fail at which point political pressure will mount for further government action allowing them to reach for the brass ring of single payer.

__________________
* BTW, I think it's overly simplistic to say that just because some elements of a Heritage healthcare reform idea were used that Obamacare is essentially something that the GOP once supported. There are a lot of details beyond the big pieces like mandates to consider. I've described some of that above.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 11:09 AM
Right, which is why we end up with a pretty crappy crop of candidates for the GOP this year, I am led to believe.

To stick with your metaphor, whole loaf policy may be unpopular, but no loaf policy is similarly unpopular. The problem for the GOP, one imagines, is that the DNP has moved pretty close to 1/2 loaf territory, while the GOP has fully embraced no loaf policy.

That's going to do a couple things. That's going to drive off centrist or moderate conservatives from running for President (or at least cause them to pretzel themselves to pull it off), and the serious, honest hardcore conservatives know that their hard conservativism isn't popular in the mainstream choose to keep their political capital in tact instead of burning it in vain.

So you're left with a race that was at times dominated by Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. And won by Mitt Romney by default.

Maybe, just maybe, if the whole loafers didn't make the argument that '1/2 loaf is just as evil as no loaf' when the 'RWNJ' compromises, then 'why are you bitching about 2/3 loaf when your guy tossed around 1/2 loaves like they were pennies' when their guy compromises. And maybe they could ascertain why all those people in flyover country are so mad about 2/3 loaf beyond 'well, they must be racists, only possible explanation.' Maybe the discussion would be different.

And I submit that, when people are honest with themselves, there's a STRONG majority who concede 1/3-3/5 of a loaf is about as far was we should be going. They just get wrapped up in ancillary issues and identity politics and stuff those painful admissions down down down.

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 11:11 AM
He specified that he would not have been able to win in the 2012 Republican Party.

Too moderate. Would likely have failed the Obama Litmus Test, perhaps.

Too moderate and they nominated Romney?

ChiefsCountry
09-26-2012, 11:11 AM
Too moderate and they nominated Romney?

And McCain as well.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 11:11 AM
I love this. If that was the Republican compromise alternative, then what other reason is the Democratic acceptance of the compromise alternative now an anti-conservative proposal accept that the name of the supporting party has been switched? It went from "Here's an acceptable compromise" to "Oh, now that you took the compromise, we can call it an evil, anti-American piece of legislation that needs to be opposed/overturned/vilified."

What other reason besides partisan lines is the cause for this? It was tried and found not workable? Absolutely not.

As I mentioned in my last post, Obamacare was not lifted directly from the Heritage archives. It uses some of the same elements, but it's simplistic and no doubt wrong to conclude that they're essentially the same.

vailpass
09-26-2012, 11:13 AM
By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are a retard.

By throwing he comment in bold out there, you confirmed that you are so eager to label those who don't like obama as racist, ignorant, or both that you fail to consider there may be a source behind the comment.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 11:14 AM
Seems like attributes of a 'perfect candidate' would include not repeatedly coming off as an out-of touch elitist tool. Like it or not (and I often don't), a candidate has to be likable, and people don't like candidate who seems like a douchebag. Bottom line is that the electoral college map looks terrible for him, the national polls are getting worse, and he's going to lose. Perfect candidates aren't supposed to lose.

I find him extremely likable. He's going to be a very successful president, but part of that will be the contrast with the guy he followed.

vailpass
09-26-2012, 11:17 AM
Do you know what an apologist is? Have you ever heard of the term "Christian apologist?"

You are correct in where you are going with this. That isn't what is meant by that term in the context used when referring to obama and you know it.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:20 AM
Too moderate and they nominated Romney?

Romney won by default.

And McCain as well.

McCain ran a rightwing campaign.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 11:21 AM
Maybe, just maybe, if the whole loafers didn't make the argument that '1/2 loaf is just as evil as no loaf' when the 'RWNJ' compromises, then 'why are you bitching about 2/3 loaf when your guy tossed around 1/2 loaves like they were pennies' when their guy compromises. And maybe they could ascertain why all those people in flyover country are so mad about 2/3 loaf beyond 'well, they must be racists, only possible explanation.' Maybe the discussion would be different.

And I submit that, when people are honest with themselves, there's a STRONG majority who concede 1/3-3/5 of a loaf is about as far was we should be going. They just get wrapped up in ancillary issues and identity politics and stuff those painful admissions down down down.

While I agree with your second paragraph, the first paragraph is just attempting to pin a common folly of both sides to only liberals/Democrats.

La literatura
09-26-2012, 11:30 AM
Difference being, Romney's never said he wants Medicare gone, Social Security gone, or a return of slavery.

OTOH, Obama has, with his very own lips, gums, and vibrating vocal cords, stated that these compromises 'pave the way' to the 'desired end result'

Public option paves the way to single payer, paving the way to universal health care and government provided care as a right.

Environmental restrictions pave the way to cap and trade, paving the way to coal, nuclear and fossil fuels becoming so expensive that government programs can replace them with renewables.

Government intrusion into healthcare paves the way into a shared responsibility for healthy citizens, paving the way for governmental guidance of diet and exercise habits.

These are Obama enunciated rationales, not my personal fever dream concoctions. But again, you know this but prefer to mischaracterize and lie for your little precious patch of turf.

We already have government provided health care programs, subsidized renewable energy industries, and governmental guidance of diet and exercise (see the food pyramid). What are your real concerns? That Obama proposes federal regulations of pop, candy, and mayonnaise? That every citizen is going to have to do weekly physical checkups with their government bureaucrat in order to get their rationed food basket? That private gas companies are going to be illegal?

Are those not your own biases or illusions or imputations of the liberal/Obama agenda?

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 11:37 AM
Romney won by default.


He wouldn't have if Christie would have run.

You guys aren't done dealing with Christie yet. If Obama wins this year I think he'll be the 2016 rep nominee.

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 11:52 AM
He wouldn't have if Christie would have run.

You guys aren't done dealing with Christie yet. If Obama wins this year I think he'll be the 2016 rep nominee.

Its always easy to say how great someone would have been. I'm not sure how well Christie's Jersey loudmouth act would play. He's also got a big problem--he is very big. He's enormous. I think it would be an issue.

Direckshun
09-26-2012, 01:13 PM
He wouldn't have if Christie would have run.

Why didn't he run, if he could have secured the nomination so easily?

CoMoChief
09-26-2012, 01:21 PM
Romeny and Obama are the same damn candidate...just different rhetoric.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2012, 01:28 PM
The crop of candidates sucked because for the last 10 years or so there was only one way of thinking in the Republican party: Must be pro-life and neo-conservative on foreign policy.

bandwagonjumper
09-26-2012, 02:29 PM
He wouldn't have if Christie would have run.

