The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

Romney's reasoning for not just releasing all of his tax information is silly. So what if your critics will never stop? That's like the "birther" idiots. They looked like morons from the start, Obama released his birth certificate, and they just looked like even bigger morons. If he has nothing at all to hide, just release the records, and then tell the Democrats to go F themselves.
 
Honestly Romney isn't all that bad - it's all the campaign dumbing down that I don't like.

Obama's playing it up the middle, and Romney's trying to shoot the moon by courting racist Republican diehards, the crazy Christian gun nut vote and the crazy racist tea party vote.

Romney is a smart guy who could have kept it classy but that's just not his style...
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']If he has nothing at all to hide, just release the records[...][/QUOTE]

Isn't that one of the arguments that was used against Obama during the main "birther" rush? Why doesn't Obama just release his birth certificate (later: the long form birth certificate) if he has nothing to hide?

It's the same song and dance - but I will point out this - there's no requirements, as far as I'm aware, for a person to be president w/r/t their tax records. There is a requirement w/r/t the circumstances under which they are born. While the birther movement was ****ing crazy, at the very least, their request had some - very loose - basis in law. The cries for Romney to release his personal records do not.
 
[quote name='camoor']Honestly Romney isn't all that bad - it's all the campaign dumbing down that I don't like.

Obama's playing it up the middle, and Romney's trying to shoot the moon by courting racist Republican diehards, the crazy Christian gun nut vote and the crazy racist tea party vote.

Romney is a smart guy who could have kept it classy but that's just not his style...[/QUOTE]

I'm kind of waiting for Romney to go on the offensive if he ever does. Part of me says he will, part of me says he'll go 'thanks for $400 million, I'm out.' Leaving everyone on the entire planet shocked as hell at what he just did.

Also, let's say he wins. Just as a hypothetical. Ran on repealing Obamacare. Gets majority in the Senate, keeps House control. Come first week in Office, he doesn't repeal it swiftly through reconciliation and executive orders, etc, and says he won't. In 4 years, how badly does he lose re-election because of how fucking livid the Republican base will be? 40 states? 45 states? Just curious what everyone thinks of this scenario.

Also, I think Romney picks the Ohio Senator as his VP choice. He needs Ohio, and the Midwest; the Governor in Ohio isn't doing hot atm, so he's out. He won't pick Condy because she's pro choice (also the close ties to Bush destroys this).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's the same song and dance - but I will point out this - there's no requirements, as far as I'm aware, for a person to be president w/r/t their tax records. There is a requirement w/r/t the circumstances under which they are born. While the birther movement was ****ing crazy, at the very least, their request had some - very loose - basis in law. The cries for Romney to release his personal records do not.[/QUOTE]

If anyone has made the argument that Romney is ineligible to serve as president due to his tax returns, I haven't seen it.

And I think that highlights the difference between the two issues. While their may be similarities between asking for a candidate to release some personal information, Obama's had to do about his eligibility to serve, whereas Romney's seems to be rooted more in how he'd serve (or, at least, that's how his opponents are trying to make people perceive this).

Obama was fortunate enough that the people calling for him to release information were seen as fringe. His ignoring the issue likely didn't hurt him terribly much and, in a way, deflected more valid criticisms that could've been made about him. In Romney's case, it is potentially a valid criticism of who he is, and it's further complicated by the fact that he has people on both sides saying he should release his tax returns. There's really no benefit for him to ignore it as it only strengthens people's theories for why he's doing so.

He would've been much better off sticking to not releasing anything and continuing to tell people it's none of their business. Releasing only the past two years is just boggling, and I have no idea how no one on his campaign couldn't see it would just serve to back up his opponents.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Obama released his fucking birth certificate. fuck.[/QUOTE]

That's not really his point. He's saying if he didn't, the calls for him to release it would've continued to this day, making the right look worse and worse for doing so. Thereby helping himself and the Democrats politically.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't that one of the arguments that was used against Obama during the main "birther" rush? Why doesn't Obama just release his birth certificate (later: the long form birth certificate) if he has nothing to hide?

