Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT/ Planning To Go See "2016 Obama's American"?
171 views
Skip to first unread message
Judy Haffner
Aug 28, 2012, 1:48:25 PM8/28/12
to
http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
Monday night.
Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
in $6.2 million between Friday and Sunday with a per-screen
average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
"Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Â has made $9.3 million
since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
year's top-earning documentary.
The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
with co-director John Sullivan.
Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
expansion count remained fluid.
Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
with the president's half brother, George Obama.
........................................
Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
films the regular theaters don't show.
Judy
AnnieB
Aug 28, 2012, 2:55:52 PM8/28/12
to
On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> Monday night.
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> inĀ $6.2 million between Friday and SundayĀ with a per-screen
>
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> Monday night.
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Ā has made $9.3 million
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
> year's top-earning documentary.
>
> The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> expansion count remained fluid.
>
> Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> ........................................
>
> Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> Judy
>
Judy's ready for another political battle.
> year's top-earning documentary.
>
> The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> expansion count remained fluid.
>
> Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> ........................................
>
> Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> Judy
>
Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
AnnieB
Message has been deleted
Peahen
Aug 28, 2012, 3:35:26 PM8/28/12
to
"Judy Haffner" wrote in message
news:25562-50...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
Monday night.
Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
inĀ $6.2 million between Friday and SundayĀ with a per-screen
Haven't seen it. Don't intend to.
However, in the interests of fairness, here are 3 sites where you can watch
a short, 28-minute anti-Romney documentary (or Google and you'll find lots
more).
And no, it wasn't put out by Obama people, but by one of Newt's SuperPacs in
January. So far, Obama's people haven't stooped to that. Must be a
conservative thing.
And I haven't watched this one, either, and don't intend to.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/full-version-of-anti-romney-documentary/
http://www.care2.com/causes/anti-romney-documentary-king-of-bain-now-online.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/06/new-anti-romney-video-attacks-bain-capital-work.html
news:25562-50...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
Monday night.
Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
"Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Ā has made $9.3 million
Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
year's top-earning documentary.
The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
with co-director John Sullivan.
Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
expansion count remained fluid.
Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
with the president's half brother, George Obama.
........................................
Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
films the regular theaters don't show.
Judy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
year's top-earning documentary.
The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
with co-director John Sullivan.
Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
expansion count remained fluid.
Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
with the president's half brother, George Obama.
........................................
Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
films the regular theaters don't show.
Judy
Haven't seen it. Don't intend to.
However, in the interests of fairness, here are 3 sites where you can watch
a short, 28-minute anti-Romney documentary (or Google and you'll find lots
more).
And no, it wasn't put out by Obama people, but by one of Newt's SuperPacs in
January. So far, Obama's people haven't stooped to that. Must be a
conservative thing.
And I haven't watched this one, either, and don't intend to.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/full-version-of-anti-romney-documentary/
http://www.care2.com/causes/anti-romney-documentary-king-of-bain-now-online.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/06/new-anti-romney-video-attacks-bain-capital-work.html
Peahen
Aug 28, 2012, 3:37:51 PM8/28/12
to
"AnnieB" wrote in message news:k1j47n$mdu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> Monday night.
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> in� $6.2 million between Friday and Sunday� with a per-screen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1
And that's my last response on this issue. There's absolutely no sense in
trying to discuss politics in a rational manner in a newsgroup.
On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> Monday night.
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --� has made $9.3 million
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
+1
And that's my last response on this issue. There's absolutely no sense in
trying to discuss politics in a rational manner in a newsgroup.
Message has been deleted
Larc
Aug 28, 2012, 5:19:48 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:55:52 -0700, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
| Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
| it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
I wouldn't go to see an anti-Obama movie. Or a pro one for that matter. I don't
| Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
| it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
like him or Romney.
Larc
Judy
Aug 28, 2012, 5:58:33 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 10:55 am, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> > "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> > box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> > about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> > Monday night.
> > Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> > That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> > in $6.2 million between Friday and Sunday with a per-screen
> On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> > "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> > box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> > about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> > Monday night.
> > Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> > That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> > average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
> > Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> > "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Â has made $9.3 million
>
> > Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> > since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
> > year's top-earning documentary.
>
> > The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> > the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> > Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> > to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> > with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> > Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> > Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> > expansion count remained fluid.
>
> > Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> > Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> > like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> > with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> > ........................................
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> > Judy
>
> Judy's ready for another political battle.
What do you mean by "another political battle", Annie? I've not
> > year's top-earning documentary.
>
> > The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> > the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> > Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> > to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> > with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> > Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> > Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> > expansion count remained fluid.
>
> > Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> > Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> > like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> > with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> > ........................................
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> > Judy
>
> Judy's ready for another political battle.
started any political battles this year???!
>
> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
> it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>
> AnnieB
I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same
> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
> it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>
> AnnieB
way when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush
before the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was
Michael Moore, or some such thing?
It might be good for anybody to see this new film, no matter if they
are anti, or pro...what do they have to lose, if their mind is already
set?
Judy
Judy
Aug 28, 2012, 6:02:02 PM8/28/12
to
satisfied with either candidate, so maybe we can do a write-in one? :)
I have very litle interest in this election, to be honest.
Judy
Tin@
Aug 28, 2012, 9:24:44 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 12:10 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> behind it, only racist bigots and full time haters will want to see it.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of those.
>
> All the reviews I've seen or heard have said the author made no attempt
> to report facts, it's actually all conjecture and fantasy about who he
> personally believes Obama to be and to be thinking.
>
> Susan
Cuz nobody would want to see it just so they know what it says? You
have to be racist and bigoted? Wow...closed minded much?
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 8/28/2012 1:48 PM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> Having read the reviews and quotes from the movie and knowing the person
> On 8/28/2012 1:48 PM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> behind it, only racist bigots and full time haters will want to see it.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of those.
>
> All the reviews I've seen or heard have said the author made no attempt
> to report facts, it's actually all conjecture and fantasy about who he
> personally believes Obama to be and to be thinking.
>
> Susan
Cuz nobody would want to see it just so they know what it says? You
have to be racist and bigoted? Wow...closed minded much?
Message has been deleted
Tin@
Aug 28, 2012, 9:32:10 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 6:27 pm, Zob <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No point in seeing it, it won't change anybody's mind AFAIC. The
> Obama haters will sit through the film and nod and agree, and the
> Obama supporters will sit through the film and laugh at the what they
> see as right wing propaganda. There are not many people who are
> honestly neutral towards the current President.
>
> --
> Zob
>
> "So You Think You Can Dance" Season 6 Certainty Contest champion
Same as you libs did with MM's film...and yes, I've seen and I OWN it.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:48:25 -0800, jhaff...@webtv.net (Judy Haffner)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> >"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> >box office with its challenge to the president's record,
>
> <snip>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> >"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> >box office with its challenge to the president's record,
>
>
> No point in seeing it, it won't change anybody's mind AFAIC. The
> Obama haters will sit through the film and nod and agree, and the
> Obama supporters will sit through the film and laugh at the what they
> see as right wing propaganda. There are not many people who are
> honestly neutral towards the current President.
>
> --
> Zob
>
> "So You Think You Can Dance" Season 6 Certainty Contest champion
Same as you libs did with MM's film...and yes, I've seen and I OWN it.
The_LA_Flash
Aug 28, 2012, 11:17:08 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 11:55 am, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> > "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> > box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> > about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> > Monday night.
> > Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> > That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> > in $6.2 million between Friday and Sunday with a per-screen
> On 8/28/2012 10:48 AM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
> > "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
> > box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
> > about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
> > Monday night.
> > Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
> > That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
> > average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
> > Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> > "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Â has made $9.3 million
>
> > Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
> > since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
> > year's top-earning documentary.
>
> > The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> > the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> > Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> > to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> > with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> > Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> > Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> > expansion count remained fluid.
>
> > Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> > Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> > like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> > with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> > ........................................
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> > Judy
>
> Judy's ready for another political battle.
Yea, how about that, if someone posted they wanted to see a movie that
> > year's top-earning documentary.
>
> > The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
> > the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
> > Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
> > to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
> > with co-director John Sullivan.
>
> > Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
> > Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
> > expansion count remained fluid.
>
> > Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
> > Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
> > like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
> > with the president's half brother, George Obama.
> > ........................................
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> > Judy
>
> Judy's ready for another political battle.
bashed Sarah Palin she would not be very happy.
>
> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
> it at all. I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>
> AnnieB
The_LA_Flash
Aug 28, 2012, 11:23:22 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 12:10 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 8/28/2012 1:48 PM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 8/28/2012 1:48 PM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> > Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> > think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
> > won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
> > smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
> > films the regular theaters don't show.
>
> Having read the reviews and quotes from the movie and knowing the person
> behind it, only racist bigots and full time haters will want to see it.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of those.
>
> All the reviews I've seen or heard have said the author made no attempt
> to report facts, it's actually all conjecture and fantasy about who he
> personally believes Obama to be and to be thinking.
>
> Susan
I could not agree more, if I wanted to see Obama get bashed I would
> behind it, only racist bigots and full time haters will want to see it.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of those.
>
> All the reviews I've seen or heard have said the author made no attempt
> to report facts, it's actually all conjecture and fantasy about who he
> personally believes Obama to be and to be thinking.
>
> Susan
just watch FOX news for free or even worse read the posts from the
right wing wacko in the X-Factor group....
The_LA_Flash
Aug 28, 2012, 11:23:47 PM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 12:37 pm, "Peahen" <peahen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "AnnieB" wrote in messagenews:k1j47n$mdu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
+2
> "AnnieB" wrote in messagenews:k1j47n$mdu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Judy Haffner
Aug 28, 2012, 11:54:01 PM8/28/12
to
L A Flash wrote:
>Yea, how about that, if someone posted
> they wanted to see a movie that bashed
> Sarah Palin she would not be very
> happy.
How can you make an assessment on what I think, or don't think? I really
hate being second guessed.
