Hazelwood has a woodie for Romney

[drew]

I think the guys needs some Ativan...these talking heads are getting
him
all worked up.

I just heard a few clips from the debate. Romney has a bad voice.
Obama has a good
voice, good inflection, nice tone....and he looks real. Romney looks
like a phony and
he's got a honky voice...

....he's gonna need a statistical miracle to win this election.

[Wile E.]

Good voice, good inflection/nice tone, looks/ looks/ looks;
appears you like empty suits. Try substance works better.

[TT]

You're all backwards with your empty suits comments. Romney is all about
looks, his policies suck big time. Who the hell would vote getting back
to Bush policies?!

[TT]

4.10.2012 19:11, drew kirjoitti:
> I think the guys needs some Ativan...

Or maybe Ativan(Lorazepam) and Propofol... That should keep him muted
for a while.

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, drew <dr...@technologist.com> wrote:

> I just heard a few clips from the debate. Romney has a bad voice.
> Obama has a good
> voice, good inflection, nice tone....and he looks real. Romney looks
> like a phony and
> he's got a honky voice...

Just judging from the presentation rather than the content, I'd agree that
Romney came across as a (swashbuckling) phony, *but* his speech was more
commanding, smooth and focused than Obama's. Obama came across as stilted,
unconfident and uneasy. I ended up listening to the debates the first time
and later watching them. It made quite a difference because from listening
I thought Obama did a much better job, he had something to say whereas
Romney mostly repeated talking points and was very vague. Watching it was a
different matter entirely, Romney was surprisingly the more charismatic of
the two this time around. I'd agree with some who say he bullied Lehrer on
more than one occasion. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly the type of
thing that will win him some votes. Of course it didn't change my opinion
of the two, Obama is by far the lesser of two evils.

I think Obama, like Nadal, performs much better as the underdog :)

[TT]

Interestingly there was some live internet poll which showed Obama
winning all through the debate. The same poll showed Romney being the
winner some time after the debate.

I think it's possible that people are just influenced of what media
says, that Romney "won" the debate. I was surprised when abc
commentators claimed so after the debate, I even thought to myself if
abc is pro GOP news since it didn't make sense. I thought Obama could
have been better but that Romney wasn't convincing.

Overall, it wasn't a great debate, rather boring, hard to say who
"won"... and moderation was woeful.

>
> I think Obama, like Nadal, performs much better as the underdog :)
>

Haha. How many MC titles has Obama defended in a row?

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

> I think it's possible that people are just influenced of what media
> says, that Romney "won" the debate. I was surprised when abc
> commentators claimed so after the debate, I even thought to myself if
> abc is pro GOP news since it didn't make sense. I thought Obama could
> have been better but that Romney wasn't convincing.

Remember that the debates aren't *really* about the issues to a large
percentage of the voting public... it's about who seems more confident and
puts up a better performance. Romney is in a good position now, it's
relatively easy for him to attack Obama because we're aware of what he has
done during his first term. Obama has a much more difficult job because
it's difficult to get a handle on an opponent who is incredibly vague about
his planned policies should he be elected.

[TT]

4.10.2012 20:39, jdeluise kirjoitti:
> On 4-Oct-2012, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> I think it's possible that people are just influenced of what media
>> says, that Romney "won" the debate. I was surprised when abc
>> commentators claimed so after the debate, I even thought to myself if
>> abc is pro GOP news since it didn't make sense. I thought Obama could
>> have been better but that Romney wasn't convincing.
>
> Remember that the debates aren't *really* about the issues to a large
> percentage of the voting public... it's about who seems more confident and
> puts up a better performance.

Even if so, Romney looked a bit lost and uncomfortable at times, more so
than Obama I though. Maybe media/people liked that Romney bullied the
moderator around, was aggressive.

> Romney is in a good position now, it's
> relatively easy for him to attack Obama because we're aware of what he has
> done during his first term. Obama has a much more difficult job because
> it's difficult to get a handle on an opponent who is incredibly vague about
> his planned policies should he be elected.
>

Obviously. Although Obama could have done a better job since economy is
looking better and most of Romney's policies we do know of are
ridiculous. Then again when Romney was challenged about his policies he
denied everything, flip flopped... "That's not at all what my plan is"...

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

> Then again when Romney was challenged about his policies he
> denied everything, flip flopped... "That's not at all what my plan is"...

It's telling when Obama said more about Romney's policies than Romney
himself :)

[Court_1]

On Oct 4, 1:39 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:


>it's difficult to get a handle on an opponent who is incredibly vague about
> his planned policies should he be elected.

And this is supposed to be worse than an opponent who has basically
not followed through successfully on any of his pre-Presidential
promises especially in relation to the economy?

I don't particularly like either guy, but you are trying to make it
sound like Obama is some kind of saint in relation to Romney and that
is silly.

[jdeluise]

On 4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't particularly like either guy, but you are trying to make it
> sound like Obama is some kind of saint in relation to Romney and that
> is silly.

No, my take is this is a money and power grab by a very, very rich and
unprincipled shyster.

[Court_1]

On Oct 4, 2:11 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

As opposed to a money and power grab by a not so very very rich
presidential candidate? You are biased against Romney because he is
very wealthy? What past president ever was not motivated by the power
the position of being president would bring them? Name one or at least
one in the past 40 years.

