Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liberal defense: same thing u did with Obama, just scream loud enough and use ugly tactics and get what u want regardless of thought or brains.
Conservative tactic: Divert discussion to Obama when it looks like you might have to defend your position.
When Obama ran, he ran on less than what Romney is running on. Romney has been a governor and knows how to deal with managing and dealing with a whole state. Sorry, u lose again, the dems ran on the hopes no one could attack Obama because he had a small track record, this time they cant do that NOR allow someone else to run that tactic. Once again Liberal thinking comes back to bite them in the butt.
That depends on the definition of "improve". If they feel free to inflate another empty bubble based on worthless paper that is hardly an improvement.
Conservative tactic: Divert discussion to Obama when it looks like you might have to defend your position.
When Obama ran, he ran on less than what Romney is running on. Romney has been a governor and knows how to deal with managing and dealing with a whole state. Sorry, u lose again, the dems ran on the hopes no one could attack Obama because he had a small track record, this time they cant do that NOR allow someone else to run that tactic. Once again Liberal thinking comes back to bite them in the butt.
Your first reply to me was "Liberal defense, Romney wasnt president." To me it seemed that you thought that his actions as CEO of Bain have no bearing on how he would fare as president and we already know that you can barely get him to even admit he was ever a governor so, how was I wrong?
If are not allowed to consider his actions as governor and not allowed to apply his actions in the private sector to the question of how he would act as president then what do we have? Your faith that he would be great?
That's all it took to hire Obama for the job twit.
Am I saying that you should not consider his actions in any portion of his career as how he would do as president? Get off Obama for one second and defend your candidate from charges he would only care about a very narrow group of people and their interests. Your continual effort to divert attention from the most serious flaw your candidate has is not working. Romney is more of an unknown quantity in this equation here than Obama, we know how he works, tell us how you think Romney will do, how he will make life better for Joe Sixpack, sell this turkey or find one of ever present Obama bashing threads and bitch over there.
When Obama ran, he ran on less than what Romney is running on. Romney has been a governor and knows how to deal with managing and dealing with a whole state. Sorry, u lose again, the dems ran on the hopes no one could attack Obama because he had a small track record, this time they cant do that NOR allow someone else to run that tactic. Once again Liberal thinking comes back to bite them in the butt.
Your first reply to me was "Liberal defense, Romney wasnt president." To me it seemed that you thought that his actions as CEO of Bain have no bearing on how he would fare as president and we already know that you can barely get him to even admit he was ever a governor so, how was I wrong?
i should have stated i was using a liberal defense, much like in another thread when someone was asking if ur mad Romney did it, why not tell the DNC chair she was wrong, now both are different cases but the liberal defense was Wasserman isnt running for president. The same liberal defense can be applied here, Romney wasnt president so u cant bash him in turn when Obama does something because Obama was president. One was a president at the time, the other person was not. Use the liberal defense and liberals get defensive. They always tend to want it their way, right only because in their minds their view is the only right way.
Your first reply to me was "Liberal defense, Romney wasnt president." To me it seemed that you thought that his actions as CEO of Bain have no bearing on how he would fare as president and we already know that you can barely get him to even admit he was ever a governor so, how was I wrong?
i should have stated i was using a liberal defense, much like in another thread when someone was asking if ur mad Romney did it, why not tell the DNC chair she was wrong, now both are different cases but the liberal defense was Wasserman isnt running for president. The same liberal defense can be applied here, Romney wasnt president so u cant bash him in turn when Obama does something because Obama was president. One was a president at the time, the other person was not. Use the liberal defense and liberals get defensive. They always tend to want it their way, right only because in their minds their view is the only right way.
I see, another diversionary tactic, it is like pulling teeth around here to get you guys talking about the supposed benefits of your candidate.
That's all it took to hire Obama for the job twit.
Am I saying that you should not consider his actions in any portion of his career as how he would do as president? Get off Obama for one second and defend your candidate from charges he would only care about a very narrow group of people and their interests. Your continual effort to divert attention from the most serious flaw your candidate has is not working. Romney is more of an unknown quantity in this equation here than Obama, we know how he works, tell us how you think Romney will do, how he will make life better for Joe Sixpack, sell this turkey or find one of ever present Obama bashing threads and bitch over there.