How do you know what the movie is going to show, or tell, without seeing
it? Anyone that is comfortable in their own skin concerning the
candidate of their own choice, shouldn't give a rat's behind what anyone
else says about them, should they? Would you even think about changing
your mind on who to vote for by going to a movie? I seriously think not.
I was curious whether anybody here had seen it yet and what their
opinions were, since it seems to be all over the news. I seriously doubt
it will come to one of our theaters, so I probably won't get to see it,
but I sure wouldn't be scared to go, nor would I expect it to change my
mind, as I knew my own mind 4 years ago, and I haven't changed my way of
thinking, believe you me!
As I said earlier to Larc, I'm not that satisfied with the Republican
choice either at this point, the same as 4 years ago, but I went with my
gut instinct, and have no regrets.
Judy
Moni
Aug 29, 2012, 12:34:09 AM8/29/12
to
"Zob" <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dqrq38l95k99v9at7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:48:25 -0800, jhaf...@webtv.net (Judy Haffner)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>>
>>"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
>>box office with its challenge to the president's record,
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>>
>>"2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
>>box office with its challenge to the president's record,
>
> <snip>
>
> No point in seeing it, it won't change anybody's mind AFAIC. The
> Obama haters will sit through the film and nod and agree, and the
> Obama supporters will sit through the film and laugh at the what they
> see as right wing propaganda. There are not many people who are
> honestly neutral towards the current President.
>
> --
> Zob
>
> "So You Think You Can Dance" Season 6 Certainty Contest champion
>
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference between propaganda and
>
> No point in seeing it, it won't change anybody's mind AFAIC. The
> Obama haters will sit through the film and nod and agree, and the
> Obama supporters will sit through the film and laugh at the what they
> see as right wing propaganda. There are not many people who are
> honestly neutral towards the current President.
>
> --
> Zob
>
> "So You Think You Can Dance" Season 6 Certainty Contest champion
>
a true, unbiased, documentary. I don't care who anyone supports, it sucks.
--
Moni
If the horse is dead...dismount.
The_LA_Flash
Aug 29, 2012, 7:32:03 AM8/29/12
to
Have a great day.
mjcic...@gmail.com
Aug 29, 2012, 8:48:48 AM8/29/12
to
MJ
Judy
Aug 29, 2012, 12:06:36 PM8/29/12
to
On Aug 29, 4:48 am, "mjcicca...@gmail.com" <mjcicca...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not really sure to be honest, as it seems like most of the
potential
republican presidential candidates didn't seem that strong. I do have
to say I am more impressed with Romney now, as I was at first, as he
is growing on me, as I continue to listen to him more, and learn what
he believes in and stands for. At least when I listen to him talk to
the people of this great country, I trust him and feel he is telling
the truth, which I haven't felt in a really long time, and I'm tired
of being lied to.
What is your thoughts on Mitt Romney?
Judy
wrote:
potential
republican presidential candidates didn't seem that strong. I do have
to say I am more impressed with Romney now, as I was at first, as he
is growing on me, as I continue to listen to him more, and learn what
he believes in and stands for. At least when I listen to him talk to
the people of this great country, I trust him and feel he is telling
the truth, which I haven't felt in a really long time, and I'm tired
of being lied to.
What is your thoughts on Mitt Romney?
Judy
mjcic...@gmail.com
Aug 29, 2012, 12:21:30 PM8/29/12
to
MJ
Judy
Aug 29, 2012, 12:54:00 PM8/29/12
to
On Aug 29, 8:21 am, "mjcicca...@gmail.com" <mjcicca...@gmail.com>
My hubby and I both thought she was fantastic last night, and did such
a good job, especially since she's not a politician herself. She was
very charismatic!
Judy
a good job, especially since she's not a politician herself. She was
very charismatic!
Judy
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Judy
Aug 29, 2012, 1:51:20 PM8/29/12
to
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/wallace_cha...
>
> “Governor Romney, you have changed your position in the last 10 years on
> abortion, on gay rights, on guns. You say keeping an open mind is a
> strength, but some of your critics say that every one of these moves has
> been to your political advantage. When you were running in
> Massachusetts, you took liberal positions. Running now as president, you
> take more conservative positions. Is that principle or is it just politics?”
>
> Susan
You belive anything you want, Susan. You are a Democrat, so I wouldn't
expect you to think any differently than you do about Romney. In fact,
I would be SHOCKED if you stated anything different.
Why would any person, that was sound of mind, vote for someone again,
after they've seen what he's accomplished (or in this case, NOT
accomplished) in the four years he's been in office. After being lied
to for four years, why would anyone wish more of the same for another
4 years? That's completely uncomprehensable. Lord know what this
country will possibly be like in four more years of the same?!
Just keep thinking the way you do until you go to the polls, but don't
expect anything different if Obama gets in for a second term. Heaven
forbid!
Judy
>
> “Governor Romney, you have changed your position in the last 10 years on
> abortion, on gay rights, on guns. You say keeping an open mind is a
> strength, but some of your critics say that every one of these moves has
> been to your political advantage. When you were running in
> Massachusetts, you took liberal positions. Running now as president, you
> take more conservative positions. Is that principle or is it just politics?”
>
> Susan
You belive anything you want, Susan. You are a Democrat, so I wouldn't
expect you to think any differently than you do about Romney. In fact,
I would be SHOCKED if you stated anything different.
Why would any person, that was sound of mind, vote for someone again,
after they've seen what he's accomplished (or in this case, NOT
accomplished) in the four years he's been in office. After being lied
to for four years, why would anyone wish more of the same for another
4 years? That's completely uncomprehensable. Lord know what this
country will possibly be like in four more years of the same?!
Just keep thinking the way you do until you go to the polls, but don't
expect anything different if Obama gets in for a second term. Heaven
forbid!
Judy
Bigolhomo
Aug 29, 2012, 1:58:03 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Judy <gram...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That completely avoids Susan's point, which is that Romney's positions
keep changing to whatever is politically advantageous for him at the
moment. Yet you feel like you've finally found a politician who is
telling you the truth (which is hilarious in of itself, as pretty much
all politicians lie through their teeth about everything). Why do you
feel like he's so honest when he has a history of so much flip
flopping?
wrote:
keep changing to whatever is politically advantageous for him at the
moment. Yet you feel like you've finally found a politician who is
telling you the truth (which is hilarious in of itself, as pretty much
all politicians lie through their teeth about everything). Why do you
feel like he's so honest when he has a history of so much flip
flopping?
Message has been deleted
mjcic...@gmail.com
Aug 29, 2012, 2:13:43 PM8/29/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:55:03 PM UTC-4, Judy wrote:
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
>
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
>
> http://ent.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=753518&acid=3&afid=1
>
>
>
> "2016: Obama's America," the right-wing documentary that has rocked the
>
> box office with its challenge to the president's record, will expand to
>
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
>
> Monday night.
>
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
>
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
>
> in $6.2 million between Friday and Sunday with a per-screen
>
> about 1,800 theaters on Friday, Rocky Mountain Pictures told TheWrap
>
> Monday night.
>
> Obama discusses friendship with George Clooney
>
>
>
> That's up from the 1,091 theaters it played in over the weekend, taking
>
>
> average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
>
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
>
> "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" --Â has made $9.3 million
> average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release.
>
>
>
> Produced for roughly $2.1 million, the film -- with its catchphrase,
>
>
> since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
>
> year's top-earning documentary.
>
>
>
> The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
>
> the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
>
> Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
>
> to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
>
> with co-director John Sullivan.
>
>
>
> Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
>
>
> Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
>
> expansion count remained fluid.
>
>
>
> Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
>
> Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
>
> like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
>
> with the president's half brother, George Obama.
>
> ........................................
>
>
>
> Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
>
> think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
>
> won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
>
> smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
>
> films the regular theaters don't show.
>
>
>
> Judy
Just a question...... Have you never changed your mind about anything?
> since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the
>
> year's top-earning documentary.
>
>
>
> The expansion of the film will surely benefit from the buzz surrounding
>
> the ongoing Republican National Convention. Part of it will target the
>
> Heartland, a primary focus of the long-term roll out strategy according
>
> to Rocky Mountain's Mark Joseph, who is handling the film's marketing
>
> with co-director John Sullivan.
>
>
>
> Anti-Obama documentary has strong opening
>
>
>
> Joseph was still analyzing Monday's box office numbers and said the
>
> expansion count remained fluid.
>
>
>
> Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of
>
> Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be
>
> like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview
>
> with the president's half brother, George Obama.
>
> ........................................
>
>
>
> Maybe some of you already have seen this film, and if so, what did you
>
> think of it? I would very much like to see it, but I have a feeling it
>
> won't be coming to any of our regular theaters, but maybe to one of the
>
> smaller independent local theaters, that often feature documentarys, or
>
> films the regular theaters don't show.
>
>
>
> Judy
MJ
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
AnnieB
Aug 29, 2012, 3:29:15 PM8/29/12
to
instead of the newsgroup. Here it is again:
I don't trust him, and I don't like his self-serving attitude. He's a
flip flopper and I think he's hiding something in those tax returns he
won't release. I'm not saying he broke any law, but I don't think a
truly patriotic American should be stashing his money in overseas tax
shelters. He knows nothing about foreign affairs, he's not disclosed
anything about what his policies would be other than his ever changing
views on abortion in cases of incest or rape, and that he'd abolish
Obamacare, which is nothing more than Romneycare. I am against the
proposed changes in Medicare. I'm also against proposed tax breaks for
the wealthy, especially at the expense of programs for the poor.
I don't like that he accuses Obama of running a campaign of hate, when
some of the most hateful comments have come from his camp. Jump all
over Obama for the windmill on the top of the car joke, but make a snide
remark about never being asked to show his birth certificate? Tell me
why the first is more hateful than the latter!
I don't believe he normally buys his shirts in 3-packs from Costco. Just
another of his little ploys.