[drew]

They're all empty suits, mon ami.

[felangey]

> Obviously. Although Obama could have done a better job since economy is
> looking better

It is? Only last month they announced their 3rd round of "quantative easing"
(printy print print) to the tune of $40bill p/m for the
forseeable.....falling incomes, inflation, gas prices through the roof, zero
growth. Economy is look better though, eh? Maybe we will feel the benefit in
50 years from now? :))

It is interesting to me, at least in passing, that you are so into the US
election debates....what gives? Two gormless idiots trying to schmooze a
nation by looking and sounding presidenty....and a nation that largely cares
more about how they sound than what they are saying. They should just quit
pretending and draft in Simon Cowell for a special series of "POTUS has the
Xfactor". :))

[Calimero]

Well, he is a typical Obama fan. Prefers style over substance.


Max

[Dave Hazelwood]

You know how much I HATED Bush and I'll take Romney anyday before
Obummer.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:11:59 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bullied Lehrer ? Obama had FIVE FUCKING MINUTES extra time because he
would not SHUT THE FUCK up when his time expired and Lehere did not
have the balls to interrupt the "President" so of course Romney had to
do it !

Watch it again. Leherer allowed Obama to run over at will but he did
not allow Romney to run over even once. Lehrer was NOT objective.
Probably because Romney intends to cut funding for his PBS network.

[Dave Hazelwood]

The economy is looking better? What a joke.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:00:18 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Obama was scared shitless and it showed.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:11:21 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You must mean Obama right ?

Obama is the one who screwed the middle class for the Banks. He is the
one who refused to prosecute the thousands of cases of bank fraud they
used to throw people out of their homes.

In essence Obama allowed the baners to STEAL homes from the public
AFTER he gave the Bankers MILLIONS in bonuses from the same peoples
taxes they threw out of their homes !

Obama talks like he is for the middle class but look at his actions.
He is the one who has DESTROYED it !

[Carey]

On Oct 4, 8:06 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:11:21 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>
>
> >On  4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't particularly like either guy, but you are trying to make it
> >> sound like Obama is some kind of saint in relation to Romney and that
> >> is silly.
>
> >No, my take is this is a money and power grab by a very, very rich and
> >unprincipled shyster.
>
> You must mean Obama right ?
>
> Obama is the one who screwed the middle class for the Banks. He is the
> one who refused to prosecute the thousands of cases of bank fraud they
> used to throw people out of their homes.
>
> In essence Obama allowed the baners to STEAL homes from the public
> AFTER he gave the Bankers MILLIONS in bonuses from the same peoples
> taxes they threw out of their homes !
>
> Obama talks like he is for the middle class but look at his actions.
> He is the one who has DESTROYED it !

..and your impression is that Romney would be better? Boycott
election 2012.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I do NOT like Romney either but at least he will restore jobs and the
economy with his corporate influence. That's the best we can hope for
whereas with Obama it's another 4 years of continuously worse economic
disaster.

[ca1houn]

Well you know he's not good at figuring who's a real women or a tranny

[Wile E.]

On Oct 4, 7:56 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:11:59 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

When Obama was allowed to take much longer I figured that Lehere would
allow Romney the extra time, however that didn't happen.

> Lehrer was NOT objective.
> Probably because Romney intends to cut funding for his PBS network.

You're correct saying that commentator Lehrer didn't have the balls to
stand
up to Obama so O took as long as he wanted. Didn't do any him any
good,
he doesn't understand the U.S. economy and how it works, and was
embarrassingly schooled over by Romney in the operation of U.S.
economy and
constitution.

It's too bad for U.S citizens this trial and error pres didn't pan
out.

Yup I'm mad, the man was never vented, no one knew he was totally
ignorant
of the workings in the U.S.A. and voted for him anyway.

[guyana]

Says, the redneck from Gilbert, AZ!

[Wile E.]

Hmm, so we can't disagree in anyway with the current president
otherwise we
are labled a "redneck" eh.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:57:17 -0700 (PDT), "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

he hoodwinked all of us with his smooth talking snake oil pitch.

but fool me once ...

[Dave Hazelwood]

houn i though you would be too smart to vote for obama. look at the
record. how he has persecuted and punished the middle class while
rewarding the bankers, hollywood and wall street. no jobs but the
market is near record highs. what does that tell you? he talks to the
poor and supports the rich !

I think even Romney will be more fair for all AMERICA.

The thing that galls me the most is how Obama just breaks the law at
will to benefit his cronies. Witness the Megaupload case. Witness
letting the banks off scot free for MASSIVE FRAUD.

How come nobody pay attention to dat shit?

[Gracchus]

On Oct 6, 11:17 am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Yup I'm mad, the man was never vented, no one knew he was totally
> >ignorant
> >of the workings in the U.S.A. and voted for him anyway.
>
> he hoodwinked all of us with his smooth talking snake oil pitch.
>
> but fool me once ...

If that's the case, you should be embarrassed to admit it. Even if I
strongly disagree with someone, I can respect the person who is able
to define his/her ideology and pursue it with conviction. What I can't
respect is someone whose mind is so weak and malleable that he can be
led to follow leaders with strongly divergent ideologies depending on
which way the wind blows. Going from Obama to Ron Paul to Romney shows
that you are merely reactive in the extreme rather than even knowing
what the hell you really believe in.