Can/Do people change as they grow up?

Conservative

Type 40
Jul 1, 2011
17,082
2,054
48
Pennsylvania
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?

Is Mitt Romney the same person now that he was as a youth. faults and all?

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?
 
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?

Is Mitt Romney the same person now that he was as a youth. faults and all?

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?

Some people can change and have actual remorse for prior behaviors. I'm the same person - in terms of character - as I was at 17; I never bullied anyone and stepped in twice - see I can remember very well 1965, also my senior year in high school - to stop bullying.
 
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?

Is Mitt Romney the same person now that he was as a youth. faults and all?

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?

Some people can change and have actual remorse for prior behaviors. I'm the same person - in terms of character - as I was at 17; I never bullied anyone and stepped in twice - see I can remember very well 1965, also my senior year in high school - to stop bullying.


You never made fun of someone as a teenager that you would never do now?

Before you answer that, take a shot of truth serum.
 
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?


according to the right everything with obama is fairgame and appropriate.

Is Mitt Romney the same person now that he was as a youth. faults and all?

According to the right his past is not fairgame nor appropriate because there are more important issues to discuss.

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?

No, but then neither is obama nor are those in his past that the right constantly tries to use to make people fear and not trust obama.

So why is obama's past farigame but not romney's?
 
Last edited:
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?


according to the right everythign with nobama is fairgame and appropriate.

Is Mitt Romney the same person now that he was as a youth. faults and all?

According to the right his past is not fairgame nor appropriate because there are more important issues to discuss.

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?

No, but then neither is obama nor are those in his past that the right constantly tries to use to make people fear and not trust obama.

So why is obama's past farigame but not romney's?

The loonies who bash Obama for dog-eating are idiots who should be ignored.

The loonies who bash Romney for a potential insult he gave 50 years are idiots who should be ignored. However the problem is I don't see many democrats saying "I don't care what Romney did as a kid." And not many republicans give a damn about the dog eating, they give a damn about the economy, the thing you guys pretended to give a damn about in 2008.
 
Depends on which party you belong to apparently.

unfortunately, I think that is how this thread is likely to go. sad commentary on society.

Becuase it has gone that way in the past. W's past was all a youthful indescretion and was not to be discussed but clinton not inhaling is a major issue. The right is applying that same hypocritical standard to now.

Romney's past is off limits and to discuss it means left can't defend obama's record when both can be done and discussing one does not eliminate discussion of the other.

However, obama eating dog as a s child is pertinent info and must be discussed as is who he knew when he was younger as well as his entire past all the way back to his birth certificate which some of the right wing wackos still refuse to accept.
 
Yes people change but usually they dont appologise for assault when they dont even remembering assaulting people
 
Is Barack Obama the same person now that he was as a youth, faults and all?


according to the right everythign with nobama is fairgame and appropriate.



According to the right his past is not fairgame nor appropriate because there are more important issues to discuss.

Are you the same person now that you were as a youth, faults and all?

No, but then neither is obama nor are those in his past that the right constantly tries to use to make people fear and not trust obama.

So why is obama's past farigame but not romney's?

The loonies who bash Obama for dog-eating are idiots who should be ignored.

The loonies who bash Romney for a potential insult he gave 50 years are idiots who should be ignored. However the problem is I don't see many democrats saying "I don't care what Romney did as a kid." And not many republicans give a damn about the dog eating, they give a damn about the economy, the thing you guys pretended to give a damn about in 2008.

The right has made the entirety of obama's past part of the discussion and only now when the past has the potential to harm their candidate for president are they arguing that such matters are merely a distracction.

If more people on the right argued that "they didn't care what obama did in his past" and chose to discuss the economy, which most of them don't, then your argument would make more sense.
However, the right has and will use any means necessary to try and tear obama down so why is it that you want the left to fight back with their hands tied behind their backs?
 
I worked for Bobby. My views evolved as I matured, however, my core beliefs remained relatively the same. We all go through a metamorphosis as we are exposed to the stark reality of attempting to survive in the real world, some fall by the wayside because the burden of responsibility is too overwhelming and easier for someone else to make decisions for them so they have that someone else to blame for their faults afterwords.
 
Depends on which party you belong to apparently.

unfortunately, I think that is how this thread is likely to go. sad commentary on society.

No it's a sad commentary on the left and the party they support.

So how does the fact that the right is now arguing that romney's past need not be talked about because there are more important issues even as they drudge up obama's past and try to use it against him instead of discussing the more important issues make the left look bad??

The right wingers are the ones looking like hypocrites so how is that sad commentary on the left?
 
11 posts till Bushs name was brought up.

A new record? Lol likely not.

the fact that you chose to run with this sidestep instead of actually addressing the content shows volumes about your lack of character and integrity.

However, ignoring the past where a rightwinger is concerned is in line with rightwing hypocrisy of the day so based on that you are being a good little rightwing lemming. LOL
 
11 posts till Bushs name was brought up.

A new record? Lol likely not.

the fact that you chose to run with this sidestep instead of actually addressing the content shows volumes about your lack of character and integrity.

However, ignoring the past where a rightwinger is concerned is in line with rightwing hypocrisy of the day so based on that you are being a good little rightwing lemming. LOL

I addressed it in the very first reply dipshit.

And my integrity is questioned? LMAO you take this internet shit serious huh?
 
Last edited:
according to the right everythign with nobama is fairgame and appropriate.



According to the right his past is not fairgame nor appropriate because there are more important issues to discuss.



No, but then neither is obama nor are those in his past that the right constantly tries to use to make people fear and not trust obama.

So why is obama's past farigame but not romney's?

The loonies who bash Obama for dog-eating are idiots who should be ignored.

The loonies who bash Romney for a potential insult he gave 50 years are idiots who should be ignored. However the problem is I don't see many democrats saying "I don't care what Romney did as a kid." And not many republicans give a damn about the dog eating, they give a damn about the economy, the thing you guys pretended to give a damn about in 2008.

The right has made the entirety of obama's past part of the discussion and only now when the past has the potential to harm their candidate for president are they arguing that such matters are merely a distracction.

If more people on the right argued that "they didn't care what obama did in his past" and chose to discuss the economy, which most of them don't, then your argument would make more sense.
However, the right has and will use any means necessary to try and tear obama down so why is it that you want the left to fight back with their hands tied behind their backs?

Obama is and has done a great job of tearing himself down without anyone's help from the right. Love the part about wanting "the left to fight back with their hands tied behind their back" you can't be serious, and who controls the press?:eusa_boohoo:

We have often pondered why the best and most capable refuse to run for political office, it should be self evident and for that look at the press with their hidden political agenda's.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top