You guys aren't done dealing with Christie yet. If Obama wins this year I think he'll be the 2016 rep nominee.

As a republican aren't you disappointed in Christie. The 2012 race would be very winnable for any republican candidate. Instead Romney only faced two has beens in Santorum and Gingrich. If you compare the last three republican presidents with the last three democratic presidents what jumps out is that the republican candidate were all status quo. Reagan had run four years earlier, George Bush was Vice President and Junior was the son of a former president. I don't know about Jimmy Carter but both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdogs when there started. If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

cosmo20002
09-26-2012, 02:41 PM
If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

Served his time? He dropped out early and made an ass of himself along the way. "His turn" would fall to Santorum.

Baby Lee
09-26-2012, 02:47 PM
Its always easy to say how great someone would have been. I'm not sure how well Christie's Jersey loudmouth act would play. He's also got a big problem--he is very big. He's enormous. I think it would be an issue.

As I said before, if anyone on the Dem side ever actually criticized as unfit for office due to weight, liberals would be up in arms about the bigotry of such a critique.

But if it's the 'other side' who's fielding a portly candidate, they have no compunction about suggesting it ominously.

It's a ridiculous suggestion, but they've had such 'success' with these kinds of 'Tokyo Rose' attacks in the past that they just can't resist.

"Come on Joe, you're losing this war, go home Joe, your family misses you, no one wants you to fight any more, they just want you home, they're getting lonely Joe, the milk man is looking good, Joe.'

Brock
09-26-2012, 03:47 PM
As a republican aren't you disappointed in Christie. The 2012 race would be very winnable for any republican candidate. Instead Romney only faced two has beens in Santorum and Gingrich. If you compare the last three republican presidents with the last three democratic presidents what jumps out is that the republican candidate were all status quo. Reagan had run four years earlier, George Bush was Vice President and Junior was the son of a former president. I don't know about Jimmy Carter but both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdogs when there started. If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

Rick Perry? ROFL Yeah, he did great until he actually opened his mouth and spoke.

Brock
09-26-2012, 03:49 PM
He wouldn't have if Christie would have run.

You guys aren't done dealing with Christie yet. If Obama wins this year I think he'll be the 2016 rep nominee.

Christie's different for sure.

|Zach|
09-26-2012, 04:15 PM
Rick Perry. Heh.

Pawnmower
09-26-2012, 04:36 PM
Maybe the GOP were too scared to put up a real candidate in 2008 .....AND 2012.

Thats the only thing I can think of...maybe they thought it would be better if a dem won in 08 so that the economic bad news blame could be shifted....and they would take a pounding in the hose & senate for a long time...

Well...I mean thats the only real simple intentional reason I could see.....

but

More likely:

The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.

Oh and not to mention that the GOP is divided within by religious extremists as well.....basically the party is doomed unless they can unite under more moderate and less religious leadership.

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 04:37 PM
Why didn't he run, if he could have secured the nomination so easily?

It isn't his time yet and he know it. As is evident from the polls America isn't ready for his type of reforms. In 4 years they will.

Also he promised his state he wouldn't run for any public office this election cycle.

You watch, he'll be a thorn in your side yet.

DaneMcCloud
09-26-2012, 04:37 PM
I can't remember the last good candidate we had for either side. It has been the lesser of two evils since I could vote.

I liked Dole/Kemp. If Bob Dole had shown his humorous and "human side" before the election, I think he would have beat Clinton.

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 04:38 PM
As a republican aren't you disappointed in Christie. The 2012 race would be very winnable for any republican candidate. Instead Romney only faced two has beens in Santorum and Gingrich. If you compare the last three republican presidents with the last three democratic presidents what jumps out is that the republican candidate were all status quo. Reagan had run four years earlier, George Bush was Vice President and Junior was the son of a former president. I don't know about Jimmy Carter but both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdogs when there started. If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

ROFL Rick Perry.

Swanman
09-26-2012, 04:41 PM
The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.



To me, it's almost a carbon copy of 2008 with McCain. I liked McCain. He was a moderate guy that was forced to run on the far right by the party. As a result, we have no real debate going on, just talking points being spewed by both sides.

DaneMcCloud
09-26-2012, 04:46 PM
My guy chose not to run. Chris Christie.

I think the republican message has more punch behind it if it comes from him.

It would definitely have more weight coming from Christie

mlyonsd
09-26-2012, 04:49 PM
It would definitely have more weight coming from Christie

Where's that drummer emoticon when you need it.

Pawnmower
09-26-2012, 04:51 PM
Where's that drummer emoticon when you need it.

Christie ate it

Hoover
09-26-2012, 07:45 PM
To understand why 2012 boasted a weak field of presidential candidates you must understand the influence of money in politics. Romney had either lined up most of the big money, or neutralized it. The people who would have backed a Chris Christie were already backing Romney. The only real money threat came from Rick Perry. The threat was significant, but the candidate himself was not. Romney was challenged on ideology by Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich had a real shot but lacks focus. He could have put together a winning campaign but over thought his campaign every step of the way. Santorum didn't have squat for cash, but focused on the basics and proved to be tough opponent.

I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2012, 09:08 PM
Bring on the 3rd,4th,5th, etc parties...this election cycle like many of it's predecessors blows steaming piles of monkey shit.

SNR
09-26-2012, 09:27 PM
A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

J Diddy
09-26-2012, 09:43 PM
A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!


It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

Here's another clip of his "leadership skills"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5CSVSwSaypg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
09-26-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

Who are the front runners IYO?

patteeu
09-26-2012, 09:52 PM
A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

That's ironic since they're more likely to end up as peasants if Obama wins.

J Diddy
09-26-2012, 09:59 PM
That's ironic since they're more likely to end up as peasants if Obama wins.

You're so full of shit, that at this point all I can do is laugh (heartily I might add) at you.

BigRedChief
09-26-2012, 10:02 PM
To understand why 2012 boasted a weak field of presidential candidates you must understand the influence of money in politics. Romney had either lined up most of the big money, or neutralized it. The people who would have backed a Chris Christie were already backing Romney. The only real money threat came from Rick Perry. The threat was significant, but the candidate himself was not. Romney was challenged on ideology by Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich had a real shot but lacks focus. He could have put together a winning campaign but over thought his campaign every step of the way. Santorum didn't have squat for cash, but focused on the basics and proved to be tough opponent.

I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.hillary will be formidable. And Hispanics will put Texas in play.

