Santorum, Kiss Your Good Reputation Bye-bye: Romney to get More 'Aggressive'

Very true. Still, you have to admit that neither party is particularly gifted in having that understanding. I doubt Michelle Obama, for example, pumped her own gas. Hillary couldn't operate a cappuccino machine at an Exxon station while she was campaigning in 08.

Vast amounts is a fairly loose term.

I frankly am of the opinion that we should make military service a pre-requisite for becoming President. At least then, the most important part of his or her job will be something they have an "understanding" about. MBA's have their place. I don't think that the Oval is necessarily it.

That breaks the cornerstone of our presidents control of the military: that it is a CIVILIAN that gives the orders and NOT the military. That is an incredibly important distinction. Requiring service blurs that line.

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.
 
President Obama (oooh, thats got to hurt you to read that), won statewide office in Illinois and the Presidency of the United States without the benefit of having a father well-established in politics. GWB would have been Rick Perry if his name wasn't Bush.

Feel free to stack one's accomplishments up against the other in the lens of where they started.

You go first.

Start with "mission accomplished" LOL

Why would it hurt? I can see the corruption you cheer. Its my children that need to worry. I am quickly approaching a point I will collect much more then I pay in. And you bastards better not miss a payment.
The same "corruption" Bush benefited from as well.
You dont have the intellectual capacity for real discussion, so lets play.

Why do you suipport murdering Americans and support indefinite detention? One thing I have learned from the low life side of the isle is the president is responsible for everything.
Elaborate...about murdering Americans....

As for indefinite detention...

I fully support keeping the scum in Gitmo there for as long as the President, regardless of party, sees fit. If they pose any threat at all to the American people, they should be locked up. At the same time, there is no danger in a military tribunal for these inmates. Have one and be done with it.

Meaning you guys suck.

Gee, a personal attack from a right wing looney...how not surprising. I guess when you're filled with hate it's predictable that you'll go to the personal attack. Teach your kids to be more mature than you are. Shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.

Guess she couldn't hang....typical.
 
President Obama (oooh, thats got to hurt you to read that), won statewide office in Illinois and the Presidency of the United States without the benefit of having a father well-established in politics. GWB would have been Rick Perry if his name wasn't Bush.

Feel free to stack one's accomplishments up against the other in the lens of where they started.

You go first.

Start with "mission accomplished" LOL

Why would it hurt? I can see the corruption you cheer. Its my children that need to worry. I am quickly approaching a point I will collect much more then I pay in. And you bastards better not miss a payment.
The same "corruption" Bush benefited from as well.
You dont have the intellectual capacity for real discussion, so lets play.

Why do you suipport murdering Americans and support indefinite detention? One thing I have learned from the low life side of the isle is the president is responsible for everything.
Elaborate...about murdering Americans....

As for indefinite detention...

I fully support keeping the scum in Gitmo there for as long as the President, regardless of party, sees fit. If they pose any threat at all to the American people, they should be locked up. At the same time, there is no danger in a military tribunal for these inmates. Have one and be done with it.

Meaning you guys suck.

Gee, a personal attack from a right wing looney...how not surprising. I guess when you're filled with hate it's predictable that you'll go to the personal attack. Teach your kids to be more mature than you are. Shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.

Oh brother. So GW profited the same? Then post up the tax dollars for cronies to campaign funds. Should I wait long?

You are a party hack and deserve whatever befalls you.

You have been a constant unthinking knee pad.

You werent sharp enough to catch the NDAA reference. Why the fuck do you post at all?
 
I actually feel sorry for you...

Don't.

Because when that motherfucker died..it was like New Year's eve around here.

Something most of yas will never get.

My post had nothing to do with OBL, only you. Are you a black American, Sallow?

My real life pic is in my profile. And it's pretty clear..I ain't black.

What does that have to do with anything?
 
Why would it hurt? I can see the corruption you cheer. Its my children that need to worry. I am quickly approaching a point I will collect much more then I pay in. And you bastards better not miss a payment.
The same "corruption" Bush benefited from as well.

Elaborate...about murdering Americans....

As for indefinite detention...

I fully support keeping the scum in Gitmo there for as long as the President, regardless of party, sees fit. If they pose any threat at all to the American people, they should be locked up. At the same time, there is no danger in a military tribunal for these inmates. Have one and be done with it.

Meaning you guys suck.

Gee, a personal attack from a right wing looney...how not surprising. I guess when you're filled with hate it's predictable that you'll go to the personal attack. Teach your kids to be more mature than you are. Shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.

