Election 2012 (USA)

They might be jumping the gun but some commentators are already suggesting Romney's campaign could go down in the history books as a textbook case of how *not* to do it.

In some ways he's a worse candidate than Bush. Bush may have been dumb (Romney isn't) but at least he held his image together as a good old Texas Christian, he appealed to the base. Romney can't even manage that. A large number of Republicans think he's a dillhole.

manofmystery wrote: As much as Slarti wants to pretend there's a difference between them, there isn't.  Obama has just been a continuation of W and Romney would be more of the same.

As much as you want to pretend there isn't there is.  One advocates policies that would turn back the clock to where even contraceptives would be outlawed.  One advocates for economic policies that aren't about enriching the already wealthy at the expense of those of us who are struggling to make a living...

What really amuses me that is that the party that has set out to make Obama's presidency a failure from day one automatically takes knee jerk opposition to any thing this administration does even when it's things they previously supported.  The Republicans have been very and consistently guilty of putting party ahead of country.  They hate it whenever good economic news comes out.  They don't want Obama to make a point of how he actually was instrumental at directing the take down of Osama when Bush said he wasn't interested in doing it and Romney was going around before it happened saying that we shouldn't be spending all this money going after one man.

I hear a lot of people practicing willful ignorance and historical amnesia.  If Romney wins it will be because we truly are the United States of Amnesia.


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 04 2012 at 19:48

ALL I KNOW IS THAT ALL OF THEM WANT BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

There are few convservatives anymore... only NEO-conservatives.

Edited by Smurph - May 04 2012 at 08:51

The T wrote: ^You're as much narrow minded as you think you are open minded Roy...

I was just teasin'

Maybe I went too far (again) [in the real world I really did go too far on the same day (go figure).... , luckily the other shoe hasn't dropped on my head yet]

I'll vandalize my comment into its opposite


-------

It seems we all have different opinions about how the two parties are both the same.

Smurph they all do want bigger government, but remember parties are not just bullsh*t but so are terms.
You say there's no true conservatives left, but how far back do you wanna go?

Conservatives were originally "the power". The kings and aristocracy.
Liberals were the ones that argued for limited government.
A lot of these "far right" nutjobs often claim they are "classic liberals"

It seems today that the terms mean as little as the parties. It's why I like "libertarian" neither liberal or conservative :D

Slartibartfast wrote: manofmystery wrote: As much as Slarti wants to pretend there's a difference between them, there isn't.  Obama has just been a continuation of W and Romney would be more of the same. As much as you want to pretend there isn't there is.  One advocates policies that would turn back the clock to where even contraceptives would be outlawed.  Believe you're thinking of Santorum but I wouldn't put it past the Mittster to say that in a room full of religious-righters.  One advocates for economic policies that aren't about enriching the already wealthy at the expense of those of us who are struggling to make a living... Seriously?  What do you call a bailout?  Obama has done nothing but hand tax dollars to his buddies. What really amuses me that is that the party that has set out to make Obama's presidency a failure from day one automatically takes knee jerk opposition to any thing this administration does even when it's things they previously supported.  Yes, the republicans really did him in back when Obama had a supermajority in congress.  You'll have to blame your fellow dems for anything that didn't get done in the frist 2 years.  The automatic opposition is built into the deception, by the way.  Follow actions, not words.  The Republicans have been very and consistently guilty of putting party ahead of country.  A statement that can just as accurately be made about the Democrats.  They hate it whenever good economic news comes out.  I personally hate it when data is manipulated and put out as good economic news, by either party.  Both parties believe in keynesian economics and corporatism and neither of which will lead to anything but boom and bust cycles.  If either party wanted to get out of the way of the economy maybe you'd have a case, but neither does.  They don't want Obama to make a point of how he actually was instrumental at directing the take down of Obama when Bush said he wasn't interested in doing it and Romney was going around before it happened saying that we shouldn't be spending all this money going after one man. Obama has taken down Obama  but not enough for Romney to win.  But yes, Obama has been just as bloodthirsty as Bush (maybe moreso).  More overseas wars, more aggressive drug war, more gitmo, and now assassinating the unarmed or, in the case of Al Alawi's son and nephew, the innoccent.   Add to all that declaring the world a warzone and, through executive order, claiming the power to seize land, reasources, and even citizens in wartime or peacetime and you are left with Bush on steroids.  It seems like your opposition is what's inconsistent because I doubt you'd be glossing this stuff over for a republican. I hear a lot of people practicing willful ignorance and historical amnesia.  Seems like this describes damn near every political post you've ever made here.  If Romney wins it will be because we truly are the United States of Amnesia.  He won't and even if does nothing will change, you'll just go back to bitching about policies you hated from Bush and accepted from Obama.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Ah the problem is most people would agree, your means are wrong though...because they have failed.
The more government interferes the more people can petition the government to benefit themselves.
I agree, big business and the wealthy are more powerful than us...so why would you want to give them the ability to influence themselves even more???

Or do you want more government as long as it's better government?
I used to bark up that tree. It just will not happen.

Sweden will not and cannot happen here. I mean it's just a cold reality.


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 19:50

JJLehto wrote: Ah the problem is most people would agree, your means are wrong though...because they have failed. The more government interferes the more people can petition the government to benefit themselves. I agree, big business and the wealthy are more powerful than us...so why would you want to give them the ability to influence themselves even more??? Or do you want more government as long as it's better government? I used to bark up that tree. It just will not happen. Sweden will not and cannot happen here. I mean it's just a cold reality.

I want better government and don't give a rat's ass what "size" it is.  What do you think happens when you cut government jobs?  You get unemployed people.  This results in a multiplier bad effect in the economy.  People without jobs can't afford to buy as many things.  People don't buy enough things and then the people who make things lose jobs...

And you're really going to have to clarify what means of mine that are wrong and have failed that you are referring to.  The next two statements make no sense either.