The republicans don't need a better messenger, they need a new message.

BigRedChief
09-26-2012, 10:08 PM
It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

Here's another clip of his "leadership skills"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5CSVSwSaypg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
My god this guy is a horrible candidate. He's been running for president his whole life, how can he stink at it so bad?

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:10 PM
My god this guy is a horrible candidate. He's been running for president his whole life, how can he stink at it so bad?

It's disappointing that so many of you Obama supporters are clearly more concerned with sizzle than with substance.

J Diddy
09-26-2012, 10:23 PM
It's disappointing that so many of you Obama supporters are clearly more concerned with sizzle than with substance.

ROFL

Substance?

What substance?

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:25 PM
You're so full of shit, that at this point all I can do is laugh (heartily I might add) at you.

I liken the rabid class warriors of the left with the rabble that fill the ranks of the radical islamists' armies except that your god is a secular god, big government. So much hate and envy. :shake:

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:26 PM
ROFL

Substance?

What substance?

Even if he didn't have a whole website filled with policy positions and two or three years worth of speeches talking about them, his track record as a leader and a man of accomplishment put the empty suit we have in the WH now to shame.

J Diddy
09-26-2012, 10:28 PM
I liken the rabid class warriors of the left with the rabble that fill the ranks of the radical islamists' armies except that your god is a secular god, big government. So much hate and envy. :shake:

Yup.

Full of shit.

DaneMcCloud
09-26-2012, 10:52 PM
I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

Unless they change their entire social component by 2016, they'll continue to lose. And as their base continues to die, so to will the party.

DaneMcCloud
09-26-2012, 10:56 PM
Even if he didn't have a whole website filled with policy positions and two or three years worth of speeches talking about them, his track record as a leader and a man of accomplishment put the empty suit we have in the WH now to shame.

Bush fooled the country in 2000 and did again in 2004. Nixon had everyone believing he was a great president up until he wasn't. Reagan conveniently "forgot" information. Bush I left the country in a recession. Instead of focusing on the country, Republicans focused on a blowjob and spent $40 million on the Starr report.

That's quite a party.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2012, 11:02 PM
To me, it's almost a carbon copy of 2008 with McCain. I liked McCain. He was a moderate guy that was forced to run on the far right by the party. As a result, we have no real debate going on, just talking points being spewed by both sides.

A moderate would force real debate? Uh no. Barack Obama is Bob Dole.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 01:47 AM
It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

Here's another clip of his "leadership skills"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5CSVSwSaypg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow what a total tard.

Aries Walker
09-27-2012, 02:17 AM
I apologize for a semi hijack but the real lasting power of the POTUS is the appointment of judges. Iím too lazy to do the research this morning so, are any Supreme Court Judges likely to step down in the next 4 years due to age or health issues?
Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsberg, and Breyer are all in their mid- to late- 70's, so, although as far as I know none of them have mentioned any plans, any or all of them is possible. The rest of the court are Roberts, Thomas, and Alito (all conservative), and Sotomayor and Kagan (both liberal). The answer, then, is yes, there could be a major court swing this coming four years, one way or the other.

Which is why everyone here should vote, whichever way you lean, and the encourage - nay, compel - your friends and family to also vote.

mlyonsd
09-27-2012, 05:07 AM
I liken the rabid class warriors of the left with the rabble that fill the ranks of the radical islamists' armies except that your god is a secular god, big government. So much hate and envy. :shake:
A better comparison would be Cassel backers. Three + years into it and they still sing his praises even though he proves over and over he sucks.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 06:32 AM
Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsberg, and Breyer are all in their mid- to late- 70's, so, although as far as I know none of them have mentioned any plans, any or all of them is possible. The rest of the court are Roberts, Thomas, and Alito (all conservative), and Sotomayor and Kagan (both liberal). The answer, then, is yes, there could be a major court swing this coming four years, one way or the other.

Which is why everyone here should vote, whichever way you lean, and the encourage - nay, compel - your friends and family to also vote.

The conservatives that ruled in favor of Obamacare? gotcha.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 07:08 AM
Bush fooled the country in 2000 and did again in 2004. Nixon had everyone believing he was a great president up until he wasn't. Reagan conveniently "forgot" information. Bush I left the country in a recession. Instead of focusing on the country, Republicans focused on a blowjob and spent $40 million on the Starr report.

That's quite a party.

Oh, well, I guess we might as well vote for the guy who has demonstrated incompetence both in foreign affairs and in facilitating an economic turnaround.

Any of those four guys would be far superior to the failure we have now. Even Jimmy Carter would be a close call.

Direckshun
09-27-2012, 10:39 AM
It isn't his time yet and he know it. As is evident from the polls America isn't ready for his type of reforms. In 4 years they will.

Also he promised his state he wouldn't run for any public office this election cycle.

You watch, he'll be a thorn in your side yet.

I think you and I approach the subject of politics in different ways.

But I look forward to future debates.

FishingRod
09-27-2012, 01:09 PM
Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsberg, and Breyer are all in their mid- to late- 70's, so, although as far as I know none of them have mentioned any plans, any or all of them is possible. The rest of the court are Roberts, Thomas, and Alito (all conservative), and Sotomayor and Kagan (both liberal). The answer, then, is yes, there could be a major court swing this coming four years, one way or the other.

Which is why everyone here should vote, whichever way you lean, and the encourage - nay, compel - your friends and family to also vote.

Thanks I got off my Lazy butt and looked it up. On this we agree, vote. Sadly most of my friends lean politically far left of where I do but not surprisingly a civil discussion of ideas more easily happens in person than behind a computer screen.

jettio
09-27-2012, 02:24 PM
The time to decide to run for POTUS is at least 2 years before. 2 years ago, nearly all GOP presidential aspirants concluded that Obama would be nearly impossible to beat because he would raise a lot of grass roots money and would have hired a lot of talented people to run his campaign.

They also figured that there would be enough economic recovery to further make Obama unbeatable.

To me, it is surprising that no other candidates joined in after the 2010 midterms. Maybe they figured that the GOP gains were due to the mediscare tactics they used in regards Obamacare and they figured that would not work again if Obama had a chance to respond.

Paul Ryan tried to play that mediscare trick and this time it blew up and he has built a reputation for not being truthful.

Romney was the only viable one who wanted the GOP nomination and he caught some breaks that made Obama beatable, the global economic problems and the impact on the economy due to the debt ceiling debate and crises in other nations' economies.

Even though Obama looked more beatable at times recently, none of the ones who did not run this time are regretting their decision. Their expectations that Obama's team would run an excellent campaign and be hard to beat are seeming accurate.