I'm not particularly happy with Obama's performance, or lack of it, but
I still feel he's the one who cares the most for his country, which
happens to be the USA, and its poor and middle class. The Birthers, the
Tea Party and the Obama haters, along with John Boehner, Mitch
McConnell, Michelle Bachman (I could name a few other crazies) have
turned me completely against from the Republican Party. Too bad Jon
Huntsman dropped out of the race. In my opinion, he was the most honest
and sane of any of them.
AnnieB
The_Chris
Aug 29, 2012, 5:17:06 PM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:58:33 -0700, Judy wrote:
>
> I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same way
> when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush before
> the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was Michael Moore,
> or some such thing?
>
You don't know who Michael Moore is? You MUST have your head in the
>
> I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same way
> when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush before
> the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was Michael Moore,
> or some such thing?
>
sand! His movies are required watching!
Message has been deleted
Bigolhomo
Aug 29, 2012, 6:00:13 PM8/29/12
to
SLGreg
Aug 29, 2012, 6:02:08 PM8/29/12
to
--
greg
Message has been deleted
Judy
Aug 29, 2012, 7:07:41 PM8/29/12
to
is, but wasn't sure that was his name, as are both common first and
last names. You go right ahead and watch them all you want, but no
thanks, I'll pass, so for me they aren't "required watching". I watch
what interests ME.
Judy
Judy
Aug 29, 2012, 7:23:07 PM8/29/12
to
> On 8/29/2012 6:02 PM, SLGreg wrote:
>
> > <crickets chirping>
>
> You think she's formulating an apology for attributing those delusional
> accusations by Faux News to me?
>
> I'm sure that's why she suddenly went silent on the matter.
>
> Right?
>
> Susan
I happen to have a life, that takes me away from the computer, and
don't feel I need to "hang" on it all day long. I learned to make
apologies from you, Susan.....you have taught me well, and you've also
shown me that you can't stand to have the last word. I don't owe you
anything FYI. This is what YOU said earlier, and said it as if you
were presenting facts and making statements, so if you didn't agree
with what you posted (in other quotes) then you wouldn't have put them
on here...right? Obviously you agree with the statements and this is
what you said earlier:
"He's lied about every position he's needed to for votes."
"He won't even own up his single decent accomplishment in government,
btw, health care."
"And folks hated him there as governor, which is why he didn't even
run
for re-election. He was going to be the loser if he did. They
rejected
him there, they had the worst job growth record of almost every
state."
Not sure how you know all of this? Yet, you stand by Obama, who has
lied through his teeth during the last campaign and for the four years
after, putting our country in more of a financial disaster. What has
he accomplished in four years? He just wants to keep borrowing
trillions of dollars to "help those that need it, and get the economy
back on it's feet." Ya' right! If you want four more years of
destroying our country further and listening to more lies, that's fine
by me. Oh, yes...he is really a great President. LOL
Judy
>
> > <crickets chirping>
>
> You think she's formulating an apology for attributing those delusional
> accusations by Faux News to me?
>
> I'm sure that's why she suddenly went silent on the matter.
>
> Right?
>
> Susan
I happen to have a life, that takes me away from the computer, and
don't feel I need to "hang" on it all day long. I learned to make
apologies from you, Susan.....you have taught me well, and you've also
shown me that you can't stand to have the last word. I don't owe you
anything FYI. This is what YOU said earlier, and said it as if you
were presenting facts and making statements, so if you didn't agree
with what you posted (in other quotes) then you wouldn't have put them
on here...right? Obviously you agree with the statements and this is
what you said earlier:
"He's lied about every position he's needed to for votes."
"He won't even own up his single decent accomplishment in government,
btw, health care."
"And folks hated him there as governor, which is why he didn't even
run
for re-election. He was going to be the loser if he did. They
rejected
him there, they had the worst job growth record of almost every
state."
Not sure how you know all of this? Yet, you stand by Obama, who has
lied through his teeth during the last campaign and for the four years
after, putting our country in more of a financial disaster. What has
he accomplished in four years? He just wants to keep borrowing
trillions of dollars to "help those that need it, and get the economy
back on it's feet." Ya' right! If you want four more years of
destroying our country further and listening to more lies, that's fine
by me. Oh, yes...he is really a great President. LOL
Judy
The_Chris
Aug 29, 2012, 8:32:08 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:00:13 -0700, Bigolhomo wrote:
> Yeah, because they're not biased at all, unlike the Obama movie.
Everybody's biased - just like people are biased against him - what's the
> Yeah, because they're not biased at all, unlike the Obama movie.
difference? However, if you have facts, and you do research (unlike the
people that don't even bother to know who he is) I'm willing to learn a
thing or two.
I'll say this - and this is why I feel so strongly about it...
I saw his movie 'Sicko' - and it opened my eyes the insurance problem in
America. I went to Mexico - paid $10 for bariatric surgury - lost 110
pounds, and changed my life - all because of a movie.. Now I'm a healthy
man - serving my country in Afghanistan. I would have NEVER passed a
military physical when I was 330 pounds...
The_Chris
Aug 29, 2012, 8:33:15 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:07:41 -0700, Judy wrote:
>
> I didn't say I didn't KNOW who he was. I think everyone know who he is,
> but wasn't sure that was his name, as are both common first and last
> names. You go right ahead and watch them all you want, but no thanks,
> I'll pass, so for me they aren't "required watching". I watch what
> interests ME.
>
> Judy
You're never going to learn like that - that's why they make you take
>
> I didn't say I didn't KNOW who he was. I think everyone know who he is,
> but wasn't sure that was his name, as are both common first and last
> names. You go right ahead and watch them all you want, but no thanks,
> I'll pass, so for me they aren't "required watching". I watch what
> interests ME.
>
> Judy
electives in college - so you can expose yourself to new ideas :)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Judy Haffner
Aug 29, 2012, 9:27:03 PM8/29/12
to
Susan wrote:
<snipped for length>
>You know, you should look this shit up
> before calling people liars.
Why do you seem to think I'm a fan of Romney, and feel he is a terrific
candidate for President, and is the perfect Republican choice? I never
said I did, so you might as well save time by not searching for every
possible thing you can dig up that goes against him to post it here to
me.
I DO know though about Obama's political agenda, as he's had 4 years to
prove himself, and WTH has he accomplished? Our country is in far worse
shape....the economy, unemployment, for starters, and he keeps wanting
to borrow more. His four years in office speaks for itself. He lies
through his teeth and keeps on lying, trying to blow smoke up his
supporter's asses, telling them exactly what he thinks they want to
hear. You think he can turn things around by serving another four years
in office?! God help us all. I can't believe anyone that voted for him
before, is still standing behind him. I'd be embarrassed to admit it.
I also did NOT accuse you of lying, but wanted you to account for YOUR
statements, or explain why you supported what you posted? People should
accountable for their actions, but as usual, you back pedal and put the
blame on others, and won't own up to your actions. I can see why you
support Obama.
Judy
AnnieB
Aug 29, 2012, 9:40:34 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 6:27 PM, Judy Haffner wrote:
>
> Susan wrote:
>
> <snipped for length>
>
> Susan wrote:
>
> <snipped for length>
I can't believe anyone that voted for him
> before, is still standing behind him. I'd be embarrassed to admit it.
>
<snipped>.
> before, is still standing behind him. I'd be embarrassed to admit it.
>
>
> Judy
>
I voted for him. I'm still behind him all the way. I'm not embarrassed
to admit it.
AnnieB
Nathan Sanders
Aug 29, 2012, 10:06:21 PM8/29/12
to
In article
<9aecd650-4774-4003...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Massachusetts:
66% November 2003
48% July 2004
43% April 2005
39% December 2006 (last month in office)
Job growth in Massachusetts during Romney's four years put the state
at about 45th or so in the nation, every single year. Since Romney
left office, Massachusetts has been about 15th or so in the nation for
job growth.
> Yet, you stand by Obama, who has
> lied through his teeth during the last campaign and for the four years
> after, putting our country in more of a financial disaster.
In fact, our economy is generally stronger than it was when Obama took
office, and significantly stronger than when the economy bottomed out
three years ago during the global recession.
The Dow Jones is currently around 13,000, up by about 1000 points from
the first months of 2009, when he took office, and up by about 7000
points from the worst of the recession.
The GDP was about $15 trillion last year, up by about $1 trillion from
2009 and 2008. We continue to have the highest GDP of any nation.
Corporate profits are now the highest they have ever been in the
entire history of our country, up by about $500 billion since Obama
took office, and up by about $1 trillion since the worst of the
recession.
Government spending has stayed pretty constant every year, but since
the GDP has steadily increased, that means spending as a percentage of
GDP has steadily decreased.
Obama has seen an increase of about 3.4 million jobs during his first
three fiscal years, so about 1 million jobs per year. In comparison,
George Bush only saw about 2.7 million jobs added during his entire
first four fiscal years, which is a growth rate about half of Obama's.
(Should I even bring up Bush's last four fiscal years, in which he saw
the *loss* of 4.5 million jobs?)
(You might ask why unemployment is still not at a lower level, despite
corporations having more money than ever before, with the lowest tax
rates they've had since the Reagan/Bush years. Good question!
Traditional GOP economic theory says that the wealth should "trickle
down" to the lower classes, and employers will hire everybody with
awesome salaries because of all the extra money they have.
Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. As expected, the wealthy
are hoarding their money, despite having more of it than ever before.
Even still, unemployment is lower than it was during the worst of the
recession, and still decreasing, down from about 10% to 8%, right
where it was when Obama took office.)
It's okay to like Romney just because he is opposed to a woman's
choice in whether to have an abortion (though he wasn't when he
running for Governor, when his official platform said that "[w]omen
should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the
government's.")
