If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   RomneyBot 2.0 hits programming glitch, accidentally tells truth: "If I release my tax returns, I am completely farked"   (dailykos.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, tax returns, Health Care, International, Mitt Romney, truth, Daily Kos, Pete, Democrats  
•       •       •

9932 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2012 at 5:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



366 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 08:19:27 PM  
dtdstudios.com
 
2012-07-18 08:20:11 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Disclaimer: I am in no way undecided or a swing voter. I do not know how swing voters think. It boggles my mind that there are still people who are undecided.


In my experience, people who still consider themselves undecided are really Republicans who don't have the balls to admit that they support such a loser of a candidate.
 
2012-07-18 08:23:41 PM  
he is right about the fact that 0bama is so desperate he will distort and twist anything that is in his tax return.

he tried distorting Romney's Bain experiencing all the while the press is ignoring how many jobs GM lost after 0bama invested in that company and demanded cost cutting.
 
2012-07-18 08:23:52 PM  

mjjt: Even what he has released is incomplete, according to HuffPo

Mitt Romney has not released his full tax records from 2010, including key documentation connected to his Swiss bank account.
...Romney released his 2010 tax return in January of this year, a document that first informed voters about the existence of his Swiss bank account and financial activities in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But people who own foreign bank accounts are required to file a separate document with the IRS that provides additional details on such overseas bank holdings, and Romney has not released that form to the public.
The Romney campaign did not respond to HuffPost's request to view the document.
Swiss bank accounts don't in and of themselves help taxpayers reduce their burden when used legally. But as HuffPo explains, this matters for another reason:

By serving as a curtain between Romney's U.S. accounts and his foreign holdings, Romney's Swiss account could shield many financial activities from American scrutiny. Hypothetically, any politically unpopular investments, clever and complex asset sales designed to lower Romney's tax bills or other activities would be far more difficult to decipher.
The unreleased form would make it easier to tell whether Romney did engage in any of this, HuffPo notes.

As far as I can tell, this goes directly to what tax experts told me yesterday: It's likely that Romney has paid a far lower tax rate in multiple years, and that this could help explain why Romney won't release his returns. If he paid nothing in any given year, of course, that would be even more politically toxic. But even a far lower rate would be hard to explain. And as the experts told me, the returns could also reveal how Romney reduced his rates - whether he relied on "aggressive sheltering," which would be politically very problematic, or more standard techniques, which would still be hard to explain, depending on how much lower his rate ended up being.


Very interesting. So even when he releases a years worth of returns he doesn't really release a years worth of returns. I hope all the Teabaggers are happy with Romney's version of transparency if he god forbid reaches the White House.
 
2012-07-18 08:25:17 PM  

Ed Finnerty: [dtdstudios.com image 843x403]


FSM bless you and may all your noodles be perfectly "al dente".
 
2012-07-18 08:26:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: he is right about the fact that 0bama is so desperate he will distort and twist anything that is in his tax return.


Not releasing his returns is allowing Obama to "distort and twist" his record even more because we have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Romney can make all of this go away tomorrow by releasing his returns. But no, he'd rather play the victim card because the mean old Democrats are going to attack him. When did Republicans become such pussies?
 
2012-07-18 08:26:54 PM  

Pincy: I hope all the Teabaggers are happy with Romney's version of transparency if he god forbid reaches the White House.


Still white.
 
2012-07-18 08:27:41 PM  
Rmoney's dad made his riches actually building things (cars), paid 37% in taxes, and wasn't ashamed to reveal how he made money and what he did with it.

Rmoney is not his father. He made his millions off of vulture capitalism and shipping American jobs to other countries, and then didn't even have the decency to keep his money in the US.
 
2012-07-18 08:27:48 PM  

IoSaturnalia: * Mitt gaming the system for personal gain while the average Joe is taking the std deduction


Wait, you're saying I get a tax deduction for my multi drug resistant gonnorhea? How come no one told me?
 
2012-07-18 08:27:59 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: he is right about the fact that 0bama is so desperate he will distort and twist anything that is in his tax return.

he tried distorting Romney's Bain experiencing all the while the press is ignoring how many jobs GM lost after 0bama invested in that company and demanded cost cutting.


I'm surprised you didn't call him "Governor Romney" while calling President Obama "0bama" to further your Fox-fueled derpitude. I know I'm wasting my time on a troll here, but if you have even the slightest intention of being taken seriously referring to the President as "0bama" is not going to get you there. It's also far less convenient than using the portion of the keyboard designed for letters that are part of the English language.
 