The problem with the GOP now is that their extremists have more power within the party and the GOP brand has lost its lustre.

Also, independent voters know the recent history of GOP policies and that it is not fair to blame Obama for a slow recovery when the GOP is on record saying that they want so much to defeat Obama that they will put that as a higher priority than taking action to boost the economy.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 02:25 PM
Oh, well, I guess we might as well vote for the guy who has demonstrated incompetence both in foreign affairs and in facilitating an economic turnaround.



Sounds like a good plan to me.

Romney could come out during the debates and rape babies and chickens and you'd find a way to justify his actions because he's a Republican.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 02:42 PM
Sounds like a good plan to me.

Romney could come out during the debates and rape babies and chickens and you'd find a way to justify his actions because he's a Republican.

Romney is a better man for the country. Barack Obama has proven that he doesn't have what it takes to do the job. Failure after failure after failure. It's pathetic.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 02:49 PM
Romney is a better man for the country. Barack Obama has proven that he doesn't have what it takes to do the job. Failure after failure after failure. It's pathetic.

Sure. Let's go back to the Bush Doctrine and policies.

That worked out so well the first time around.

bandwagonjumper
09-27-2012, 02:51 PM
I definetly stick with my Rick Perry pick. He is a Texan, has big money backers, he is godfearing, salt of the earth type of man who loves god and believes in the american dream. He might be a lousy candidate but that hasn't stopped Romney from maybe becoming president.

Baby Lee
09-27-2012, 02:55 PM
Sure. Let's go back to the Bush Doctrine and policies.

That worked out so well the first time around.

If you can't say anything at all you shouldn't say anything at all.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Sure. Let's go back to the Bush Doctrine and policies.

That worked out so well the first time around.

Bush? I thought we were talking about Romney and Obama.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 03:56 PM
Sounds like a good plan to me.

Romney could come out during the debates and rape babies and chickens and you'd find a way to justify his actions because he's a Republican.

Romney is a better man for the country. Barack Obama has proven that he doesn't have what it takes to do the job. Failure after failure after failure. It's pathetic.

I love how Pat doesn't even address the Romney raping of babies and chickens and jumps straight to disparaging Obama and defending Romney.

LMAO

patteeu
09-27-2012, 04:22 PM
I love how Pat doesn't even address the Romney raping of babies and chickens and jumps straight to disparaging Obama and defending Romney.

LMAO

Yeah, how could I ignore such witty and insightful commentary? Inexplicable.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 04:52 PM
Yeah, how could I ignore such witty and insightful commentary? Inexplicable.

I'm surprised in the least, especially considering that you wouldn't care if somebody raped your daughter with no chance of an abortion, just as long as the deficit was addressed.

Your head is so far up that elephant's ass you might as well just go by the name Dumbo.

ChiefaRoo
09-27-2012, 04:56 PM
Sure. Let's go back to the Bush Doctrine and policies.

That worked out so well the first time around.

This election has nothing to do with George Bush. Nothing at all.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 04:59 PM
I'm surprised in the least, especially considering that you wouldn't care if somebody raped your daughter with no chance of an abortion, just as long as the deficit was addressed.

Your head is so far up that elephant's ass you might as well just go by the name Dumbo.

You sure do talk about molesting children a lot.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 05:02 PM
This election has nothing to do with George Bush. Nothing at all.

What does it have to do with? I haven't heard a single, unified thought from the Romney campaign. I haven't heard any strategies of any kind, unless you call multiple gaffes a strategy.

All I've heard is that he's the Anti-Obama. Well, the S&P 500 broke records today, housing is up, the market's at an all time high, we're out of Iraq, we're close on Afghanistan, Bin Laden's dead - why should I vote for Romney?

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 05:04 PM
You sure do talk about molesting children a lot.

Ah, I see you're changing the subject because once again, you're getting your ass handed to you.

You should really quit, Pat. You're nothing more than a partisan hack with absolutely no ability to reason outside your Republican bubble.

And for the record, I respect Tom.Jay.61 FAR more than I'll ever respect you. At least he had the courtesy to engage in a debate and admit that he could not guarantee that Romney would address the deficit or "fix" the economy.

You, on the other hand, aren't so bright.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 05:22 PM
Ah, I see you're changing the subject because once again, you're getting your ass handed to you.

You should really quit, Pat. You're nothing more than a partisan hack with absolutely no ability to reason outside your Republican bubble.

And for the record, I respect Tom.Jay.61 FAR more than I'll ever respect you. At least he had the courtesy to engage in a debate and admit that he could not guarantee that Romney would address the deficit or "fix" the economy.

You, on the other hand, aren't so bright.

Are you done talking about having sex with kids? Glad you got it out of your system without going full Sandusky on anyone.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 05:37 PM
Are you done talking about having sex with kids? Glad you got it out of your system without going full Sandusky on anyone.

More empty talk from Pat.

What a surprise.

You really ARE a worthless fucking piece of shit. Good luck with that.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 05:43 PM
More empty talk from Pat.

What a surprise.

You really ARE a worthless ****ing piece of shit. Good luck with that.

Empty talk? Oh yeah, we should really get back to more substantive stuff like Romney fucking babies and chickens. Good point, Dane.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 05:43 PM
Are you done talking about having sex with kids? Glad you got it out of your system without going full Sandusky on anyone.

You are better than that Pat or at least I thought you were.

DaneMcCloud
09-27-2012, 05:45 PM
You are better than that Pat or at least I thought you were.

No, he's not.

He's just never been exposed due to the Right-slanted nature of this forum, which is due to the location of most of its residents.

He's just another loud mouthed piece of shit that when cornered, shows his fat ass.

Again, good job, Pat. You're a real mensch.

Chocolate Hog
09-27-2012, 11:13 PM
You can tell the Republicans are losing as Pat gets more desperate.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 05:17 AM
You can tell the Republicans are losing as Pat gets more desperate.

What makes you say I'm desperate?

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 08:00 AM
What makes you say I'm desperate?

During the spring, you claimed Herman Cain would make a better President than Obama.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:41 AM
During the spring, you claimed Herman Cain would make a better President than Obama.

That almost goes without saying. If anything, it's more evident now than ever before.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 10:14 AM
What makes you say I'm desperate?

Because you're an uncreative, stupid piece of shit that feels it's necessary to ATTACK the poster, instead of talking about the issue.

Face it, Pat: You're fucking a cunt. And now, everyone else knows it, too.

Good job.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 10:36 AM
You're LUCKY I didn't report your stupid ass. ...


For what? For reading your ruminations about my minor daughter getting raped?

patteeu
09-28-2012, 10:39 AM
Because you're an uncreative, stupid piece of shit that feels it's necessary to ATTACK the poster, instead of talking about the issue.

Forgive me for not recognizing your bizarre allegations about Romney raping babies and chickens as an "issue".

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 10:48 AM
That almost goes without saying. If anything, it's more evident now than ever before.

My point exactly.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 10:53 AM
My point exactly.

If your point was that it's self-evident that Herman Cain would make a better POTUS than Obama, we've found some common ground!

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 11:04 AM
If your point was that it's self-evident that Herman Cain would make a better POTUS than Obama, we've found some common ground!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vgx8n-TayY0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mlyonsd
09-28-2012, 11:15 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vgx8n-TayY0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Which of course is less damaging than actually lying to the American people about Libya, which the Obama administration has evidently done the last two weeks.

No, I think Cain would make a better president than Obama. Wouldn't take much.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 11:17 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vgx8n-TayY0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obama's Libya "gaffe":

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02337/benghazi-libya-2_2337023b.jpg

http://www.nation.com.pk/print_images/480/2012-09-13/us-ambassador-to-libya-killed-in-rocket-attack-1347483482-6132.jpg

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Obama's Libya "gaffe":

So in your opinion, this was not a weak crop of GOP POTUS candidates?

Obviously you love Romney. The rest of the field was strong to you?

If not, why was the field so weak this year?

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 11:24 AM
Obama's Libya "gaffe":

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02337/benghazi-libya-2_2337023b.jpg

http://www.nation.com.pk/print_images/480/2012-09-13/us-ambassador-to-libya-killed-in-rocket-attack-1347483482-6132.jpg

Its hard not to have a gaffe in 4 years. Obama's "gaffe" was apparently was an attack on the Libyan embassy. How should we see how this measures up? W's gaffes included 9/11 and invading the wrong country, and you love him. I'll take Obama.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 11:29 AM
So in your opinion, this was not a weak crop of GOP POTUS candidates?

Obviously you love Romney. The rest of the field was strong to you?

If not, why was the field so weak this year?

Aside from Romney, the candidates that I thought were strongest this time around, given the context of the state of the Obama economy and the government fiscal crisis, were Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels. I also expected more out of Tim Pawlenty. I'm not very big on Senators or Representatives as POTUS candidates, but there may have been a couple possible guys there (Thune, Coburn, ... ?) I don't know why those three guys didn't run other than the promise Christie made not to leave office during his first term (he did that once before early in his career and it didn't work out) and the apparent lack of enthusiasm on the part of Daniels' wife.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 11:55 AM
For what? For reading your ruminations about my minor daughter getting raped?

What? You're a fucking asshole. Do I need to dig up YOUR responses in the Akin thread?

Jesus Fucking Christ, you are gutless human being.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 11:56 AM
Forgive me for not recognizing your bizarre allegations about Romney raping babies and chickens as an "issue".

LMAO

More bullshit from the biggest piece of shit in this forum.

One thing's for certain, though: You're not a lawyer because no lawyer would say the shit you said in this thread.

And if you are, it's no wonder you post all day long because you SUCK at life.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 11:59 AM
So in your opinion, this was not a weak crop of GOP POTUS candidates?

Obviously you love Romney. The rest of the field was strong to you?

If not, why was the field so weak this year?

He loves anyone and everyone in the Republican Party. He's a phony piece of shit. Todd Akin is his hero.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 12:10 PM
What? You're a ****ing asshole. Do I need to dig up YOUR responses in the Akin thread?

Jesus ****ing Christ, you are gutless human being.

Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 12:18 PM
Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

LMAO

You're such a fucking cunt.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 12:19 PM
Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

Enough.

You've been reported.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 12:21 PM
Are you done talking about having sex with kids? Glad you got it out of your system without going full Sandusky on anyone.

Reported again.

Baby Lee
09-28-2012, 01:28 PM
If loving high fidelity music is a crime, color me John Wayne Sheppa- eerrr Kenny Wayne Gacy.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 01:47 PM
Enough.

You've been reported.

For what?

patteeu
09-28-2012, 01:49 PM
For what?

Reported again! /DaneMcLoud

Mr. Flopnuts
09-28-2012, 06:37 PM
LMAO I've never seen anyone get under Pat's skin like this. The Pedo talk is done. Consensus amongst all mods. It's going to be a bannable offense.

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 06:45 PM
LMAO I've never seen anyone get under Pat's skin like this. The Pedo talk is done. Consensus amongst all mods. It's going to be a bannable offense.

Seriously?

When you say bannable offense, do you mean marlboro chief ban or gochiefs ban?

mlyonsd
09-28-2012, 08:05 PM
I'm surprised in the least, especially considering that you wouldn't care if somebody raped your daughter with no chance of an abortion, just as long as the deficit was addressed.

Your head is so far up that elephant's ass you might as well just go by the name Dumbo.
You really are a stupid fuck.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-28-2012, 08:15 PM
Seriously?

When you say bannable offense, do you mean marlboro chief ban or gochiefs ban?

It's not going to be a permaban unless we multiple repeat offenses. Right now, it's a 1 point infraction and a friendly warning. This isn't my baby, but I agree with it.

headsnap
09-28-2012, 08:17 PM
It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

Here's another clip of his "leadership skills"

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5CSVSwSaypg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

:doh!:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4lyEOLtUhCM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 08:40 PM
:doh!:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4lyEOLtUhCM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

did you even listen to that? I didn't hear "Romney romney"at all in the Cspan "unedited version"

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 08:41 PM
It's not going to be a permaban unless we multiple repeat offenses. Right now, it's a 1 point infraction and a friendly warning. This isn't my baby, but I agree with it.

What about people who fuck old women? Can we still use that?

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 08:48 PM
You really are a stupid fuck.

Thanks. The feeling is mutual, BTW. I'm actually impressed that you have an original thought in your head. Is this a first?

And BTW, this came from the Akin thread in which Patteau said as much.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-28-2012, 08:50 PM
What about people who fuck old women? Can we still use that?

dude. Come on. It's one word. Fuck old people, animals, lamps, whatever. Just leave kid fucking out of it.

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 08:54 PM
dude. Come on. It's one word. **** old people, animals, lamps, whatever. Just leave kid ****ing out of it.

Look you lamp fucker I'm just fucking with you. Geez, go fuck an old lady and her goat.

o:-)

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:01 PM
LMAO I've never seen anyone get under Pat's skin like this. The Pedo talk is done. Consensus amongst all mods. It's going to be a bannable offense.

Who got under who's skin? Take a look at our profile page messages, take a look at our PM inboxes, consider who went crying to the mods when they couldn't take what they were dishing out. Or for that matter, just read this thread. And then get back to me on that.

As I mentioned to DaFace, this new modification to the pedo talk rule is unclear. Is the pedo reference made by Dane in post 124 going to be bannable? How about Dane's pedo reference in post 130 when he was mad that I didn't take his bait? How about his third pedo reference when he contemplated the rape of my daughter in post 132 because I was still ignoring them? Or is it only a bannable offense when someone serves Dane a taste of his own medicine in the form of an oblique pedo reference after repeated trolling efforts on his part?

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 09:03 PM
Who got under who's skin? Take a look at our profile page messages, take a look at our PM inboxes, consider who went crying to the mods when they couldn't take what they were dishing out. Or for that matter, just read this thread. And then get back to me on that.

As I mentioned to DaFace, this new modification to the pedo talk rule is unclear. Is the pedo reference made by Dane in post 124 going to be bannable? How about Dane's pedo reference in post 130 when he was mad that I didn't take his bait? How about his third pedo reference when he contemplated the rape of my daughter in post 132 because I was still ignoring them? Or is it only a bannable offense when someone serves Dane a taste of his own medicine in the form of an oblique pedo reference after repeated trolling efforts on his part?

LMAO

He renting space in yo head.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 09:04 PM
Who got under who's skin? Take a look at our profile page messages, take a look at our PM inboxes, consider who went crying to the mods when they couldn't take what they were dishing out. Or for that matter, just read this thread. And then get back to me on that.

As I mentioned to DaFace, this new modification to the pedo talk rule is unclear. Is the pedo reference made by Dane in post 124 going to be bannable? How about Dane's pedo reference in post 130 when he was mad that I didn't take his bait? How about his third pedo reference when he contemplated the rape of my daughter in post 132 because I was still ignoring them? Or is it only a bannable offense when someone serves Dane a taste of his own medicine in the form of an oblique pedo reference after repeated trolling efforts on his part?

Oh, give me a fucking break.

I don't know anything about you, Asswipe. I don't know if you have boys, girls or no kids whatsoever. Go ahead and tell me where I called you a Pedo - point it out.

Furthermore, you're such a fucking pussy that you wouldn't even respond to PM's or the notes I left on your page.

JFC, I cannot believe that you are so disconnected in life that you could make a statement like this but I guess I'm wrong.

Go fuck yourself, Pat. Fuck yourself and only you. Clear enough?

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:13 PM
Thanks. The feeling is mutual, BTW. I'm actually impressed that you have an original thought in your head. Is this a first?

And BTW, this came from the Akin thread in which Patteau said as much.

Either you're retarded (<-- in before bannable) or a liar.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:14 PM
Oh, give me a ****ing break.

I don't know anything about you, Asswipe. I don't know if you have boys, girls or no kids whatsoever. Go ahead and tell me where I called you a Pedo - point it out.

Furthermore, you're such a ****ing pussy that you wouldn't even respond to PM's or the notes I left on your page.

JFC, I cannot believe that you are so disconnected in life that you could make a statement like this but I guess I'm wrong.

Go **** yourself, Pat. **** yourself and only you. Clear enough?

I didn't say you called me a pedo. I didn't call you one either. Stay away from my kids though, just the same.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 09:14 PM
Either you're retarded (<-- in before bannable) or a liar.

Lying about what? JFC, you're delusional.

You told me that the economy and Romney were MORE important than abortion rights. I even asked you directly. If anyone's lying, it's you. But I'm a bigger man than that and won't accuse you of lying because you spew so much ridiculous shit in this forum that you obviously can't keep your shit straight.

I think it's time you take a break, Pat. It's only going to get worse.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:16 PM
LMAO

He renting space in yo head.

Yep. I can't stop thinking of him. I go to my PMs and he's there. I go to my visitors page and he's practically got it wallpapered. I come back here and there he is again. Nothing but Dane Dane Dane. ;)

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 09:17 PM
I didn't say you called me a pedo. I didn't call you one either. Stay away from my kids though, just the same.

LMAO

Remember when I told you I'd lost all respect for you in the Akin thread? Well believe it or not, that thing is now a black hole.

You're living in your own world and it's not the same one as the rest of us.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 09:18 PM
Yep. I can't stop thinking of him. I go to my PMs and he's there. I go to my visitors page and he's practically got it wallpapered. I come back here and there he is again. Nothing but Dane Dane Dane. ;)

;)

Everyone but you can see the truth. But then again, I think most people already knew that about you.

60,000+ posts, mostly in the D.C. 60,000+.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:19 PM
Lying about what? JFC, you're delusional.

You told me that the economy and Romney were MORE important than abortion rights. I even asked you directly. If anyone's lying, it's you. But I'm a bigger man than that and won't accuse you of lying because you spew so much ridiculous shit in this forum that you obviously can't keep your shit straight.

I think it's time you take a break, Pat. It's only going to get worse.

Yes, I absolutely believe that the economy is more important than the ability to abort babies legallly. I'm not OK with my daughter getting raped under any circumstances. BTW, while you're staying away from my kids, stay away from my wife too.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 09:20 PM
Yes, I absolutely believe that the economy is more important than the ability to abort babies legallly. I'm not OK with my daughter getting raped under any circumstances. BTW, while you're staying away from my kids, stay away from my wife too.

Keep it up, Pat. That vacation won't come voluntarily.

mlyonsd
09-29-2012, 06:24 AM
Thanks. The feeling is mutual, BTW. I'm actually impressed that you have an original thought in your head. Is this a first?

And BTW, this came from the Akin thread in which Patteau said as much.
No, my comment came from you going over the line in a post and then crying to the mods like a ****ing pussy. You're just a stupid ****ing pussy.

Weren't you off the board for a while? Was it because you were banned or just being a pussy?

Baby Lee
09-29-2012, 07:10 AM
No, my comment came from you going over the line in a post and then crying to the mods like a ****ing pussy. You're just a stupid ****ing pussy.

Weren't you off the board for a while? Was it because you were banned or just being a pussy?

http://images.jambase.com/fans/MountFunk/the_big_lebowski_jesus1.jpg

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:41 AM
No, my comment came from you going over the line in a post and then crying to the mods like a ****ing pussy. You're just a stupid ****ing pussy.

Where was Pat's White Knight in the Akin thread? And crying to the mods? You're a fucking buffoon and every one knows it.

Weren't you off the board for a while? Was it because you were banned or just being a pussy?

