Rev. Wright revisited? Bring it on

Sallow and Rinata are in denial.

Romney won't play the Wright game, and he certainly will knock yours down.

Denial about what?

He's already brought up Wright.

Catch up.

Umm . . . you are way behind. He did not bring up the way you are saying he did, he said he is not playing, the SuperPac is not playing, so you have 'no game'.

Have the last word to feel better, we are done here.
 
Yup, but I was speaking of the Department of Defense (DOD).

That is also anti, cutting from our defense is what our Constitution says is the number one thing that our government should be doing. Dem's have always cut back in our military rather than cutting back on unfunded entitlements.

Prove it.

The Constitution says nothing about providing a military capable of establishing an empire. Quite the contrary. The two valid reasons for war are invasion and to quell insurrection. The Constitution also provides that the United States stays in keeping with International Laws and defends against acts of piracy on the high seas. But in terms of enumerated powers..the NUMBER ONE priority of the government..is to "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".

So you've completely failed here.

Sallow is right on this, Peach is wrong.

Having troops in 180 countries is not necessary for the country's defense.

The neo-cons need to shut their doosh mouths and sit down.
 
If this wasn't an accident but planned, it was the most brilliant move in modern politics. By claiming to be creating a campaign ad about Wright, democrats went for the bait and blew it up to a major issue. Which means everyone is now discussing obama's links to Wright. Without ever having to actually make the ad! Romney got the benefit of millions of dollars of publicity without spending a dime.
 
You are the one who is near sighted, Unkotare.

I know far more about national defense needs and security than you. I will debate it all day if you want, but you will always look naive. Which you are.
 
If this wasn't an accident but planned, it was the most brilliant move in modern politics. By claiming to be creating a campaign ad about Wright, democrats went for the bait and blew it up to a major issue. Which means everyone is now discussing obama's links to Wright. Without ever having to actually make the ad! Romney got the benefit of millions of dollars of publicity without spending a dime.

Only wacks like you are discussing the "links". No one to the intelligent side of the neanderthal far right cares.
 
You are the one who is near sighted, Unkotare.

I know far more about national defense needs and security than you. I will debate it all day if you want, but you will always look naive. Which you are.



LOL! Funny stuff.

You are too dense to understand, but your descendants may, unfortunately, have to find out.
 
Sallow and Rinata are in denial.

Romney won't play the Wright game, and he certainly will knock yours down.

I'm not sure he is not playing the Wright game, as I said. I think he might be doing exatly that. What do you mean by, "he certainly will knock yours down"??? Please explain. Thanks, Jake!!!
 
Sallow and Rinata are in denial.

Romney won't play the Wright game, and he certainly will knock yours down.

Denial about what?

He's already brought up Wright.

Catch up.

Umm . . . you are way behind. He did not bring up the way you are saying he did, he said he is not playing, the SuperPac is not playing, so you have 'no game'.

Have the last word to feel better, we are done here.

He brought it up..and he brought up religion.

This ain't Chinatown, Jake.

:eusa_shhh:
 
If this wasn't an accident but planned, it was the most brilliant move in modern politics. By claiming to be creating a campaign ad about Wright, democrats went for the bait and blew it up to a major issue. Which means everyone is now discussing obama's links to Wright. Without ever having to actually make the ad! Romney got the benefit of millions of dollars of publicity without spending a dime.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you are wrong. Most people find the topic of Rev. Wright to be pretty boring. Let's face it. He is nobody important in the political world and most of us don't care about his opinions. I think his ideas and opinions are about as relevant and interesting as any stranger on the street. Which means not at all.
 
Super PAC shelves Obama-Wright ads after outcry Romney, 'super PAC' reject proposed Rev. Wright ad campaign - latimes.com

The billionaire said to be weighing a proposal to resurrect incendiary comments by President Barack Obama's former pastor shelved the idea Thursday after Obama and Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney denounced the tactic.

Incredibly wise. Romney distances himself from the far right reactionaries.