There is nothing to defend idiot. Romney was paid to perform a job for a PRIVATE firm. He did that job and he did it well. Unless something illegal was done what exactly am I supposed to defend? The free market enterprise?
i should have stated i was using a liberal defense, much like in another thread when someone was asking if ur mad Romney did it, why not tell the DNC chair she was wrong, now both are different cases but the liberal defense was Wasserman isnt running for president. The same liberal defense can be applied here, Romney wasnt president so u cant bash him in turn when Obama does something because Obama was president. One was a president at the time, the other person was not. Use the liberal defense and liberals get defensive. They always tend to want it their way, right only because in their minds their view is the only right way.
I see, another diversionary tactic, it is like pulling teeth around here to get you guys talking about the supposed benefits of your candidate.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Am I saying that you should not consider his actions in any portion of his career as how he would do as president? Get off Obama for one second and defend your candidate from charges he would only care about a very narrow group of people and their interests. Your continual effort to divert attention from the most serious flaw your candidate has is not working. Romney is more of an unknown quantity in this equation here than Obama, we know how he works, tell us how you think Romney will do, how he will make life better for Joe Sixpack, sell this turkey or find one of ever present Obama bashing threads and bitch over there.
There is nothing to defend idiot. Romney was paid to perform a job for a PRIVATE firm. He did that job and he did it well. Unless something illegal was done what exactly am I supposed to defend? The free market enterprise?
So you actually think we should not hold it against him? What about his record as governor? Not that either? Not going to play that way. The mindset that allows someone to do what he has done is a ruinous thing in the hands of a US president, there is no indication that his attitude towards the little guy is any different.
I see, another diversionary tactic, it is like pulling teeth around here to get you guys talking about the supposed benefits of your candidate.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
There is nothing to defend idiot. Romney was paid to perform a job for a PRIVATE firm. He did that job and he did it well. Unless something illegal was done what exactly am I supposed to defend? The free market enterprise?
So you actually think we should not hold it against him? What about his record as governor? Not that either? Not going to play that way. The mindset that allows someone to do what he has done is a ruinous thing in the hands of a US president, there is no indication that his attitude towards the little guy is any different.
There is nothing in his professional career to hold against him. As governor his record is fair game but the argument hasn't been about anything but Bain. I suspect you're going to change directions now huh.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
what was the direct based evidence that u had for Obama with regards to the economy, foreign affairs military conflicts , and our national operations? What evidence did u have that could directly say this was the best guy for the job? Lay out all the evidence so we can see it.
So you actually think we should not hold it against him? What about his record as governor? Not that either? Not going to play that way. The mindset that allows someone to do what he has done is a ruinous thing in the hands of a US president, there is no indication that his attitude towards the little guy is any different.
There is nothing in his professional career to hold against him. As governor his record is fair game but the argument hasn't been about anything but Bain. I suspect you're going to change directions now huh.
Is he running on his record as governor? No, he running as the business friendly pinstriped savior of America, so defend your candidate on those grounds, how exactly is he going to apply his cold-blooded business savvy to running America?
He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[76][77] but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar.[64] He managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[52][56][64] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[56] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[52][77][78]
Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 to serve as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[52][79] By that time, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation,[66] having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, with 115 employees overall, and $4 billion under its management
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
what was the direct based evidence that u had for Obama with regards to the economy, foreign affairs military conflicts , and our national operations? What evidence did u have that could directly say this was the best guy for the job? Lay out all the evidence so we can see it.
Make a thread on "Why did you vote for Obama?" and maybe I be along to address your question. In the meantime let's keep things on topic.
I see, another diversionary tactic, it is like pulling teeth around here to get you guys talking about the supposed benefits of your candidate.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
what was the direct based evidence that u had for Obama with regards to the economy, foreign affairs military conflicts , and our national operations? What evidence did u have that could directly say this was the best guy for the job? Lay out all the evidence so we can see it.
Make a thread on "Why did you vote for Obama?" and maybe I be along to address your question. In the meantime let's keep things on topic.
In other words, u called me out on it Sinjorri and I do NOT accept.
I see, another diversionary tactic, it is like pulling teeth around here to get you guys talking about the supposed benefits of your candidate.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
Hint:
Obama will be gone.
Pass it on
the benefit is trying to turn around the economy, im not going to shock ur base, but liberals too love money and if you dont agree see hollywood. For further prrof see Soros. To get the economy going again would allow the country to focus on other problems but all problems need money. So our benefit with Romney is getting the economy healthy where OBAMA has proven to be a failure.
Once again we are presented with a faith based statement that Romney can directly effect the economy in an immediate and dramatic fashion without a hint of detail.
Swear to God, they've never heard of the concept of vetting before.