It's the same song and dance - but I will point out this - there's no requirements, as far as I'm aware, for a person to be president w/r/t their tax records. There is a requirement w/r/t the circumstances under which they are born. While the birther movement was ****ing crazy, at the very least, their request had some - very loose - basis in law. The cries for Romney to release his personal records do not.[/QUOTE]

What about Romneys long form bc?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']
Also, I think Romney picks the Ohio Senator as his VP choice. He needs Ohio, and the Midwest; the Governor in Ohio isn't doing hot atm, so he's out. He won't pick Condy because she's pro choice (also the close ties to Bush destroys this).[/QUOTE]
Portman was Bush's budget advisor though, so they can hang the Bush budgets around his neck.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Portman was Bush's budget advisor though, so they can hang the Bush budgets around his neck.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't call Obama's budgets a strength, either.
 
anyone else see the correlation between "you didn't build that" and Milton Friedman's pencil thing?

Sure, Obama mangled that bit beyond belief, but it's more or less the same thing. You may operate a succesful store front and your efforts have "built that", but you didn't build the mall, or the store, or pave the parking lot, etc...
 
[quote name='nasum']anyone else see the correlation between "you didn't build that" and Milton Friedman's pencil thing?

Sure, Obama mangled that bit beyond belief, but it's more or less the same thing. You may operate a succesful store front and your efforts have "built that", but you didn't build the mall, or the store, or pave the parking lot, etc...[/QUOTE]
God did it. Argument refuted.:booty:

Seriously though, the people that have any kind of problem with Obama's statement literally believe that they are successful through sheer will and work alone. Infrastructure doesn't matter one bit to them and if they address it, their only response is that they paid taxes as if their contribution covered their utility and benefit.

[quote name='Clak']This is too funny not to post. We have a guy in this state named, I shit you not, "Mark Twain Clemens" running for U.S. Senate.

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/2012 US SENATE Candidates.pdf

It's also sad that there isn't even a Democrat running for the House in my district.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many of those independents are teabaggers.
 
[quote name='nasum']anyone else see the correlation between "you didn't build that" and Milton Friedman's pencil thing?

Sure, Obama mangled that bit beyond belief, but it's more or less the same thing. You may operate a succesful store front and your efforts have "built that", but you didn't build the mall, or the store, or pave the parking lot, etc...[/QUOTE]

Leonard Read wrote "I, Pencil," not Friedman.

Anyway, Murray Rothbard, Mr. Ancap Libertarian, wrote pieces critical of the "Rugged Individual," and as usual, conservatives are attacking Obama from the complete wrong position.

Of course, Republicans also believe in the magic of unicorns and fairy dust social contract, so they have no choice but to engage in sophistry to score points against their "opposition".
 
[quote name='dohdough']God did it. Argument refuted.:booty:

Seriously though, the people that have any kind of problem with Obama's statement literally believe that they are successful through sheer will and work alone. Infrastructure doesn't matter one bit to them and if they address it, their only response is that they paid taxes as if their contribution covered their utility and benefit.


I wonder how many of those independents are teabaggers.[/QUOTE]
Knowing this state, probably half at least.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']If anyone has made the argument that Romney is ineligible to serve as president due to his tax returns, I haven't seen it.

And I think that highlights the difference between the two issues. While their may be similarities between asking for a candidate to release some personal information, Obama's had to do about his eligibility to serve, whereas Romney's seems to be rooted more in how he'd serve (or, at least, that's how his opponents are trying to make people perceive this).[/quote]
That's the great thing though... the same types who waste no time pointing out the fact that personal finances (budget, debt, etc.) are a wholly different beast than Federal finances are the same types of folks who are trying to make a big deal out of Romney's tax returns... That, somehow, his personal finances perfectly reflect how he'd serve. Which is stupid. In reality, they're not interested in anything but looking for chinks in his armor that they can use to damage him

Just like the folks who were/are looking for *anything* to damage Obama

"Both sides do it"...and those in charge encourage it - simply because if they had to run on real issues, no one would be able to take them seriously.
 
His personal finances, in the form of his tax rates, show that he has little respect and ample contempt for our government and being a member of society who contributes to the society he derives benefits from. Someone in a position to pay an equitable tax rate avoids doing so, then pretends he loves the country and wants to see it succeed.

I'd say that I can't see how you can't see something so simple, but you are unclebob indeed. I wanna pinch your cheek you're so precious sometimes.

He is, in short, a deer tick running for president of the Dog Kingdom on a platform that he loves dogs.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Leonard Read wrote "I, Pencil," not Friedman.[/QUOTE]

Right, I meant MF's simplified example of macroeconomics in the form of how much goes into the simple No.2 Pencil. He probably borrowed it from my I, Pencil but I just find it hilarious that people don't see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum'][quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Leonard Read wrote "I, Pencil," not Friedman.
Right, I meant MF's simplified example of macroeconomics in the form of how much goes into the simple No.2 Pencil. He probably borrowed it from my I, Pencil but I just find it hilarious that people don't see it.
Click to expand...

I, Pencil is a beautiful example of the division of labor.

But Romney isn't going to attack Obama from that position, because he believes in government interference of that division, too.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I wouldn't call Obama's budgets a strength, either.[/QUOTE]

But when you're the 'party of fiscal responsibility' and Portman was the OMB head who was tasked with working on budgets, its difficult when your record shows you helped turn a surplus into a deficit. He'll figure a way to not take responsibility for that though. Or pretend like he gave Bush better advice and Bush didn't take it.
 
It's funny how conservatives defended Bush for eight years, and now will throw him under the bus whenever it's convenient. He's practically the republican Voldemort at this point, they don't even like saying his name.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']His personal finances, in the form of his tax rates, show that he has little respect and ample contempt for our government [...] then pretends he loves the country and wants to see it succeed.[/QUOTE]

Our government ≠ our country.
 
fuck taxes and birth certificates, I wanna see both contender's top scores on the 1st level of Super Mario Bros when using a power glove.
 
I've been thinking this crazy thing today:

Romney has, as a matter of public record, governed to the left of Obama.

2nd term Obama with 1 or more houses of Congress (R) - nothing gets done, as it has been since the Republicans took the House.

President Romney with 1 house (D), something will get done. This necessarily has to be the case, because this Congress is as a matter of metrics and not in any way hyperbole, the worst Congress ever. There will no longer be the explicit goal to not do anything to make things worse and blame the President. There will be no more debt ceiling fiascos and we'll get to deficit spend like crazy again - which isnt great but its spending at least.

Something with a marginal amount of compromise will be better than nothing. The (D)s in the Senate will be able to SPARINGLY block a few of the most egregious things. Everything else will still be terrible, yes. However, doing nothing is really, really bad at this point.

Someone talk me down before I become the founder of Socialists for Romney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I've been thinking this crazy thing today:

Romney has, as a matter of public record, governed to the left of Obama.

2nd term Obama with 1 or more houses of Congress (R) - nothing gets done, as it has been since the Republicans took the House.

President Romney with 1 house (D), something will get done. This necessarily has to be the case, because this Congress is as a matter of metrics and not in any way hyperbole, the worst Congress ever. There will no longer be the explicit goal to not do anything to make things worse and blame the President. There will be no more debt ceiling fiascos and we'll get to deficit spend like crazy again - which isnt great but its spending at least.

Something with a marginal amount of compromise will be better than nothing. The (D)s in the Senate will be able to SPARINGLY block a few of the most egregious things. Everything else will still be terrible, yes. However, doing nothing is really, really bad at this point.

Someone talk me down before I become the founder of Socialists for Romney.[/QUOTE]
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. - PJ O'Rourke

Less evil is less evil. - Richard Dawkins
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." - Jerry Garcia[/QUOTE]


Are you trying to make a point by posting that?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you trying to make a point by singling out my quote over DD's?[/QUOTE]


I can't figure out what your quote is supposed to mean. It just seems like a pointless statement.
 
