Mormon President?

Quote:

Anonymous One said:
Oh great the "Hitler/Nazi" argument.

Uschi brought up David Duke, not me.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Anonymous One said:
Oh great the "Hitler/Nazi" argument.

Uschi brought up David Duke, not me.

David Duke is KKK Leader and therefor a White Supremicist. That's very similar but not the same thing as an actual member of the Nazi Party.

Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Stop bringing up the Nazi party

Quote:

the G-man said:
fDon't ube cstupid, kbe a ysmartie. oStop ubringing up the Nazi party

Well I have never been so insulted by one of such poor intellect in all my years.
Good day to you, sir!

I said good day.

I can't really say I'd give a rats arse about whether he is a Mormon or n ot. I'm not cynical about the fact he rewriting his view point on various issues in a bid to become elected.

But hey, I don't get a vote so it doesn't matter what I think!

James Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com. He notes that:

Romney: U.S. will survive the tough times

People who vote are idiots.

Seriously did your dog die this-morning or something?

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
Seriously did your dog die this-morning or something?

...it's a joke. Do you always take things so seriously?

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
Seriously did your dog die this-morning or something?

...it's a joke. Do you always take things so seriously?

I was just wondering, because it seemed like an onslaught from you all at once. No offence, but maybe you need to get a new schtick.

Mitt Romney's traveling to the Vatican today to attend Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley's elevation to cardinal.

Also, he's declining to issue the annual gubernatorial proclamation celebrating the 1972 Supreme Court case Eisenstadt v. Baird, which legalized birth control for unmarried couples, as a precursor to Roe v. Wade. He issued the proclamation last year, though omitted the traditional references to Roe v. Wade.

This gradual turning away from Roe is a far cry from his answer to Planned Parenthood's 2002 candidate questionnaire. To the question "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?" Romney answered, "yes."

The American Spectator argues that Romney is quietly emerging the most viable presidential candidate to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani:

For social conservatives, he has swung pro-life on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. To burnish his supply-side credentials, he has pressed the Democratic legislature to lower tax rates and signed into law the nation's largest sales-tax holiday. And when Sen. John Kerry argued that Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror, Romney -- who traveled to Baghdad in May -- countered by saying the 2004 Democratic nominee "shows a complete lack of understanding of the kind of enemy we're facing."

Romney bars state security for Iranian's Harvard visit

surprised and disappointed

Romney to File Papers on Wednesday to Run for President

Romney's exploratory site now up.

In brief perusal, my favorite slogans so far are:

On a serious note, the site is easy to navigate and quite informative. That's always a bonus in today's cluttered webosphere.

The Associated Press reports that that the tally for Romney's kickoff fundraising call-a-thon is over $6 million:

At the same time, however, a recent Investor’s Business Daily poll is pretty consistent with most 2008 general election polls, showing McCain and Giuliani ahead of potential Democratic rivals, and Romney losing handily to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

For Romney to win the Republican nomination, he not only has to convince primary voters that he’s adequately conservative, but that he can win in November.

Supporters of Romney would argue that the fact that he won in the solidly blue state of Massachusetts is proof positive that he would be competitive in a general election. However, it’s worth noting that the Romney who won the Massachusetts governor’s mansion in 2002 was the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, moderate Romney, not the “evolved” conservative he’s portraying himself as now.

In fact, a SurveyUSA poll taken last month showed that his approval rating in Massachusetts was 39 percent vs. a disapproval rating of 59 percent—among “independents” his approval rating was a slightly higher but still lackluster 42 percent.

The obvious caveat applies that we’re 22 months from Election Day 2008 and such horse race polls are meaningless, especially because Romney remains unknown to most Americans.

However, at some point the electability issue will be a factor in the Republican primaries, and those hypothetical matchups will have to look better for Romney or the money he's raising may not help him much.

Its being reported that former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is endorsing Romney.

Wow...IF Hastert were still speaker, and if he hadn't become associated with Mark Foley, and completely fumbling the response and public statements in the aftermath, this endorsement would really mean something.

The New York Times has an interesting story detailing Mitt Romney's recent contributions to various conservative organizations.

It should be noted that FBI head J. Edgar Hoover prefered to hire Mormons: they're anti-drug, clean-living lifestyle made them hard to influence. That fat cross-dresser certainly had no problem with their religion.

I like Mitt...

A clip of Romney's Leno appearance is up on YouTube. From this bit, looks like he did a good job.

If nothing else, it might get Ray to vote for him.

You forgot to pin this one too.

assuming makes an ass out of you. period.

Quote:

Uschi said:
No, I only wanted the ones people gave a shit about. Just over a year and a half to elections, no better time to make it easier to look at the issues.

Romney, Thompson and Gore are all popular and, in some cases, more popular in national polls than the candidates you "pinned", even though the latter two haven't even announced.

Furthermore, at this early stage of proceedings, it is impossible to know who will inevitably win either party's nomination. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, beating a crowded field.

So if your goal is to allow the readers easy access to the positions, or other information, about potential nominees, you have probably failed.

But, its okay. I realize that you're not very well read about U.S. politics, since that would tend to undermine your attempt at creating a "bad girl anarchist" image for yourself.

y'know, if I was YOU, I'd be deleting these posts for being off-topic and for spamming the forum. Perspective.

Hey, I'm just trying to help by showing you that there are plenty of candidates out there and that you've actually missed a number of the major contenders.

That's right uschit! G-man is just trying to help you out. You should be on your knees thanking him.

He's compared me to his daughter more than twice.

...he'd probably enjoy that.

Well at least he (Romney) has magic underpants. The Commander in Chief should have magic underpants.

Romney Works to Put Skeptics’ Doubts to Rest

Sharpton said Romney doesn't believe in God.

BUCKLE BUGABOO FOR MITT AND MATT

"Today" show co-host Matt Lauer and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney apologized yesterday for conducting an interview in a moving car without wearing their seat belts.

Heh. That's funny.

Quote:

Romney Struggles to Define Abortion Stance
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A01

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide.

In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to "let states make their own decision in this regard." On Aug. 6, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.

"I do support the Republican platform, and I do support that being part of the Republican platform, and I'm pro-life," Romney said in the ABC interview, broadcast days before his victory among conservative Iowa voters in the Ames straw poll.

The two very different statements reflect the challenge for Romney, who has reinvented himself as a champion of the antiabortion movement in recent years and is seeking to become the conservative alternative to former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

Critics, including his GOP rivals, have questioned his commitment to the antiabortion cause, contrasting his statements as a pro-abortion-rights governor earlier this decade with his antiabortion rhetoric as a presidential candidate.
...

Washington Post

Originally Posted By: King Snarf

nope, but that fag sure hated fags!

bigoted slurs used only in an ironic sense!

New York Post:

Republican Mitt Romney yesterday bluntly challenged his party to "put our own house in order" as the GOP presidential candidates courted activists in Michigan, now an important player in the nomination march.

"Washington is failing us," Romney said in a speech that's part of a new effort to cast him as the candidate who can lead the party back to its core principles.

Romney offered a sobering assessment of the party and argued that Republicans share the blame with Democrats for the nation's woes. In an indictment of the GOP, he bemoaned excessive spending, insecure borders and ethical lapses.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Romney offered a sobering assessment of the party and argued that Republicans share the blame with Democrats for the nation's woes....

how is the blame shared when the Republicans had unchallenged control when everything went to shit.
this is obviously just a reaction to bush's sagging ratings. The same shit Bush pulled in 2000 with his "uniter not a divider" bs.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Romney offered a sobering assessment of the party and argued that Republicans share the blame with Democrats for the nation's woes....

This has been brewing for months amongst the GOP. They have a big problem with the 08 election & the way the polls have been shaping up. They know they have to find some way of sepperating themselves from Bush & present themselves as agents of change. I don't see it as beeing realistic though.

