ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: ox45tallboy: ramblinwreck: You sound like a Mormon...why do you all love the word "bigot" so much?

What a big gut ASCITES may look like:

[www.impulsemagazine.net image 399x322]

See, there you go. Trying to pigeonhole people with your labels and sh*t. Can't a man just have a beer belly, and call it what he wants? Who's the bigot here?

heh.

I have never in my life given to a political campaign. That is about to change because this is the most important election ever. Please take the gloves off Mitt, for my kids' future.

skullkrusher: AnonAmbientLight: skullkrusher: AnonAmbientLight: I guess they are hoping this will all be forgotten like when Mitt's team was talking to, MSN CBS, or ABC, i dont remember. But they asked him a question, and his team told them "Ummm...we'll get back to you on that."

Link

There we go.

You lie!

I kind of wish i was. I dislike Mitt for a lot of reasons. But i'm embarrassed FOR HIM because of how awful his staff is.

And of course, if this is how shiatty he runs his campaign, i dont want to see how he runs a country based off his performance in this Pres race. The only other thing he can fall back on experience wise is Bane Capital.

And i'm quite confident it's going to break his batback.

/obscure?

I was just referring to your lack of a link despite your claims of linkage :)

Oh, sorry. I'm more of a lurker than a participator. Didnt catch the joke. :|

Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

odinsposse: NewportBarGuy: contrapunctus: Obama needs to be as nasty in negotiation as he is in campaigning.

I get the feeling that we'll see it in a second term. Second termers are much more apt to break sh*t and run over people. Why do you think the GOPers and assorted roustabouts are so concerned about a second term?

Dude's gonna f*ck some sh*t up.

I highly doubt it. It's okay to crush an opponent in an election because you're getting rid of them. It's a lot different when you crush a co-worker and then have to do business with them the next day. Obama prefers to work with people even if it's clear the GOP doesn't want to work with him.

I demand blood. The gods are athirst.

ox45tallboy: contrapunctus: We're not even close to election here, and it's obvious that when it comes to actually GETTING the job, Obama is Machiavelli reborn. He needs to learn to adopt this attitude when dealing with the petulant children in Congress known as Republicans because it's the only way he's going to get things done. Maybe he's saving the brass knuckles for his second term, but I'm still somewhat disappointed in the way he's let these creeps steamroll him on issues that really mattered to the health of the country for the past 4 years.

Holding out hope that he's going to drop the hammer on them during his lame duck years.

I agree. Toss some talking points about exactly who it is that's benefiting when a Senator decides to filibuster. Question how much campaign money they're getting from that group. Explain on the talk shows how much American people will benefit if this legislation passes. In other words, be the guy we voted for in 2008.

While i think he probably could have done more with his presidency the first go around, i believe Obama did the best he could with what he was given. The health care debate taught him and us a lot of things.

1) The GOP will do ANYTHING say ANYTHING to make the president look bad, no matter what. Case in point, Medicare. They were extremely worried about the PPACA hurting medicare during the debates. Then, in 2010 or 2011, the republicans wanted to gut that program, and replace it with vouchers.

2) Even when the GOP gets their compromises they will still stab you in the back. The entire health care debate.

3) The GOP narrative is STRONG in this country. People still think Obama wasnt born here. A LOT of GOP members were still farking that chicken publicly. People think Obama has raised their taxes. People think the PPACA is going to negatively effect them.

So, i dont really blame Obama playing it safe these last four years. What do you do when you're up against an opponent that will throw everything and anything at you in the hope that it will stick? How do you deal with someone who doesnt want to have anything to do with you?

It's like working at a restaurant. You're at the register and you ring up an order expecting the food staff to do the job of cooking it, but they hate you so much they take their time. Or prepare it poorly. Or forget items to put on it, or worse, dont do it at all.

So the customer gets upset and they yell at YOU, the register guy, because that's who they see. You're someone to talk to that works there. But the customer has no idea, or dont care to know that you have no control over that part of the system. Doesnt matter to the customer, and you're entire store gets a negative critic review because of this weird hatred from the cooking staff. The cooking staff has a nice long laugh at your expense, but the negative review hurts the store as a whole, and ultimately, the cooking staff too.

So i just dont understand the purpose of the GOP's intent on seeing this country burn before they help "the other team". I know Americans dont really have long attention spans past a few days, but the internet and "people getting out there" seems to be better at organizing information and bringing people together. Sooner or later their attempts to hide their bullshiat wont work.

404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

You are multiple people and have 4 daughters. That must be quite a life. You think an intelligent women like yourselves would know the correct usage of there/they're/their.

404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

Dude, you are tearing it up. In multiple threads even. I'm having a moment of hipster pride that I already favorited you before today.

Yeah, just as soon as he fixes his jaw and teeth from the curb stomping Obama's given him these past few weeks.