Oh brother. So GW profited the same? Then post up the tax dollars for cronies to campaign funds. Should I wait long?
Not sure what you mean. I do know that Enron got special treatment under Bush so what's your point?

You brought up the State Department buying Presidential books in a lame attempt to support Stephen's assertion that Obama didn't make his money legitimately. I pointed out they did the same thing for George Bush. You got your panties in a wad when called on your one-sided interpretation of history. Hence the "knee pad" reference below...juvenile and totally expected. Can't you at least try to act like an adult?

If Obama benefited from it, so did Bush. Do you want to deny that?

You are a party hack and deserve whatever befalls you.

I belong to no political party at all but thanks for playing.
You have been a constant unthinking knee pad.
? Sad.
You werent sharp enough to catch the NDAA reference. Why the fuck do you post at all?
You're not sharp enough to articulate your position? C'mon, you can form a coherent thought, can't you?

Remember your challenge dear...stack up Bush's accomplishments against Obama's and remember Bush's pronounced advantages of having a father who was firmly entrenched in federal politics. Obama has accomplished on his own more than Bush Jr. ever has or ever will. You know this and that is why you're going to the "you guys suck" card, and running from your own position.
 
Absolutely correct on both points. Which is why this piss and vinegar fight is going to make for a great general election..

For Democrats. :lol:

Not really. Most of this will be forgotten by November.

Here's the bottom line. If the economy is better, Obama wins, because teh incumbant usually does.

if the economy gets worse because Europe Collapses, because Israel wrecks the oil market by bombing Iran, or one of half a dozen other things, he loses, no matter how many working folks Romney's slimed or how kind of out there Santorum's religion is.

Well the economy has been getting better..and dramatically so. Reagan won with 7% unemployment his second time to bat and against a stronger candidate then Romney.

Despite the wishful thinking of Conservatives it's highly unlikely Europe will collapse or Israel will bomb Iran.

YOu live in some strange alternate universe where Walter Mondale was a strong candidate? Walter Mondale was a joke. From picking a Mobbed-up running mate to sounding like a wimp on foreign policy issues.

And as much as I hate Romney, I would be really surprised if he only carried one state.

Actually, European Collapse is a real possibility. So is Israel bombing Iran.

If the Israelis don't think Obama will take care of the problem, they will.
 
I think that the things you could criticize Santorum for aren't things Romney can be the one to bring up.

Simply, the wrong audience for that sort of thing.

Much like the Bain Stuff doesn't get a lot of traction with Republican audiences, neither would the religious kook stuff against Santorum.

Absolutely correct on both points. Which is why this piss and vinegar fight is going to make for a great general election..

For Democrats. :lol:

Not really. Most of this will be forgotten by November.

Here's the bottom line. If the economy is better, Obama wins, because teh incumbant usually does.

if the economy gets worse because Europe Collapses, because Israel wrecks the oil market by bombing Iran, or one of half a dozen other things, he loses, no matter how many working folks Romney's slimed or how kind of out there Santorum's religion is.

I disagree.

The economy is not the primary reason most conservatives go to the polls. Gore lost in 2000 despite a good economy. Humphrey lost and Nixon lost in good economies.

They werent incombent Presidents but were incumbent VPs.

This thing will end well for the GOp if they nominate Santorum, and maybe even Gingrich.

Romney is suicide for them.
 
I disagree.

The economy is not the primary reason most conservatives go to the polls. Gore lost in 2000 despite a good economy. Humphrey lost and Nixon lost in good economies.

They werent incombent Presidents but were incumbent VPs.

This thing will end well for the GOp if they nominate Santorum, and maybe even Gingrich.

Romney is suicide for them.

Major difference. GOre was not the incumbant. Also another major difference.

Gore actually did win the election. He got more votes. Probably got more votes in Florida, too, but we could debate that one until the sun goes dark.

Humphrey lost because Southern Democrats went for Wallace, destroying the traditional coalition. Also there was the war he didn't know if he was for or against.

Nixon probalby won in 1960, if it weren't for a bit of cheating by Dick Daley.

None of these guys were the incumbant.

You see, in some ways, our system is self-correcting. We do want change every eight years. And that was codified in the 22nd Amendment for the one guy who didn't get that.

But instances when you vote a guy out after 4 years? If his party hasn't already been in charge for a while, it rarely happens. The last time was 1980. The last time before that was 1888. And even then it was questionable about who actually won.
 
.

We'll see if Mitt finally jumps the shark here. His lead is tenuous as it is, if he tries to do to Santorum what he did to Gingrich, that may be it.

The circus continues. Somewhere Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself.

.