You tried the "Planting a New Bush" tag on Rudy. Now you're throwing it on Romney too?

Eventually, will you retitle every thread about a republican to read "Planting a New Bush"? If so, won't that make it hard to tell who you're smearing at any given moment?

Most of the top GOP candidates are very similar to Bush policy wise. Heck, they even share the new talking points! Bush now has decided that he's fiscally conservative.
New York Times

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Bush now has decided that he's fiscally conservative.

you kind of have to be fiscally conservative after you blow through the bank accounts and max out all the cards.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Bush now has decided that he's fiscally conservative.

you kind of have to be fiscally conservative after you blow through the bank accounts and max out all the cards.

It's fair to say that Bush has not used his veto power to reign in fiscal spending (i.e., Congressional pork add-ons.)
And it's fair to say that Bush has increased the debt by reducing taxes in a time of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of increased homeland security spending, that either reducing or eliminating the tax breaks would have offset.

But it's not fair to absolve the Democrats who pushed for this pork spending, and blame the debt completely on W. Bush and/or the Republicans.

As I've said before, 7 of the top 10 donors to the Republicans are also among the top 10 donors to the Democrats. The same influences that push for these measures, offshoring, free trade, open borders, etc., leverage these things from members of both parties.

Let's be honest, and admit that there was a huge national debt way before W. Bush ever took office.

Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget for a few years in the latter part of his term. But that was because the Republicans took over the Senate in 1994, and their "Contract With America" that got them elected included balancing the budget. If Clinton hadn't changed gears mid-presidency and adopted a priority of balancing the budget, he would have been voted out in 1996.

Likewise, Republicans elected Bush expecting a fiscally responsible Republican, and instead got a president who doesn't utilize his veto power over congressional spending. On this and many issues, W. Bush departs from true conservatism.

More on topic, I like Romney.

He speaks like a Reagan conservative, particularly on the issue of enforcing existing immigration laws and securing our borders.

I'm not blind to the fact that his positions have changed on a number of issues (largely because he had to take a more liberal stance to be elected and govern a liberal state like Massachusetts.) But if he can be trusted to follow through on his rhetoric, I think he'd be a good president.

I also like Tancredo, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain, despite questionable aspects of each.

And Biden and Dodd on the Democrat side.

MITT HAS A FIT OVER UNHOLY POLLING

Mitt Romney cried foul yesterday over dirty-tricks phone calls to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that raised questions about his Mormon faith.

The 20-minute calls started last Sunday in the two early-voting states, where the Republican presidential hopeful is leading - and some have accused rivals Rudy Giuliani or John McCain of being behind the so-called push polls. Both campaigns deny the allegations.

Those who received the calls said they were asked whether they knew that the former Massachusetts governor was a Mormon, that he had received military deferments when he served as a Mormon missionary in France and that his five sons did not serve in the military.

The callers also said Mormons did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s and that they believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible, according to those called.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office has launched an investigation.

Quote:

Romney: …And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King.

Mitt Romney has defended his position on civil rights, in multiple high-profile settings, by insisting that his father marched with Martin Luther King during his tenure as governor of Michigan in the 1960s. Pressed for specifics, the Romney campaign pointed to an event that occurred in Grosse Point, Mich.

The claim appears to be false — Romney’s father did not march with King. Unfortunately, the campaign has come up with an unpersuasive defense.

Quote:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.

On Wednesday, Romney’s campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.

“He was speaking figuratively, not literally,” Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.

C’mon, Romney campaign, you can do better than this. Romney told two national television audiences, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” That was a “figurative” claim?

I wonder what might have happened to Al Gore seven years ago if, confronted with the manufactured controversy about “inventing the Internet,” he said, “I meant that figuratively.”

And Republicans still wonder why blacks don't vote for them. Not only is he part of a racist religion, he tries to lie to people about his family's civil rights cred.

Fucking Mormons.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Romney... Not only is he part of a racist religion...

No, Obama's the Muslim. Rommney's just a Mormon.

But, seriously, even if you accept that Mormanism is a "racist religion," it doesn't necessarily follow that Rommney is a racist. Presidents (like the general public) often eschew negative or outmoded aspects of their religion. For example, you will recall that John Kerry was both Catholic and pro-choice.

Quote:

...he tries to lie to people about his family's civil rights cred.

Rommney's exaggerations here are troubling, especially in their resemblance to Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore. However, it should be noted that his father (Detroit Governor George Romney) did, in fact, have a very good record on civil rights:

Martin Luther King Jr. didn't fault Romney for his absence [at the march], which the governor ascribed to his policy against public appearances on the Sabbath.

"Issuing the proclamation [supporting the march], and sending his personal representatives, was probably more than 49 other governors would have been willing to do at that time," says Clayborne Carson, director of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University. "It took considerable courage."

Romney would go much further, participating in a small demonstration in Grosse Pointe later that week; refusing to endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964, largely because of Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act; and, in 1965, marching in Detroit to protest the police actions in Selma, Alabama.

These acts placed him at odds with his political party and with his church leadership.

Al Gore never said he "invented the internet." he made an accurate statement based on his career.
look it up. but i guess you can't do that since it wouldruin your old standby.

whomod originally brought up the Gore comparison with his post. I was responding to him.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

whomod originally brought up the Gore comparison with his post. I was responding to him.

Well then you need to go back and see what I posted.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I wonder what might have happened to Al Gore seven years ago if, confronted with the manufactured controversy about “inventing the Internet,” he said, “I meant that figuratively.”

keywords being "manufactured controversy". It was a lie. He never said that. But as is th wont of liars, it sure gets repeated enough as if it were fact, that the old adage about telling a lie often enough sort of comes to pass.

If you truly seek truth and not just more right wing lies and smear, then it'd be good to take Ray's advice and look it up.

Al Gore and The Internet

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology Wikipedia

and last but not least, the snopes.com piece.

Internet Of Lies

But see, I KNOW I've posted the snopes.com one before and that still doesn't stop you from repeating the erroneous assertion that Al Gore said he invented the internet..

So IMO it's just pathological in the need to pass lies off as fact about Al Gore.

I realize that adherants to the Global Warming religion do not take kindly to any criticism of their Lord High Algore but the simple fact of the matter is that you brought up the Gore comparison. Further, it appears that the comparison was made in no small part to try and portray anyone who criticized Gore, but not Romney, as a hypocrite.

I responded to it and noted that, in fact, I thought Romney's exaggerations were unseemly.

Can we get back to Romney now or would will you next be posting about how Gore really was the inspiration for the Ryan O'Neill character in "Love Story"?

you need to stop hating Gore for being more respected than bush is. it seems really insecure. maybe you should co-found wondy's little club.

Oh no!!!

G-Man thinks global warming is a religion!!!!!!!

And he thinks Al Gore is a high priest.

Back in the day, they'd lock you up for being so delusional.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Back in the day, they'd lock you up for being so delusional.

Sure, whomod, it's not a like a religion to you. That's why you're making jokes that imply imprisonment for heresy, ala a medievil Pope.

But, anyway, getting back to Romney (cause, you know, he's the subject of the thread, and all):

It's looking like Mitt Romney might have been judged too quickly on the Martin Luther King business. Two witnesses have now come forward to The Politico, insisting that they saw the late Gov. George Romney (R-MI) make a surprise appearance alongside King in 1963.

The campaign has also posted a collection of citations — including a contemporary account from the Detroit Free Press — attesting that it happened.

There's one lingering question, though: If the facts do vindicate Mitt Romney on this one — and at first glance, this looks legit — why did he handle it so awkwardly and ineptly right off the bat? Why all the parsing about what the word "saw" meant, and the business about "march with" being figurative?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Back in the day, they'd lock you up for being so delusional.

Sure, whomod, it's not a like a religion to you. That's why you're making jokes that imply imprisonment for heresy, ala a medievil Pope.