404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

I think the further we get into the future, the more we as a people see past the outside appearance and look for someone that can just do the damn job like they promise. Obama is still a man, but he did do a C-C-C-combo breaker on the usual presidential line of progression. (WHITE GUYS) So, i can say for certain, in my life time at least, that a female president will come to pass.

spongeboob: So the differences between Mormonism and Scientology are one came out in the 1800s the other in the 1900s, and one kills believers and the other kills nonbelievers.

Pretty much. The only thing I can add is that one has a musical about it and the other a PT Anderson movie.

AnonAmbientLight: ox45tallboy: contrapunctus: We're not even close to election here, and it's obvious that when it comes to actually GETTING the job, Obama is Machiavelli reborn. He needs to learn to adopt this attitude when dealing with the petulant children in Congress known as Republicans because it's the only way he's going to get things done. Maybe he's saving the brass knuckles for his second term, but I'm still somewhat disappointed in the way he's let these creeps steamroll him on issues that really mattered to the health of the country for the past 4 years.

Holding out hope that he's going to drop the hammer on them during his lame duck years.

I agree. Toss some talking points about exactly who it is that's benefiting when a Senator decides to filibuster. Question how much campaign money they're getting from that group. Explain on the talk shows how much American people will benefit if this legislation passes. In other words, be the guy we voted for in 2008.

While i think he probably could have done more with his presidency the first go around, i believe Obama did the best he could with what he was given. The health care debate taught him and us a lot of things.

1) The GOP will do ANYTHING say ANYTHING to make the president look bad, no matter what. Case in point, Medicare. They were extremely worried about the PPACA hurting medicare during the debates. Then, in 2010 or 2011, the republicans wanted to gut that program, and replace it with vouchers.

2) Even when the GOP gets their compromises they will still stab you in the back. The entire health care debate.

3) The GOP narrative is STRONG in this country. People still think Obama wasnt born here. A LOT of GOP members were still farking that chicken publicly. People think Obama has raised their taxes. People think the PPACA is going to negatively effect them.

So, i dont really blame Obama playing it safe these last four years. What do you do when you're up against an opponent that will throw everything and anything at you in the hope that it will stick? How do you deal with someone who doesnt want to have anything to do with you?

It's like working at a restaurant. You're at the register and you ring up an order expecting the food staff to do the job of cooking it, but they hate you so much they take their time. Or prepare it poorly. Or forget items to put on it, or worse, dont do it at all.

So the customer gets upset and they yell at YOU, the register guy, because that's who they see. You're someone to talk to that works there. But the customer has no idea, or dont care to know that you have no control over that part of the system. Doesnt matter to the customer, and you're entire store gets a negative critic review because of this weird hatred from the cooking staff. The cooking staff has a nice long laugh at your expense, but the negative review hurts the store as a whole, and ultimately, the cooking staff too.

So i just dont understand the purpose of the GOP's intent on seeing this country burn before they help "the other team". I know Americans dont really have long attention spans past a few days, but the internet and "people getting out there" seems to be better at organizing information and bringing people together. Sooner or later their attempts to hide their bullshiat wont work.

The GOP is butthurt that they lost to a darkie.

And now you understand the purpose of the GOP's intent on seeing this country burn before they help "the other team".

contrapunctus: One thing is becoming abundantly clear.

Obama needs to be as nasty in negotiation as he is in campaigning.

We're not even close to election here, and it's obvious that when it comes to actually GETTING the job, Obama is Machiavelli reborn. He needs to learn to adopt this attitude when dealing with the petulant children in Congress known as Republicans because it's the only way he's going to get things done. Maybe he's saving the brass knuckles for his second term, but I'm still somewhat disappointed in the way he's let these creeps steamroll him on issues that really mattered to the health of the country for the past 4 years.

Holding out hope that he's going to drop the hammer on them during his lame duck years.

I've always wondered if Obama isn't playing some master plan where he lays low during his first term, and then uses everything the Republicans did just to trash them. You can see by the way he's handling Romney that he has quite a backhand, and I'm wondering if 2013 will be nothing but 'oh, still obstructing? fark you, this is how we play, you farking bigoted sacks of shiat.'

Obama loves the rope-a-dope, and it would make sense to have his entire first term be one long trick to get stuff done, and then serve up the fists for the next four years. He's not playing to push his agenda, he seems to be playing to destroy the Republican Party wholesale.

one small post for man: 404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

You are multiple people and have 4 daughters. That must be quite a life. You think an intelligent women like yourselves would know the correct usage of there/they're/their.