Do you guys remember when Mitty Rom said he knows what its like to struggle because he was a poor missionary boy in Paris. He quoted as saying he used a bucket for a bathroom and a house for a shower.

........

Yeah...then when they talked to the other Missionaries they said he lived in a fucking palace..with a house boy and a chef.

Seriously guys, the king has no clothes on.....this goes beyond just politics...do people disagree,hate, whatever Obama so much that they would throw their lot in with a guy who has directly lied about a bunch of things? This guy will say ANYTHING to get ahead.....how are people not taking that into their opinions of him.
 
Gotta say, these two make Harry and Loyd seem like geniuses.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Translation: I'll need to turn to C-Span for something to keep me awake due to the excitement.;)

:rofl:

On topic: How many millions(billions) did this venture squander that could've been used to explore the furthest reaches of OUR OWN planet or help fund programs to help the less fortunate in our nation?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='KtMack23']NASA has been shooting billions into the atmosphere for a long time, I doubt they'll stop to help the poor anytime soon. I joined your fan club BTW.[/QUOTE]

If only our government would listen to people like this, we could solve all our problems. Or not.:roll:
 
I have no idea how you could keep your cool on a debate stage with someone like Mitt Romney. His competitors during the primary had a hard enough time. Word is that Obama really doesnt like Romney personally, between not standing for anything and being historically dishonest in the campaign. In politics, you cant call someone a liar. You just cant. It makes you look terrible and you lose, even if you are correct. You have to dance around it, saying that have their facts wrong or have misrepresented things.

- Ohio ends early voting 3 days early for everyone except active service members
- Obama administration sues to make those days available for EVERYONE, including non-active military personnel.
- Romney puts out an ad in Ohio saying Obama is keeping military from voting

This is classic Rove though - make an attack ad claiming your opponent is doing the thing that you are doing, when your opponent is doing the opposite thing. I couldnt run for office with shit like this.
 
I heard about that just the other day, it's ridiclous. I agree though, if it were me I'd get pissed and call the bastard a liar on national television.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Dr Mario Kart'] I couldnt run for office with shit like this.[/QUOTE]That's how I feel about politics too.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, this is a common state of society, and I find it goddamn infuriating. Call someone out on their bullshit, and suddenly YOU are the bad guy? Ridiculous.
 
Dint even click the link but I assume it's the welfare work rules right? I think that warrants its own thread, I'll get on it.
 
Yes, because a politician can't have supported something before, realized it was an awful idea, and changed his mind, right? We all have to stick by what we thought previously.
 
I like how every Romney defense starts with "What he did was legal etc." which misses the point.

It might be legal to ship job overseas for fat stacks and ruin peoples lives but it doesn't mean people cant hate you for it.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Yes, because a politician can't have supported something before, realized it was an awful idea, and changed his mind, right? We all have to stick by what we thought previously.[/QUOTE]
Something. Sure. But everything? All the things?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I like how every Romney defense starts with "What he did was legal etc." which misses the point.

It might be legal to ship job overseas for fat stacks and ruin peoples lives but it doesn't mean people cant hate you for it.[/QUOTE]

24522622.jpg
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I am seriously scared of Mitty Rom....you have to wonder about a guy who will do anything to win like he is. This guy is as cut throat as you can be....this goes further than just not liking policies or not wanting a certain side to win.

This...anyone but Obama (or anyone but....(insert name here) mentality is going to fucking ruin us as a superpower. I will take several more Bushes before I would take a single Mitty Rom.[/QUOTE]

I am seriously not scared.

I don't think things would change too much under his leadership, for a Republican these days he's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. All of his Republican competitors are batshit insane.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Yes, because a politician can't have supported something before, realized it was an awful idea, and changed his mind, right? We all have to stick by what we thought previously.[/QUOTE]
According to past republican candidates, no. That's called "waffling" or "flip flopping" or some other BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top