What does the judge say when you try to slime your way out of one thing by trying to reframe the original comment into something else entirely?

or are you just slow in reading comprehension? Where in the hell did you pick up heresy from anyways?? The keyword was DELUSIONAL. As in mental illness. Because you think Al Gore is a high priest.

It's sad when you need to spell it out in child's words..

whomod, you claim to be an intelligent person. You also seem capable of recognizing sarcasm when you see it.

As such, I'm sure that you know I don't literally believe that Gore is a Priest. I also believe that you realize I was referring to the tendency of certain people (yourself included) to deify the man and treat the theory of global warming with the level of faith and reverence normally reserved for religous doctrine.

Accordingly, the idea of you calling me delusional for a belief I obviously do not hold is very specious. Furthermore, the hint of locking me up for a belief, given my earlier sarcasm regarding your devotion to Gore, seemed to ironic to ignore, given its similarity to the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm.

Again, however, this thread is not about Gore. It's about Romney. And your need (and Ray's need) to fight the same old argument about whether or not Gore claimed to have invented the internet is a little tiresome (I was going to compare it to proselityzing but I worry you would pretend to understand metaphor either).

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Again, however, this thread is not about Gore. It's about Romney. And your need (and Ray's need) to fight the same old argument about whether or not Gore claimed to have invented the internet is a little tiresome

Um.. heloo?

You're the one who again asserted and repeated that he actually said it. I just brought it up in passing and you couldn't resist repeating the lie as fact.

So tell me again, did Al Gore say he invented the internet? You still sound as if it's a matter of debate?

I usually bring up the Swifboat attacks on John Kerry(or G-Man's oft repeated claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet) as an example of the disgusting tactics used to smear people for political gain by Republican operatives that was perfected by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove’s mentor. It’s just as bad (but sort of funny) when the Republicans do it to themselves.

Quote:

A holiday card that falsely claims to be from “the Romney family” and highlights Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith was anonymously sent to Republican mailboxes across South Carolina earlier this week.

The source of the card is unknown…read on

(click for larger image)

P.S. the Virgin Mary reportedly is exceedingly fair and WHITE.

Wonder Boy and Pariah might appreciate that.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Quote:

(click for larger image)

P.S. the Virgin Mary reportedly is exceedingly fair and WHITE.

Wonder Boy and Pariah might appreciate that.

"The source of the card is unknown..."

So it could have come from a Democrat.
It would be consistent with Hillary Clinton's political tactics, and her many unclaimed attacks on Obama, that even the liberal media says came from her campaign.

When you mention swiftboat ads, you might also mention the Swiftboating by Dan Rather and the rest of liberal media, if not complicit Democrats, when they attacked Bush with a forged letter allegedly from Bush's National Guard commanding officer, just 2 weeks before the 2004 election.

Or Al Gore's, Jesse Jackson's, Al Sharpton's and other Democrats' cultivating fear and splitting the nation along ethnic lines with allegations of racism in the 2000 election, along with other conspiracy theories, to scapegoat their losses in 2000 and 2004 onto Ralph Nader, George W. Bush, and others.

Or exposure of the Mark Foley scandal on October 2006, barely 2 weeks before the election (an interesting pattern for the liberal media, in 2004 and 2006). A story Democrats and the liberal media had known about for roughly a year, but chose that precise moment to unleash on the Republicans.
Funny how swiftboating the Republicans in far more questionable circumstances doesn't even raise the slightest blip on your sense-of-fairness meter.

On the subject of the Swiftboat ads, I think it was fair game, since Kerry opened the door by attacking Bush's National Guard record, and Kerry would often condemn the Swiftboat attacks on his record, and then attack Bush's military record in the same breath. If it's fair for Kerry, then it's fair for Bush to respond.

The Democrats engage in these attacks.

And the Democrats do it to themselves. Just ask Howard Dean.

And one last thing...

Originally Posted By: Whomod

P.S. the Virgin Mary reportedly is exceedingly fair and WHITE.

Wonder Boy and Pariah might appreciate that.

Wow. Blasphemy and slander in hardly more than a sentence.

Again, I have friends of virtually every race and ethicity.
I socialize, personally and professionally, on pretty much a daily basis, with friends and associates of virtually every nationality. I've never advocated a white-only America as you repeatedly/slanderously allege.

I've repeatedly said that anyone, of any race, is welcome in America, so long as they assimilate into our English-speaking American culture, as every other generation of immigrants has, until now.
I'm no more racist than George Washington, Ben Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy, who all held the same standard.

But I know you have no interest in truth, as you knowingly and repeatedly slander your opposition, with words you know to be lies.
A tactic that no honest person would ever use.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

No. I just label you a bigot.

Big difference.

No, that's just more ad-hominem attack. You label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, hater, extremist, etc.

Your tactics come straight from the Moscow Central Committee:

Quote:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or Anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repitition, become "fact" in the public mind.

Slander as an alternative strategy to honest political debate.

The Revolution continues, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

wow, wondy. the crazy train just keeps on going. you could've said "so it could've come from a democrat." and left it at that. but you had to use liberal as an insult about a dozen times and then dredge up your paranoia from 8 years ago.
You honestly can't seem to get your head off of the liberal war you're into.
weird.

but i actually doubt a democrat did this. at this point all attention is on the primaries. i have no doubt there are dirty tricks going on, but right now it's logically (on both sides) within the party.
except for the countless insults and slurs used against hillary by the republican candidates. but even then, it's more for the joke than to smear.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

but i actually doubt a democrat did this.

does ron paul count?

Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

but i actually doubt a democrat did this.

does ron paul count?

no. Ron Paul is very old school republican. from before Reagan came in and corrupted the party.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i actually doubt a democrat did this. at this point all attention is on the primaries. i have no doubt there are dirty tricks going on, but right now it's logically (on both sides) within the party.

I tend to agree. While it's possible that a democrat might want to start "sowing the seeds" for opposing Romney if he's the nominee, given that his nomination is by no means certain, doing this could be a big waste of money.

With that being said, there's also a distinct possibility that a particular candidate didn't order this but that one of the myriad independent political groups is behind it.

Either way, my money's on either Huckabee or one of the independent groups supporting him.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

i actually doubt a democrat did this. at this point all attention is on the primaries. i have no doubt there are dirty tricks going on, but right now it's logically (on both sides) within the party.

Huckabee does seem kind of evil. And he's the only other Republican who has religion as a real issue so I can see him playing on that.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him "evil" but he clearly has a record attacking Romney's religion. Furthermore, he's got the most to gain by beating Romney in Iowa.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him "evil"

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him "evil"

How is posting a picture of the man in which he sorta resembles Tom "Happy Days" Bosley at all relevant to his evilness or lack thereof?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him "evil"

How is posting a picture of the man in which he sorta resembles Tom "Happy Days" Bosley at all relevant to his evilness or lack thereof?

What a surprise, a right winger with no concept of what true evil is.

I bet if he was having sex or speaking his mind you'd think he was Skeletor.

I've been very clear that I don't like Huckabee at all. Go to the thread about him if you need confirmation of that fact.

I still don't understand why Ray posted that particular picture during our discussion however.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

When buildings are bombed by terrorists, there is a reason people immediately assume it's done by radical islamists. Same with Lee Atwater/Karl Rove style smear jobs. It's an established M.O. with the far right. G-man also makes good points which you probably won't immediately dismiss as coming from Moscow or something similarly archaic and and dated.

Quote:

When you mention swiftboat ads, you might also mention the Swiftboating by Dan Rather and the rest of liberal media, if not complicit Democrats, when they attacked Bush with a forged letter allegedly from Bush's National Guard commanding officer, just 2 weeks before the 2004 election.

While CBS and Rather did a piss poor job of evaluating the authenticity of the document, Marion Knox, the 86 year old former secretary was found who also said the document was fake. She did however say she remembered doing a similar document with roughly the same information in it. She also said Bush was unfit to serve as President and was selected, not elected.

So much for "swift boating". When the secretary who typed up the documents says the documents were fake but the INFO was spot-on. Sounds like a classic Rove deflection/distraction tactic to me. (see Rove bugging his own HQ and accusing the Democrats).

Quote:

Or Al Gore's, Jesse Jackson's, Al Sharpton's and other Democrats' cultivating fear and splitting the nation along ethnic lines with allegations of racism in the 2000 election, along with other conspiracy theories, to scapegoat their losses in 2000 and 2004 onto Ralph Nader, George W. Bush, and others.

Willie Horton

Welfare queen

Southern strategy

Lee Atwater

Although if you read the Lee Atwater entry, he did come to an epiphany after discovering he had cancer and publicly apologized for the deplorable tactics he used to discredit and destroy people for the Republican Party. Karl Rove and his ilk have yet to have a similar pang of conscience.

Quote:

Or exposure of the Mark Foley scandal on October 2006, barely 2 weeks before the election (an interesting pattern for the liberal media, in 2004 and 2006). A story Democrats and the liberal media had known about for roughly a year, but chose that precise moment to unleash on the Republicans.
Funny how swiftboating the Republicans in far more questionable circumstances doesn't even raise the slightest blip on your sense-of-fairness meter.

Uh huh.

It was a Republican aide who came forward first. And the Republicans knew about it for much longer. hence the resignation of Dennis Hastert. You forgot to add that part when you were pointing fingers at the evil liberals.

Quote:

On the subject of the Swiftboat ads, I think it was fair game, since Kerry opened the door by attacking Bush's National Guard record, and Kerry would often condemn the Swiftboat attacks on his record, and then attack Bush's military record in the same breath. If it's fair for Kerry, then it's fair for Bush to respond.

Of course you think it's fair game. Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".

Quote:

The Democrats engage in these attacks.

And the Democrats do it to themselves. Just ask Howard Dean.

Howard Dean? The chairman of the DNC? Why?

Halo82 User Slayer of Conservatives
400+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:14 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Mormon President?

Jason E. Perkins Moderator 15000+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:34 PM Viewing a list of posts
Forum: Media

rex User daffy asshole
15000+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:37 PM Viewing list of forums

Yup.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".

Point of information: Cleland was a sitting member of congress who was criticized for his record. He was not attacked for being a former member of the military or for his disability.

I'm a little surprised, whomod, that you are advocating for a system in which we can't criticize our elected officials if they have military experience. That sounds a bit like you're advocating for some sort of "junta."

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

If you weren't so liberal-partisan, acting like Republicans are the only ones who launch negative campaigns, when Democrats consistently launch arguably even more questionable attacks, then maybe I could agree with you.

Yeah, the attack on Romney could have come from another Republican, and at this stage of the campaign, the competing Republicans would have more to gain.

But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that Hillary or Obama or others in the DNC might have done it, to leverage who they want to run against. Hillary has made more than her share of attacks that would be worthy of Lee Atwater's efforts. James Carville. Rahm Emmanuel. None of these guys have any moral high ground over Atwater.
And although Atwaters ads were negative campaigning, I didn't see that any of the points he raised were untrue. Michael Dukakis did let convicted murderer Willie Horton out on furlough to kill again. That was a clear error in judgement by Dukakis, that called into question his character and judgement. And yes, his dangerous liberalism. All Atwater did was point it out. It's not like Atwater, oh, say, forged a letter from his commanding officer or something. He just pointed out the facts, and the ideological schism between liberals and conservatives regarding prison sentences and parole consideration.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: WB

Hearsay on something 30 years later on a letter she thinks looks kind of familiar? Give me a break.
THE LETTER WAS FORGED !!
Period. The end.

Originally Posted By: Whomod

Quote:

Willie Horton

As I said, an ad campaign that accurately showcased Dukakis' liberalism, and resultant poor judgement.

Quote:

Welfare queen

Reagan's exact statistics were a little off, but they cited several welfare abusers who abused the welfare system in pretty much exactly the way Reagan described in his campaign speech.

Quote:

Southern strategy

Basically, the Southern Strategy is the Republicans shifting strategy to address concerns of the Southern white majority. While it's painted here to be about "race" in the wiki-piece, it's in truth about strong military defense, being tough on crime (as compared to liberals like Dukakis), religious free speech, gay rights, and intrusive liberal social policies that usurp how they want their states run.
Liberals smear this strategy as being about racism, as liberals typically do anything that costs them votes.

No state under the "southern strategy" era has gone back to segregation or Jim Crow laws. Republicans have simply successfully appealed to white southern voters on a number of issues that are important to them. Which liberals have slandered by falsely playing the race card.

And it's not necessarily a real or working Republican strategy, as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both carried a majority of Southern states.

In any case, it is not an example of "Swiftboating".

Quote:

Lee Atwater

Although if you read the Lee Atwater entry, he did come to an epiphany after discovering he had cancer and publicly apologized for the deplorable tactics he used to discredit and destroy people for the Republican Party. Karl Rove and his ilk have yet to have a similar pang of conscience.

"Conscience", to you, is apparently his saying something that is of benefit to Democrats.

I don't see you calling for repentance among the dirty-tricksters of the DNC, who I've listed above, across several campaigns, and the list is far from complete.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: WB

Uh huh.

I don't see that it's proven Republicans knew longer. It was Democrats who exagerrated the significance of it to smear the entire Republican party. There's a difference between accusing the person who is truly at fault, and on innuendo smearing the entire Republican party. Especially when the Democrats looked the other way regarding other Democrats congressmen, including Gerry Studds, who was gay-fucking his teenage intern, was not censured, and was re-elected. Both parties have had sex scandals regarding interns. The republicans resigned. The Democrats defended their man and/or looked the other way, and then had the audacity to accuse Republicans of doing the same.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: WB

Of course you think it's fair game. Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".

Becaause it is fair game. Several hundred vets ascribed to what the Swiftvets said about Kerry, including doctors who treated his injuries. A handful supported Kerry. Despite that an overwhelming majority of these vets condemned Kerry, guess who Democrats and the liberal media sided with? That's right, the handful.
And they demonized the guys who were spokespersons in the Swiftboat ads. The political machine cuts both ways. But you try to make it sound like Democrats don't do exactly the things, and worse, that you demonize the Republicans for.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: WB

The Democrats engage in these attacks.

And the Democrats do it to themselves. Just ask Howard Dean.

Howard Dean? The chairman of the DNC? Why?

What I was specifically referring to is the 1992 primaries, where Dean was the front runner, and he was bitterly torn down by his fellow Democrat rivals.

You act like something such as Bush attacking McCain has never happened in politics before. You mockingly and gloatingly call it "eating their own", while selectively omitting when Democrats do the exact same thing, to their own, or to the Republicans.
Reagan's son wouldn't shake Carter's hand after the 1980 election, for the things Carter said about Reagan during the campaign.

In addition, Dean more than any Democrat I can recall, has made a lot of vitriolic remarks, expressing his unbridled hatred for all Republicans, especially while he was DNC chairman.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR
Cleland was one of the 29 Senate Democrats who backed the authorization to go to war in Iraq. He later claimed he had misgivings about the Bush administration's stance, but said he felt pressure in his tight Senate race to go along with it. In 2005, he said "it was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them in a victory." He characterized his vote for war as "the worst vote I cast."[7]

POST-SENATE CAREER
Cleland was originally appointed to serve on the 9/11 Commission but resigned shortly after, claiming that the Bush administration was "stonewalling" and blocking the committee's access to key documents and witnesses. During his time away from politics, Cleland taught at American University.

In 2003, Cleland began working for the 2004 presidential campaign of Massachusetts senator John Kerry, also a Vietnam veteran; Kerry went on to win the Democratic nomination. Cleland often appeared at campaign events with Kerry, and was considered by many to be one of his most important assistants, partly as a symbol of the sacrifices made by soldiers for wars. He went to Bush's Texas ranch to deliver a swift boat ad complaint, but the event failed to have much impact. On July 29, 2004, Cleland introduced Kerry with a speech at the Democratic National Convention.