I was at my Colorado caucas on Tuesday night--and the anger and disgust was in the air. Mitt Romney and his super pac funds have made their mark--and it's not so much as people were casting a vote for Rick Santorum--but a vote against Mitt Romney.

Romney spent 17 million dollars in Florida alone--to attack Newt Gingrich with over 3000 negative ads--and he was only on the receiving end of 200 ads. Romney has alienated the conservative base with these negative ads. Conservatives rewarded him with 3 consecutive loses.

Romney--if it's not too late??--needs to use his millions in super pac funds to promote himself to conservatives and convince them that he is the best candidate--versus pounding down competitors to win the nomination through default. If he and his super pac funds continue on the same attack of other GOP candidates--(violating the 11th commandment of Ronald Reagan)--he is certain to lose much more--and alienate further the conservative base within the Republican party.
 
Last edited:
Very true. Still, you have to admit that neither party is particularly gifted in having that understanding. I doubt Michelle Obama, for example, pumped her own gas. Hillary couldn't operate a cappuccino machine at an Exxon station while she was campaigning in 08.

Vast amounts is a fairly loose term.

I frankly am of the opinion that we should make military service a pre-requisite for becoming President. At least then, the most important part of his or her job will be something they have an "understanding" about. MBA's have their place. I don't think that the Oval is necessarily it.

That breaks the cornerstone of our presidents control of the military: that it is a CIVILIAN that gives the orders and NOT the military. That is an incredibly important distinction. Requiring service blurs that line.

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.
 
Multitasking.

He wrote a couple of best selling books as well.

You want doughnuts with that?

umm umm, best selling books..

not until he started RUNNING for President did they sell because before then NOBODY ever heard of the man...but hey..:lol:

Not true at all. He gave the Keynote speech at the DNC convention in 2004. To rave reviews by all who heard it.

You were not paying attention.

oh boy, he gave a speech in 2004... so because of that ALL the people should of remembered him.
good grief.
 
Last edited:
Basically I watch the GOP condidates playing the same dirty tricks on each other that they typically play when running against the DEMS.

All I see in that field are a bunch of truly creepy people each vying to be the most effective creep.
 
That breaks the cornerstone of our presidents control of the military: that it is a CIVILIAN that gives the orders and NOT the military. That is an incredibly important distinction. Requiring service blurs that line.

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

Agreed, but then again, Stalin is a big hero to a lot of these ideologues on the left.
 
Basically I watch the GOP condidates playing the same dirty tricks on each other that they typically play when running against the DEMS.

All I see in that field are a bunch of truly creepy people each vying to be the most effective creep.

What dirty tricks did Palin, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich or Santorum play this last 6 months?
 
Romney is showing to be a real slime ball. He somehow thinks he is owed this election and has done nothing but go negative.

Showing?

Sweetie..this guy used other people's money to break apart companies and pocketed the profit.

I can't think of a more slime ball thing to do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXpaBQnBvE]Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech - YouTube[/ame]

your Dear Leader is nothing to brag about..so you should talk

THAT is the kind of comment that brings you such accolades, Stephanie. Your depth of thought is remarkable.
 
Showing?

Sweetie..this guy used other people's money to break apart companies and pocketed the profit.

I can't think of a more slime ball thing to do.

Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech - YouTube

your Dear Leader is nothing to brag about..so you should talk

THAT is the kind of comment that brings you such accolades, Stephanie. Your depth of thought is remarkable.

SO? Is it rubbing some skin off your ass or something?
 
your Dear Leader is nothing to brag about..so you should talk

THAT is the kind of comment that brings you such accolades, Stephanie. Your depth of thought is remarkable.

SO? Is it rubbing some skin off your ass or something?

The accolades of liberals aside, Stephanie, you are exctly correct on the matter.

At least Gordon Gecko did not use the power of the federal government to simply take over companies by the force of law like someone recently did.
 
That breaks the cornerstone of our presidents control of the military: that it is a CIVILIAN that gives the orders and NOT the military. That is an incredibly important distinction. Requiring service blurs that line.

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

History reports a different story than you want to portray. We've had military men (and will have military women at some point I'm confident) as POTUS before. On the whole, they've been either to the liberal or moderate end of the spectrum.

Your'e worried about nothing.

In fact, I would submit that you have seen since 2001 the danger of having presidents--yes plural--that have no real understanding of combat. We're in Afghanistan for what exactly? I can't think of any good reason to be there now. Can you? When Saddam was found in Iraq, we should have been demobilizing that very evening.

When you have some skin in the game, you take the game much more seriously.

Your academic argument has not been born out by history. Sorry.
 

Forum List

Back
Top