1. To piss Irish Mike off.
2. To piss Ubiquitous off.
3. Obamacare
4. Do we really want another "Bush tax cuts, deregulated derivatives
market, mortgage meltdown" situation like happened the *last* time there
was a Republican in the White House? Seriously?
5. To piss off all the *other* right-wing political kooks infesting
rec.arts.tv!
"After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
could not be clearer.
A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
leadership for an American century.
That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and that's
exactly what Mitt Romney outlined tonight." Marco Rubio, U S Senator, Florida
Irish Mike
In spite all of the lies, distortions and smear attacks the Democrats have
hurled at Romney, he still has one advantage. Obama's miserable record,
failed economic policies and lack of leadership.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:48:04 -0700, Irish Mike wrote:
>> 1. To piss Irish Mike off.
> "After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
> could not be clearer.
> A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
> stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
> healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
> will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
> the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
> leadership for an American century.
> That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and that's
> exactly what Mitt > Romney outlined tonight." Marco Rubio, U S Senator, Florida
> Irish Mike
> In spite all of the lies, distortions and smear attacks the Democrats have
> hurled at Romney, he still has one advantage. Obama's miserable record,
> failed economic policies and lack of leadership.
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:48:04 -0700, Irish Mike wrote:
> >> 1. To piss Irish Mike off.
> > "After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
> > could not be clearer.
> > A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
> > stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
> > healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
> > will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
> > the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
> > leadership for an American century.
> > That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and that's
> > exactly what Mitt > > Romney outlined tonight." Marco Rubio, U S Senator, Florida
> > Irish Mike
> > In spite all of the lies, distortions and smear attacks the Democrats have
> > hurled at Romney, he still has one advantage. Obama's miserable record,
> > failed economic policies and lack of leadership.
> Tr0ll3d!!!
> Trolls are always the easiest to troll. :)
LOL. Did you really think my post was meant for you? You need to smarten
up a bit bucko. It is a strong pro Romney message, by a very popular
Senator and it was meant for who ever else might read it. But I do thank
you for starting the thread. Please start some more. In fact, start as
many as you like between now and the election. :) :)
Irish Mike
Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. If you voted for
Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, vote against him in 2012 to
prove you're not an idiot.
<ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Oct 7 2012 12:10 PM, Greg Hanson wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:48:04 -0700, Irish Mike wrote:
> > >> 1. To piss Irish Mike off.
> > > "After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
> > > could not be clearer.
> > > A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
> > > stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
> > > healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
> > > will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
> > > the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
> > > leadership for an American century.
> > > That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and that's
> > > exactly what Mitt > > > Romney outlined tonight." Marco Rubio, U S Senator, Florida
> > > Irish Mike
> > > In spite all of the lies, distortions and smear attacks the Democrats have
> > > hurled at Romney, he still has one advantage. Obama's miserable record,
> > > failed economic policies and lack of leadership.
> > Tr0ll3d!!!
> > Trolls are always the easiest to troll. :)
> LOL. Did you really think my post was meant for you? You need to smarten
> up a bit bucko. It is a strong pro Romney message, by a very popular
> Senator and it was meant for who ever else might read it. But I do thank
> you for starting the thread. Please start some more. In fact, start as
> many as you like between now and the election. :) :)
> Irish Mike
Was it you or Rubio who misspelled Barack even after four years of
Obama's presidency? Of course, it's absolutely stunning news that the
Republican senator from Florida coughed up some post-debate talking
points in favor of the Republican candidate for president. I'm sure
the uproar will continue well past the onset of the next ice age.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:48:04 -0700, "Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
>"After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
>could not be clearer.
>A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
>stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
>healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
>will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
>the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
>leadership for an American century.
I can understand why someone would vote for Romney. I can't understand
how anybody can say the words "balanced budget" with a straight face, when
talking about him, especially when used in the same sentence as "tax
relief".
Irish Mike <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>"After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this November
>could not be clearer.
>A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
>stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt, and
>healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real reforms that
>will bring real recovery, including 12 million new jobs, tax relief for
>the middle class, better healthcare at lower costs, a balanced budget and
>leadership for an American century.
>That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and that's
>exactly what Mitt >Romney outlined tonight." Marco Rubio, U S Senator, Florida
Leadership? A guy who has disavowed every single political position he's
ever taken in his life would show leadership if elected president?
That is the main reason why he's not qualified. For a politician, he's
oddly unsure of himself.
His economic ideas are deliberately confusing and couldn't possibly work.
Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
has common sense.
Greg Hanson wrote:
> 1. To piss Irish Mike off.
> 2. To piss Ubiquitous off.
> 3. Obamacare
> 4. Do we really want another "Bush tax cuts, deregulated derivatives
> market, mortgage meltdown" situation like happened the *last* time there
> was a Republican in the White House? Seriously?
> 5. To piss off all the *other* right-wing political kooks infesting
> rec.arts.tv!
6. Add more liberal judges to the federal judiciary, particularly to
the Supreme court.