And a public figure who openly criticized Bush, and publicly campaigned for Kerry in 2004 using his public-figure status, should not be open to public scrutiny and counter-criticism... why?

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: WB

Hearsay on something 30 years later on a letter she thinks looks kind of familiar? Give me a break.
THE LETTER WAS FORGED !!
Period. The end.

Quote:

MARION CARR KNOX: I did not type those memos.

RATHER: You didn't type these memos?

KNOX: No. And it's not the form that I would have used. And there are words in there that belong to the army, not to the air guard. We never used those terms.

RATHER: So with these memos, you know that you didn't type them.

KNOX: I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct.

RATHER: Few, if any, things that I ask you about will be more important than this point: You say you definitely didn't type these memos.

KNOX: Not these particular ones.

RATHER: Did you type ones like this?

KNOX: Yes.

RATHER: Containing the same or identical information?

KNOX: The same information, yes.

There is the transcript. Pouting about it and declaring the case closed won't help you.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

And although Atwaters ads were negative campaigning, I didn't see that any of the points he raised were untrue. Michael Dukakis did let convicted murderer Willie Horton out on furlough to kill again. That was a clear error in judgement by Dukakis, that called into question his character and judgement. And yes, his dangerous liberalism. All Atwater did was point it out. It's not like Atwater, oh, say, forged a letter from his commanding officer or something. He just pointed out the facts, and the ideological schism between liberals and conservatives regarding prison sentences and parole consideration.

Out of curiosity, what's your take on Huckabee's alleged involvement in Wayne DuMond's early release?

Does fairness DuMond that Huckabee face the same criticism?

Personally, I don't think either one of 'em should've been released, so I'm not trying to clear Dukakis. I'm just curious what your take on Huckabee's supposed involvement in getting DuMond freed early is.

(I'm looking for a link to a better article about this. Hold off on a reply for now)

Actually, the "attacks" on Cleland that democrats tend to cite were made as part of the 2002 campaign and predate his 2003 and 2004 actions in support of Kerry's presidential bid.

They involved questions about Cleland's national security views:

a tough anti-Cleland ad [was] broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.

It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.

If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize?

So it wasn't even a question of "attacking" Cleland for his support of Kerry. It was a question of people exercising their constitutionally protected right to criticize the voting record of an elected official.

Well in answer to your question, I wasn't referring to attacks on his positions. I was specifically referring to the attack ad that morphed Cleland's face into Osama Bin laden.

Originally Posted By: The Pun-isher

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Well, you're asking my opinion of Huckabee's parole of a murderer, who then killed two more women.
I think it should disqualify Huckabee and lose him the election.

And I said in a post a few days ago that if I were Huckabee's oponents, I'd be running commercials with the parents of the two murdered girls every 10 minutes on Iowa TV, up until the Iowa caucus.

Releasing a murderer and pressuring the parole board to reluctantly go along with his decision. That manifests a clear lack of good judgement.
It's majorly Hucked up !

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

It's majorly Hucked up!

Bee thankful I don't sue your ass for schtik-stealing.

(What happened to the annoyed muttering graemlin?)

Originally Posted By: whomod

I was specifically referring to the attack ad that morphed Cleland's face into Osama Bin laden.

FrontPage Magazine:

Cleland’s ... claim, widely echoed by Democrats, is absurd. The ad never morphed bin Laden’s face into Cleland’s nor accused him of serving al-Qaeda. The ad merely connected this terrorist’s image (in the same brief frame with the face of Saddam Hussein and two images of American soldiers) to the terrorist horror of 9/11 to remind voters that more than union privilege and power was at stake.

The Myth of Max Cleland

the commercial from Cleland's Republican opponent (now senator) Saxby Chambliss did no such thing. (You can watch the actual ad here.) Over montage of four photographs, one each of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, two others of the U.S. military, a narrator reads: "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." That's hardly "linking him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."

You're right. It wasn't "morphed".

Quote:

In 2002, Cleland was defeated in his bid for a second Senate term by Representative Saxby Chambliss. Voters were perhaps influenced by Chambliss ads that featured Cleland's likeness on the same screen as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, ads that Cleland's supporters claim questioned his commitment to homeland security.[6] (The ads were removed after protest from some prominent politicians including John McCain.)

The idea was there though.

If, by "idea" you mean that Cleland's voting record showed him to be soft on national security, yes. But isn't that a valid issue in a campaign?

Again, the implication here seems to be that Cleland's military record, commendable as it was, somehow means that his voting record can't be criticized. If so, that's a scary proposition, the idea that we would forgo our right to free speech when elected officials have ties to the military.

I don't mind negative ads that underline the opponents record. Nor do I mind if they happen to attack a veteran.

What i mind is cheap shots. Remember the MoveOn.org ads with Bush and Hitler? Tell me that was fine by you. Putting cleland, a veteran who lost limbs for his country with the company of Osama Bin laden and Sadaam Hussein was cheap and deplorable. Just as you'd probably think if we put Bush and Hitler together in a Democratic ad.

The ad didn't put him "in the company" of Bin Laden and Hussein. It didn't state or even imply that he supported them or otherwise wished them to succeed. It criticized his votes on certain issues, largely (the ad alleged) because he was paying political favors to some union interests. So, if anything, it put him "in the company" of unions and/or special interests.

I like both Huckabee and Romney. But I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, and I'm unsure of Romney. On Charlie Rose on PBS, I saw N Y Times writer David Brooks give a nice perspective on all the candidates, post-Iowa.
Regarding a debate exchange, he related Huckabee said to Romney: "I look like the guy people work with, you look like the guy who lays them off."

I thought that was a terrific line.

Despite his flaws, Huckabee definitely appeals to the blue-collar lower-middle-class working man, and that line contrasted well himself with the (perceived) relatively distant and well-monied Romney.

It was pointed out that some of the heat from the other candidates, such as McCain and Huckabee, might stem from their resentment that Romney has a well-funded campaign (partly from his own personal fortune), while they have very limited campaign war-chests and have to struggle for every dollar.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

i notice that here, with no liberals, playing on class differences isn't an evil act to bring down America.

Yeah. If Hillary had said that, you'd read 10 paragraphs of Wonder Boy showing how the evil liberal has fooled the minorities and the poor to hate the rich white man.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

i notice that here, with no liberals, playing on class differences isn't an evil act to bring down America.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Yeah. If Hillary had said that, you'd read 10 paragraphs of Wonder Boy showing how the evil liberal has fooled the minorities and the poor to hate the rich white man.

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do, and simply pointing out the demographics of what audience (rich/poor, white/black/hispanic, under 40/over 40, etc...) is voting for a particular candidate, and analyzing their appeal to that demographic group.

If you want to make it a big issue, why don't you argue with the pundits on Meet the Press, PBS News Hour, and the McLaughlin Group, all of whom, and many more probably, have raised the issue that I simply cited above.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do...

suuure Wonder Boy, suuuure.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do...

suuure Wonder Boy, suuuure.

Yeah, your thing is more demonizing rich Republicans, while ignoring that Democrats (such as John Kerry) are just as wealthy.

Ray Adler incriminated himself all over the place in the inheritance tax topic a few weeks ago, where a number of others here handed him his own ass, pointed out how prejudicial and wrongheaded his views are.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do...

suuure Wonder Boy, suuuure.

Think I'll celebrate my new Youtube posting powers with a gift for Wonderboy-

So you get your political advice from 8-year-old girls?

Seriously, the excrement she was spewing is clearly not written by an 8-year-old, and the liberal who scripted, instructed and videotaped her to spew that profanity-laden anti-Christian/anti-Republican rant should be up on charges for child abuse.