July 3, 2OO8. "The way Bush has d0ne it the past 8 years is t0 take a credit card from the Bank of China in the name 0f 0ur children, driving up 0ur nati0nal debt fr0m $5 trilli0n f0r the first 42 presidents, t0 $4 trilli0n f0r 43 by his l0nes0me," said 0bama. "It's irresp0nsible. It's unpatri0tic."
0bama l0ves using Bush as a scapeg0at f0r all his failures. Let's take a l00k at the Bush ec00n0my f0r the maj0rity 0f his time in 0ffice. Bush als0 inherited a recessi0n, n0t as bad as the 2OO8 crisis, but still a recessi0n. He implemented the 0ften criticized Bush Tax Cuts, starting a 6 year run of ec00n0mic gr0wth. Fr0m 4th quarter 2OO1 t0 4th quarter 2OO7, the ec0n0my grew. 0bama likes t0 purp0rt that Bush tax cuts were 0nly f0r the wealthy, again false, they affect 116 milli0n Americans 0f all inc0mes. GDP grew 17% from 2OOO-2OO7, after-tax income increased 11%, business start-ups rose 5%, and the deficit fell 57%. At the end of 2007, the deficit was $161 billi0n. That is a fracti0n of 0bama's average deficit. N0b0dy calls Bush an ec0n0mic genius, but by applying simple free market principles he grew the ec0n00my. N0w since 0bama was s0 critical in 2OO8 of Mr. Bush, let's take a l00k at Mr. 0bama's ec0n00mic numbers. February 17, 2OO9, 0bama signs his $868 billi0n stimulus bill, claiming it w0uld create 3.5 milli0n j0erbs by the end of 2O1O and w0uld keep the unempl0yment rate under 8%. S0000.. It didn't d0 very well. He amassed a 7.6 milli0n job deficit. 7.6 milli0n net j0bs l000st. The unempl0yment rate has n0t been under 8% for nearly 41 m0nths. It is the l0ngest stretch 0f high unempl0yment since the great depressi0n. The stimulus bill has d0ne m0re harm than g00d and is full 0f corrupti0n and waste (Ex., $554,763 was used t0 replace wind0ws at a visit0r's center f0r Mt. St. Helens that was cl0sed in 2OO7). 0bama pr0mised t0 cut the deficit in half by the end 0f his first term. He has multiplied it instead. For 2O12, the deficit is nearly $1.4 trilli0n. There aren't many ways t0 fail ec00n0mically that 0bama hasn't already d0ne, but it's Bush's fault right?

ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

I'm just curious. You seem to be in support of Romney. What exactly is it that you believe he will do as President? What policies has he announced that you feel will be for the good of the country?

Romney often is attacked for provisions in RomneyCare that he either opposed or was implemented after he left office. The Massachusetts State Legislature is 85% Democratic, and that must be taken into context of anything Romney has done in Massachusetts. RomneyCare as proposed by Romney had 3 basic components. First, if you could afford health insurance, you could buy it, or pay your own healthcare costs. This eliminates the free-loaders who come to the ER seeking free taxpayer-funded care. Romney's version would have given a tax exemption for buying care but no penalty for not buying it. The Massachusetts legislature insisted on a penalty for not buying health insurance. That's the Mandate. Secondly, if you could not afford health insurance, the state would subsidize what you could not afford. Everyone would pay some amount toward their health insurance based upon income. The Massachusetts legislature again imposed free-insurance to those under a certain income, creating free-loaders. It also imposed penalties on businesses who didn't provide health insurance for employees. Lastly, an exchange that was crafted by the Heritage Foundation, the famous conservative think-tank, made it easier for insurers to provide coverage for individual consumers, thus lowering the cost. RomneyCare is funded through federal dollars that were being used to cover the healthcare of the uninsured. Romney's proposed bill would have not increased the state's budget at all, but the liberals got hold of it and forced provisions that did increase state spending

ox45tallboy: I think I would have rather read that in Comic Sans.

Hey man, let's keep it clean, OK?

ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Romney often is attacked for provisions in RomneyCare that he either opposed or was implemented after he left office. The Massachusetts State Legislature is 85% Democratic, and that must be taken into context of anything Romney has done in Massachusetts. RomneyCare as proposed by Romney had 3 basic components. First, if you could afford health insurance, you could buy it, or pay your own healthcare costs. This eliminates the free-loaders who come to the ER seeking free taxpayer-funded care. Romney's version would have given a tax exemption for buying care but no penalty for not buying it. The Massachusetts legislature insisted on a penalty for not buying health insurance. That's the Mandate. Secondly, if you could not afford health insurance, the state would subsidize what you could not afford. Everyone would pay some amount toward their health insurance based upon income. The Massachusetts legislature again imposed free-insurance to those under a certain income, creating free-loaders. It also imposed penalties on businesses who didn't provide health insurance for employees. Lastly, an exchange that was crafted by the Heritage Foundation, the famous conservative think-tank, made it easier for insurers to provide coverage for individual consumers, thus lowering the cost. RomneyCare is funded through federal dollars that were being used to cover the healthcare of the uninsured. Romney's proposed bill would have not increased the state's budget at all, but the liberals got hold of it and forced provisions that did increase state spending

Ummm... considering that Romneycare as Mittens desired to implement it relied on Federal dollars, how exactly would that work on a nationwide scale when there is no higher governmental entity for the money to flow down from?