2012-07-18 08:28:01 PM  

HeartBurnKid: But the "liberal media" won't call Mitt on it. You know they won't. They have to prop up this turd sandwich until November somehow.


I dunno, having one of the two major candidates drop out in the middle of the race forcing his party to find a replacement could make for some pretty compelling news-ertainment.

Remember when Bob Torricelli dropped out late in the 2002 Senate race because he was about to be indicted on federal corruption charges, and the Democratic Party swapped in then-retired senator emeritus Frank Lautenberg who beat Torricelli's challenger handily?

/probably not unless you lived in NJ then.
 
2012-07-18 08:28:33 PM  

meat0918: You know. They could throw a real monkey wrench into the Obama campaign by having Romney bow out and have some other sacrificial lamb up there.

Some small part of me thinks that the non-Mormon fundies in charge of the GOP want to pull the plug on the growing Mormon political power, and Romney failing and failing hard is just the guy to make that happen.


I think some Republicans still think they can replace him at the convention.

Maybe run the corpse of Reagan?
 
2012-07-18 08:30:42 PM  
Mitt says the "job creators" can't hire because taxes are too high".
Imagine if people found out he paid no taxes all all on millions in income.
That could Fark his whole campaign.
 
2012-07-18 08:31:12 PM  

Pincy: Very interesting. So even when he releases a years worth of returns he doesn't really release a years worth of returns. I hope all the Teabaggers are happy with Romney's version of transparency if he god forbid reaches the White House.


They didn't complain about Bush/Cheney's lack of transparency. I doubt they'll complain about Romney's, either.
 
2012-07-18 08:32:34 PM  

Pincy: tenpoundsofcheese: he is right about the fact that 0bama is so desperate he will distort and twist anything that is in his tax return.

When did Republicans become such pussies?


It's not new, it's the usual tactic of firing up the base and loosely fueling them with radical insinuation until they're throwing around weapons grade derp and then cry and point fingers when your opponents attack you directly for your own failures. Makes it easy to pretend you have no culpability in any of it and hope at least someone will fall for it, whether willful or otherwise.
 
2012-07-18 08:40:05 PM  

DogBlack: I think some Republicans still think they can replace him at the convention.


Intrade still thinks so. They've got Obama at 57% and Romney at 40%. That extra 3% either represents an arbitrage opportunity or "none of the above".
 
2012-07-18 08:41:42 PM  
home.comcast.net
 
2012-07-18 08:45:17 PM  

hubiestubert: Folks are keen that money equals speech, and this will show fairly conclusively what Mitt has been really saying over the years. Might be a good idea to listen close...


...that's probably it, right there.

He's not worried the tax returns will drive away swing voters. He's worried it will drive away the base, because his Stericycle investment is only the tip of the iceberg in there.

/Maybe he's been itemizing another three wives and sixteen kids as dependents?
//yes, cheap shot
 
2012-07-18 08:49:21 PM  
dtdstudios.com
 
2012-07-18 08:51:27 PM  

bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.


Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?
 
2012-07-18 08:51:37 PM  

UberNeuman: [home.comcast.net image 843x403]


I was waiting for this one.
 
2012-07-18 08:54:53 PM  

urban.derelict: Mrtraveler01: And vote for the guy who was a Republican until he lost the primary.

Ye... no. he was never included in the primaries, because you're a retard.


abcnews.go.com

Who is that guy waaaay over there on the left?
abcnews.go.com

I'll be damned. It's GARY JOHNSON! How'd he get there?
 
2012-07-18 09:00:59 PM  
home.comcast.net

\bless ya, Finnerty. :D
 
2012-07-18 09:02:15 PM  

Craptastic: urban.derelict: Mrtraveler01: And vote for the guy who was a Republican until he lost the primary.

Ye... no. he was never included in the primaries, because you're a retard.

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

Who is that guy waaaay over there on the left?
[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

I'll be damned. It's GARY JOHNSON! How'd he get there?


Photoshop
 
2012-07-18 09:04:05 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.

Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?

anything other than farking up the government.

FTFY
 
2012-07-18 09:09:04 PM  

Craptastic: Who is that guy waaaay over there on the left?


According to this email I received from my father, it's Barack Obama.
 
2012-07-18 09:09:12 PM  

Raharu: At the end of the day. None of this matters to Mitt.

He may lose the election, and thats ok, God has called him to other things. Hes still rich, hes still free.

He will go home to one of his mansions, open the secret liqueur cabinet hidden behind the book case, the one with the bust of Joseph Smith on it, and pour himself a snifter of brandy. He'll then make a phone call to some of his businesses and have a few random people fired, because it simply makes him feel better.