Other than that, it's the usual liberal rant about, republicans are evil, republicans are racists, etc etc.
Ignoring, of course, that Bush, whatever faults his presidency had, reached out to minority voters, and appointed more minorities to high-level positions than any Democrat administration. And that guys like Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, etc, are all taking sympathetic stances toward illegals immigrants.

And as I pointed out before, many of the major steps toward civil rights for black Americans occurred in the Eisenhower years. Most significantly, Brown -vs- the Board of Education, and Eisenhower's enforcing the Supreme Court ruling with National Guard troops, to insure black students got safely to class in their integrated Little Rock high school. If "all republicans" were "white racists", Eisenhower could have just ignored the Supreme Court's ruling, and not enforced it with National Guard troops, and let the unenforceable law just blow over.

So, from an 8-year-old's puppet-trained mouth no less, this is just more slander of Republicans.

At least you didn't pull your vagina stunt again.

"Vagina stunt", that's funny...what's really funny is that the last thing that will enter people's mind upon seeing that is the notion that you actually got laid.

Originally Posted By: Halo82

Another baseless personal attack, that bypasses the issues raised.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Halo82

Another baseless personal attack, that bypasses the issues raised.

I might have had more to say if I'd have seen all the shit you editted into your last post. I'll take a look and see if there's any substance to respond to or at least material to mock you.

BTW, what's with the the link in your quote?

Quote:

Ignoring, of course, that Bush, whatever faults his presidency had, reached out to minority voters, and appointed more minorities to high-level positions than any Democrat administration

So fucking what? Most of the people he's appointed either A) had to resign cause they were incompetent or B) Bush kicked'em out as either a scapegoat or cause they didn't suck his dick.

Quote:

So, from an 8-year-old's puppet-trained mouth no less, this is just more slander of Republicans.

I find it funny how guys like you are always looking for the Marrionette strings on this girl. Maybe it was just a comedy skit?

Sounds to me like you're projecting...again.

RUN, MITT, RUN!

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do...

suuure Wonder Boy, suuuure.

I "incriminated" myself? Why by having a different opinion than you do? Now jesus will call me a weasel.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

If you want to make it a big issue, why don't you argue with the pundits on Meet the Press, PBS News Hour, and the McLaughlin Group, all of whom, and many more probably, have raised the issue that I simply cited above.

because they're all evil liberals. and whomod and myself swore a sacred vow of the aborted baby jesus fetus that we would work to undermine the godly republicans.

then jesus called me a weasel and rewrote the bible to include sections on not taking shit from people and turning the other cheek so you can get a gun.

Y'know, Bill Clinton has no problem saying that he's benefited from Bush's tax cuts BUT that they should be repealed because they only benefit his class and hurt the middle class and poor.

That's responsible and admirable rather than gluttonous and callous, as is the wont of many people on the right.

You act as if the very notion of being rich is a bad thing to Democrats or something...

Originally Posted By: whomod

Y'know, Bill Clinton has no problem saying that he's benefited from Bush's tax cuts BUT that they should be repealed because they only benefit his class and hurt the middle class and poor.

but he got a blow job. granted it didn't cost trillions of dollars, kill hundreds of thousands, and the rest of the world liked him.
but still...a blow job!

Quote:

That's responsible and admirable rather than gluttonous and callous, as is the wont of many people on the right.

he got a blow job! your liberal pro-ejaculation stance is sickening. just because your "science" teaches that such activities can lower stress and release endorphines, doesn't mean that my religion's "sex is evil" stance isn't the right way.
why don't you go back to mexico, hippie! i hate liberals so MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

You act as if the very notion of being rich is a bad thing to Democrats or something...

welfare state, 9/11, gay marriage.
jesus would so totally rape you with a broken wine bottle (interestingly he transformed a water bottle into the wine bottle and then broke it).

I just "love" the way that you take every possible legitimate criticism of Clinton--his perjury, his obstruction of justice, his sleazy business dealings, his firing employees for political reasons, his failed health care plan, his failure to take out Bin Laden when he could,etc.--and pretend they don't exist, in lieu of pretending that the only thing he was ever criticized for was a blow job.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

his failure to take out Bin Laden when he could

Suuure, G-Man, suuure.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Well seeing as how the same Republicans (and Fox News) who were so tough on him and made a big deal about it "morality" grounds are the same ones-like yourself-who minimize Bush for his lies (he avoided perjury by refusing to speak under oath), his obstruction of justice, his failed business dealings and Cheney's sleazy business dealings, his firing employees for political reasons, his failed war (that killed hundreds of thousands by now), his ignoring a CIA warning that Bin Laden was going to attack the US, etc.

Clinton wasn't perfect but the whole Paula Jones mess was something that your lot blew out of proportion. Arkansas Project, Fallwell, Coulter all worked to bring Clinton down from the day he was elected. My dad was a bit of a religious nut so I saw the video they released were Fallwell accuses Clinton of killing two kids and throwing them under a train to cover up his drug smuggling. There were allegations of various land fraud, and killing Vince Foster. Yet at the end of the day, after millions spent on an investigation that was run by a republican the best you could get was that he lied under oath about cheating on his wife.

Let's shine the light on Bush. Let a Democrat dig into his dealings. Even without such an investigation we already have so many more serious crimes and wrong that Bush has comitted, that people like you overlook or justify.

And I remember clearly that when Clinton tried going after bin Laden, he was accused of making up some boogeyman to distract America from Lewinsky.
In fact using Republican logic, that questioning the war hurts our troops, one could argue that had the Republicans not been hounding him so and shown some support, Clinton could've gotten bin Laden and 9/11 would never have happened.

Fox:

Michigan native Mitt Romney won the affection of the largest plurality of poll-goers in the state Tuesday, pulling ahead of rival John McCain by appealing to the Republican base with an economic message.

With 20 percent of the voting in, Romney was at 40 percent over McCain with 30 percent. Mike Huckabee had 15 percent while Ron Paul polled at 6 percent. Fred Thompson had 4 percent and Rudy Giuliani was at 3 percent.

“Tonight proves you can’t tell an American there’s something they just can’t do because Americans can do whatever they set their hearts on, and tonight is a victory of optimism over Washington-style pessimism,” Romney said from his campaign headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich. “The lobbyists and the politicians realize that America now understands that Washington is broken and we’re going to do something about it.”

Romney pretty much needed this win.

That's true. If he hadn't won here he was probably finished.

What Ray said:

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: whomod

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

There's a huge difference between demonizing all rich people, as you do...

suuure Wonder Boy, suuuure.

I "incriminated" myself? Why by having a different opinion than you do? Now jesus will call me a weasel.

What I actually said:

Originally Posted By: WB

You're such a lying weasel, Ray.
Jesus would call a lying slanderous weasel like you a lying slanderous weasel.

...You consistently paraphrase and ad-lib myself and anyone else you disagree with, to falsely paint us as goose-stepping white-racist Nazis, and haters of some kind or other, to slanderously morph us into your pre-conceived stereotype of whatever it is you love to hate.

I'm the one who just posts my opinion on these boards. You're the one who online-stalks me, vomiting out every last ounce of your hatred at me, every time I post. And then you have the audacity to talk about "anger" and "hate", and not behaving like Jesus. Oh, the irony.

You're one of the most miserable human beings I've ever encountered. And if you're this unpleasant on a message board, I can only imagine how ugly and unbearable you must be in person.

Basically what I said is that you clearly are a liar. And Jesus, would expose you for the liar that you are.

Romney Takes Nevada.

Currently, Romney is in the lead for the nomination, having the most number of delegates.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has released a new Spanish-language campaign ad in Florida entitled Mi Padre (My Father), featuring Romney’s son, Craig. Craig encourages voters to “get to know my father, Mitt Romney.” Romney himself then chimes in with: Soy Mitt Romney y apruebo este mensaje (I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message). Watch it:

It’s interesting that Romney is so interested in reaching out to Latino voters in Spanish. In the past, he has been stridently English-only:

Quote:

“English needs to be the language that is spoken in America. We cannot be a bilingual nation like Canada.” [3/07]

“You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.” [3/2/07]

In September, the Spanish-language television network Univision had to cancel a GOP presidential debate when only Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) agreed to attend.