It's okay to like Romney just because he is now opposed to full
equality for gays and lesbians (though he wasn't when he was running
for the US Senate, when he said "I am more convinced now than ever
before that as we seek to establish full equality for America�s gays
and lesbians, I will provide more effective leadership than my
opponent. I believe we can and we must do better. If we are to achieve
the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a
mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.").
It's okay to like Romney just because he now doesn't think health
insurance should be affordable for the poor or for people with
pre-existing conditions (though he thought otherwise as Governor, when
he enacted health care reform in Massachusetts that is essentially
identical to Obama's Affordable Health Care Act).
It's okay to like Romney just because he's a Christian (though many
Christians don't even count Mormonism as part of Christianity; also
note that Obama, as a member of the United Church of Christ, is
actually the only candidate of the four main president and VP
candidates who is a mainstream Protestant).
It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
ban on guns, in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
Heck, it's okay to like Romney just because he's the Republican
candidate. Most of the rest of the country are sheep who vote for one
party only and always, regardless of who the actual candidate is, so
at worst, it would just make you an average person. There's nothing
inherently wrong with being average!
But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
disaster", because voting based on a lie is dumb. Vote based on the
truth, and make sure you are honest with yourself for why you *really*
want to vote for Romney.
> What has he accomplished in four years?
As I showed above, he has kept the economy stable and growing, despite
having to deal with one of the worst global recessions in history.
He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, bringing US law closer to treating
me as a full equal citizen.
He became the first sitting president and first major party candidate
in the US history to publicly offer his support for gay marriage,
publicly demonstrating a belief that US law should move even closer to
treating gays and lesbians as full equal citizens.
He ordered the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, again,
helping to bring US law closer to treating gays and lesbians as full
equal citizens.
He enacted the Hate Crimes Bill, which brings federal recognition to
(and punishment for) the fact that many people are often specifically
targeted because of their gender, their gender identity, their sexual
orientation, and their physical disabilities, putting these categories
in line with other classes such as race and religion.
He enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which makes
it easier for people to fight against discriminatory pay.
He enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act, which is the biggest
overhaul in federal food safety in 70 years, and makes it easier to
track, recall, and prevent tainted foods.
He appointed two Supreme Court justices who are committed to
preserving a woman's right to make her own decision concerning her own
private health care.
He expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program, which helps give
insurance to poor children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
He enacted the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and
Disclosure Act, which was the biggest overhaul of regulations on the
credit card industry in 40 years, adding greater transparency and
consumer protection.
He enacted the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which provided
increased medical services to the workers whose health was compromised
when they helped clean up from the 9/11 attacks.
And speaking of 9/11, he commanded the hunt and death of Osama bin
Laden, one of the greatest enemies of the US in recent history, if not
of all time. He also oversaw the capture/killing of nearly all of the
rest of al-Qaeda's leaders that were still running around, leaving the
organization pretty much shattered.
> He just wants to keep borrowing trillions of dollars
> to "help those that need it,
Oh my God, what a terrible idea!
Would you prefer that he say "fuck poor people, fuck uninsured
children, fuck the disabled, fuck consumers, fuck 9/11 workers, fuck
people who are too stupid to believe the food they buy in the grocery
store should be untainted, and fuck every last faggot and dyke who
dares to think they deserve to serve our country openly or get
married"?
> and get the economy back on it's feet."
Oh my God, what a terrible idea!
Nathan
--
2012 AI Bragging Rights champion
2012 AI Certainty Contest champion
<9aecd650-4774-4003...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Judy <gram...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:12�pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
> > "And folks hated him there as governor, which is why he didn't even
> > run for re-election. He was going to be the loser if he did. They
> > rejected him there, they had the worst job growth record of almost
> > every state."
>
> Not sure how you know all of this?
Romney's approval rating tanked during his tenure as governor of
> On Aug 29, 2:12�pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
> > "And folks hated him there as governor, which is why he didn't even
> > run for re-election. He was going to be the loser if he did. They
> > rejected him there, they had the worst job growth record of almost
> > every state."
>
> Not sure how you know all of this?
Massachusetts:
66% November 2003
48% July 2004
43% April 2005
39% December 2006 (last month in office)
Job growth in Massachusetts during Romney's four years put the state
at about 45th or so in the nation, every single year. Since Romney
left office, Massachusetts has been about 15th or so in the nation for
job growth.
> Yet, you stand by Obama, who has
> lied through his teeth during the last campaign and for the four years
> after, putting our country in more of a financial disaster.
office, and significantly stronger than when the economy bottomed out
three years ago during the global recession.
The Dow Jones is currently around 13,000, up by about 1000 points from
the first months of 2009, when he took office, and up by about 7000
points from the worst of the recession.
The GDP was about $15 trillion last year, up by about $1 trillion from
2009 and 2008. We continue to have the highest GDP of any nation.
Corporate profits are now the highest they have ever been in the
entire history of our country, up by about $500 billion since Obama
took office, and up by about $1 trillion since the worst of the
recession.
Government spending has stayed pretty constant every year, but since
the GDP has steadily increased, that means spending as a percentage of
GDP has steadily decreased.
Obama has seen an increase of about 3.4 million jobs during his first
three fiscal years, so about 1 million jobs per year. In comparison,
George Bush only saw about 2.7 million jobs added during his entire
first four fiscal years, which is a growth rate about half of Obama's.
(Should I even bring up Bush's last four fiscal years, in which he saw
the *loss* of 4.5 million jobs?)
(You might ask why unemployment is still not at a lower level, despite
corporations having more money than ever before, with the lowest tax
rates they've had since the Reagan/Bush years. Good question!
Traditional GOP economic theory says that the wealth should "trickle
down" to the lower classes, and employers will hire everybody with
awesome salaries because of all the extra money they have.
Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. As expected, the wealthy
are hoarding their money, despite having more of it than ever before.
Even still, unemployment is lower than it was during the worst of the
recession, and still decreasing, down from about 10% to 8%, right
where it was when Obama took office.)
It's okay to like Romney just because he is opposed to a woman's
choice in whether to have an abortion (though he wasn't when he
running for Governor, when his official platform said that "[w]omen
should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the
government's.")
It's okay to like Romney just because he is now opposed to full
equality for gays and lesbians (though he wasn't when he was running
for the US Senate, when he said "I am more convinced now than ever
before that as we seek to establish full equality for America�s gays
and lesbians, I will provide more effective leadership than my
opponent. I believe we can and we must do better. If we are to achieve
the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a
mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.").
It's okay to like Romney just because he now doesn't think health
insurance should be affordable for the poor or for people with
pre-existing conditions (though he thought otherwise as Governor, when
he enacted health care reform in Massachusetts that is essentially
identical to Obama's Affordable Health Care Act).
It's okay to like Romney just because he's a Christian (though many
Christians don't even count Mormonism as part of Christianity; also
note that Obama, as a member of the United Church of Christ, is
actually the only candidate of the four main president and VP
candidates who is a mainstream Protestant).
It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
ban on guns, in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
Heck, it's okay to like Romney just because he's the Republican
candidate. Most of the rest of the country are sheep who vote for one
party only and always, regardless of who the actual candidate is, so
at worst, it would just make you an average person. There's nothing
inherently wrong with being average!
But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
disaster", because voting based on a lie is dumb. Vote based on the
truth, and make sure you are honest with yourself for why you *really*
want to vote for Romney.
> What has he accomplished in four years?
having to deal with one of the worst global recessions in history.
He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, bringing US law closer to treating
me as a full equal citizen.
He became the first sitting president and first major party candidate
in the US history to publicly offer his support for gay marriage,
publicly demonstrating a belief that US law should move even closer to
treating gays and lesbians as full equal citizens.
He ordered the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, again,
helping to bring US law closer to treating gays and lesbians as full
equal citizens.
He enacted the Hate Crimes Bill, which brings federal recognition to
(and punishment for) the fact that many people are often specifically
targeted because of their gender, their gender identity, their sexual
orientation, and their physical disabilities, putting these categories
in line with other classes such as race and religion.
He enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which makes
it easier for people to fight against discriminatory pay.
He enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act, which is the biggest
overhaul in federal food safety in 70 years, and makes it easier to
track, recall, and prevent tainted foods.
He appointed two Supreme Court justices who are committed to
preserving a woman's right to make her own decision concerning her own
private health care.
He expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program, which helps give
insurance to poor children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
He enacted the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and
Disclosure Act, which was the biggest overhaul of regulations on the
credit card industry in 40 years, adding greater transparency and
consumer protection.
He enacted the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which provided
increased medical services to the workers whose health was compromised
when they helped clean up from the 9/11 attacks.
And speaking of 9/11, he commanded the hunt and death of Osama bin
Laden, one of the greatest enemies of the US in recent history, if not
of all time. He also oversaw the capture/killing of nearly all of the
rest of al-Qaeda's leaders that were still running around, leaving the
organization pretty much shattered.
> He just wants to keep borrowing trillions of dollars
> to "help those that need it,
Would you prefer that he say "fuck poor people, fuck uninsured
children, fuck the disabled, fuck consumers, fuck 9/11 workers, fuck
people who are too stupid to believe the food they buy in the grocery
store should be untainted, and fuck every last faggot and dyke who
dares to think they deserve to serve our country openly or get
married"?
> and get the economy back on it's feet."
Nathan
--
2012 AI Bragging Rights champion
2012 AI Certainty Contest champion
AnnieB
Aug 29, 2012, 10:54:56 PM8/29/12
to
I love you, Nathan!
AnnieB
Tin@
Aug 29, 2012, 11:08:17 PM8/29/12
to
On Aug 29, 9:21 am, "mjcicca...@gmail.com" <mjcicca...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I like him. He is a business man and this country needs one. I like his wife too, made a hell of a speech last night.
> MJ
And a successful one at that. We don't have a successful President in
office, currently.
wrote:
> MJ
And a successful one at that. We don't have a successful President in
office, currently.