It's weird, but one thing I have never doubted at all is Mitt's total adherence to the mormon bans on liquor and caffeine. The guy's a toolbox, a complete autamaton, but it's because the god in his church wore a smooth spot in his brain. You do religion too hard and it gives you the gift of self-delusion such that you'd be astounded. It's almost a surprise to see the moments when Mitt tells a lie that he can't justify to himself, to see the moments when that oiled, supple, mental gymnast finds one of the razorblades on the mat.
 
2012-07-18 09:11:44 PM  
I'm going to agree with the above posters who said that it's likely that Romney HONESTLY didn't think his past was going to catch up with him during this election.

A weird thing happens once you reach a level of extreme wealth in life. Because, in many ways, you've essentially beaten the system, you start to think that the opinions and thoughts of other people are essentially worthless. After all, if any of these people were right, they'd be as rich as you, right? Furthermore, the degree to which people around you start engaging in sycophantic ass-kissing only serves to reinforce your belief in your own ideas as valid and no one else's. I saw this firsthand at the last videogame company I worked for where the owner basically blew through 50+ million dollars on an absolutely horrible idea that he refused to see as anything other than visionary. A few folks around him tried to tell him that he was making a huge mistake, but he promptly had them fired because HOW DARE THEY QUESTION A MAN WHO HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL ONCE BEFORE! It wasn't 38 Studios BTW, in case you're wondering.

Romney has existed in a world where everyone around him has practically sewn their lips to his asscheeks for so long, that he's no longer capable of even listening to, much less sympathizing with, someone else's point of view. Before he started this campaign, he really thought the American public would treat him the way his various lackeys and 'yes-men' have his entire career. He didn't realize that his success was ultimately going to be in the hands of the very types of people whose lives he ruined at Bain.

It's going to be entertaining to watch this campaign flail around like a turtle on its back.
 
2012-07-18 09:19:57 PM  

abb3w:

He's not worried the tax returns will drive away swing voters. He's worried it will drive away the base, because his Stericycle investment is only the tip of the iceberg in there.


My guess is that he's been doing the same farking thing that the corporate class of this country has been doing for decades: Technically legal tax evasion.

The fact that he honestly didn't think it would be a serious issue during a presidential election tells me all I need to know about how delusional that scumbag is.
 
2012-07-18 09:27:39 PM  
TalenLee: Raharu: At the end of the day. None of this matters to Mitt.

He may lose the election, and thats ok, God has called him to other things. Hes still rich, hes still free.

He will go home to one of his mansions, open the secret liqueur cabinet hidden behind the book case, the one with the bust of Joseph Smith on it, and pour himself a snifter of brandy. He'll then make a phone call to some of his businesses and have a few random people fired, because it simply makes him feel better.

It's weird, but one thing I have never doubted at all is Mitt's total adherence to the mormon bans on liquor and caffeine. The guy's a toolbox, a complete autamaton, but it's because the god in his church wore a smooth spot in his brain. You do religion too hard and it gives you the gift of self-delusion such that you'd be astounded. It's almost a surprise to see the moments when Mitt tells a lie that he can't justify to himself, to see the moments when that oiled, supple, mental gymnast finds one of the razorblades on the mat.


And yet, as with his involvement with Stericycle, we see that his adherence to Church teaching on abortion* is more fluid. But, hey, there was money to be made. Which is why it wouldn't surprise me if his tax forms show business dealings with liquor companies or porn. As I've said before, Utahns are the largest subscribers and downloaders of Internet porn. There's lots of money to be made thee.

*Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
 
2012-07-18 09:34:43 PM  
worldwideinterweb.com
 
2012-07-18 09:47:57 PM  
Lorelle: George Romney released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President in 1968. You'd think his son would be proud to follow his example.

Oh, please let someone from the Obama campaign put that quote out. The Romney campaign/GOP would just lose it right there...

/...and it would be GLORIOUS!
 
2012-07-18 09:51:04 PM  
urban.derelict: [lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x176]
/stop being stupid, partisan


Is he still a corporate whore? Is he still suggesting something that rhymes with "Flax Puts"? Does he favor a regressive national sales tax that will take MORE from the poor while giving MORE to the rich?

Yeah, no, he's a Republican, but by all means should any Republicans want to vote for him please do.
 
2012-07-18 09:58:44 PM  
I bet that it's not something politically damaging but something that would end up with Romney facing criminal charges (like being invested in a nation we are forbidden to be doing business with). I can't see Romney caring all that much about something embarrassing because he's a psychopath, but he does care about not going to prison. Romney is willing to lose in November by not releasing his tax returns if it means staying out of prison.
 
2012-07-18 10:00:02 PM  

Ed Finnerty: [dtdstudios.com image 843x403]


This thread has me laughing very hard on many fronts. Special thanks to you Mr. Finnerty.
 
2012-07-18 10:04:26 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus: I can understand his worry. For some reason people think that success is a bad thing an indicator that the 'successful' person, like most 'successful' Americans, has serious sociopathic tendencies.

And Rommey has been very very very successful and there have been rumors floating around of said tendencies.


FTFY.
 
2012-07-18 10:13:30 PM  
Satanic_Hamster: bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.

Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?


Before the Bush administration, the Republicans were generally foreign policy "realists." They believed in foreign policy based on realpolitik, which was limited in scope, and used military force only to protect clear US interests. Democrats were foreign policy "idealists," who believed in using military force to cure the world's ills.

My foreign policy views align closely with the realist camp. "Idealism" got us bogged down in Vietnam under the Democrats, wasting a lot of our blood, treasure, and credibility there. Likewise, it was "idealism" that got us bogged down in Iraq, with much the same results. Realism's most recent success, by contrast, was Bush Sr.'s Persian Gulf War. Yes, I know it was rhetorically backed with good/evil rhetoric, and standing up against "naked aggression," and all that. But what it was really about was preventing Saddam from controlling too much mideast oil, which directly impacts the US.

The question naturally arises, "if Bush Sr.'s Gulf War was backed with the same idealist rhetoric that painted us into corners in Vietnam and Iraq, how can you distinguish it from what you call idealist crusades in Vietnam and Iraq?" Chiefly, because of the limited scope of the mission, and the fact that despite the rhetoric, everyone fully understood we were going to war to drive the evil Iraqi dictator out of Kuwait, in order to restore the rightful evil Kuwaiti dictator.
 
2012-07-18 10:14:29 PM  
He sounds like he's actually afraid of Obama in that video clip.

Dude, just release the returns, say it was your friggin job as CEO to maximize shareholder return, and you did a pretty good job of it, and furthermore you didn't cheat on your taxes.

You didn't cheat on your taxes, right?

Is it that bad?
 
2012-07-18 10:16:50 PM  

bugontherug: Satanic_Hamster: bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.

Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?

Before the Bush administration, the Republicans were generally foreign policy "realists." They believed in foreign policy based on realpolitik, which was limited in scope, and used military force only to protect clear US interests. Democrats were foreign policy "idealists," who believed in using military force to cure the world's ills.

My foreign policy views align closely with the realist camp. "Idealism" got us bogged down in Vietnam under the Democrats, wasting a lot of our blood, treasure, and credibility there. Likewise, it was "idealism" that got us bogged down in Iraq, with much the same results. Realism's most recent success, by contrast, was Bush Sr.'s Persian Gulf War. Yes, I know it was rhetorically backed with good/evil rhetoric, and standing up against "naked aggression," and all that. But what it was really about was preventing Saddam from controlling too much mideast oil, which directly impacts the US.

The question naturally arises, "if Bush Sr.'s Gulf War was backed with the same idealist rhetoric that painted us into corners in Vietnam and Iraq, how can you distinguish it from what you call idealist crusades in Vietnam and Iraq?" Chiefly, because of the limited scope of the mission, and the fact that despite the rhetoric, everyone fully understood we were going to war to drive the evil Iraqi dictator out of Kuwait, in order to restore the rightful evil Kuwaiti dictato ...


It should be clear, btw, that the parties have almost completely reversed poles on the idealist/realist scale. Yes, Obama used US force in Libya to get rid of Qadaffi. But again, look at the relatively modest scope of the mission compared to Iraq/Vietnam. Also note that it was motivated by requests from our European allies, which is an essentially realpolitik impetus.
 
2012-07-18 10:18:34 PM  

cloud_van_dame: He sounds like he's actually afraid of Obama in that video clip.


He IS afraid of Obama. He's a Republican, which means his views are formed almost entirely to rationalize his perpetual, pants-sh*tting fear of brown people.
 
2012-07-18 10:19:45 PM  
Benni K Rok: Satanic_Hamster: bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.

Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?anything other than farking up the government.

FTFY


It's hard to deny that Bush Sr. was pretty good at foreign policy.
 
2012-07-18 10:20:31 PM  
Wyalt Derp: Another possibility(?): There really isn't anything too devastating in his tax returns, but if he were to release them now the Democrats would simply move onto another line of attack. He might feel it's better strategery to let them hammer him on this for the time being, then release them closer to the election. That would make them look a little foolish and leave less time for attacks on other issues.

Naw, he sounds like Obama did 4 years ago, mildly offended and taken aback that he has to get muddy in order to play politics.

He also sounds like a whiny coward.
 
2012-07-18 10:25:34 PM  
President Obama only released his tax returns back to 2000?

WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING FROM 1999????!!!??!!!!1111!!!11eleventy111!!???
 
2012-07-18 10:26:22 PM  
anfrind: For what it's worth, I consider myself independent and am registered as "Decline to state", since no political party accurately reflects my political views (social liberal, fiscal moderate, doesn't think money should equal speech).

This sounds a lot like today's Democratic Party.

What a lot of people don't understand is that really, our system punishes people who fail to vote against their last choice more than it rewards people who choose to vote for their first choice. If we lived in a proportional representation system, I might very well vote for a party left of the Democrats. But under our system, if I don't support the Democrats, I get the Republicans instead.

If there's anything the 2000 election taught me, it's that ANYTHING is better than the Republicans. Today's Republicans must be defeated at all costs always.
 
2012-07-18 10:27:16 PM  
CokeBear: President Obama only released his tax returns back to 2000?

WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING FROM 1999????!!!??!!!!1111!!!11eleventy111!!???


You might have a point if Mittens had released 20 years of his tax returns.
 
2012-07-18 10:28:15 PM  
bugontherug: anfrind: For what it's worth, I consider myself independent and am registered as "Decline to state", since no political party accurately reflects my political views (social liberal, fiscal moderate, doesn't think money should equal speech).

This sounds a lot like today's Democratic Party.

What a lot of people don't understand is that really, our system punishes people who fail to vote against their last choice more than it rewards people who choose to vote for their first choice. If we lived in a proportional representation system, I might very well vote for a party left of the Democrats. But under our system, if I don't support the Democrats, I get the Republicans instead.

If there's anything the 2000 election taught me, it's that ANYTHING is better than the Republicans. Today's Republicans must be defeated at all costs always.


THIS
 
2012-07-18 10:31:18 PM  

bugontherug: anfrind: For what it's worth, I consider myself independent and am registered as "Decline to state", since no political party accurately reflects my political views (social liberal, fiscal moderate, doesn't think money should equal speech).

This sounds a lot like today's Democratic Party.

What a lot of people don't understand is that really, our system punishes people who fail to vote against their last choice more than it rewards people who choose to vote for their first choice. If we lived in a proportional representation system, I might very well vote for a party left of the Democrats. But under our system, if I don't support the Democrats, I get the Republicans instead.

If there's anything the 2000 election taught me, it's that ANYTHING is better than the Republicans. Today's Republicans must be defeated at all costs always.


As a resident of the fine mockery of a state we call Florida, I am acutely aware of this need.
 
2012-07-18 10:34:19 PM  

bugontherug: Benni K Rok: Satanic_Hamster: bugontherug: 2) I never said all my values align perfectly with the Democrats. They don't, and never have. But it is telling that you have to put words in my mouth to frame your argument. Prior to the Bush administration, for example, I would have identified myself as conservative on foreign policy. I said frequently that while I liked the Democrats better on domestic policy, I liked the Republicans better on foreign policy. No more.

Out of curiosity, why? What have the Republicans done in the last 20 years that makes you think they're competent on foreign policy?anything other than farking up the government.

FTFY

It's hard to deny that Bush Sr. was pretty good at foreign policy.


And that was actually a pretty good example. But his son? The current state of the Republican party? Is there any doubt that, if given charge again, they wouldn't be going to war with:
Syria
Iran
The Soviet Union
 
2012-07-18 10:39:13 PM  

bugontherug: CokeBear: President Obama only released his tax returns back to 2000?

WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING FROM 1999????!!!??!!!!1111!!!11eleventy111!!???

You might have a point if Mittens had released 20 years of his tax returns.


STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!! WHAT IS IN OBAMA'S 1999 TAX RETURN THAT HE'S SO AFRAID OF REVEALING??

Did he make a contribution in 1999 in support of Socialist Party candidate David McReynolds??
 
2012-07-18 10:39:21 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And that was actually a pretty good example. But his son? The current state of the Republican party? Is there any doubt that, if given charge again, they wouldn't be going to war with:
Syria
Iran
The Soviet Union



Well, I agree. Bush Jr. & 9/11 completely f*cked up the foreign policy paradigm. That's why I say I no longer agree with the Republicans on foreign policy. Not only are they idealists bound to get us locked into perpetual war, but they're totally incompetent idealists to boot. I didn't like the philosophical underpinnings of Clinton's foreign policy. But at least he executed it competently. I.e., not everything he did turned into a giant clusterf*ck.
 
Displayed 50 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report