But with the important Florida presidential primary — and its large number of Latino voters — approaching, the candidates are going all-out to pander for votes. Earlier this month, Giuliani also released a campaign ad en español on at least three Spanish-language television stations in Miami, despite his vocal support for English-only policies.

Is he fucking high.....he treats the Hispanics like shit and then trys to get their votes?

desperation and hypocrisy are funny.

American Spectator

At Keiser University here on Wednesday, Romney stood before a banner that read "Economic Turnaround" with the sleeves of his white dress shirt immaculately rolled up, and spoke about how his successful career in the private sector made him ideally suited to be the steward of an uncertain economy.

"I didn't spend my life in politics, that's not how I got going," Romney explained. "I spent 25 years in the private sector, in business."

While Romney has made his business background a part of his presidential run from the beginning, his image as a corporate turnaround artist was obscured as he aggressively courted social conservatives and attempted to prove he was tough on national security.

As the former venture capitalist talking about the scourge of global jihad from his front lawn, or as the recently converted pro-lifer touting his support for the Human Life Amendment, Romney came across as artificial.

In the early nominating contests, voters who wanted an authentic social conservative went with Mike Huckabee, and those who were looking for a strong commander-in-chief during a time of war got behind John McCain.

NOW, SEIZING ON growing economic unease, Romney has begun to employ populist rhetoric, and frame every issue as an economic challenge.

"The things I'm hearing from people as I go from town to town and city to city are actually pretty similar as I go across Florida," he said. "People are concerned about the economy, what's happening to jobs...A lot of families are feeling an economic squeeze."

we're wearing spacesuits now, are we?

Huh?

Are you on medical marijuana or something?

That made no sense.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Huh?

Are you medical marijuana or something?

That made no sense.

It's from Mormontology, the cool religion where Jesus fights aliens.

I get it. You mixed up Mormonism with Scientology for a second. That's pretty funny.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

I get it. You mixed up Mormonism with Scientology for a second. That's pretty funny.

I'm well versed in both actually.

Though if you look at Joseph Smith, he did kind of look like an alien.

even sober!

(which wasn't often)

I was watching the GOP debate the other night, and had it TiVo'd, and all of a sudden I hear someone whispering about cutting taxes a second before Romney starts talking about cutting taxes. I went back, checked the tape, and there's the little ghost whispering about cutting taxes. Well, it gets better. Romney's staff admits he wears an earpiece through which they tell him what to do. Was Romney wearing such an earpiece during the debate, was that who we heard whispering? And this raises the issue, again, of Bush's rather obvious use of an earpiece to funnel him talking points - something the media has refused to follow up on, and which was painfully obvious especially a few years ago.

And again, the instant replay...

Fucking cheater.

Quote:

During Gov. Romney’s speech, one of his handlers mentioned to one of our staff people that any time Gov. Romney needed to wrap things up, he would be happy to let Gov. Romney know through the ear-piece that he wore.

Being unfamiliar with whether or not presidential candidates wear Jack Bauer-like ear pieces, I simply assumed this was common practice.

All that changed during the most recent debate.

During the Republican debate recently held in Florida, there was a very strange moment when a whisper was heard over the television. Apparently, those in the auditorium, including the candidates, were unable to hear it, but those watching on television heard it clearly.

Moderator Tim Russert asked Romney the question on Reagan -- “Will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983?” Immediately following Russert’s question, there is an audible statement in just one channel of audio saying “not raise taxes.”
Then Romney says “I’m not going to raise taxes…”

Could Romney’s so-called economic expertise be actually some sort of Wizard of Oz operation? Are we dealing with a real-life Manchurian Candidate?

Gov. Romney needs state for the record whether or not he wore an ear piece the night of the debate and whether or not his policy is phoned in or actually his own ideas.

Dr. Jerry Zandstra
Chairman, Americans for Prosperity of Michigan

NBC: Romney Earpiece Rumor Debunked

After reviewing the tapes, NBC determined that an open mic picked up a whisper from the audience. It is unclear who it is that says it, but it was not said by any of the candidates, was not heard in the hall and, more importantly, not heard by the candidates.

Geez, whomod, it took me all of thirty seconds to find this from two days ago, and from one of the big three networks, not some right wing blog. Do a little research before you post these wild conspiracy theories, okay?

I did one better, I posted the actual video. And I still don't buy it. A random mic will pick up a random conversation, not pick up the exact thing he utters right afterwards.

Originally Posted By: whomod

I posted the actual video. And I still don't buy it. A random mic will pick up a random conversation, not pick up the exact thing he utters right afterwards.

Well, then that settles it. Whomod watched a Youtube clip. Cased closed.

After all, videos can't be dubbed, or suffer from technical difficulties or anything of the sort.

And, obviously, it isn't like NBC has a vast army of journalists and sound technicians at their disposal (not to mention GE scientists at their parent company).

And, naturally, a major TV news organization would have no interest whatsoever is scooping their rivals and proving that a frontrunning presidential candidate of one of the two major political parties was cheating during a debate.

And, finally, there's little, if any, chance that someone in an audience at a political debate would be able to anticipate what sound bite a candidate is going to utter in response to a question. After all, it isn't like Republican candidates have ever promised not to raise taxes. Who could ever anticipate an answer like that?

No, people, whomod must be right. His masterful viewing of a YouTube clip has scooped the world. He is like the Woodward and Bernstein of video file sharing.

Dust off your mantle, whomod, that Pulitzer has to be on its way.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: whomod

I posted the actual video. And I still don't buy it. A random mic will pick up a random conversation, not pick up the exact thing he utters right afterwards.

Well, then that settles it. Whomod watched a Youtube clip. Cased closed.

After all, videos can't be dubbed, or suffer from technical difficulties or anything of the sort.

Why are you so down on youtube? You say youtube like that instantly debunks it. Is it because most Republican actions come off worse when seen and heard? That it's easier to spin Bush and companies idiocy and attitude with just the transcripts?
No one at all is saying this video was dubbed, your story says it came from the audience. So whomod is just making the valid point that it's an amazing coincidence that the mike picked something up from the audience a split second before Romney himself said the same thing.

Well not only one instance but as the 2nd YouTube clip shows, it happened a second time.

It was either someone feeding him lines or else fucking Karnac the Great happened to be the guy in the audience that the mic was picking up.

Originally Posted By: G-Man

Well, then that settles it. Whomod watched a Youtube clip. Cased closed.

After all, videos can't be dubbed, or suffer from technical difficulties or anything of the sort.

And that's just lame right there considering that the you Tube video wasn't the source of this but the BROADCAST which millions of people heard live as it happened. The YouTube clip merely replays it for you.

I tell you, must you treat every bit of info like a slimy lawyer who feigns reading comprehension in the hopes that someone might not be paying too close attention and thus it might bolster his argument?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Why are you so down on youtube? You say youtube like that instantly debunks it.

My point, as made above, is that whomod is claiming to have based his opinion largely, if not exclusively, on his viewing of a video (in this case on youtube) and ignoring that the news organizations have already debunked his theory, despite the fact that this would have been a great story for them to break if it were true.

Now, with that being said, if you really, really, want to argue that anything posted on YouTube, even if edited, dubbed or devoid of context, makes it automatically more accurate than the written word, let me know and I can consider whether or not I want to spend some time finding videos that make Hillary, Ted Kennedy, et al, look like morons.

Mitt Romney offers his outlook for Super Tuesday.

American Spectator:

LIKE PATS FANS late in the fourth quarter, Romney isn't letting go of the dream and neither were his supporters at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. Never has this writer attended a more upbeat gathering for a candidate who was mostly losing (or, to use Romney's favorite metaphor, at least getting more silvers and bronzes than golds).