Go fuck yourself. Oh, and don't forget to collect your Social Security check.

LMAO

Fucking poser.

mlyonsd
09-29-2012, 10:44 AM
Go **** yourself. Oh, and don't forget to collect your Social Security check.


I'm not old enough yet. Don't put any more years on me then necessary.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm not old enough yet. Don't put any more years on me then necessary.

But you're going to collect it and have already admitted as such.

Isn't that called "Hypocritical"? Or is that word conveniently absent in your personal dictionary in this case?

Again, you're a fucking poser.

mlyonsd
09-29-2012, 10:52 AM
But you're going to collect it and have already admitted as such.

Isn't that called "Hypocritical"? Or is that word conveniently absent in your personal dictionary in this case?

Again, you're a ****ing poser.
There is nothing hypocritical in collecting what is owed you. The one good thing about an Obama reelection is I won't need to be concerned my benefits will be cut. While he kicks the can down the alley I win and you'll get stuck with the bill. Awesome.

And define 'poser'. I'd like to know what you mean by that. That's such an old term I'd like to know if there is more meaning.

patteeu
09-29-2012, 11:25 AM
Dane to the mods: Help! Stop the fight I started.

http://funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/mitch-green-eye-2-ab-100509.jpg

go bowe
09-29-2012, 02:31 PM
What about people who **** old women? Can we still use that?

HEY!

be careful what you say about old women!! :#

Calcountry
09-29-2012, 02:42 PM
I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I do think a businessman is more appropriate to repair our economy than a "community organizer".

Obama has been every bit as over his head and terrible as I feared and there aren't many legitimate candidates that I wouldn't vote for over him on either party.If you said Obama was inexperienced, you were a racist in 2008.

Just ask Bill.

Calcountry
09-29-2012, 02:44 PM
How ****ing stupid. Yes, what we need is someone with bigger lapel pins.Not at all, Michelle Obama said as much. "She is only now proud of America, in her adult lifetime". Now that her hubby is pres.

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 09:07 PM
Dane to the mods: Help! Stop the fight I started.



You know Pat, you've been proven to be even more of a disconnected fucking prick in this thread.

If calling someone a "Pedo" is your only line of defense, not only are you a fucking scumbag, you've lost the fight.

There has NEVER been a bigger fucking pussy in the HISTORY of Chiefsplanet than you.

You're a 49 year old piece of fucking shit. You should be embarrassed, Motherfucker, but clearly, you're too fucking stupid.

Brock
09-29-2012, 11:14 PM
Love is in the air

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 11:50 PM
There is nothing hypocritical in collecting what is owed you.

Your entire party is bashing anyone and everyone that is due or collecting "Entitlements", yet you back them. So with that being the case, isn't it hypocritical for you, as a die hard Republican, to accept Social Security benefits, especially since your party is attempting demonize ALL entitlements?

Are you a cafeteria Republican?

The one good thing about an Obama reelection is I won't need to be concerned my benefits will be cut. While he kicks the can down the alley I win and you'll get stuck with the bill. Awesome.

Dude, here's the BIG difference between you and your ilk and me: I have NEVER, not for ONE second, EVER thought I'd see Social Security benefits. EVER.

I've heard this story since I was a kid in the 80's: The government is abusing Social Security and it won't be there in 20 years, blah, blah, blah. So, I've never once counted on it. Ever.

Furthermore, retirement is a joke. Unless you have at least $2 million in the bank and your home completely paid off by age 65, you're not retiring at age 65. Well, unless you live in a city or state that's either extremely cheap or extremely depressed.

I'm pretty much planning to work until the day I die. And that's fine by me.

And define 'poser'. I'd like to know what you mean by that. That's such an old term I'd like to know if there is more meaning.

Phony. Fake. In your case, RINO. Those aren't insults, they're fact. If you truly believed in what your party was spewing, you'd refuse to cash the SS checks.

mlyonsd
09-30-2012, 05:46 AM
Your entire party is bashing anyone and everyone that is due or collecting "Entitlements", yet you back them. So with that being the case, isn't it hypocritical for you, as a die hard Republican, to accept Social Security benefits, especially since your party is attempting demonize ALL entitlements?

Are you a cafeteria Republican?


First of all yes I'm a cafeteria republican. I go against the grain because I'm willing to do what it takes to turn the economy around. In that I believe we should drop all the Obama tax cuts across the board since a flat tax is out of the question.

Either you aren't paying attention or your partisan rose colored glasses are getting in the way of what republicans believe about entitlements. I think most conservatives believe there is a place for things like Medicaid. There will always be people that need it. What we don't like is abuse of the system. Abuse can be people going out of their way to live off the government, and it can also be a political party implementing policies that make it easy for people to abuse it. For the later I'll use the 2009 stimulus as an example. Dems spent a trillion dollars as a stop gap and food stamps have still risen to record numbers. That's fact you can't spin.

Instead of working to keep SS solvent, we passed a 2% payroll tax cut for little more than political reasons. Both parties are guilty of that. Both parties are guilty of the position we're in. It's time to take the medicine and quit lying to the public.


Dude, here's the BIG difference between you and your ilk and me: I have NEVER, not for ONE second, EVER thought I'd see Social Security benefits. EVER.

I've heard this story since I was a kid in the 80's: The government is abusing Social Security and it won't be there in 20 years, blah, blah, blah. So, I've never once counted on it. Ever.

Furthermore, retirement is a joke. Unless you have at least $2 million in the bank and your home completely paid off by age 65, you're not retiring at age 65. Well, unless you live in a city or state that's either extremely cheap or extremely depressed.

I'm pretty much planning to work until the day I die. And that's fine by me.

I'm thrilled you are willing to for go SS. I doubt that you will not accept the benefit though when the time comes. I think it's silly you are paying into the system and don't want to keep your politicians accountable. Maybe that's the difference between us, I have this expectation for accountability. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with expecting the government to hold up their end of the bargain in the SS contract. Not to do so just means you're part of the problem and politicians will just use you as a pawn.


Phony. Fake. In your case, RINO. Those aren't insults, they're fact. If you truly believed in what your party was spewing, you'd refuse to cash the SS checks.
While I agree with your definition I don't agree with your conclusion. To play the 'if you believe in your convictions you wouldn't cash the checks' card is just a way to justify ignoring the issue.

patteeu
09-30-2012, 06:25 AM
You know Pat, you've been proven to be even more of a disconnected ****ing prick in this thread.

If calling someone a "Pedo" is your only line of defense, not only are you a ****ing scumbag, you've lost the fight.

There has NEVER been a bigger ****ing pussy in the HISTORY of Chiefsplanet than you.

You're a 49 year old piece of ****ing shit. You should be embarrassed, Mother****er, but clearly, you're too ****ing stupid.

You're an illiterate moron. I didn't call anyone a pedo. What I actually said was you talk about raping kids a lot (which is true, no fewer than 3 unprovoked references in this thread) but that I was glad you got it out of your system without actually doing it. That's the opposite of saying you sexually molest kids. That said, I don't know you at all so I don't know whether you do or not. I do know you're a creepy guy who loses control easily though.

Swanman
10-01-2012, 11:40 AM
Obama's Libya "gaffe":



Did you think that possibly people don't want to click in a thread and see a photo of a dead body? I guess anything to make your point, huh? Piece of shit.

Swanman
10-01-2012, 11:44 AM
You're an illiterate moron. I didn't call anyone a pedo. What I actually said was you talk about raping kids a lot (which is true, no fewer than 3 unprovoked references in this thread) but that I was glad you got it out of your system without actually doing it. That's the opposite of saying you sexually molest kids. That said, I don't know you at all so I don't know whether you do or not. I do know you're a creepy guy who loses control easily though.

Quoting you - Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

Close enough.

patteeu
10-01-2012, 12:09 PM
Did you think that possibly people don't want to click in a thread and see a photo of a dead body? I guess anything to make your point, huh? Piece of shit.

He wasn't dead in that picture according to witnesses (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57514246/libya-witness-stevens-was-alive-when-found/). Just to be safe, maybe you should put me on ignore. You'd better batten down your information hatches even tighter than they already are if that picture offended you.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/770749/original.jpg

patteeu
10-01-2012, 12:21 PM
Quoting you - Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

Close enough.

It either was or it wasn't. In this case, it clearly wasn't (as evidenced by the fact that you had to resort to saying it was "close"). "Close" can mean anything depending on any arbitrary standard like whether or not I've clowned you in the past.

We're talking about a guy who, unprompted by any talk on my part of sex with children, asserted that I'd be fine with the rape of my daughter as long as the deficit was addressed. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the topic or, obviously, reality. And you apparently had no problem with it. But if I tell the creepy guy to stay away from my kid, I've come too close. You're a joke.

Swanman
10-01-2012, 12:36 PM
It either was or it wasn't. In this case, it clearly wasn't (as evidenced by the fact that you had to resort to saying it was "close"). "Close" can mean anything depending on any arbitrary standard like whether or not I've clowned you in the past.

We're talking about a guy who, unprompted by any talk on my part of sex with children, asserted that I'd be fine with the rape of my daughter as long as the deficit was addressed. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the topic or, obviously, reality. And you apparently had no problem with it. But if I tell the creepy guy to stay away from my kid, I've come too close. You're a joke.

The comment about rape obviously had to do with the far right wing wanted to outlaw abortions even in the case of rape. His assertion was that you are more concerned about the deficit than that particular social issue. The comment was out of line (leave families out of this) but in no way was he advocating that act.

Swanman
10-01-2012, 12:39 PM
He wasn't dead in that picture according to witnesses (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57514246/libya-witness-stevens-was-alive-when-found/). Just to be safe, maybe you should put me on ignore. You'd better batten down your information hatches even tighter than they already are if that picture offended you.


By the time the pic was published, it was well known that he was dead at that point. It's damn sure known that he is dead in the pic at this point.

patteeu
10-01-2012, 01:34 PM
The comment about rape obviously had to do with the far right wing wanted to outlaw abortions even in the case of rape. His assertion was that you are more concerned about the deficit than that particular social issue. The comment was out of line (leave families out of this) but in no way was he advocating that act.

I didn't say he advocated the act. I said he (falsely) accused me of being indifferent to it as long as the deficit was reduced. Coming up with a completely out-of-the-blue example like that after twice posting about baby-rape as if I find it acceptable in a candidate makes him a creepy guy though, IMO. And let's not lose sight of the fact that I ignored his creepiness the first couple of times, but he didn't seem to want to take that for an answer.

I don't know if the comment was out of line or not, but it provides the context for my later comments. It's curious that you read right past them without pointing out that they were out of line though and then somehow found the motivation to criticize my response.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 01:36 PM
Not at all, Michelle Obama said as much. "She is only now proud of America, in her adult lifetime". Now that her hubby is pres.

I wouldn't piss on that bitch if she was on fire, unless I had a gasoline bladder.

Calcountry
10-08-2012, 06:30 PM
I wouldn't piss on that bitch if she was on fire, unless I had a gasoline bladder.Sorry, I think that post is over the line.

:shake:

ClevelandBronco
10-08-2012, 08:24 PM
Sorry, I think that post is over the line.

:shake:

Seconded. I think that out of respect for her position patriotic Americans should set aside their partisan bickering and piss on the bitch without regard to whether she is currently in flames and no matter the contents of their bladders.

patteeu
10-08-2012, 08:31 PM
Seconded. I think that out of respect for her position patriotic Americans should set aside their partisan bickering and piss on the bitch without regard to whether she is currently in flames and no matter the contents of their bladders.

ROFL

Saul Good
10-08-2012, 09:01 PM
Dane should keep talking about having sex with the children of other posters. It's bound to go well for him eventually.

rabblerouser
11-05-2012, 05:00 PM
Dane to the mods: Help! Stop the fight I started.

http://funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/mitch-green-eye-2-ab-100509.jpg

Hahaha!! Dane is a total windbag pussy.

Baby Lee
11-08-2012, 11:45 PM
He's a solidly charitable and compassionate man, but his faith structure mandates that he not publicize that fact. So the way is cleared to distribute the narrative that he hoards his wealth and only cares about the wealthy, when the truth is the polar opposite.

He believes that individual, local, community compassion is superior to faceless federal entitlement, but he also believes that those actual acts of individual, local community compassion are private matters. This leaves the conundrum of a powerful message that should be widely applauded, but should not be promoted, just somehow understood. People aren't mind-readers, though.

In sum, I freely admit that he's an unpopular candidate, but fully believe that, if elected, would become a highly popular leader.

Funnily enough, it was less than a day after the election that even Obama cheerleader Sullivan was exploring this very point, with a discussion on how Romney didn't sufficiently exploit the positives of his Mormonism to his own detriment.

patteeu
11-09-2012, 06:51 AM
Funnily enough, it was less than a day after the election that even Obama cheerleader Sullivan was exploring this very point, with a discussion on how Romney didn't sufficiently exploit the positives of his Mormonism to his own detriment.

Leaving politics and policy aside, he's a much better man than the guy he ran against, IMO.