Tin@
Aug 29, 2012, 11:14:13 PM8/29/12
to
he's not disclosed
> anything about what his policies would be other than his ever changing
> views on abortion in cases of incest or rape, and that he'd abolish
> Obamacare, which is nothing more than Romneycare. I am against the
> proposed changes in Medicare. I'm also against proposed tax breaks for
> the wealthy, especially at the expense of programs for the poor.
>
> I don't like that he accuses Obama of running a campaign of hate, when
> some of the most hateful comments have come from his camp. Jump all
> over Obama for the windmill on the top of the car joke, but make a snide
> remark about never being asked to show his birth certificate? Tell me
> why the first is more hateful than the latter!
>
> I don't believe he normally buys his shirts in 3-packs from Costco. Just
> another of his little ploys.
>
> I'm not particularly happy with Obama's performance, or lack of it, but
> I still feel he's the one who cares the most for his country, which
> happens to be the USA, and its poor and middle class.
Tin@
Aug 29, 2012, 11:14:44 PM8/29/12
to
BTR1701
Aug 29, 2012, 11:14:41 PM8/29/12
to
In article <nathansanders-8B1...@free.teranews.com>,
above is an outright lie.
The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms. The U.S. Secret Service
has imposed the restriction on firearms at the convention. Just as it
will do for the Democrat Convention and as it does anywhere its
protectees are present.
Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
> in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
Quit lying.
> But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
> believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
> disaster"
It's okay for anyone to like or dislike any candidate for *any* reason
they choose.
What's not okay is for pompous (and lying) blowhards like you to presume
to give everyone else permission as to what they can like and what they
can't.
Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> ban on guns
Try not to be so dishonest with your nonsense. In fact, what you said
> It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> ban on guns
above is an outright lie.
The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms. The U.S. Secret Service
has imposed the restriction on firearms at the convention. Just as it
will do for the Democrat Convention and as it does anywhere its
protectees are present.
Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
> in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
Quit lying.
> But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
> believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
> disaster"
they choose.
What's not okay is for pompous (and lying) blowhards like you to presume
to give everyone else permission as to what they can like and what they
can't.
Tin@
Aug 29, 2012, 11:17:36 PM8/29/12
to
Message has been deleted
Nathan Sanders
Aug 29, 2012, 11:23:06 PM8/29/12
to
In article <atropos-F6C72E...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms.
When did I say the RNC "imposed" it?
I'm talking about restrictions at the RNC convention, not about RNC
policy.
> Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
Good thing I claimed no such thing!
> > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
>
> The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
I didn't say they did.
What I said is that guns are banned at the GOP convention, and this is
totally opposite what the GOP believes in. It's just ironic that, for
their safety, they're having to obey rules that, by their own beliefs,
should make them unsafe.
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <nathansanders-8B1...@free.teranews.com>,
> Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > ban on guns
>
> In article <nathansanders-8B1...@free.teranews.com>,
> Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > ban on guns
>
> what you said above is an outright lie.
So there is no such ban in effect at the convention?
> The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms.
I'm talking about restrictions at the RNC convention, not about RNC
policy.
> Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
> > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
>
> The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
What I said is that guns are banned at the GOP convention, and this is
totally opposite what the GOP believes in. It's just ironic that, for
their safety, they're having to obey rules that, by their own beliefs,
should make them unsafe.
Nathan Sanders
Aug 29, 2012, 11:34:02 PM8/29/12
to
In article <k1mkm3$a8c$1...@dont-email.me>, AnnieB <ann...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> !!!!!!STANDING OVATION!!!!!!
>
> I love you, Nathan!
Thanks Annie!
I'm okay with people supporting a candidate based on facts, but I
think it's detrimental to support a candidate based on lies, not just
for that election, for the long-term health of our democracy. The
more candidates learn that they can win through lies, the more they're
going to lie to us.
wrote:
> !!!!!!STANDING OVATION!!!!!!
>
> I love you, Nathan!
I'm okay with people supporting a candidate based on facts, but I
think it's detrimental to support a candidate based on lies, not just
for that election, for the long-term health of our democracy. The
more candidates learn that they can win through lies, the more they're
going to lie to us.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 12:00:03 AM8/30/12
to
In article <nathansanders-017...@free.teranews.com>,
standard GOP belief", and claiming it's a "complete contradiction", you
linked the ban to the GOP and implied they were the source of the ban.
Not only did you lie to start with, you're now doubling down on your
dishonesty by playing pathetic semantic games in an effort to pretend
you weren't doing what anyone with a brain knows that you were.
Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-F6C72E...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <nathansanders-8B1...@free.teranews.com>,
> > Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > > ban on guns
> >
> > what you said above is an outright lie.
>
> So there is no such ban in effect at the convention?
> > The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms.
>
> When did I say the RNC "imposed" it?
>
> I'm talking about restrictions at the RNC convention, not about RNC
> policy.
>
> > Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> > GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
>
> Good thing I claimed no such thing!
>
> > > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
> >
> > The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
>
> I didn't say they did.
Yes, you certainly did. By tying the firearms restriction to "the
> In article <atropos-F6C72E...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <nathansanders-8B1...@free.teranews.com>,
> > Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > > ban on guns
> >
> > what you said above is an outright lie.
>
> So there is no such ban in effect at the convention?
> > The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms.
>
> When did I say the RNC "imposed" it?
>
> I'm talking about restrictions at the RNC convention, not about RNC
> policy.
>
> > Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> > GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
>
> Good thing I claimed no such thing!
>
> > > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
> >
> > The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
>
> I didn't say they did.
standard GOP belief", and claiming it's a "complete contradiction", you
linked the ban to the GOP and implied they were the source of the ban.
Not only did you lie to start with, you're now doubling down on your
dishonesty by playing pathetic semantic games in an effort to pretend
you weren't doing what anyone with a brain knows that you were.
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 12:00:58 AM8/30/12
to
In article <49ot38tg0so14043m...@4ax.com>,
Zob <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for laying out the facts so well, Nathan. No hyperbole, no
> rhetoric, no spin... but the facts.
Except for where he lied, sure.
Zob <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for laying out the facts so well, Nathan. No hyperbole, no
> rhetoric, no spin... but the facts.
Except for where he lied, sure.
Message has been deleted
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 12:46:09 AM8/30/12
to
In article <atropos-327194...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
Where? Which sentence says the GOP itself was responsible for
imposing a ban guns on their own convention?
> By tying the firearms restriction to "the standard GOP belief",
I didn't "tie them"; I *contrasted* them! What do you think
"contradiction" is?
> and claiming it's a "complete contradiction",
I'll lay the contradiction out for you for more clearly, since you
didn't seem to understand it the first time:
* The standard GOP belief is that when people have greater access to
guns, they are safer, and when they have less access to guns, they are
more unsafe. That is, the GOP believes there is a positive
correlation between access to guns and safety.
* No guns are allowed at the GOP convention. This is presumably a
safety measure (but correct me if I'm wrong: maybe the reasons for the
ban are completely unrelated to a desire to increase safety). The ban
is based on the belief that there is an *inverse* correlation between
access to guns and safety, which is exactly the opposite of the GOP
belief.
If I'm a voter questioning the link between guns and safety, what am I
to believe? The GOP party line that more guns make me safe? Or the
long-standing practice of banning guns at conventions, which is based
on the contradictory notion that *fewer* guns make me safe?
> you linked the ban to the GOP
No, I linked it to their *convention*. The word "convention" isn't
just there to be pretty. It has a meaning.
> and implied they were the source of the ban.
No, you inferred it. I never referenced the source of the ban,
because the source is utterly irrelevant to the contradiction I was
talking about, which is the connection between safety and access to
guns. I even mentioned the subject of the contradiction explicitly
("having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
argue about something I didn't even write, and which has no bearing on
what I wrote.
> Not only did you lie to start with,
Which specific sentence do you think is a lie?
> you're now doubling down
Yes, I'm standing by the words I wrote as I wrote them.
> by playing pathetic semantic games
Fine, let's pretend it's entirely my fault for not writing at a lower
grade level, causing you to completely miss the point about whether
access to guns makes us safer or unsafer. I've now clarified my
position for you, so there should no longer be any confusion about
what I intended.
So if you continue to insist on misinterpreting the point, it's
entirely your fault now. You can either continue irrationally arguing
about this petty fantasy issue of who imposed the ban (which has
nothing at all to do with anything I said), or you can rationally
discuss the actual issue I actually raised with the actual words that
I actually wrote, which is whether increased access to guns makes you
safer.
Your choice.
imposing a ban guns on their own convention?
> By tying the firearms restriction to "the standard GOP belief",
"contradiction" is?
> and claiming it's a "complete contradiction",
didn't seem to understand it the first time:
* The standard GOP belief is that when people have greater access to
guns, they are safer, and when they have less access to guns, they are
more unsafe. That is, the GOP believes there is a positive
correlation between access to guns and safety.
* No guns are allowed at the GOP convention. This is presumably a
safety measure (but correct me if I'm wrong: maybe the reasons for the
ban are completely unrelated to a desire to increase safety). The ban
is based on the belief that there is an *inverse* correlation between
access to guns and safety, which is exactly the opposite of the GOP
belief.
If I'm a voter questioning the link between guns and safety, what am I
to believe? The GOP party line that more guns make me safe? Or the
long-standing practice of banning guns at conventions, which is based
on the contradictory notion that *fewer* guns make me safe?
> you linked the ban to the GOP
just there to be pretty. It has a meaning.
> and implied they were the source of the ban.
because the source is utterly irrelevant to the contradiction I was
talking about, which is the connection between safety and access to
guns. I even mentioned the subject of the contradiction explicitly
("having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a
gun"), but you're conveniently ignoring the actual words I wrote to
argue about something I didn't even write, and which has no bearing on
what I wrote.
> Not only did you lie to start with,
> you're now doubling down
> by playing pathetic semantic games
grade level, causing you to completely miss the point about whether
access to guns makes us safer or unsafer. I've now clarified my
position for you, so there should no longer be any confusion about
what I intended.
So if you continue to insist on misinterpreting the point, it's
entirely your fault now. You can either continue irrationally arguing
about this petty fantasy issue of who imposed the ban (which has
nothing at all to do with anything I said), or you can rationally
discuss the actual issue I actually raised with the actual words that
I actually wrote, which is whether increased access to guns makes you
safer.
Your choice.
Cheri
Aug 30, 2012, 12:47:17 AM8/30/12
to
"Tin@" <tinas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31c5ac3e-8ec7-4722...@qa3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
=======
I definitely loved Roger and Me. I've seen them all, some suck, some don't
IMO.
Cheri
news:31c5ac3e-8ec7-4722...@qa3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
I definitely loved Roger and Me. I've seen them all, some suck, some don't
IMO.
Cheri
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 3:15:05 AM8/30/12
to
You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your puerile word
games.
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 3:35:24 AM8/30/12
to
In article <k1mr9...@news7.newsguy.com>,
The irony is that when a student filmmaker tried to do to Moore exactly
what he did to Roger Smith, GM's CEO-- namely follow him around and
ambush him with uncomfortable questions-- Moore got a restraining order
against the guy, claiming he was a stalker.
Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
Amendment rights being violated.
what he did to Roger Smith, GM's CEO-- namely follow him around and
ambush him with uncomfortable questions-- Moore got a restraining order
against the guy, claiming he was a stalker.
Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
Amendment rights being violated.
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 5:02:32 AM8/30/12
to
In article <atropos-AC96CA...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
with the words I actually wrote. You have constructed this weird
fantasy argument you seem so desperate to have with me, by
re-interpreting what I wrote into something I didn't actually say, and
you're so obsessed with your fantasy that you refuse to even discuss
the actual issue that has been stated plainly.
But for fun, let's pretend I actually did think the RNC itself imposed
a ban on guns on its own convention, and that the SS had absolutely no
control over the matter. (But just to be clear, I do not, nor ever
did, think that.)
There are at least two reasons why that's silly.
First,, why wouldn't I have just stated that belief directly, like I
did with everything else in my post? Why would I say "the RNC
convention has a strict ban on guns" if what I really meant to say was
"the RNC has banned guns at the convention"? Out of all of the
sentences in my post, why would I have chosen that specific one to be
stated so obtusely, completely masking what you think I "really" meant
to say? I'm not shy about stating my beliefs directly and plainly, so
why would I be so coy for that that one specific sentence out of all
of the sentences I wrote?
Second, even if I had been playing coy, the issue you're so obsessed
with (who specifically imposed the ban) is utterly irrelevant to the
actual point I explicitly mentioned with actual words (the correlation
between gun access and safety). Whether it was the SS, or the
governor of Florida, or the mayor of Tampa, or the RNC, or Romney
himself who ordered the ban doesn't change the fact that someone
influential thinks that a ban on guns makes everyone safer, and this
sends an obvious mixed message to the public, since the GOP has a long
history of making exactly the opposite claim about the relationship
between gun access and safety.
So are we supposed to believe the GOP party line, or are we supposed
to believe the rationale for the gun ban at the convention?
Do you think the convention attendees feel more or less safe because
of the gun ban? I'm willing to bet they feel safer. I wonder if it
it'll occur to them the next time they argue that greater access to
guns makes us safer that, deep down, they don't actually believe what
they're saying, because they themselves actually felt safer in an
environment where guns were banned.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be standing next to any
gun-carrying Ron Paul supporters when Maine's delegates were dealt
with...
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your puerile word
> games.
Regardless of what you pretend to be case, I meant exactly what I said
> You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your puerile word
> games.
with the words I actually wrote. You have constructed this weird
fantasy argument you seem so desperate to have with me, by
re-interpreting what I wrote into something I didn't actually say, and
you're so obsessed with your fantasy that you refuse to even discuss
the actual issue that has been stated plainly.
But for fun, let's pretend I actually did think the RNC itself imposed
a ban on guns on its own convention, and that the SS had absolutely no
control over the matter. (But just to be clear, I do not, nor ever
did, think that.)
There are at least two reasons why that's silly.
First,, why wouldn't I have just stated that belief directly, like I
did with everything else in my post? Why would I say "the RNC
convention has a strict ban on guns" if what I really meant to say was
"the RNC has banned guns at the convention"? Out of all of the
sentences in my post, why would I have chosen that specific one to be
stated so obtusely, completely masking what you think I "really" meant
to say? I'm not shy about stating my beliefs directly and plainly, so
why would I be so coy for that that one specific sentence out of all
of the sentences I wrote?
Second, even if I had been playing coy, the issue you're so obsessed
with (who specifically imposed the ban) is utterly irrelevant to the
actual point I explicitly mentioned with actual words (the correlation
between gun access and safety). Whether it was the SS, or the
governor of Florida, or the mayor of Tampa, or the RNC, or Romney
himself who ordered the ban doesn't change the fact that someone
influential thinks that a ban on guns makes everyone safer, and this
sends an obvious mixed message to the public, since the GOP has a long
history of making exactly the opposite claim about the relationship
between gun access and safety.
So are we supposed to believe the GOP party line, or are we supposed
to believe the rationale for the gun ban at the convention?
Do you think the convention attendees feel more or less safe because
of the gun ban? I'm willing to bet they feel safer. I wonder if it
it'll occur to them the next time they argue that greater access to
guns makes us safer that, deep down, they don't actually believe what
they're saying, because they themselves actually felt safer in an
environment where guns were banned.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be standing next to any
gun-carrying Ron Paul supporters when Maine's delegates were dealt
with...
The_Chris
Aug 30, 2012, 6:47:28 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:35:24 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
> year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
> against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
> Amendment rights being violated.
Some things are not even like that. Roger Smith is the CEO of a major,
> Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
> year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
> against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
> Amendment rights being violated.
major corporation. He's a public figure that employs many people. Moore
is just a filmmaker. Anybody doing it to him would just be to harass
him. If Moore doesn't make any more movies, he's only hurting himself.
Smith, on the other hand.....
Message has been deleted
Micki
Aug 30, 2012, 9:22:26 AM8/30/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:27:03 -0800, jhaf...@webtv.net (Judy Haffner)
wrote:
I swore I wouldn't get into this but here I am:
I voted for President Obama, I'm proud of it and am going to vote for
him this November.
Micki
Today is the tomorrow that you worried about yesterday
wrote:
I voted for President Obama, I'm proud of it and am going to vote for
him this November.
Micki
Today is the tomorrow that you worried about yesterday
Micki
Aug 30, 2012, 9:24:55 AM8/30/12
to
Micki
Aug 30, 2012, 9:29:26 AM8/30/12
to
him out on was this. And even here you are stating that he said
something that he did not say. Very interesting.
Message has been deleted
The_Chris
Aug 30, 2012, 9:59:00 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:32:08 +0000, The_Chris wrote:
> I saw his movie 'Sicko' - and it opened my eyes the insurance problem in
> America. I went to Mexico - paid $10 for bariatric surgury - lost 110
I meant to write, paid $10K...
> I saw his movie 'Sicko' - and it opened my eyes the insurance problem in
> America. I went to Mexico - paid $10 for bariatric surgury - lost 110
I meant to write, paid $10K...
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 10:37:44 AM8/30/12
to
In article <k1ngc0$cjc$1...@dont-email.me>, The_Chris <cab...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:35:24 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>
> > Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
> > year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
> > against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
> > Amendment rights being violated.
>
> Some things are not even like that. Roger Smith is the CEO of a major,
> major corporation. He's a public figure that employs many people. Moore
> is just a filmmaker.
Too bad the 1st Amendment doesn't work like that. Moore is a public
figure who has to live by the same standards as everyone else.
> Anybody doing it to him would just be to harass him.
Actually, not. The guy was making a legitimate film, asking legitimate
questions to a very public figure and political activist about a lot of
the untruths in Moore's films and the hypocrisies in Moore's own life.
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:35:24 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>
> > Apparently it's only okay when *Moore* does stuff like that. I'd bet a
> > year of my salary that if Roger Smith had gotten a restraining order
> > against Moore, Moore would have screamed to the heavens about his 1st
> > Amendment rights being violated.
>
> Some things are not even like that. Roger Smith is the CEO of a major,
> major corporation. He's a public figure that employs many people. Moore
> is just a filmmaker.
figure who has to live by the same standards as everyone else.
> Anybody doing it to him would just be to harass him.
questions to a very public figure and political activist about a lot of
the untruths in Moore's films and the hypocrisies in Moore's own life.
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 10:39:18 AM8/30/12
to
In article <nathansanders-94F...@free.teranews.com>,
convention with which they had nothing to do and over which they have
absolutely no control.
Pretending otherwise just makes you look like even more of an ass than
you already do.
Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-AC96CA...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your
> > puerile word games.
>
> Regardless of what you pretend to be case, I meant exactly what I said
> with the words I actually wrote.
You meant to criticize the Republicans for a policy in place at their
> In article <atropos-AC96CA...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your
> > puerile word games.
>
> Regardless of what you pretend to be case, I meant exactly what I said
> with the words I actually wrote.
convention with which they had nothing to do and over which they have
absolutely no control.
Pretending otherwise just makes you look like even more of an ass than
you already do.
BTR1701
Aug 30, 2012, 10:45:57 AM8/30/12
to
In article <shqu38h1cfvlht5q6...@4ax.com>,
Why? I'm only interested in talking about things that I'm interested in
talking about. Why should I have to address a dozen things in which I
have no interest in order to talk about the one or two things in which I
do?
> And even here you are stating that he said
> something that he did not say.
He certainly did. If he wasn't trying to lay the firearms restriction at
the feet of the GOP, why even bring it up in the first place? His entire
rant was a point-by-point criticism of the Republicans, but we're
supposed to believe he just threw the firearms bit in there as some kind
of innocent informational point?
