Originally posted by: EXman
Have you been married?
Then you know that crap and women are loco!
I guess McCain might get away with saying, "mistakes were made."
Uh Rudy married his cousin (2nd or 3rd . . . like it matters). The 2nd wife he publicly humiliated. Every man knows it is female providence to publicly humiliate the husband. And the 3rd wife has a hard time keeping straight how many times she's been married.
Bill Clinton is proof positive that it's possible to be a terrible spouse (and presumptively a decent parent) while being a better than average President.
But Rudy apparently sux at both.
Mormons may have some 'strange' beliefs (IMO) but there's little doubt that Romney is the only 'family values' candidate among the top contenders. But he's clearly pandering on a variety of issues.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To Doc savage fan---who asks---Are you saying that you would never vote for a flip flopper regardless of party? Or is this one of those Democrat flip flopping OK vs. Republican flip flopping not OK kind of things?
Good question---if I were looking for the candidate who never made a mistake---I would find no one to vote for---including myself. So I and hopefully others are looking for those elusive thing called integrity and character. Some one with a long standing set of core beliefs that work most of the time and that leads them to make good future decisions---decisions good for the overall benefit of the Country as a whole.
To me, the opposite of integrity is political spin, pandering, ego, and being mean spirited. Its how we handled mistakes and the things we don't do that are often the most important. As I look at the present crop on candidates on both sides, I feel almost total despair.
But with Romney----my BS detector sounds a very load alarm. I will grant Romney seems to have excellent family values. But what about the greater American family that includes you, me, and everyone else in the Country? Where is the past record?---and what will he be tomorrow?
Good question---if I were looking for the candidate who never made a mistake---I would find no one to vote for---including myself. So I and hopefully others are looking for those elusive thing called integrity and character. Some one with a long standing set of core beliefs that work most of the time and that leads them to make good future decisions---decisions good for the overall benefit of the Country as a whole.
To me, the opposite of integrity is political spin, pandering, ego, and being mean spirited. Its how we handled mistakes and the things we don't do that are often the most important. As I look at the present crop on candidates on both sides, I feel almost total despair.
But with Romney----my BS detector sounds a very load alarm. I will grant Romney seems to have excellent family values. But what about the greater American family that includes you, me, and everyone else in the Country? Where is the past record?---and what will he be tomorrow?
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
I agree with you 100%. I was trying to figure out if your distaste for flip flopping was a personal value applying to all politicians or one that's relative depending on the party affiliation of the flip flopper. There are so many in these forums who are so partisan that they've become blinded to what's really important. Thanks for clarifying.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Dear Clueless,
By saying ?Of course stupid things like the hunting flap do not help him. Leave the flip-flop and exaggerations to the Democrats please.? I am essentially admitting that Romney has a problem with flip-flopping and exaggerations himself.
I think the nature of our governmental system requires that people ?flip-flop.? In a typical relationship we would call it a compromise, but in politics we call it ?flip-floping.?
The hunting and NRA membership was stupid and looks like political theater. There are other ways of showing your support for gun ownership beyond those two. I am not a NRA member nor do I or would I ever go hunting, but I support gun ownership.
I think most of his social liberal issues will be dismissed at the price of leading a liberal state. Also, his personal opinions of gay marriage and abortion aren?t really relevant. What DOES matter is what kinds of judges he would appoint. Does he appoint judges with a conservative view of the constitution or does he appoint ones with a more liberal view.
Dear Even More Clueless,
By saying "Leave the flip-flop and exaggerations to the Democrats please.?, you are implying that the Repubs are not good at it and that the Dems have a stranglehold on the Flip-flop title and that the Repubs are and have been the party of steady, honest leadership and Romney should go back to those roots.
Neither is farther from the truth.
As for your assessment, I would disagree that the main point of choosing whom to elect president should be to find someone that will appoint judges that will interpret the Constitution conservatively or liberally but someone will work towards the center on ALL issues so as to not alienate ~50% of the population. It would be best that only the 10% fringe wingnuts be alienated instead of catered to by each party.
We have seen over the last 7+ years that people governing with your mindset don't give a rat's a$$ about the country. Their only objective is to shove their viewpoint down the country's collective throats whether they agree with it or not. That and keeping power within their groups hands perpetually so that they and their families never have to worry about living in the real world that the other 98% of humanity have to experience.
Romney's a multi-faced political whore who advocates whatever side of an issue he thinks will get him more votes. He once supported abortion rights, the Brady gun control law, gay rights and stem-cell research. Now, he opposes all of them.
He supported stem cell research when his wife, Ann, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, he said she hopes stem-cell research provides a cure. Then, he blocked certain types of the research.
He showed true colors on the subject of gun control, last week.
He supported stem cell research when his wife, Ann, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, he said she hopes stem-cell research provides a cure. Then, he blocked certain types of the research.
He showed true colors on the subject of gun control, last week.