And that's it? A few changes to Obamacare, none of which Romney himself or his innumerable (and apparently disposable) spokespeople have said he was even considering implementing? That's why y ...

Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

404 page not found: ox45tallboy: I think I would have rather read that in Comic Sans.

Hey man, let's keep it clean, OK?

Posting that unreadable wall of text full of zeros was keeping it clean? Can we drop the 0bama thing? It's just as childish as Rmoney.

ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

So... nothing specific? Not even some oft-debunked talking points?

This women has nothing but zeros and derp to contribute

ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

So... nothing specific? Not even some oft-debunked talking points?

[www.epiclol.com image 500x434]

GET SOME!

one small post for man: ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

So... nothing specific? Not even some oft-debunked talking points?

This women has nothing but zeros and derp to contribute

Best part?

FOREVAR!

404 page not found: ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

So... nothing specific? Not even some oft-debunked talking points?

[www.epiclol.com image 500x434]

GET SOME!

Knowing that Romney likes Battlefield Earth will really inform my vote

WTFDYW: Romneys biggest problem is that he doesn't get pissed. I seriously think he doesn't know what it means to get pissed.

Mormons supposedly don't drink.

/Socrates himself was permanently pissed
//Yeah, I know what you really meant
///Baptists supposedly don't drink either
////Slashies

one small post for man: 404 page not found: ox45tallboy: 404 page not found: Bottom line, sins, warts 'n all, Gov. Romney is the better choice for our country. Those of you who want to grab your "fair share" of other people's earnings should consider moving to a country that already has a Socialist/Marxist Government in place. Our country was founded on capitalism and free enterprise. For those who think they can keep sitting on their fannies and trading votes for social programs, I might suggest you start doing your fair share. The elder and disabled need assistance, life-time welfare recipients need a kick in the ars!

So... nothing specific? Not even some oft-debunked talking points?

[www.epiclol.com image 500x434]

GET SOME!

Knowing that Romney likes Battlefield Earth will really inform my vote

_{sʇuǝɯɯoɔ ǝɥʇ pɐǝɹ ɐʇʇob noʎ oɹq ʎןsnoıɹǝs ou}

Lee Jackson Beauregard: WTFDYW: Romneys biggest problem is that he doesn't get pissed. I seriously think he doesn't know what it means to get pissed.

Mormons supposedly don't drink.

/Socrates himself was permanently pissed
//Yeah, I know what you really meant
///Baptists supposedly don't drink either
////Slashies

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Klivian: GBmanNC: spiderpaz: WTFDYW: Romneys biggest problem is that he doesn't get pissed

Wanna make a $10k dollar bet? He seems to get pissed when the commoners get in his way

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/mitt-romneys-fight-with-a_n _4 68407.html

"he was trying to go to sleep when he leaned his seat back in the coach section of a the Vancouver-to-Los Angeles flight Monday. He says Romney loudly told him several times to straighten it"

Wait what was Romney doing in coach?

You misread. Romney wasn't in coach himself. He merely maximized the productivity of the ticket he bought by subdividing it and selling the leg room in the seat behind to someone else as a standing room only ticket. He just didn't want the standing person to try and get a refund for not having enough space.

Romney was up in first class the whole time

no no, see, he's got tickets to first class AND coach on every flight. then, depending on whichever is most convenient at the time, he retroactively changes which chair he actually sat in.

one small post for man: 404 page not found: Mitt...As a women, with 4 daughters, I certainly know that an intelligent, capable women could certainly handle the job. HOWEVER, that being said....it is SO important that you win this election. And quite honestly....there are still a lot of people, both men and WOMEN themselves who aren't yet confident in the idea of a women to be next in line to the presidency. Yes, you could pick up some votes from people who vote ONLY because someone is a women. But there are probably many women who won't change their vote for 0bama just because you have a women on the ticket. And intelligent conservative women and many independent women will be voting for you, and it doesn't make a difference if their is a women on the ticket. My concern is that you don't drive any votes away by people who just might feel a women might not give a perception of strength, second in line to the Presidency, etc. And I have heard females who have made this comment.

You are multiple people and have 4 daughters. That must be quite a life. You think an intelligent women like yourselves would know the correct usage of there/they're/their.

No, no, no! This guy is good. Take a look at the Romney/ Teresa Heinz thread.