Get real.
As for the second point I addressed, Sanders very much did presume to
tell everyone what the 'okay' reasons are for liking the GOP and which
reasons are not 'okay', as if anyone needs his permission to hold their
own political views.
He did indeed say that. You claiming he didn't is just as dishonest as
Sanders.
> Very interesting.
I'm glad you're engaged. Keep it up.
talking about. Why should I have to address a dozen things in which I
have no interest in order to talk about the one or two things in which I
do?
> And even here you are stating that he said
> something that he did not say.
the feet of the GOP, why even bring it up in the first place? His entire
rant was a point-by-point criticism of the Republicans, but we're
supposed to believe he just threw the firearms bit in there as some kind
of innocent informational point?
Get real.
As for the second point I addressed, Sanders very much did presume to
tell everyone what the 'okay' reasons are for liking the GOP and which
reasons are not 'okay', as if anyone needs his permission to hold their
own political views.
He did indeed say that. You claiming he didn't is just as dishonest as
Sanders.
> Very interesting.
I'm glad you're engaged. Keep it up.
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 11:23:27 AM8/30/12
to
In article <atropos-51D454...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
actually implemented in real life.
Why would I *criticize* them for the policy in place at their
convention, when I *agree* with that policy? *I* think the gun ban is
a good thing; and I bet deep down they do too. The issue is, they'd
never admit it, because it contradicts one of the main arguments they
use to justify their own policy.
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <nathansanders-94F...@free.teranews.com>,
> Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-AC96CA...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your
> > > puerile word games.
> >
> > Regardless of what you pretend to be case, I meant exactly what I said
> > with the words I actually wrote.
>
> You meant to criticize the Republicans for a policy in place at their
> convention
No, I meant to contrast their stated policy with a policy that is
> In article <nathansanders-94F...@free.teranews.com>,
> Nathan Sanders <nathan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <atropos-AC96CA...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You're a dishonest ass. You're not fooling anyone with your
> > > puerile word games.
> >
> > Regardless of what you pretend to be case, I meant exactly what I said
> > with the words I actually wrote.
>
> You meant to criticize the Republicans for a policy in place at their
> convention
actually implemented in real life.
Why would I *criticize* them for the policy in place at their
convention, when I *agree* with that policy? *I* think the gun ban is
a good thing; and I bet deep down they do too. The issue is, they'd
never admit it, because it contradicts one of the main arguments they
use to justify their own policy.
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 11:28:24 AM8/30/12
to
In article <atropos-19D59D...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
non-Christian at the feet of Republicans, because that was something
else I also brought up.
> His entire
> rant was a point-by-point criticism of the Republicans,
No, that section was a list of reasons why I think it's valid to vote
for Romney.
> As for the second point I addressed, Sanders very much did presume to
> tell everyone what the 'okay' reasons are for liking the GOP and which
> reasons are not 'okay',
Sure. I think it's detrimental to our political system to vote for
someone based on a lie, because it encourages politicians to lie to us
even more than they already do.
Do you disagree? Do you think we're better off voting for liars?
> as if anyone needs his permission to hold their
> own political views.
Where do you see anything at all about "permission"? You sure do have
a habit of inventing words that aren't actually used!
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> He certainly did. If he wasn't trying to lay the firearms restriction at
> the feet of the GOP, why even bring it up in the first place?
Do you think I was trying to lay the perception of Mormonism as
> He certainly did. If he wasn't trying to lay the firearms restriction at
> the feet of the GOP, why even bring it up in the first place?
non-Christian at the feet of Republicans, because that was something
else I also brought up.
> His entire
> rant was a point-by-point criticism of the Republicans,
for Romney.
> As for the second point I addressed, Sanders very much did presume to
> tell everyone what the 'okay' reasons are for liking the GOP and which
> reasons are not 'okay',
someone based on a lie, because it encourages politicians to lie to us
even more than they already do.
Do you disagree? Do you think we're better off voting for liars?
> as if anyone needs his permission to hold their
> own political views.
a habit of inventing words that aren't actually used!
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 11:30:19 AM8/30/12
to
In article <26qu38doj2mip0gf5...@4ax.com>,
President, and I'm glad I did, and I'll do it again.
Micki <mos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I voted for President Obama, I'm proud of it and am going to vote for
> him this November.
Ditto. He was the first Democratic candidate I ever voted for for
> I voted for President Obama, I'm proud of it and am going to vote for
> him this November.
President, and I'm glad I did, and I'll do it again.
Judy Haffner
Aug 30, 2012, 12:18:34 PM8/30/12
to
Susan wrote:
>Judy, didn't you promise to stop posting
> political crap long ago?
I didn't make any such promise, but then 'I' didn't "start"
anything....I posted an article on a MOVIE, and simply asked if anyone
had seen the movie, since it's being talked about in the news.
>I swear, any time you get bored you
>decide to start a fire.
Again...I STARTED nothing. It was all of the Obama fanatics here (which
seems to be the majority of posters in this group) that got hostile,
yourself included.
I've really been very disinterested in this election so far, but I just
knew I would vote for anybody other than Obama. He's done enough damage
to this country already, for which he's still blaming Bush...what a
joke!
Judy
Judy Haffner
Aug 30, 2012, 12:21:07 PM8/30/12
to
Micki wrote:
>I voted for President Obama, I'm proud
> of it and am going to vote for him this
> November.
Judy
Judy
Aug 30, 2012, 12:45:06 PM8/30/12
to
On Aug 29, 7:16 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <nathansanders-8B1584.22062129082...@free.teranews.com>,
Just for the records, I really do like Nathan too, when we discuss
personal subjects, and feel he's very intellectual on most things, but
what he posted about Obama's time in office, is completely opposite of
how I feel, based on what I've read, heard and seen. I'm so dang tired
of being lied to, and how anyone can be so gullible, as to believe in
a President like that, and want more of the same for the next four
years, is beyond my wildest dreams. I think he will go down in record
as being the worst president ever. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a
prince! (LOL) This is MY opinion, of course, and you know what they
say about opinions, but I'll stand behind mine.
Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
Judy
> In article <nathansanders-8B1584.22062129082...@free.teranews.com>,
> Nathan Sanders <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > ban on guns
>
> Try not to be so dishonest with your nonsense. In fact, what you said
> above is an outright lie.
>
> The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms. The U.S. Secret Service
> has imposed the restriction on firearms at the convention. Just as it
> will do for the Democrat Convention and as it does anywhere its
> protectees are present.
>
> Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
>
> > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
>
> The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
>
> Quit lying.
>
> > But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
> > believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
> > disaster"
>
> It's okay for anyone to like or dislike any candidate for *any* reason
> they choose.
I love you, Thanatos! +1
>
> > It's okay to like Romney just because he wants to reduce restrictions
> > on guns (though interestingly enough, the RNC convention has a strict
> > ban on guns
>
> Try not to be so dishonest with your nonsense. In fact, what you said
> above is an outright lie.
>
> The RNC has imposed no restriction on firearms. The U.S. Secret Service
> has imposed the restriction on firearms at the convention. Just as it
> will do for the Democrat Convention and as it does anywhere its
> protectees are present.
>
> Claiming the firearms restriction is some policy of Romney's, or the
> GOP's, or the RNC's is a flat-out lie.
>
> > in complete contradiction to the standard GOP belief that
> > having free access to guns makes you safer, because with a gun, you
> > can supposedly better defend yourself from someone else who has a gun).
>
> The GOP has no say in the matter when it comes to the convention.
>
> Quit lying.
>
> > But it's not really okay to like Romney just because you mistakenly
> > believe that Obama has put "our country in more of a financial
> > disaster"
>
> It's okay for anyone to like or dislike any candidate for *any* reason
> they choose.
Just for the records, I really do like Nathan too, when we discuss
personal subjects, and feel he's very intellectual on most things, but
what he posted about Obama's time in office, is completely opposite of
how I feel, based on what I've read, heard and seen. I'm so dang tired
of being lied to, and how anyone can be so gullible, as to believe in
a President like that, and want more of the same for the next four
years, is beyond my wildest dreams. I think he will go down in record
as being the worst president ever. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a
prince! (LOL) This is MY opinion, of course, and you know what they
say about opinions, but I'll stand behind mine.
Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
Judy
Lesmond
Aug 30, 2012, 1:33:04 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>
>Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
>that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
So you don't want to discuss this with any one who doesn't agree with you?
>
>Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
>that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
What a surprise.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Lesmond
Aug 30, 2012, 1:59:21 PM8/30/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>On Aug 28, 10:55ÿam, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
>> it at all. ÿI'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>>
>> AnnieB
>are anti, or pro...what do they have to lose, if their mind is already
>set?
Then why did you refuse to see the Michael Moore movie? Wouldn't it have
been good for you, whether you were anti or pro? What did you have to lose
if your mind was already set?
>On Aug 28, 10:55ÿam, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
>> it at all. ÿI'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>>
>> AnnieB
>
>I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same
>way when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush
>before the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was
>Michael Moore, or some such thing?
>
>It might be good for anybody to see this new film, no matter if they
>I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same
>way when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush
>before the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was
>Michael Moore, or some such thing?
>
>are anti, or pro...what do they have to lose, if their mind is already
>set?
Then why did you refuse to see the Michael Moore movie? Wouldn't it have
been good for you, whether you were anti or pro? What did you have to lose
if your mind was already set?
Lesmond
Aug 30, 2012, 1:51:30 PM8/30/12
to
he wrote shows you to be the dishonest one.
Let me put it this way:
If the Republicans do NOT agree with the ban on guns at the convention, why
have none of them mentioned it? And if they DO agree with the ban on guns at
the convention, doesn't that go against one of their main party platforms?