Romney has no allegience to the truth, and his whoredom doesn't stop at flip flopping on issues. He's slithered into bed with Bob Perry, one of the primary funders of the Swift Boat Liars.
He may look and speak better than the current Doofus In Chief, he's no more qualified to be President. :thumbsdown:
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I never said the MAIN point is about judges. I said when it comes to social issues the only thing that matters is the judges. That is because the only people who have a say on social issues, at a federal level at least, are the judges.
For the most part gay marriage and abortion rights are being fought over in the court system, not in Washington DC. Which is why the views of the judges and how they interrupt the constitution is far more important than statements made by the candidates themselves. (I'd still rather have a true conservative such as Newt or Thompson though.)
As for your last paragraph... we had 8 years of Clinton, would you care to explain how he was different than Bush when it came to shoving his views down peoples throats or keeping power in the hands of a few people etc etc.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
I "fixed" your post to point out that 'the gate swings both ways'. What do you really expect...that Republican politicians should be perfect models and in glorious harmony with their party platform? And if they don't meet this unattainable standard (which only applies to Republicans BTW), then you can chalk it up as hypocrisy? Does that somehow make you feel better and more secure in your highly partisan beliefs. Don't deceive yourself, the scatology is equally pungent on both sides of the fence.
Clinton didn't have control of the congress and a submissive minority to railroad everything through with. unlike Bush, he was willing (re: forced) to compromise, whereas Bush has had 6 years of our way or the highway governing.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Didn't you say "We're talking about republicans - what do liberals have to do with anything here?" Are you on some kind of medication today?
I'm a little concerned about his desire to please everyone, but the whole hunting/gun issue is really rather petty, something the dems are all over because it is a republican candidate but would be saying "give me a break" to if it were about a democrat. I think I'd like to see Romney with a little more government experience before being willing to vote for him. I think that his family life shows that he is willing to stand true to an ideal that is important to him. He appears to compromise some trying to stretch to appeal to everyone. However, I don't think you can compare him to the current president. He appears to be someone capable of getting things done. You can't say a self made millionaire who bought failing businesses, made them profitable, then sold them is incapable. Right now, that is his main appeal to me. He seems like someone capable of fixing the financial problems our government faces.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well mect---I point out GWB's sole claim to fame is doing a decent job at managing the Texas rangers. And then managed to take a slight governmental surplus from Clinton and manage it into huge deficits.
So when you say---Right now, that is his main appeal to me. He seems like someone capable of fixing the financial problems our government faces.----------but to keep your N of 1 hypothesis on topic---that dog may not hunt. Are you willing to bet your Country on a man who re-invents himself at the speed of light.
So when you say---Right now, that is his main appeal to me. He seems like someone capable of fixing the financial problems our government faces.----------but to keep your N of 1 hypothesis on topic---that dog may not hunt. Are you willing to bet your Country on a man who re-invents himself at the speed of light.
Actually he did a terrible job and traded Sammy Sosa before he hit his prime.
Back to topic, Mitt sucks and is off my list completely, anyone pretending to be someone they are not is off the list, aka "I hunt varmints".
I know there is some degree of pandering necessary but between McCain and Falwall and Mitt and the NRA it's pretty sad.
Candidates need to run on their record and who they are as people, say what they believe. If they don't feel they can win on those merits they shouldn't be running, trying to expand the portfolio in order to please each and every interest group is pathetic.
Meaning he changes his stance on issues that the president typically hasn't had any real influence on anyways? And I wouldn't compare GWB's managing of the Texas Rangers to what Romney has accomplished. I haven't seen anyone who doubts that Romney is intelligent, or that he is a very capable business man. He took the shambles of the Salt Lake Olympics and turned them into a profitable event. He does appear to have a history of fixing financial debacles. So no, I don't think there is any grounds at all for comparing him to GWB. And since most of the issues that he flops on are mainly subjects like abortion where it is mainly appealing to an audience rather than any true hopes of changing anything, this isn't really a concern to me. What does concern me are his foreign policies, which is another critical issue right now. I know he supports the war in Iraq, which isn't neccessarily a good thing or a bad thing in my books. Its more how he interacts with other nations, of which I'm still clueless. Of the current GOP runners, its a toss up between him and McCain for me. Obama is a small possibility, but his political views are to contrary to mine to make me think there's much chance of voting for him. As I said, the main attraction of Romney is that he seems capable. So no, I don't think I'll be betting on what is most important. Unlike Bush, Romney seems the type of person who gets a job done. Still, we'll see what time brings.
Mitt Romney is dangerous because he believes in something and actually lives his beliefs.
Some people say they are pro-family but it is all just prattle. I guess it proves that voters would rather be lied to.
Some people say they are pro-family but it is all just prattle. I guess it proves that voters would rather be lied to.
He's a twofaced liar, which is why I'm glad he's got a good shot at the nomination (I am a Dem).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter