On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> My opinion:
>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>>> Obamacare.
>>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>>> factcheck on the run...
>>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>>> milk as much profit as they can.
>> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
>> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
>> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
>> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
>> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
>> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
>> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
>> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
>> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
>> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
>> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
>> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
>Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes >but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on >exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)
On Oct 3, 10:45 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!
> No contest !
This Dave Hazelwood is a really dumb guy even for a fedtard.
I mean he claims that he is part of the Fed family and now he
supports this puppet Rumney .
I don't pay attention to these phony "elections" but I am really
stunned by the stupidity of it. Both of these guys are nothing
but puppets and Obama was exposed and always was as
nothing but a shallow low lifer serving his masters. You can
see that Obama has no energy left whatsoever and he never
had anything real anyway.
As for Romney , it's the same thing . None of them talk about
real issues that America has gotten itself into and especially
the jewish issue . All they want to talk about is how to shut
up the population by making them anxious about their survival
and claiming to be coming up to their aid just in time. Of course
this is nothing but a trick to play up on people used by every
dictatorship.
Romney says he wants to promote small business which "brings jobs"
and he wants to promote "free trade" which supposedly also
bring jobs . That's completelly
mutually exclusive because "free trade" kills local small
business along with other social detriments. Think of a
big multinational buying up and taking over smaller businesses
to "improve efficiency" and then sending up manufacturing
jobs further away to be mass produced by a virtual slave labour.
You don't have to economist to figure out that free trade and
capitalism promotes efficiency which in turn promotes slavery,
consumerism and efficiency which kills real jobs along with any
sense of community. On the other hand small business promotes
job creation, ineficiency , local community and equal distribution
of wealth. Romney and the phony "conservatives" say that they
want it all. Of course Romney never worked in a real job and never
had a small business
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>> My opinion:
> >>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
> >>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
> >>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
> >>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
> >>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
> >>> Obamacare.
> >>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
> >>> factcheck on the run...
> >>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
> >>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
> >>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
> >>> milk as much profit as they can.
> >> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
> >> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
> >> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
> >> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
> >> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
> >> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
> >> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
> >> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
> >> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
> >> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
> >> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
> >> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
> >Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
> >but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
> >exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
> Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
> but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)
Romney didn't "win" , Obama was just exposed with his body language
and I think it's to his credit. I don't follow mainstream media but
Obama was always
just a media made icon to make people forget about Bush years and now
that he is on his own he can't hide the emptiness and the
uncomfortable feeling
of not being your own man.Probably subconciously he can't stand for
the
things his masters want him to do and he doesn't want to prolong his
own
suffering.
>On Oct 3, 10:45 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!
>> No contest !
>This Dave Hazelwood is a really dumb guy even for a fedtard.
>I mean he claims that he is part of the Fed family and now he
>supports this puppet Rumney .
>I don't pay attention to these phony "elections" but I am really
>stunned by the stupidity of it. Both of these guys are nothing
>but puppets and Obama was exposed and always was as
>nothing but a shallow low lifer serving his masters. You can
>see that Obama has no energy left whatsoever and he never
>had anything real anyway.
>As for Romney , it's the same thing . None of them talk about
>real issues that America has gotten itself into and especially
>the jewish issue . All they want to talk about is how to shut
>up the population by making them anxious about their survival
>and claiming to be coming up to their aid just in time. Of course
>this is nothing but a trick to play up on people used by every
>dictatorship.
>Romney says he wants to promote small business which "brings jobs"
>and he wants to promote "free trade" which supposedly also
>bring jobs . That's completelly
>mutually exclusive because "free trade" kills local small
>business along with other social detriments. Think of a
>big multinational buying up and taking over smaller businesses
>to "improve efficiency" and then sending up manufacturing
>jobs further away to be mass produced by a virtual slave labour.
>You don't have to economist to figure out that free trade and
>capitalism promotes efficiency which in turn promotes slavery,
>consumerism and efficiency which kills real jobs along with any
>sense of community. On the other hand small business promotes
>job creation, ineficiency , local community and equal distribution
>of wealth. Romney and the phony "conservatives" say that they
>want it all. Of course Romney never worked in a real job and never
>had a small business
The only thing that matters is that if Romney is elected the
Corporations will spend the TRILLIONS in cash they have in the bank,
hire like crazy and put money back in workers pockets to revive the
economy.
That is ALL I want. IT is all most people want at this stage of middle class destruction.
If Obama wins, it's another 4 years of the same old same old with
NO jobs, NO spending and MORE welfare with LARGER deficits.
Obama is not capable of doing ANYTHING to stop it no matter how
fast or how long Bernanke keeps printing money. It will only get
WORSE.
> On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> > >7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
> > >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> > >>> My opinion:
> > >>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
> > >>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
> > >>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
> > >>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
> > >>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
> > >>> Obamacare.
> > >>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
> > >>> factcheck on the run...