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:
>Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>has common sense.
Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
changing some of his positions.
Personally, I'd have voted for Ron Paul. Not because I agree with him
about everything. I just think he's one of the only politicians who comes
across like he's telling you what he really thinks. Not what people want to
hear.
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>> Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>> Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>> has common sense.
> Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
> but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
> he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
> of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
> Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
> to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
> changing some of his positions.
> Personally, I'd have voted for Ron Paul. Not because I agree with him
> about everything. I just think he's one of the only politicians who comes
> across like he's telling you what he really thinks. Not what people want to
> hear.
That's very astute. Since people have to vote, it's fucking amazing how much what people want to hear comes into play.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:22:02 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>wrote:
>>Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>has common sense.
>Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
>but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
>he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
>of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
>Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
>to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>changing some of his positions.
So what will Romney do if he gets the Presidency? He's been consistent
throughout the campaign on his positions until the debate when he
changed many of his positions. Now he has positions closer to what he
had as Governor. At this point I don't have a clue what Romney would
really do if he became President. Maybe he would be like he was when
Governor. Maybe he would take on the positions he espoused during the
campaign when he kept moving further right as the campaign went on. I certainly can't say what he would do if was elected.
EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>has common sense.
>Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
>but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
>he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
>of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
>Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
>to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>changing some of his positions.
A man can change his mind, but Romney disavowed all his principles.
>Personally, I'd have voted for Ron Paul. Not because I agree with him
>about everything. I just think he's one of the only politicians who comes
>across like he's telling you what he really thinks. Not what people want to
>hear.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:46:41 -0400, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:22:02 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>>Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>>has common sense.
>>Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
>>but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
>>he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
>>of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
>>Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
>>to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>>changing some of his positions.
>So what will Romney do if he gets the Presidency? He's been consistent
>throughout the campaign on his positions until the debate when he
>changed many of his positions. Now he has positions closer to what he
>had as Governor. At this point I don't have a clue what Romney would
>really do if he became President. Maybe he would be like he was when
>Governor. Maybe he would take on the positions he espoused during the
>campaign when he kept moving further right as the campaign went on. >I certainly can't say what he would do if was elected.
You've been told by the media what Romney's positions were. When he finally
got a chance to talk, Surprise!. Hopefully people will actually remember
Obama's own words and hold him accountable for a change. Instead of
reciting the mantras "hope and change" and "It's all Bush's fault".
Four years ago, Obama expressed great confidence that he would be running
amid renewed prosperity; he famously told Matt Lauer, One nice thing about
the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know,
I ve got four years...If I don t have this done in three years, then there s
going to be a one-term proposition.
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:22:02 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>> Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>> has common sense.
>> Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
>> but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
>> he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
>> of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
>> Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
>> to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>> changing some of his positions.
> So what will Romney do if he gets the Presidency? He's been consistent
> throughout the campaign on his positions until the debate when he
> changed many of his positions. Now he has positions closer to what he
> had as Governor. At this point I don't have a clue what Romney would
> really do if he became President. Maybe he would be like he was when
> Governor. Maybe he would take on the positions he espoused during the
> campaign when he kept moving further right as the campaign went on.
> I certainly can't say what he would do if was elected.
>EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>>Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>>has common sense.
>>Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his record
>>but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first choice but
>>he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even being head
>>of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than anything
>>Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough common sense
>>to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>>changing some of his positions.
>A man can change his mind, but Romney disavowed all his principles.
I don't think he's disavowed his principles. I think he's proven his
flexibility. Romney had to work with Democrats to get anything done as
governor of Massachusetts. It's another thing that puts him well ahead of
Obama, in my opinion. Unlike Clinton, Obama didn't want to move to the
center after his party lost congress. He's been as much to blame for
gridlock as the Republicans.
>>Personally, I'd have voted for Ron Paul. Not because I agree with him
>>about everything. I just think he's one of the only politicians who comes
>>across like he's telling you what he really thinks. Not what people want to
>>hear. >Yes, he never pandered.
He reminded me of Ross Perot for that. I remember when Perot ran and was
talking about putting a 50c per gallon tax on gasoline to pay off the
deficit. Of course that went over like a lead-balloon with the populace.
And this was back when Gas was still only a bit over a dollar a gallon, I
believe.
> On 07/10/2012 9:16 PM, shawn wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:22:02 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <a...@chinet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>>> Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and who
>>>> has common sense.
>>> Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his
>>> record
>>> but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first
>>> choice but
>>> he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even
>>> being head
>>> of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than
>>> anything
>>> Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough
>>> common sense
>>> to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>>> changing some of his positions.
>> So what will Romney do if he gets the Presidency? He's been consistent
>> throughout the campaign on his positions until the debate when he
>> changed many of his positions. Now he has positions closer to what he
>> had as Governor. At this point I don't have a clue what Romney would
>> really do if he became President. Maybe he would be like he was when
>> Governor. Maybe he would take on the positions he espoused during the
>> campaign when he kept moving further right as the campaign went on.
>> I certainly can't say what he would do if was elected.