:lol:

Romney brought up Rev. Wright in Feburary on Hannity's radio show.

Chris Matthews Slimes Romney: Bringing Up Rev. Wright Is Mocking 'Black History Month' | NewsBusters.org

It was Romney that was trying this on for size. And now? He's "denouncing" that tactic.

:eusa_whistle:

Fine fellow you guys got here.

I am trying to decide if Romney knew about the latest plot to discredit Obama by using Rev. Wright. At first I thought he didn't, but I am starting to change my mind.

Go with what you know, not what you think you know.

If you're undecided best not to say anything.
 
Denial about what?

He's already brought up Wright.

Catch up.

Umm . . . you are way behind. He did not bring up the way you are saying he did, he said he is not playing, the SuperPac is not playing, so you have 'no game'.

Have the last word to feel better, we are done here.

He brought it up..and he brought up religion.

This ain't Chinatown, Jake.

:eusa_shhh:

Actually . . . you are mistaken yet again. He did not bring up in the way you are suggesting and he has repudiated the message.

We will see how you flip flop on this, too. :lol:
 
That is also anti, cutting from our defense is what our Constitution says is the number one thing that our government should be doing. Dem's have always cut back in our military rather than cutting back on unfunded entitlements.

Prove it.

The Constitution says nothing about providing a military capable of establishing an empire. Quite the contrary. The two valid reasons for war are invasion and to quell insurrection. The Constitution also provides that the United States stays in keeping with International Laws and defends against acts of piracy on the high seas. But in terms of enumerated powers..the NUMBER ONE priority of the government..is to "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".

So you've completely failed here.

Sallow is right on this, Peach is wrong.

Having troops in 180 countries is not necessary for the country's defense.

The neo-cons need to shut their doosh mouths and sit down.

We have some pretty Hot Spots around the world. North Korea, China over Taiwan and Iran.
It is cheaper and quicker to move troops to places around the world, which are closer, that might flair up, than from just the United States. It takes to long for them to get there, plus it costs to much to move them from the States.
It's not always bad to have troops in world hot spots, or based elsewhere in case something bad happens in some other part of the world - but that's basically why.
We are not dictating to them while we are in these countries. We have contracts made between the countries and they want us there.
 
That is also anti, cutting from our defense is what our Constitution says is the number one thing that our government should be doing. Dem's have always cut back in our military rather than cutting back on unfunded entitlements.

Prove it.

The Constitution says nothing about providing a military capable of establishing an empire. Quite the contrary. The two valid reasons for war are invasion and to quell insurrection. The Constitution also provides that the United States stays in keeping with International Laws and defends against acts of piracy on the high seas. But in terms of enumerated powers..the NUMBER ONE priority of the government..is to "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".

So you've completely failed here.

Sallow is right on this, Peach is wrong.

Having troops in 180 countries is not necessary for the country's defense.

The neo-cons need to shut their doosh mouths and sit down.

LOL, now you are an expert on where we need our troops..
 
I have as much right as anyone to speak my mind, Stephanie.

In no way do we need 180 outposts overseas. The neo-cons have done terrible things to this country since 2001, and I don't want them ever to have the responsibility and ability to harm our country again. Obama has done fine and I thin Romney, when he replaces him in five moths, will do better.
 
I have as much right as anyone to speak my mind, Stephanie.

In no way do we need 180 outposts overseas. The neo-cons have done terrible things to this country since 2001, and I don't want them ever to have the responsibility and ability to harm our country again. Obama has done fine and I thin Romney, when he replaces him in five moths, will do better.

okey dokey:lol:
 
Romney made a statement today saying he doesn't want to bring up Wright. After all, everyone knows and some understand what it means when one can listen to him for years and others have opted to chug a little more koolaid and dismiss it.

Noooo. Romney doesn't want a group on the other side to educate the masses on the history and tenets of his religion. With all due respect to the OP, it's not racism that would hurt him.

But I agree. Bring it on :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top