Nathan Sanders
Aug 30, 2012, 2:02:56 PM8/30/12
to
In article
<3d96b0f6-c3c4-4b7e...@s6g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
sign the legislation I said he did. The numbers regarding the economy
are indeed the actual numbers from the beginning of his term, during
the worst of the recession, and right now.
You may not "feel" that they are correct, but they are indeed correct.
The Dow Jones average isn't a matter of opinion.
> how anyone can be so gullible, as to believe in
> a President like that,
Black?
<3d96b0f6-c3c4-4b7e...@s6g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
Judy <gram...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> what he posted about Obama's time in office, is completely opposite of
> how I feel, based on what I've read, heard and seen.
What I posted about Obama's time in office is factual. He did indeed
> what he posted about Obama's time in office, is completely opposite of
> how I feel, based on what I've read, heard and seen.
sign the legislation I said he did. The numbers regarding the economy
are indeed the actual numbers from the beginning of his term, during
the worst of the recession, and right now.
You may not "feel" that they are correct, but they are indeed correct.
The Dow Jones average isn't a matter of opinion.
> how anyone can be so gullible, as to believe in
> a President like that,
Cheri
Aug 30, 2012, 2:26:44 PM8/30/12
to
Cheri
Aug 30, 2012, 2:27:21 PM8/30/12
to
Cheri
Cheri
Aug 30, 2012, 2:31:20 PM8/30/12
to
"The_Chris" <cab...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k1nrj4$doh$1...@dont-email.me...
LOL, I was thinking that was pretty cheap, but congrats on the weight loss
at any rate.
Cheri
news:k1nrj4$doh$1...@dont-email.me...
at any rate.
Cheri
James Robinson
Aug 30, 2012, 2:57:59 PM8/30/12
to
Judy <gram...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:
> I'm so dang tired of being lied to, and how anyone can be so gullible,
> as to believe in a President like that, and want more of the same for
> the next four years, is beyond my wildest dreams.
Then you must have been utterly revolted by Ryan's speech lsst night,
which was one lie after another. Pretty well all the media has called
him out on the major points. Even the main theme of the convention, "We
built it" is a deliberate misinterpretation of what Obama actually said.
How anyone can be so gullible as to believe all that tripe is beyond me.
Not to say that the Dems haven't been misquoting people and accusing the
Republicans of things that aren't exactly true. Both parties have been
loose with the truth this campaign at a level I can't remember having seen
before, but I think the Republicans have been far more blatant at it.
Doesn't leave one with much choice, does it?
> I think he will go down in record as being the worst president ever.
You have a short memory. Presidents like Buchanan, Pierce, Andrew
Johnson and Harding easily outclass anything in recent years many times
over. Corruption, bad policies, and sheer incompetance were rampant back
then.
> He makes Jimmy Carter look like a prince! (LOL) This is MY opinion, of
> course, and you know what they say about opinions, but I'll stand
> behind mine.
Obama will end up about in the middle of the pack. Bush 43 is the one who
isn't going to rank well in history, with the Iraq war, the economic crash,
and the soaring debt due to unfunded things like the war, tax cuts, TARP,
and Medicare expansion to his credit. His only chance at salvation is if
somehow the middle east becomes peaceful and the Iraq war is identified as
the starting point of that process. That will take many years to see, if
it ever happens. I'm not holding my breath with the current beligerence of
countries like Iran, Syria, and Israel.
> I'm so dang tired of being lied to, and how anyone can be so gullible,
> as to believe in a President like that, and want more of the same for
> the next four years, is beyond my wildest dreams.
which was one lie after another. Pretty well all the media has called
him out on the major points. Even the main theme of the convention, "We
built it" is a deliberate misinterpretation of what Obama actually said.
How anyone can be so gullible as to believe all that tripe is beyond me.
Not to say that the Dems haven't been misquoting people and accusing the
Republicans of things that aren't exactly true. Both parties have been
loose with the truth this campaign at a level I can't remember having seen
before, but I think the Republicans have been far more blatant at it.
Doesn't leave one with much choice, does it?
> I think he will go down in record as being the worst president ever.
Johnson and Harding easily outclass anything in recent years many times
over. Corruption, bad policies, and sheer incompetance were rampant back
then.
> He makes Jimmy Carter look like a prince! (LOL) This is MY opinion, of
> course, and you know what they say about opinions, but I'll stand
> behind mine.
isn't going to rank well in history, with the Iraq war, the economic crash,
and the soaring debt due to unfunded things like the war, tax cuts, TARP,
and Medicare expansion to his credit. His only chance at salvation is if
somehow the middle east becomes peaceful and the Iraq war is identified as
the starting point of that process. That will take many years to see, if
it ever happens. I'm not holding my breath with the current beligerence of
countries like Iran, Syria, and Israel.
SLGreg
Aug 30, 2012, 3:20:31 PM8/30/12
to
--
greg
SLGreg
Aug 30, 2012, 3:20:32 PM8/30/12
to
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>
>>
>> Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
>> that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
>
> So you don't want to discuss this with any one who doesn't agree with you?
> What a surprise.
Like Nathan's well thought-out, well documented and precisely cited
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>
>>
>> Too bad TC doesn't show up in here, Bob, Ryan, Vandar and some others
>> that are on the same page as us, or at least I THINK they are?! :)
>
> So you don't want to discuss this with any one who doesn't agree with you?
> What a surprise.
responses, I'm also waiting for Judy to produce some facts to substantiate
her broad (i.e., baseless) generalizations. I fully suspect it will be a
long wait. If ever.
--
greg
James Robinson
Aug 30, 2012, 3:37:54 PM8/30/12
to
jhaf...@webtv.net (Judy Haffner) wrote:
> I've really been very disinterested in this election so far, but I just
> knew I would vote for anybody other than Obama. He's done enough damage
> to this country already, for which he's still blaming Bush...what a
> joke!
You've obviously been swayed by the political debate, but do you really
> I've really been very disinterested in this election so far, but I just
> knew I would vote for anybody other than Obama. He's done enough damage
> to this country already, for which he's still blaming Bush...what a
> joke!
understand how much trouble the country's economy was in when Bush left
office? We were just short of complete financial collapse on an
unprecedented scale. If the government hadn't intervened with the TARP,
a major bank failure, which was inevitable without intervention, would
have resulted in a run on the banks that would have made Jimmy Stewart's
head spin. The rest of the economy would have quickly gone down the
drain with the banks.
Even still, the capital markets clammed up to the point where no venture
capital was available, and even the banks weren't lending money to what
had been well-run companies. The normal economy was completely stalled.
It was to the point that the bankruptcy judge overseeing the future of GM
and Chrysler stated that it was impossible to raise capital to save even
the most profitable parts of the auto companies in the private market,
and that the only hope to save the companies was federal investment. Do
you understand what would have happened to the midwest economy with the
failure of those companies? It would have been a domino effect with
suppliers and sub-suppliers failing in rapid succession.
Overall, both the Bush and Obama teams did what they had to to stabilize
the economy with TARP and stimulus actions. Unfortunately, the mortgage
crisis and the bank's poor reaction to it doomed any strong recovery, and
while we narrowly missed complete disaster, many people think that
nothing happened since they personally haven't seen much change in their
lives.
Beyond that, the federal government has limited power in shaping the
economy, and people's expectations are often too high in thinking they
have more power than they do. It reminds me of the BP oil leak in the
Gulf of Mexico, where many commentators said that the oil company didn't
know what they were doing, and that the army should be called in to take
care of things, like somehow the government can fix anything. Did they
really think that the army had the expertise and equipment necessary to
plug underocean leaks, and that they somehow knew more than the oil
companies themselves who do this work every day?
Obama might be criticized for not taking more direct action to force the
banks to deal more proactively with potential mortgage defaults, but that
would have meant further federal intervention into the banking system.
Do you really think the Republicans would have done anything like that?
So what we are left with is you deciding that Obama didn't do enough, and
feeling that going back to the party that got us into this mess in the
first place is the answer. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't giving
us any new ideas on how to handle the situation. Romney talks about
further tax cuts for the wealthy, no tax increases, greater deregulation
of the banks and industries, trashing of entitlement programs, and so on.
These are exactly the policies that got us into this mess in the first
place, and you want to give them another chance to mess things up?
Lesmond
Aug 30, 2012, 3:39:48 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:20:31 +0000 (UTC), SLGreg wrote:
>"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>>
>"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Judy wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 28, 10:55 ¨am, AnnieB <Ann...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
>>>> it at all. ¨I'm sure all of the Obama haters will go wallow in the BS.
>>>>
>>>> Since I'm anti-Romney and pro-Obama, I'm really not interested in seeing
>>>>
>>>> AnnieB
>>>
>>> I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same
>>> way when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush
>>> before the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was
>>> Michael Moore, or some such thing?
>>>
>>> It might be good for anybody to see this new film, no matter if they
>>> are anti, or pro...what do they have to lose, if their mind is already
>>> set?
>>
>> Then why did you refuse to see the Michael Moore movie? Wouldn't it have
>> been good for you, whether you were anti or pro? What did you have to lose
>> if your mind was already set?
>
>Quite making sense, Lesmond, it only serves to infuriate Judy. I know.
I have trouble fathoming the disconnect in her thoughts from one sentence to
>>>> AnnieB
>>>
>>> I'm opposite, of course, but I know how you feel as I felt the same
>>> way when that one jerk came out with that movie about President Bush
>>> before the election. I refused to go see it..think his name was
>>> Michael Moore, or some such thing?
>>>
>>> It might be good for anybody to see this new film, no matter if they
>>> are anti, or pro...what do they have to lose, if their mind is already
>>> set?
>>
>> Then why did you refuse to see the Michael Moore movie? Wouldn't it have
>> been good for you, whether you were anti or pro? What did you have to lose
>> if your mind was already set?
>
>Quite making sense, Lesmond, it only serves to infuriate Judy. I know.
the next.
Message has been deleted
Lesmond
Aug 30, 2012, 3:41:04 PM8/30/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages