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.

(RealClearPolitics)   Reporter, "President Obama are you comfortable with your campaign calling Mr. Romney a felon?" Barack, "No one called him a felon." Thankfully, no one recorded his campaign saying that   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 268
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3890 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Aug 2012 at 7:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-20 09:12:16 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: As somebody else pointed out, he's not a felon...because he hasn't been convicted yet.


Actually, if you committed a felony, you are a felon. If you are then convicted, you are a convicted felon.

Getting away with a crime doesn't mean you're not a criminal.
 
2012-08-20 09:12:17 PM  

consider this: Ikaros: Your comments about the popular vote show you will do and say anything to make your team look better. You aren't fooling anyone by pretending you don't hate Obama

OK, Columbo.


Just one more thing...
 
2012-08-20 09:14:50 PM  
Is a PAC the same as a campaign?
 
2012-08-20 09:16:14 PM  
Romney is no felon!

He is a TRAITOR. Get it right.

/buy American company
//destroy American jobs
///reap profit, but keep it overseas so it can't help America in any possible way


TRAITOR, not felon.
 
2012-08-20 09:16:46 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Is a PAC the same as a campaign?


No
 
2012-08-20 09:17:31 PM  

consider this: Ikaros: Ahhhh I get it, suddenly after 8 years of saying the popular vote means nothing after 2000 the voting method is "outdated"

You people are hilarious.

It doesn't bother me that too many Americans are so ignorant and racist they will vote for someone like Romney over Obama


You people? Oh I get it, you think I'm a republican and a Romney supporter. Funny since I seem to remember being in a thread yesterday defending Obama and his health care plan.

It's really sad that people can't look at issues individually and resort to labeling somebody based on their opinion on a single issue.

My comments about the electoral college being bullshiat have nothing to do with my opinion on who would make the better president. If you don't see a problem with a system that would allow a person to win the presidency after not receiving the majority of the vote, I don't know what else to say.


Yeah, I do have an issue with it, but it's in the Constitution. Al Gore probably isn't crazy about the electorical college either:

Popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897
 
2012-08-20 09:19:53 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Is a PAC the same as a campaign?


One has super powers and they other one is the day job. You know like Spider-Man and Peter Parker or the Crypt Keeper and Governor Brewer. They aren`t supposed to know each other.
 
2012-08-20 09:21:11 PM  

Corvus: FTA: But in recent weeks, your campaign has suggested repeatedly - without proof - that Mr. Romney might be hiding something in his tax returns. They have suggested that Mr. Romney might be a felon for the way that he handed over power of Bain Capital.

Can someone tell me where Obama's campaign said Romney committed a felony? I don't ever remember seeing them actually do this.


Bain's filings with the SEC show Romney in charge until 02, but Romney says that is not true. If Romney is telling the truth then false papers were filed which is a felony. Of course Romney is a liar, but telling a lie that would make you a felon is pretty godamn stupid.
 
2012-08-20 09:21:44 PM  

nyseattitude: KarmicDisaster: Is a PAC the same as a campaign?

No


Mmmkay, let's try this again.

No, in the general and legal sense, yes if they are tied to the individual campaigning but still not in a legal sense when they game the system due to financial contributions. In other words they may "work for you" but they don't "work for you". *wink wink*
 
2012-08-20 09:29:15 PM  

BravadoGT: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

Politico had an article with several Obama lieutenants pushing that suggestion


no actually they said he was either a felon or a liar

they report ,you decide
 
2012-08-20 09:30:18 PM  

davynelson: Romney is no felon!

He is a TRAITOR. Get it right.

/buy American company
//destroy American jobs
///reap profit, but keep it overseas so it can't help America in any possible way


TRAITOR, not felon.

 
2012-08-20 09:31:19 PM  
Liberals are farking hilarious. Calling your opponent a felon by insinuating they committed a felony and then saying government agencies should investigate is the shiat pu tin and chavez do, and you are defending it cause it is your side. Even saying Obama should be doing it. Then you defend Obama saying he never did it. Fark liberals have gone defcon derp. This is bush derangement syndrome 2.0. Why do liberals want to put every political opponent in jail?
 