> On 10/7/12 7:06 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
>> On 07/10/2012 9:16 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:22:02 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>> <a...@chinet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Obama will get re-elected, not because he deserves to, but because the
>>>>> Republicans chose not to nominate someone who could be a leader and
>>>>> who
>>>>> has common sense.
>>>> Obama may get re-elected. I don't know how it's possible with his
>>>> record
>>>> but he may. I disagree about Romney though. He isn't my first
>>>> choice but
>>>> he's at least run his own businesses before. Heck, I think even
>>>> being head
>>>> of the Olympic organizing committee gives him more experience than
>>>> anything
>>>> Obama ever did prior to the presidency. I think he has enough
>>>> common sense
>>>> to compromise. He realized he couldn't win the GOP nomination without
>>>> changing some of his positions.
>>> So what will Romney do if he gets the Presidency? He's been consistent
>>> throughout the campaign on his positions until the debate when he
>>> changed many of his positions. Now he has positions closer to what he
>>> had as Governor. At this point I don't have a clue what Romney would
>>> really do if he became President. Maybe he would be like he was when
>>> Governor. Maybe he would take on the positions he espoused during the
>>> campaign when he kept moving further right as the campaign went on.
>>> I certainly can't say what he would do if was elected.
In article <4ah8k9x0dt....@news.ezprovider.com>,
"Irish Mike" <ad7c...@webnntp.invalid> quoted:
> "After watching the Presidential debate, the choice could this
> November could not be clearer.
> A vote for Barak Obama is a vote for four more years of economic
> stagnation and weak foreign policy, as well as higher taxes, debt,
> and healthcare costs. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for real
> reforms that will bring real recovery, including 12 million new
> jobs, tax relief for the middle class, better healthcare at lower
> costs, a balanced budget and leadership for an American century.
And a pony.
> That's the kind of bold agenda Americans expect and deserve - and
> that's exactly what Mitt Romney outlined tonight."
> Marco Rubio, US Senator, Florida
>> A man can change his mind, but Romney disavowed all his
>> principles.
> I don't think he's disavowed his principles. I think he's proven
> his flexibility. Romney had to work with Democrats to get
> anything done as governor of Massachusetts. It's another thing
> that puts him well ahead of Obama, in my opinion. Unlike Clinton,
> Obama didn't want to move to the center after his party lost
> congress. He's been as much to blame for gridlock as the
> Republicans.
That's simply a lie. It may not be _your_ lie, but it's certainly
the opposite of the truth.
EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A man can change his mind, but Romney disavowed all his principles.
>I don't think he's disavowed his principles. I think he's proven his
>flexibility. Romney had to work with Democrats to get anything done as
>governor of Massachusetts. It's another thing that puts him well ahead of
>Obama, in my opinion. Unlike Clinton, Obama didn't want to move to the
>center after his party lost congress. He's been as much to blame for
>gridlock as the Republicans.
Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans wouldn't compromise with Clinton,
resulting in government shut down, although they had a mechanism already
in place to keep certain parts of the government functioning. Whatever
popularity Gingrich had, he disappated with that move.
After that, Clinton had a lot less difficulty negotiating with Congress.
The current House Republicans haven't yet been blamed for the delay in
raising the debt ceiling nor the failure to compromise in the supercommittee
process, so the draconian budget cuts are looming. Probably should have
had those implemented on July 1, 2012, rather than January 1, 2013, so
they all would have had to run on the consequences of the folly this time,
and I bet the supercommittee process would have worked.
It's a matter of this Congress experiencing the country's wrath. Then
they'll start compromising.
>>> A man can change his mind, but Romney disavowed all his
>>> principles.
>> I don't think he's disavowed his principles. I think he's proven
>> his flexibility. Romney had to work with Democrats to get
>> anything done as governor of Massachusetts. It's another thing
>> that puts him well ahead of Obama, in my opinion. Unlike Clinton,
>> Obama didn't want to move to the center after his party lost
>> congress. He's been as much to blame for gridlock as the
>> Republicans.
>That's simply a lie. It may not be _your_ lie, but it's certainly
>the opposite of the truth.
>-- wds
It's ALWAYS both parties who are responsible but I forgot, Obama is the
messiah so he can't be reponsible for anything.
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> EGK <m...@privacy.net> said:
>>> I don't think he's disavowed his principles. I think he's
>>> proven his flexibility. Romney had to work with Democrats to
>>> get anything done as governor of Massachusetts. It's another
>>> thing that puts him well ahead of Obama, in my opinion. Unlike
>>> Clinton, Obama didn't want to move to the center after his party
>>> lost congress. He's been as much to blame for gridlock as the
>>> Republicans.
>> That's simply a lie. It may not be _your_ lie, but it's certainly
>> the opposite of the truth.
> It's ALWAYS both parties who are responsible but I forgot, Obama
> is the messiah so he can't be reponsible for anything.
It is not always both parties who are _equally_ responsible.
(And what is that strange noise you made up there, after the comma?)
