DNC 2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

102

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

[/quote]

Romney easily could have run as a Democrat with most of his record. Supporter of a national health care plan. Pro choice. Willingness to “spin” every decision.

103

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Why do so many men nowadays infantalize women? You’re basically saying women are such delicate flowers that they are unable to be responsible for their own actions. A big evil man took advantage of this “helpless” woman.

Pure white knight thinking [/quote]

Are you serious? The entire Democratic platform is devoted to the concept that women are delicate flowers that are unable to be responsible for their own actions. See “Life of Julia” or whatever that was officially called - the composite “Julia” couldn’t do a damn thing in life but for special dispensations being doled out to her for her entire life.

Not only that - the Democrats are running on it - the so-called “war on women” is a claim that the GOP simply wants to turn its back on helping women out. But why do they need all this help if they are strong enough to be responsible for their own actions?

104

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Why do so many men nowadays infantalize women? You’re basically saying women are such delicate flowers that they are unable to be responsible for their own actions. A big evil man took advantage of this “helpless” woman.

Pure white knight thinking [/quote]

Are you serious? The entire Democratic platform is devoted to the concept that women are delicate flowers that are unable to be responsible for their own actions. See “Life of Julia” or whatever that was officially called - the composite “Julia” couldn’t do a damn thing in life but for special dispensations being doled out to her for her entire life.

Not only that - the Democrats are running on it - the so-called “war on women” is a claim that the GOP simply wants to turn its back on helping women out. But why do they need all this help if they are strong enough to be responsible for their own actions?[/quote]

Yep. Sandra Fluke. HHS Mandate.

105

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

Comments like this are why I like pitt’s contribution to the board.

106

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

[/quote]

Romney easily could have run as a Democrat with most of his record. Supporter of a national health care plan. Pro choice. Willingness to “spin” every decision.
[/quote]

He is fairly moderate, but you have to take into account he lives and ran in MA. He had to be in order to have a shot.

But let’s be clear. National Health Care doesn’t have to mean Obamacare. Romney’s plan, while similar, is not the same as Obama’s.

107

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

[/quote]

Romney easily could have run as a Democrat with most of his record. Supporter of a national health care plan. Pro choice. Willingness to “spin” every decision.
[/quote]

He is fairly moderate, but you have to take into account he lives and ran in MA. He had to be in order to have a shot.

But let’s be clear. National Health Care doesn’t have to mean Obamacare. Romney’s plan, while similar, is not the same as Obama’s. [/quote]

I am not saying its the same. Certainly though Romney could have run as a Democrat with just a little bit of spinning.

108

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

[/quote]

Romney easily could have run as a Democrat with most of his record. Supporter of a national health care plan. Pro choice. Willingness to “spin” every decision.
[/quote]

He is fairly moderate, but you have to take into account he lives and ran in MA. He had to be in order to have a shot.

But let’s be clear. National Health Care doesn’t have to mean Obamacare. Romney’s plan, while similar, is not the same as Obama’s. [/quote]

I am not saying its the same. Certainly though Romney could have run as a Democrat with just a little bit of spinning.

[/quote]

As a MA democrat or maybe a CLinton era democrat, but not the shit I’ve seen at this convention. I just… I can’t even fathom what kind of weed these people are smoking.

I mean, I’m all for good times and happy thoughts. Shit even a bloated unsustainable government program or two is cool to think about when you ignore cost and sell it on morality.

But this, just air of “we will pull funding out of thin air” and “don’t worry, taxing the rich will save the world” is just, insane.

109

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

What is ironic about it is that going strictly by his record Romney could have run as a Democrat. Then the same people that embrace him currently would be just as willing to throw him under the bus. [/quote]

Total nonsense!

I’ve never seen a democrat lower taxes 19 times, and fix the budget by actually having a 2 billion dollar budget surplus as Romney did in Massachusetts.

The difference between Obama and Romney is like night and day.

[/quote]

Romney easily could have run as a Democrat with most of his record. Supporter of a national health care plan. Pro choice. Willingness to “spin” every decision.
[/quote]

More of your nonsense. There are many in the republican party who were or are pro choice. As for his health care plan each state has the right to decide for themselves how to handle health care the people of Mass wanted it and he gave it to them. That is a far, far cry from the federal government mandating it.

As for changing their minds on issues the greatest modern day President Ronald Reagan was once the pro tax Governor of California. But…he changed his mind! When he became President he lowered taxes to 28% closed loop holes and created 20 million jobs turning around another democratic Presidents destruction of the economy. Proving that a good President can make a difference. Unlike Obama…who blames George Bush for everything. He should have campaigned on that theme

“If elected I will fail but I will blame Bush for my entire mess”

Smart people change their minds sometimes.

It’s a shame your man Obama isn’t smart enough to change his mind regarding his socialist bent.

Hopefully the American people will not give him another four years to further destroy the economy.

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Why do so many men nowadays infantalize women? You’re basically saying women are such delicate flowers that they are unable to be responsible for their own actions. A big evil man took advantage of this “helpless” woman.

Pure white knight thinking [/quote]

Are you serious? The entire Democratic platform is devoted to the concept that women are delicate flowers that are unable to be responsible for their own actions. See “Life of Julia” or whatever that was officially called - the composite “Julia” couldn’t do a damn thing in life but for special dispensations being doled out to her for her entire life.

Not only that - the Democrats are running on it - the so-called “war on women” is a claim that the GOP simply wants to turn its back on helping women out. But why do they need all this help if they are strong enough to be responsible for their own actions?[/quote]

Yep. Sandra Fluke. HHS Mandate.[/quote]

I know right? She’s just trying to get the government to pay for her whore pills.

111

So what are your guys thoughts on Clinton’s speech?

112

562×620 83.1 KB

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Awkward!
[/quote]

I am shocked at the video both because the vote was clearly lost and because the political party “deemed” it as passed.

It’s like something out of Soviet Russia, both ways.[/quote]

The vote “results” were actually on the telepromter before the vote.

Reminds me of county elections here in Lincoln County, NM.

113

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The debates should be VERY interesting.

Mufasa[/quote]

I doubt Obama will prepare as carefully as Romney. Something about thinking that you’re the greatest thing that ever happened to planet earth does not allow you to believe you need to prepare.

Hey- just a guess.[/quote]

Obama heard the delegates were adding “God” back into the platform.

He thought they were talking about him.

114

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I know right? She’s just trying to get the government to pay for her whore pills.[/quote]

They are less than $10 per month at Wal-Mart - if she is a strong, independent woman, why does she need anyone to pay for it?

115

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Why do so many men nowadays infantalize women? You’re basically saying women are such delicate flowers that they are unable to be responsible for their own actions. A big evil man took advantage of this “helpless” woman.

Pure white knight thinking [/quote]

Are you serious? The entire Democratic platform is devoted to the concept that women are delicate flowers that are unable to be responsible for their own actions. See “Life of Julia” or whatever that was officially called - the composite “Julia” couldn’t do a damn thing in life but for special dispensations being doled out to her for her entire life.

Not only that - the Democrats are running on it - the so-called “war on women” is a claim that the GOP simply wants to turn its back on helping women out. But why do they need all this help if they are strong enough to be responsible for their own actions?[/quote]

Yep. Sandra Fluke. HHS Mandate.[/quote]

I know right? She’s just trying to get the government to pay for her whore pills.[/quote]

I would never say that but government paid contraception is just a tad over the line. I wonder why my tax dollars should be spent on things like someone’s decision whether or not to have sex.

If you could just take a step or two back you would see how foolish this is.

Never mind the fact that this also forces religious institutions to endorse behavior that is against their beliefs.

116

[quote]therajraj wrote:

So what are your guys thoughts on Clinton’s speech?[/quote]

It was very good, if way too long. But it is solid proof that Obama has a fraction of Clinton’s talent and political intelligence.

Clinton can make a speech and do two things: (1) address a political subject with the intellectual horsepower of an academic wonk, and (2) communicate it like he is just having a conversation with you after bumping into you at the grocery store. Love him or hate him, he understands how to govern, he understands political priorities, and he is literate and knowledgeable in all relevant political topics.

Obama fails on all three counts, and I am not sure having Clinton speak was such a great idea - for many, it may highlight the gulf between Clinton and Obama, in terms of both talent and record (people think fondly of the prosperity of the 1990s).

117

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The debates should be VERY interesting.

Mufasa[/quote]

I doubt Obama will prepare as carefully as Romney. Something about thinking that you’re the greatest thing that ever happened to planet earth does not allow you to believe you need to prepare.

Hey- just a guess.[/quote]

Obama heard the delegates were adding “God” back into the platform.

He thought they were talking about him.[/quote]

LOL very funny stuff!

Those who fail to see the arrogance emanating from this guy must be true believers.

118

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

So what are your guys thoughts on Clinton’s speech?[/quote]

It was very good, if way too long. But it is solid proof that Obama has a fraction of Clinton’s talent and political intelligence.

Clinton can make a speech and do two things: (1) address a political subject with the intellectual horsepower of an academic wonk, and (2) communicate it like he is just having a conversation with you after bumping into you at the grocery store. Love him or hate him, he understands how to govern, he understands political priorities, and he is literate and knowledgeable in all relevant political topics.

Obama fails on all three counts, and I am not sure having Clinton speak was such a great idea - for many, it may highlight the gulf between Clinton and Obama, in terms of both talent and record (people think fondly of the prosperity of the 1990s).[/quote]

I have similar thoughts. In fact, I thought Clinton was so good that I wanted Obama to go directly after him to show the stark contrast. Tonight will do however.

By the way I wonder how many at the DNC were aware that the MTV award show is tonight? There goes the 18-25 crowd.

119

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Holy hell! This has to be a new record for a T-Nation thread turning into a conservative circle jerk. [/quote]

And your post will end up right in the middle of it.

YUCK![/quote]

Ewww! You’re right! I’ve gotta shower immediately!!!

But mostly, I was referring to the vitriol and unsubstantiated claims made prior to my comment. For whatever’s it’s worth, I can’t stand it when dems do that too. It’s why I hate talking politics with my parents.

And again for whatever it’s worth, I don’t think you were part of the problem in this thread. Actually in general, once I figured out your internet persona I’ve never really had an issue with any of your posts. I’d say you’re one of the more ingenuous posters. You’re kind of like a conservative Pitt.

120

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I know right? She’s just trying to get the government to pay for her whore pills.[/quote]

They are less than $10 per month at Wal-Mart - if she is a strong, independent woman, why does she need anyone to pay for it?[/quote]

I’m sorry, but I can’t believe women actually support this.

My wife, her family and the women in my family are far from this helpless, silenced, oppressed gender that lady was trying to say they are. The women in my work place are very strong willed, and don’t need to be taken care of.

Christ women were the last two sec. of state correct? A woman was a VP canidate and one was a serious option for presidental run…

The unequal pay thing, according to some women’s groups, is a bunch of BS as well…

On another note:

They say they want the government out of their womb, but want them to fund planned parenthood. How is that not a contradiction?