With the televisions flip-flopping between CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, the crowd first burst into applause when it was reported that Romney had won overwhelmingly among Bay State primary voters who described themselves as conservatives. They continued to cheer and applaud every time the results in Massachusetts and Utah flashed on the screen -- Romney's only victories until the contests moved West to Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota.

Hours before the polls closed on the West Coast, Romney supporters settled into party. "Hey, is that Dr. John playing?" one reveler asked a bewildered older lady about the music blasting on the sound system. As McCain and Huckabee piled up wins, they cheered each other up with promising poll results in California.

Only a few Sam Adams-sipping College Republicans went slightly off message. "I'm scared," one confessed. "I don't think I could vote for John McCain." "We bet on the wrong guy in the Huckabee-Brownback feud," another said after Huckabee was projected the winner in another Southern state. "Wait, you're not a reporter, are you?"

YET BY AND LARGE, the crowd remained enthusiastic in the face of daunting news. They waved large red foam "Mitt mitts" and signs saying "Change." They chanted "We love Mitt" whenever they saw that the gathering was being shown on TV. And they saved the best for their candidate.

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, joined by former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romney's brother and sons, made it clear in his introduction that Romney was staying in the race. Romney made it even clearer. "We're going to keep on battling," he assured the crowd. "We're going to go all the way to the convention. We're going to win this thing, and we're going to get to the White House."

The Romney supporters cheered his applause lines on illegal immigration and the broken system in Washington as lustily as if he had just clinched the nomination. The candidate emphasized his private-sector experience and said, "It's time for the politicians to leave Washington and for we the people to take over!" Romney's only false note was when he invoked the "values of Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Teddy Roosevelt." George Herbert Walker Bush?

At the conclusion of his speech, Romney jumped off the platform to shake hands with his supporters. People in the crowd surged forward to greet him. Others filed out, again reassuring each other that it wasn't over yet. California would give them their fourth quarter game-changing touchdown.

Indeed, it may not be over yet. Nevertheless, as this is being written, the networks are already projecting that California won't save Team Romney. Romney and his backers have a lot of heart. But his campaign is starting to look like the Patriots' desperate final 29 seconds of the Super Bowl. Only without a Tom Brady.

How do American Indians feel about him? Don't Mormons believe that American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel whose skin was turned dark because they were evil?

I would assume that they would base their vote less on the tenets of Mormonism and more on whether or not he supports lucrative casino gaming deals.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Don't Mormons believe that American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel whose skin was turned dark because they were evil?

originally, but they have probably erased or at least deeply buried that little detail in recent years.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

How do American Indians feel about him? Don't Mormons believe that American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel whose skin was turned dark because they were evil?

they were able to control the weather with their dances.....

Time Magazine Blog: Romney to Quit Today

I just read yesterday that he was in it for the long haul, because he was rich and could afford to keep going.

He can probably "afford" to keep going but it was all but mathmatically imposible for him to win at this point.

He was always supposed to be a smart businessman. One of the first rules of smart business is not throwing good money after bad.

Thank God.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

did Joseph Smith quit when the golden plates were returned to Moroni?

Roman Moroni?

Originally Posted By: thedoctor

Roman Moroni?

you fargin icehole.

FARGIN' ICEHOLES!

damn I post too slow...

Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

How do American Indians feel about him? Don't Mormons believe that American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel whose skin was turned dark because they were evil?

they were able to control the weather with their dances.....

Heh.

THIS IS FARGIN' WAR!!!

I was disappointed to see Romney end his candidacy yesterday:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/conservatives_02-07.html

I still believe that Romney is the most proven and capable of the Republican candidates, and despite criticism of his wealth and paying 20 million out-of-pocket for his own campaign, I liked that he was a candidate who couldn't be bought and didn't need to pander to special interests to keep his campaign going.

I felt he didn't sell this enough, or argue his other strengths, as a proven business owner, as a proven organizer with the 2002 Utah Winter Olympics, and as a proven political leader as governor of Massachusetts who turned the state's deficit into a 2 billion dollar surplus, and despite relatively low job creation, set the state on the course for long-term growth. And after that, when his former corporation he'd left was becoming insolvent, he once again took it over and again made it a strong and profitable company.

Alone among the candidates, Romney not only has a solid resume of past experience, but has repeatedly proven himself an effective leader in the public and private sector, with undisputable results.

Romney left the race at this point for the good of his party and the nation. While I admire that, it saddens me that he's no longer a candidate, because despite initially being put off by his Mormon faith, I grew to see him as the most capable and proven candidate.

If McCain loses in November, I think Romney is saving his resources for a 2012 campaign.

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Check. And. Mate.

Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Romney Assaulted on Flight Leaving Olympics: A passenger became "physically violent" when the former Massachusetts governor asked him to move his seat upright for take-off.

I didn't realize that whomod had been to the Olympics

Romney takes biggest lead yet against Obama in national poll:

WASHINGTON – GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has rocketed ahead of President Obama and taken his biggest lead yet in a national head-to-head matchup, a new poll showed today.

Romney topped Obama 45 percent to 39 percent in the Rasmussen Reports survey.

“It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date,” said the pollsters.

Obama’s 39 percent share of the vote in today’s poll also represents a new low for the president, whose support previously ranged from 40 percent to 46 percent in matchups with Romney.

Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points.

As I've said before, these polls are too early to put much faith in so this is posted for discussion purposes only.

(Well, that and the fact that MEM loves polls $;\)$ )

I actually think Obama is in even worse shape than the poll numbers indicate. This is in a crowded Republican primary race where Republicans are still divided in their fluctuating whims of who they think might be the best candidate.
But once the primary ends and Republicans/Independents are able to coalesce around one candidate, I think whoever the Republican is will surpass Obama in popularity.

And even Democrat pundits and pollsters have acknowledged that the "undecided" vote overwhelmingly goes for the challenger and not the incumbent consistently in elections.

I like Romney, but there are many other very capable Republicans I'd be happy with too. As would most of the nation at this point. Two guys who I think are as good as any of the front-runners are Gary Johnson and John Huntsman. But as we know from the 2008 campaign... it ain't near over yet.

I think Romney has potential to be '12s John Kerry.

Gary Johnson? You mean the republican Nader? The guy trying to run as a libertarian? That Gary Johnson?

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Gary Johnson? You mean the republican Nader? The guy trying to run as a libertarian? That Gary Johnson?

Last I heard, he was just considering a Libertarian run. I liked him better as a Republican. If he actually has turned on Republicans and become a thorn in their side, that makes him far less appealing.

I like the idea of a Republican who can reach out to Democrats, without being a RINO.
Johnson has a good record as governor of cutting budgets in his own state, and standing up to budget waste, whether it comes from the Republican or Democrat side of the aisle.
Like Romney, Johnson's ability to be elected and retain popularity in an overwhelmingly Democrat state speaks well of his ability to unite unite the nation and get bipartisan support.

I still feel Gingrich is the most capable. And maybe we need a Republican who will just assertively and unapologetically be a Republican conservative and get things done. I really think Perry, Bachmann, Santorum or Huntsman would all fill that bill as well.

Romney is less reliably conservative, and could be too conciliatory toward Democrats to push through the needed changes that a Gingrich or some other solid conservative would. But Romney would arguably be less bombastic and more diplomatically advance conservative ideals in a way that would be more uniting and less partisan.

In the cases of both G.W. Bush and Obama, both campaigned as uniters and then were more divisive and then governed more partisanly and divisively than their predecessors.
Bush in particular was a very bipartisan guy when he was Texas governor, and I would argue the partisan forces unleashed on him forced him to be more partisan himself in retaliation. By comparison, Obama has gotten a relative free ride, and has never been nearly as hated and bashed by the media as Bush, or even from his conservative opposition.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................