2012-08-20 09:31:27 PM  
I'm still not impressed by the "he hit me first" rebuttal.
 
2012-08-20 09:32:11 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Is a PAC the same as a campaign?


Campaigns are run by the candidates themselves and can only receive contributions of ~$2300 per person who makes a contribution.

PACs, and especially Super PACs, are not run by anybody involved in the campaign and are totally, entirely and completely not coordinating with the campaign proper in any way, shape or form imaginable. And there is no limit to how much individuals and corporations can contribute to PACs and Super PACs, which is why the pro-Romney anti-Obama Super PACs have received tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from less than 200 people.

/there is a difference between "pro-Romney" and "anti-Obama"
 
2012-08-20 09:32:12 PM  

Without Fail: consider this: It must make you feel really good knowing that Obama could win because of some bullshiat outdated way of holding elections rather than by having a majority of the US population voting for him.

It must make you feel really good knowing that Bush won because of some bullshiat outdated way of holding elections rather than by having a majority of the US population voting for him.


That is not exactly fair you know, it should be
It must make you feel really good knowing that Bush won with the help of his brother and Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court and some bullshiat outdated way of holding elections rather than by having a majority of the US Population vote for him.

/credit should go where it is deserved
 
2012-08-20 09:32:43 PM  
I wish someone would just ask Romney outright if he took the amnesty in 2009 for his non disclosed foreign accounts. I just want to see him deny it. ...maybe Obama will hit him with that one in the debate.
 
2012-08-20 09:32:55 PM  

kevinfra: consider this: Ikaros: Ahhhh I get it, suddenly after 8 years of saying the popular vote means nothing after 2000 the voting method is "outdated"

You people are hilarious.

It doesn't bother me that too many Americans are so ignorant and racist they will vote for someone like Romney over Obama


You people? Oh I get it, you think I'm a republican and a Romney supporter. Funny since I seem to remember being in a thread yesterday defending Obama and his health care plan.

It's really sad that people can't look at issues individually and resort to labeling somebody based on their opinion on a single issue.

My comments about the electoral college being bullshiat have nothing to do with my opinion on who would make the better president. If you don't see a problem with a system that would allow a person to win the presidency after not receiving the majority of the vote, I don't know what else to say.

Yeah, I do have an issue with it, but it's in the Constitution. Al Gore probably isn't crazy about the electorical college either:

Popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897


What you say is negated by the fact Bush was never elected as President of the United Sates under any circumstances what so ever in 2000, he was appointed.
 
2012-08-20 09:32:59 PM  

consider this: kevinfra: Popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

I guess you missed the part where I said that result was bullshiat.


Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already. The US is not getting rid of the Electoral College, no matter how outdated, stupid, messed up, farked up, or absurd you think it is. It exists for a reason, and that's because the Founding Fathers knew that direct election, such as you are proposing, can lead to tyranny of the majority.....which they wanted to avoid. Ever read about ancient Greece and their governmental issues? Specifically in the Senate? If you did, as they did, you'd understand why the EC exists, and what its existence means to prevent. All the popular vote does is accurately demonstrate how farking pathetic our voter turnout is, and making it the sole arbiter for who is elected President every 4 years won't do jack or shiat to change that.

So please......quit while you're ahead.
 
2012-08-20 09:34:29 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how the first line in this submission is nowhere to be found in the linked article. Gud jorb subs.


Not only that, but the interview doesn't point to an actual campaign member using the 'felon' tag. Maybe subby is one of those morons who can't differentiate between the campaign and not the campaign.
 
2012-08-20 09:35:43 PM  

MyRandomName: Liberals are farking hilarious. Calling your opponent a felon by insinuating they committed a felony and then saying government agencies should investigate is the shiat pu tin and chavez do, and you are defending it cause it is your side. Even saying Obama should be doing it. Then you defend Obama saying he never did it. Fark liberals have gone defcon derp. This is bush derangement syndrome 2.0. Why do liberals want to put every political opponent in jail?


You sound tired son.
 
2012-08-20 09:36:05 PM  

shotglasss: Let's just go over this again....


Yes, let's hear all about how Romney is going to fix any of those issues.

Other than "tax breaks for rich people" and "I'll be a white guy in the White House."
 
2012-08-20 09:36:18 PM  

CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

I love how "upset" conservatives are getting because Obama's campaign has gone "negative." It seems like every other commercial here in Ohio is claiming that Obama is stealing money from your Grandma, hates all small businesses and other such nonsense, but those of course aren't negative, right?


Remember, this is the 'McCain had a Black baby out of wedlock.' Party, nobody knows dirty like them.
 
2012-08-20 09:37:39 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I wish someone would just ask Romney outright if he took the amnesty in 2009 for his non disclosed foreign accounts. I just want to see him deny it. ...maybe Obama will hit him with that one in the debate.


I'm sure half the people in DC know what's in Romney's taxes by now. I'm also hoping they are saving the questions until a little closer to November. Romney isn't well liked, and his finances must have at least a few hundred people involved, at this point the only people who don't know what's in them are the voters.
 
2012-08-20 09:37:48 PM  
Did he impersonate an officer?
 
2012-08-20 09:38:24 PM  
Well, wasn't it Mitt's own father that said if you don't show your tax returns you might be hiding something? Silly to attack the president for something the guy's own father said, too. Looks like the usual routine of attack Obama and lie, flip flop, hide things, attack again .... then when Obama points it out accuse him of being hateful and angry.
 
2012-08-20 09:38:30 PM  

MyRandomName: Calling your opponent a felon by insinuating they committed a felony and then saying government agencies should investigate is the shiat pu tin and chavez do


You...were alive in the 1990s, right? Whitewater? Travelgate? Vince Foster's "murder?" "Watermelon Man" Dan Burton? MENA airport? Cattle future? The Clinton murder list? Ring a bell?

Christ, you never respond anyway. I'm pissing in the wind.
 
2012-08-20 09:39:10 PM  

Hobodeluxe: BravadoGT: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

Politico had an article with several Obama lieutenants pushing that suggestion

no actually they said he was either a felon or a liar

they report ,you decide


Well, he was caught lying about the contents of his tax returns leading him to retroactively correct them to show him being a Mass. resident which are the requirements for running for governor. So kindly forgive me for not taking a proven liar at his word on what the contents of his tax returns are. Just as he was caught lying to either the SEC or to the American people about he retired from Bain. Either the papers he submitted to the SEC showing him as owner/ceo/etc are false, or he lied to the American people... There is no way both options are true.

Plus all of his official campaign ads I've seen here in Florida are based on lies. There is a lot to attack the president on that would be real and legitimate attacks. Attacking Obama for the content of a quote from John McCain, chopping a quote to pieces to make it into an attack ad again is very disingenuous. The politifact type sites have pretty much pointed out that all of his attack ads are lies.

All I see is Willard has a problem with being questioned, and when the rubber hits the road, he lies his ass off to try and wiggle out of it.
 
2012-08-20 09:40:12 PM  

Coco LaFemme: consider this: kevinfra: Popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

I guess you missed the part where I said that result was bullshiat.

Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already. The US is not getting rid of the Electoral College, no matter how outdated, stupid, messed up, farked up, or absurd you think it is. It exists for a reason, and that's because the Founding Fathers knew that direct election, such as you are proposing, can lead to tyranny of the majority.....which they wanted to avoid. Ever read about ancient Greece and their governmental issues? Specifically in the Senate? If you did, as they did, you'd understand why the EC exists, and what its existence means to prevent. All the popular vote does is accurately demonstrate how farking pathetic our voter turnout is, and making it the sole arbiter for who is elected President every 4 years won't do jack or shiat to change that.

So please......quit while you're ahead.


How does the electoral college prevent the majority from subjugating a minority population?
 
2012-08-20 09:40:35 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already.


The sentence above diminishes and distracts from all the excellent and constructive stuff you had after it. Just sayin'.
 
2012-08-20 09:43:13 PM  

consider this: Coco LaFemme: It exists for a reason, and that's because the Founding Fathers knew that direct election, such as you are proposing, can lead to tyranny of the majority.....which they wanted to avoid.

LOL so you're OK with a system where the votes of the people can be ignored if the electors feel they've mad the wrong decision?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So, you've never read this from the Wiki on the Electoral College:

A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged or does not vote for any person. 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, states like Michigan also specify that the faithless elector's vote be voided.[45]

As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.

Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[46] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.


Basically, you either vote with what the people voted...or you're screwed. And, as the article states, Bush/Gore in 2000 would've been a time that such a thing as "changing your vote" could've happened.

So sparklefark ($1 to Coco), any more nuggets I can shoot down for ya?
 
2012-08-20 09:44:19 PM  
 
2012-08-20 09:45:04 PM  

StopLurkListen: Coco LaFemme: Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already.

The sentence above diminishes and distracts from all the excellent and constructive stuff you had after it. Just sayin'.


Not really, think about what he said and then about American history. The electoral college, does zilch to address the tyranny of the majority. The bill of rights and parts of the constitution address that issue, and that still wasn't enough.
 
2012-08-20 09:47:00 PM  

MyRandomName: Liberals are farking hilarious. Calling your opponent a felon by insinuating they committed a felony and then saying government agencies should investigate is the shiat pu tin and chavez do, and you are defending it cause it is your side. Even saying Obama should be doing it. Then you defend Obama saying he never did it. Fark liberals have gone defcon derp. This is bush derangement syndrome 2.0. Why do liberals want to put every political opponent in jail?


Because most of the Republicans are criminals, duh. And just in case you think I'm kidding, here's just some elected and appointed Republican officials from the prior administration who were convicted criminals:

Claude Allen
Lester Crawford
Brian Doyle
Steven Griles
John T. Korsmo
Scooter Libby
David Safavian
Robert Stein
Roger Stillwell
Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo
Alberto Gonzales
Leandro Aragoncillo
Eric G. Andell

And the list goes on...

With a precedent like that, is it any wonder that sane people think the Republican party might mostly consist of crooks?

/If you think you can come up with a similarly large list of Democrats, go right ahead.
 
2012-08-20 09:47:24 PM  
So is this one of the times where I say "C'mon, stop parsing!" or is it more of a "No one used the words 'he might be a felon', so your reasoning is not sound!" thing?
 
2012-08-20 09:48:16 PM  

BravadoGT: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?

Politico had an article with several Obama lieutenants pushing that suggestion


I know that by saying "Obama lieutenants," you're trying to paint a mental image of some hardcore regime. In reality, you just sound ignorant.
 
2012-08-20 09:51:47 PM  

consider this: Rwa2play: Basically, you either vote with what the people voted...or you're screwed.

So if 45% of the state votes for a certain candidate, they get 45% of the electoral votes?

Quick, go back to Wikipedia and educate yourself, I'll wait.


No, it's "winner take all"...again read the wiki first genius. Then you can come back to the grown folks table and try to discuss it like a rational person. At this rate however, you won't succeed.
 
2012-08-20 09:56:13 PM  

s2s2s2: So is this one of the times where I say "C'mon, stop parsing!" or is it more of a "No one used the words 'he might be a felon', so your reasoning is not sound!" thing?


I think it's more a matter of no one said "Mitt Romney is a felon".

I think tons of people are saying he might be a felon.

It does kind of look like he is.
 
2012-08-20 09:56:54 PM  

kapaso: StopLurkListen: Coco LaFemme: Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already.

The sentence above diminishes and distracts from all the excellent and constructive stuff you had after it. Just sayin'.

Not really, think about what he said and then about American history. The electoral college, does zilch to address the tyranny of the majority. The bill of rights and parts of the constitution address that issue, and that still wasn't enough.


I disagree, the electoral college overweighting of less-populous states is exactly the anti-majority-tyranny mechanism that Coco LaFemme described.

If there were no Electoral College, candidates would stick to the largest cities, and ignore entire states and regions, it just wouldn't make sense to spend time and money for relatively fewer votes.
 
2012-08-20 09:58:44 PM  

King Something: Whoa, hold on, wait a second!

There's a rumor going around that MITT ROMNEY possibly might have COMMITTED A FELONY? I'd like to know if it's true or not, because if it is true then that means MITT ROMNEY COMMITTED A FELONY!