> > >>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
> > >>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
> > >>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
> > >>> milk as much profit as they can.
> > >> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
> > >> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
> > >> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
> > >> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
> > >> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
> > >> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
> > >> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
> > >> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
> > >> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
> > >> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
> > >> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
> > >> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
> > >Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
> > >but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
> > >exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
> > Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
> > but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)
> Romney didn't "win" , Obama was just exposed with his body language
> and I think it's to his credit. I don't follow mainstream media but
> Obama was always
> just a media made icon to make people forget about Bush years and now
> that he is on his own he can't hide the emptiness and the
> uncomfortable feeling
> of not being your own man.Probably subconciously he can't stand for
> the
> things his masters want him to do and he doesn't want to prolong his
> own
> suffering.
Who are his masters?
David Axelrod and Chris Matthews??
> On Oct 3, 10:45 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!
> > No contest !
> This Dave Hazelwood is a really dumb guy even for a fedtard.
> I mean he claims that he is part of the Fed family and now he
> supports this puppet Rumney .
> I don't pay attention to these phony "elections" but I am really
> stunned by the stupidity of it. Both of these guys are nothing
> but puppets and Obama was exposed and always was as
> nothing but a shallow low lifer serving his masters. You can
> see that Obama has no energy left whatsoever and he never
> had anything real anyway.
> As for Romney , it's the same thing . None of them talk about
> real issues that America has gotten itself into and especially
> the jewish issue . All they want to talk about is how to shut
> up the population by making them anxious about their survival
> and claiming to be coming up to their aid just in time. Of course
> this is nothing but a trick to play up on people used by every
> dictatorship.
> Romney says he wants to promote small business which "brings jobs"
> and he wants to promote "free trade" which supposedly also
> bring jobs . That's completelly
> mutually exclusive because "free trade" kills local small
> business along with other social detriments. Think of a
> big multinational buying up and taking over smaller businesses
> to "improve efficiency" and then sending up manufacturing
> jobs further away to be mass produced by a virtual slave labour.
> You don't have to economist to figure out that free trade and
> capitalism promotes efficiency which in turn promotes slavery,
> consumerism and efficiency which kills real jobs along with any
> sense of community. On the other hand small business promotes
> job creation, ineficiency , local community and equal distribution
> of wealth. Romney and the phony "conservatives" say that they
> want it all. Of course Romney never worked in a real job and never
> had a small business
I like consumerism and big companies whith soaring stocks!
> On 8 Okt., 16:18, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>> My opinion:
>>>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>>>>>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>>>>>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>>>>>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>>>>>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>>>>>> Obamacare.
>>>>>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>>>>>> factcheck on the run...
>>>>>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>>>>>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>>>>>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>>>>>> milk as much profit as they can.
>>>>> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
>>>>> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
>>>>> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
>>>>> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
>>>>> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
>>>>> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
>>>>> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
>>>>> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
>>>>> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
>>>>> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
>>>>> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
>>>>> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
>>>> Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
>>>> but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
>>>> exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
>>> Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
>>> but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)
>> Romney didn't "win" , Obama was just exposed with his body language
>> and I think it's to his credit. I don't follow mainstream media but
>> Obama was always
>> just a media made icon to make people forget about Bush years and now
>> that he is on his own he can't hide the emptiness and the
>> uncomfortable feeling
>> of not being your own man.Probably subconciously he can't stand for
>> the
>> things his masters want him to do and he doesn't want to prolong his
>> own
>> suffering.
> Who are his masters?
> David Axelrod and Chris Matthews??
> > On 8 Okt., 16:18, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>> 7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>>>> My opinion:
> >>>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
> >>>>>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
> >>>>>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
> >>>>>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
> >>>>>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
> >>>>>> Obamacare.
> >>>>>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
> >>>>>> factcheck on the run...
> >>>>>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
> >>>>>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
> >>>>>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
> >>>>>> milk as much profit as they can.
> >>>>> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
> >>>>> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
> >>>>> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
> >>>>> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
> >>>>> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
> >>>>> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
> >>>>> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
> >>>>> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
> >>>>> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
> >>>>> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
> >>>>> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
> >>>>> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
> >>>> Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
> >>>> but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
> >>>> exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
> >>> Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
> >>> but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)
> >> Romney didn't "win" , Obama was just exposed with his body language
> >> and I think it's to his credit. I don't follow mainstream media but
> >> Obama was always
> >> just a media made icon to make people forget about Bush years and now
> >> that he is on his own he can't hide the emptiness and the
> >> uncomfortable feeling
> >> of not being your own man.Probably subconciously he can't stand for
> >> the
> >> things his masters want him to do and he doesn't want to prolong his
> >> own
> >> suffering.
> > Who are his masters?
> > David Axelrod and Chris Matthews??
> > Max
> The Jew?
Well, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
The we could be sure that he would end people like Vlado ...
