Nanker Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Of course he's pro war - he's got a horse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Even a Novel Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean that the Oval Office occupant won't send cruise missiles into aspirin factories or use Predator spy planes to track Americans abroad and unleash Hellfire upon them from the safe comfortable confines of the Presidential Situation Room. The one thing I truly appreciate about Obama is that he makes liberals twist into hypocritical pretzels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Nobody really wants to think about Romney Joe. Everybody gets it, without money he would be just another "already ran, lost in the primary" candidate. But weak candidates ran for the GOP this year and he spent his way through it pretty easily although it did take some time. The point being, no matter what, people really don't care about Romney. They just want Obama out. It's that simple. So don't put too many calories into "who is Romney" on this board. Romney is "not Obama." And therefore Romney should be the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Hey........it must be disturbing.............its ALL IN CAPS..............we should investigate. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 And btw Starship troopers sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Nobody really wants to think about Romney Joe. Everybody gets it, without money he would be just another "already ran, lost in the primary" candidate. But weak candidates ran for the GOP this year and he spent his way through it pretty easily although it did take some time. The point being, no matter what, people really don't care about Romney. They just want Obama out. It's that simple. So don't put too many calories into "who is Romney" on this board. Romney is "not Obama." And therefore Romney should be the President. That & it's been a while since anyone other than Walter Sobchak gave a **** about Viet Nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 And btw Starship troopers sucks You suck!!11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) And therefore Romney should be the President. Hey, it worked for Obama. All we did leading up the election is talk about how little experience he had doing anything in life that didn't include a bong, a line of coke, a piece of chalk or a textbook. But he wasn't Bush. And you got your guy. The difference is that there's at least a chance that Romney will know how to make both sides get along. Not to mention all he has to do is get elected and cut a few regulations and the economy will blow past anything Obama could even imagine doing based on his ideology. That, I suspect, is what liberals fear most: the obvious truth that compared to Obama, a wet mop could make a few quick moves to get confidence back in the private sector and get people growing and hiring again. Edited August 6, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Nobody really wants to think about Romney Joe. Everybody gets it, without money he would be just another "already ran, lost in the primary" candidate. But weak candidates ran for the GOP this year and he spent his way through it pretty easily although it did take some time. The point being, no matter what, people really don't care about Romney. They just want Obama out. It's that simple. So don't put too many calories into "who is Romney" on this board. Romney is "not Obama." And therefore Romney should be the President. That's mainly it. But Romney has shown leadership and business acumen that Barry could only ever dream of possessing. And Barry's results speak for themselves, which is why he needs to drown out the cacophony with peripheral BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I sincerely believe that Starship Troopers should be mandatory viewing for all American males. NERDS!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Concern is fine. But what he'll do in office is anyone's guess. Well yeah but all we can do is make educated guesses based on what they say now and what they've done in the past. I wreckoned what hes saying was pretty much baked in the cake no matter who got the nod (sans Paul): BOs weak on defense, doesn't know economics, will raise your taxes, will attack traditional values, blah blah. Just like dems would attack repub with slave to big business, will shift tax burden from rich to poor, will pursue a wreckless bush-like foreign policy blah blah. So I figured that was platform rhetoric from Romney and I wasn't giving it a lot of weight. And certainly BO has disappointed me by not being a leader and getting sucked into a neocon agenda too, is another reason I didn't see a huge divide between them here. But when you add romneys words now with his actions then, it paints a picture of a war hawk who pumps others to fight while he uses every trick in the book to keep his own nuts out of harms way. No that's not what I want as president. As much as I wanted to like Romney becusse my views on economy are more inline with his (although not totally), his foreign policy stuff is pushing me back to BO for 2 reasons : 1. Specter of more irresponsible foreign wars 2. Given the costs of war ($1 trillion in iraq) you can't seperate it from the economy. It will crater the best free market agenda. Edited August 6, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Well yeah but all we can do is make educated guesses based on what they say now and what they've done in the past. I wreckoned what hes saying was pretty much baked in the cake no matter who got the nod (sans Paul): BOs weak on defense, doesn't know economics, will raise your taxes, will attack traditional values, blah blah. Just like dems would attack repub with slave to big business, will shift tax burden from rich to poor, will pursue a wreckless bush-like foreign policy blah blah. So I figured that was platform rhetoric from Romney and I wasn't giving it a lot of weight. And certainly BO has disappointed me by not being a leader and getting sucked into a neocon agenda too, is another reason I didn't see a huge divide between them here. But when you add romneys words now with his actions then, it paints a picture of a war hawk who pumps others to fight while he uses every trick in the book to keep his own nuts out of harms way. No that's not what I want as president. As much as I wanted to like Romney becusse my views on economy are more inline with his (although not totally), his foreign policy stuff is pushing me back to BO for 2 reasons : 1. Specter of more irresponsible foreign wars 2. Given the costs of war ($1 trillion in iraq) you can't seperate it from the economy. It will crater the best free market agenda. Bit of a stretch here; Romney basically sends the message that he's willing to take military action if necessary and that makes him a war hawk? I gotta think liberals were either bullies or bullied kids who never learned how to stand up to the bully. Just like you deal with a bully, you want to let everyone know that you're happy to get along but have it understood that if they !@#$ with you you'll put them on their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Nobody really wants to think about Romney Joe. Everybody gets it, without money he would be just another "already ran, lost in the primary" candidate. Wow, really? Without money someone wouldn't have won their party's nomination? You're really shedding some new light with this observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I love how using a college deferment is suddenly every trick in the book. Just like using the current tax code and paying 13% on Capital gains is using every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes. Sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Bit of a stretch here; Romney basically sends the message that he's willing to take military action if necessary and that makes him a war hawk? I gotta think liberals were either bullies or bullied kids who never learned how to stand up to the bully. Just like you deal with a bully, you want to let everyone know that you're happy to get along but have it understood that if they !@#$ with you you'll put them on their asses. Sure I get that and it worked for Reagan getting soviets to blink, but this romney's coming across as a different cat to me. As aggressive and singularly focused as he was at Bain (which I dont fault him for and rather have defended) I can see him being the same way on foreign policy, which I don't want. Gotta show judgement here, reagan showed a strong hand to the soviets calculating they'd fold, which they did, thereby lessening the chances of a catastrophic super power confrontation. I call that good judgement. Going head first into wars with blinders on what Im starting to see Romney do, I call wreckless leading to disaster at home and abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Wow, really? Without money someone wouldn't have won their party's nomination? You're really shedding some new light with this observation. Allow me to clarify, without much more money than his opponents. I'm sure everyone else on PPP got it but I know you are on the slow end so I'll try and be more clear since I know you are reading now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Sure I get that and it worked for Reagan getting soviets to blink, but this romney's coming across as a different cat to me. As aggressive and singularly focused as he was at Bain (which I dont fault him for and rather have defended) I can see him being the same way on foreign policy, which I don't want. Gotta show judgement here, reagan showed a strong hand to the soviets calculating they'd fold, which they did, thereby lessening the chances of a catastrophic super power confrontation. I call that good judgement. Going head first into wars with blinders on what Im starting to see Romney do, I call wreckless leading to disaster at home and abroad. How does Romney differ from Obama as far as stated foreign policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Is his any worse than Clinton's? Bill Clinton? Ha... Still bringing up his name? Clinton bad! It is worse than Kerry's that is for sure. Let me refresh you libs: A. B. O. Anybody But Obama Heck, the conserves would vote for Lyndon Larouche over Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Bill Clinton? Ha... Still bringing up his name? Clinton bad! It is worse than Kerry's that is for sure. Let me refresh you libs: A. B. O. Anybody But Obama Heck, the conserves would vote for Lyndon Larouche over Obama. Kerry wasn't a president. And yes, A.B.O...especially when the other guy is infinitely more qualified and the country is in the crapper under O after 4 years as prez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 JFK - a war "hero" solidly put our azz in Vietnam. LBJ - a Naval officer in WWII ramped up that god damned abomination till over 58,000 Americans died and a few million others were !@#$ed over. Nixon - like LBJ, was a Naval commander and HE ENDED the Vietnam war. Harry Truman dropped the big one - twice. And he was a WWI vet. Yeah, it's a great predictor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts