Mitt Romney

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
120636_600.jpg
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Because its ova!

Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.

Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't.

But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?

Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?

Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices!

And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)
 
M

MenInBrown

Guest
Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.

Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't.

But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?

Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?

Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices!

And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)

Mass elected a REP Senator also. (scott brown)
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.

Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't.

But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?

Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?

Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices!

And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)

Its really just this simple. We know what we are going to get if Obama is re-elected. Romney is a fresh face with new ideas, and a business background to boot. While he isn't the ideal candidate his election will mean a positive turning point in the direction of this country.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
The Mrs. was on The View with the vampiras Whoopie & Joy playing hardball.

I would've never gone on there and would tell Whoopie to "bite me"

They never asked about religion when the Obamas were on there....just softball questions. Mrs Romney should only appear on progams where she is respected and treated properly. Let The girls at The View have to BEG an interview with her and then never go there. Snub those bitches!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-view-following-obama-appearance-last-month/
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Its really just this simple. We know what we are going to get if Obama is re-elected. Romney is a fresh face with new ideas, and a business background to boot. While he isn't the ideal candidate his election will mean a positive turning point in the direction of this country.


Up to today, nothing has changed in my approach to managing and owning a business. If what I am doing is not working to meet the goals I have set than I try something new. Brett, with all due respect, I would just take your post and go one step farther. I think Mitt is the ideal candidate to get this country moving forward again. All of us can point to some of his weaknesses but his strengths more than make up for them. He is a good, decent, honest man who understands business, know how to work across the isle and will work tirelessly for every citizen. To me that is the ideal person! Just my opinion....
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Eva Longoria pulled a TOS and an Anthony Wiener today on twitter!

I bet Hispanics all over the country are proud of her. She is the perfect Hispanic advocate for BO.

I guess that is what happens when you get DESPERATE :wink2: !!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I think it's impressive to see the "talking points" all together and listed......


The Super PAC’s 30-second ad opens with a black screen and, in total silence, the following indisputable statistics scroll up on the screen:

—23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed

—47 Million on Food Stamps

—5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure

—$4500 Drop in Household Income

—$5.5 Trillion of New Debt

—$716 Billion in Medicare Cuts

—$2.6 Trillion for Obamacare

—$1.9 Trillion in New Taxes in Obama’s Budget

—100% Increase in Gas Prices

In the middle of this scroll, a roar begins to be heard chanting "Four more years, four more years . . . "
And then when the scroll ends, the chanting ends and a voice comes on and says, "Four more years of this?
"You've got to be kidding!"
 

ajblakejr

Age quod agis
The Mrs. was on The View with the vampiras Whoopie & Joy playing hardball.

I would've never gone on there and would tell Whoopie to "bite me"

They never asked about religion when the Obamas were on there....just softball questions. Mrs Romney should only appear on progams where she is respected and treated properly. Let The girls at The View have to BEG an interview with her and then never go there. Snub those bitches!!

'View' takes religion, military, abortion shots at Ann Romney after playing 'romantic' softball with Obamas | Fox News

More, I respectfully disagree.
Ann is a lady.
She can handle it.
She could handle all those male children.
You know how hard it is to fight cancer.
I know how hard it is to have MS.

We all need to look in the mirror.
Ann, you and I - we will be okay.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Do I know how to fight cancer? Now that's funny. I never said that Ann couldn't handle it........My comments were on the Whoopie and the Joy . Where is their fairness treatment of "first ladies".??.......there are 2 possibilities for 2012 Michelle & Ann. They should be treated the same. I don't remember grilling Michelle about her husband not serving in the military.. They didnt badger Michelle about her faith.
Those 2 in particular, Whoopie & Joy are monsters.
 

ajblakejr

Age quod agis
Do I know how to fight cancer? Now that's funny. I never said that Ann couldn't handle it........My comments were on the Whoopie and the Joy . Where is their fairness treatment of "first ladies".??.......there are 2 possibilities for 2012 Michelle & Ann. They should be treated the same. I don't remember grilling Michelle about her husband not serving in the military.. They didnt badger Michelle about her faith.
Those 2 in particular, Whoopie & Joy are monsters.

You are right.
You never said she couldn't handle it.

I just get tired of those two wombats.
And I lost respect for Babs.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I would like to see Elizabeth have a private interview with Ann....run it on The View and see Whoopie & Joy drool with jealousy!!!!!!!
 
Top