Of course, I would never accuse MITT ROMNEY of being a FELON without proof; and there's also the fact that MITT ROMNEY can easily prove he is not a FELON if he'd just release his tax returns. I'm just concerned that his failure to do so could result in many people wondering whether or not MITT ROMNEY IS A FELON! And the longer he delays in releasing his tax returns, the more people will ask if MITT ROMNEY COMMITTED A FELONY!

I apologize if this mini-rant may have further cemented the alleged word association between the words "MITT ROMNEY" and "FELON." I am merely voicing my concern.


Well, the take away I get from a quick scan of your post is that MITT ROMNEY might be a FELON, but he hasn't been convicted of a FELONY which indeed would be pretty serious.
 
2012-08-20 10:02:07 PM  

consider this: Coco LaFemme: It exists for a reason, and that's because the Founding Fathers knew that direct election, such as you are proposing, can lead to tyranny of the majority.....which they wanted to avoid.

LOL so you're OK with a system where the votes of the people can be ignored if the electors feel they've mad the wrong decision?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Each state has a certain number of electoral votes. If a candidate wins that state, meaning, if the candidate wins the popular vote for that state, the electors will cast their ballots for them, and the electoral votes go to that candidate. If State X has 40 electoral votes, and Obama wins State X, he gets those 40 electoral votes. He'd only get those votes if the majority of the people in the state voted for him. How does that jive with your statement that "the people can be ignored if the electors feel they've made the wrong decision"? The Electors cast their ballot for who the voters chose. If the voters choose Romney, that's who they vote for. If the voters choose Obama, that's who they vote for.

Only four times in our nation's history has the winner of the EC NOT also won the popular vote: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Bayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush. You're biatching and whining about something that has happened four times in 235 years. And before 2000, the most recent occurrence was 1888. Are you farking kidding me?


kapaso: Coco LaFemme: consider this: kevinfra: Popular vote
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

I guess you missed the part where I said that result was bullshiat.

Hey sparklefark, shut the hell up already. The US is not getting rid of the Electoral College, no matter how outdated, stupid, messed up, farked up, or absurd you think it is. It exists for a reason, and that's because the Founding Fathers knew that direct election, such as you are proposing, can lead to tyranny of the majority.....which they wanted to avoid. Ever read about ancient Greece and their governmental issues? Specifically in the Senate? If you did, as they did, you'd understand why the EC exists, and what its existence means to prevent. All the popular vote does is accurately demonstrate how farking pathetic our voter turnout is, and making it the sole arbiter for who is elected President every 4 years won't do jack or shiat to change that.

So please......quit while you're ahead.

How does the electoral college prevent the majority from subjugating a minority population?


If you eliminate the Electoral College and only use the popular vote, candidates will completely ignore smaller, less populated states, in favor of heavily populated areas. The majority of the country's population live in urban areas, and on both coasts. Voters in places like Iowa, Idaho, and Wyoming, regardless of what direction they lean, would get absolutely ZERO attention from national candidates, because it would be more worth their while to court voters in cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
 
2012-08-20 10:05:23 PM  
A sign this election is, so far, not as close as 2008 or 2004 is that on these electoral college tracking polls, Romney has NEVER been ahead. In the two previous elections the lines crossed and the lead changed hands. Not this time, not yet.
 
2012-08-20 10:06:23 PM  
"Mister Obama, are you comfortable beating your wife?
"No one said I beat my wife."
"ZOMG OBAMA IS A LIAR WHO BEATS HIS WIFE!"
 
2012-08-20 10:06:57 PM  

jcooli09: s2s2s2: So is this one of the times where I say "C'mon, stop parsing!" or is it more of a "No one used the words 'he might be a felon', so your reasoning is not sound!" thing?

I think it's more a matter of no one said "Mitt Romney is a felon".

I think tons of people are saying he might be a felon.

It does kind of look like he is.


Funny how a statement of fact is causing such outrage.

1. SEC filings list Romney as being the "controlling individual" at Bane during the time in question.
2. Romney says he was not involved with Bane during the time in question.
3. Filing a false SEC report is a felony.

Therefore, either Romney WAS involved with Bane during the time in question, or Romney filed false reports to the SEC which is a felony.

There is no spin to this. The situation is pretty straightforward. So, where is the attack?
 
2012-08-20 10:09:18 PM  

jcooli09: I think it's more a matter of no one said "Mitt Romney is a felon".


So then did anyone from the Romney camp actually say "He's calling Mitt a felon!"?
FTA: "They have **suggested** that Mr. Romney might be a felon for the way that he handed over power of Bain Capital"

So that is not an accusation of being called a felon, so saying that's not what you actually said doesn't really address it. Especially if

jcooli09: I think tons of people are saying he might be a felon.

It does kind of look like he is.


Note the bolded sections. Bullshiat denial is a bullshiat denial.
 
2012-08-20 10:10:54 PM  
If cons want to get rid of the electoral college, fine. That's freaking awesome.

The sound you would hear right after you pull it off is the sound of every Democratic leadership popping the champagne bottles as they realize we'd never have a Republican president again.
 
2012-08-20 10:11:04 PM  

GameSprocket: jcooli09: s2s2s2: So is this one of the times where I say "C'mon, stop parsing!" or is it more of a "No one used the words 'he might be a felon', so your reasoning is not sound!" thing?

I think it's more a matter of no one said "Mitt Romney is a felon".

I think tons of people are saying he might be a felon.

It does kind of look like he is.

Funny how a statement of fact is causing such outrage.

1. SEC filings list Romney as being the "controlling individual" at Bane during the time in question.
2. Romney says he was not involved with Bane during the time in question.
3. Filing a false SEC report is a felony.

Therefore, either Romney WAS involved with Bane during the time in question, or Romney filed false reports to the SEC which is a felony.

There is no spin to this. The situation is pretty straightforward. So, where is the attack?


'Attacking' a Republican consists of telling truths they'd rather you not notice.
 
2012-08-20 10:11:34 PM  

consider this: Rwa2play: No, it's "winner take all"...again read the wiki first genius.

LOL you're such a scholar.


No, just can smell your BS a mile away.

Actually states have the option of splitting their electoral votes and two currently do. I knew that without even looking at Wikipedia. I'll give you a couple minutes to look it up so we can continue talking.

Maine and Nebraska, I knew that and I didn't have to look it up. Maybe you should stick to being part of the peanut gallery instead of trying to act like a know it all; you're failing in that endeavor.

When you come back, be sure to have a good reason why states should stick with "winner take all" and not split the votes.

"Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote.

Now, maybe it's not for you; but hey, this country isn't just about you. So if you don't like it...

deepasabirdbath.files.wordpress.com

There's the door, leave the country.
 
2012-08-20 10:11:52 PM  

GameSprocket: jcooli09: s2s2s2: So is this one of the times where I say "C'mon, stop parsing!" or is it more of a "No one used the words 'he might be a felon', so your reasoning is not sound!" thing?

I think it's more a matter of no one said "Mitt Romney is a felon".

I think tons of people are saying he might be a felon.

It does kind of look like he is.

Funny how a statement of fact is causing such outrage.

1. SEC filings list Romney as being the "controlling individual" at Bane during the time in question.
2. Romney says he was not involved with Bane during the time in question.
3. Filing a false SEC report is a felony.

Therefore, either Romney WAS involved with Bane during the time in question, or Romney filed false reports to the SEC which is a felony.

There is no spin to this. The situation is pretty straightforward. So, where is the attack?


You should know by now that the Republican party views quoting them verbatim or releasing facts about their behavior as being "attacks".
 
2012-08-20 10:13:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: If cons want to get rid of the electoral college, fine. That's freaking awesome.

The sound you would hear right after you pull it off is the sound of every Democratic leadership popping the champagne bottles as they realize we'd never have a Republican president again.


yes but you see, that's exactly why they want to get rid of regular college too
 
2012-08-20 10:15:43 PM  

LordJiro: 'Attacking' a Republican consists of telling truths they'd rather you not notice.


Tough shiat, republicans. Obama doesn't need to shrink away from this. After all the shiat he puts up with, he should have just said "we have questions, they clearly understand the implications, and having ponied up my birth certificate to people questioning my legal status, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a candidate that is going to have to deal with tough issues, touch questions."

/,
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report