• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oddly, I've actually never heard anyone say that. That he's a secret Muslim communist atheist who wants to euthanize grandma on the other hand...
 
http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...a-romney-lollygags-along-as-the-media-darling

Ron Paul has done it again! What has he done? Well, it is hard to believe he has done anything since it is not reported by the mainstream media, but watch out ladies and gentlemen Ron Paul has turned a corner that changed everything in the race for the Republican nomination since Rick Santorum stepped aside. According to WeConservatives.com, Minnesota's RNC National Committeewoman tweeted, Ron Paul takes 20 of 24 Congressional District delegates to the Republican National Conventions from Minnesota.
http://www.allvoices.com/people/Ron_Paul
 
I see a lot of the liberal websites rolling out the fearmongering about Romney now, right on schedule. It's pretty sad to watch the "professional left" in action, painting Romney and Obama as polar opposites when they're both corporate tools and empty suits.
 
Being in Pittsburgh area, I have been cracking up this past week over "Cookiegate."

For those of you unfamiliar:



I enjoy these little gaffes, like cookiegate, the fond story about his father closing down a factory, the bet, etc....because these are the closest we get to the real Mitt Romney. Has has such a sheltered and well constructed political image, we so very seldom get to see the real Mitt Romney. Yet every now and then something like this slips through, in just a moment when he speaks without thinking and we see what a sheltered, spoiled snob he is. Similar things happened with John Kerry (like when he made a crack about eating at Wendy's and having to get take out from a yacht club afterward).

When dealing with these types of candidates, who were groomed from their privileged childhood for this very moment...it is always interesting to see the inevitable slip ups that come with being in the spotlight 24/7 that shows who they really are, how they really view things, etc.
 
I enjoy these little gaffes, like cookiegate, the fond story about his father closing down a factory, the bet, etc....because these are the closest we get to the real Mitt Romney.

My favorite is the NASCAR event where he commented to people who were wearing rain ponchos "I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks.” That of coarse was after he commented how some of his friends are NASCAR owners.

I will say this though, I give him a free pass for the 10k bet. If you have a sure bet(which he did) he would be stupid not to take it, I only blame him for not betting more.
 
My favorite is the NASCAR event where he commented to people who were wearing rain ponchos "I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks.” That of coarse was after he commented how some of his friends are NASCAR owners.

I will say this though, I give him a free pass for the 10k bet. If you have a sure bet(which he did) he would be stupid not to take it, I only blame him for not betting more.

Yeah, he gets too much crap for the bet. The rest of the stuff though....it's pretty much as Matt says. Romney may be a nice and loving family man, but he's still a sheltered, spoiled snob.
 
Poor Ann. She gave the enemy another soundbite today.

“I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."

enhanced-buzz-5792-1334090723-79.jpg
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/23/utahs-love-looking-to-be-first-black-republican-wo/

A Republican. Not just a Republican . . . a black Republican. Not just a black Republican . . . a black female Republican. Not just a black female Republican . . . a black female Republican who is the child of Haitian immigrants.

Sweet fancy Moses . . . the only way she could be more hated by the left is if she were also gay. :wow:

Also, anyone who votes for the white, male Democrat over her is probably a racist and a sexist, because they're afraid of a strong, black, female Republican in power. :hehe:
 
According to a Pew research study, the so-called "liberal media" gives more negative coverage to Obama than Romney or any of the also-rans in the GOP primaries. In fact, Obama is the only one who currently gets more negative coverage than positive coverage. Damn liberal media, huh?

Also you Ron Paul fanatics can stop hyperventilating about a media conspiracy against him. The same survey showed he had by far the most positive coverage of anyone running for President.
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report
 
the choice as described by someone at work so beautifully put - If you care about the economy, then obviously Romney is the choice. If you care about the other issues, well then Obama is your man. They're both good but those are where the issues lie.

Agreed. And given Romney's success in the past with economics, I'm more inclined to vote for him right now. Unlike Bush Vs. Kerry, this will be a Presidential election I will enjoy watching very much so.

I enjoy these little gaffes, like cookiegate, the fond story about his father closing down a factory, the bet, etc....because these are the closest we get to the real Mitt Romney. Has has such a sheltered and well constructed political image, we so very seldom get to see the real Mitt Romney. Yet every now and then something like this slips through, in just a moment when he speaks without thinking and we see what a sheltered, spoiled snob he is. Similar things happened with John Kerry (like when he made a crack about eating at Wendy's and having to get take out from a yacht club afterward).

When dealing with these types of candidates, who were groomed from their privileged childhood for this very moment...it is always interesting to see the inevitable slip ups that come with being in the spotlight 24/7 that shows who they really are, how they really view things, etc.

My favorite is the NASCAR event where he commented to people who were wearing rain ponchos "I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks.” That of coarse was after he commented how some of his friends are NASCAR owners.

I will say this though, I give him a free pass for the 10k bet. If you have a sure bet(which he did) he would be stupid not to take it, I only blame him for not betting more.

My favorite is "I'm not concerned about the very poor". He could've worded it alot better since it was such a fu**ed up thing to say, but he made a good point about it as its the cold, hard truth. Shame his words were taken out of context to the point of political infamy.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/23/utahs-love-looking-to-be-first-black-republican-wo/

A Republican. Not just a Republican . . . a black Republican. Not just a black Republican . . . a black female Republican. Not just a black female Republican . . . a black female Republican who is the child of Haitian immigrants.

Sweet fancy Moses . . . the only way she could be more hated by the left is if she were also gay. :wow:

:

Rob, Rob, Rob... The Democrats don't hate gay people. That's your party. If we had left gay rights up to your lot, sodomy would be illegal in almost every state, homosexual teachers and soldiers would be forbidden and a lesbian wouldnt be able to adopt a kid. Don't play the old Rovian game of projecting your weaknesses on to your opponents. Everyone knows the Grand Ole Party hates the gays.
 
I don't want to derail the thread into a debate on gay issues (we have a thread for that) but I will say that a gay republican doesn't make any sense to me. Gay issues are not the only thing that is important to me but I could never, in good conscience, vote for or support someone who would seek to deny me equal standing in this country.
 
Don't on average more straight people "engage" in sodomy than gay people?

Well there are more straight people so probably. I dont have those numbers. But I'm confident the Texas law against sodomy which was finally struck down wasn't aimed at straight people.
 
I don't want to derail the thread into a debate on gay issues (we have a thread for that) but I will say that a gay republican doesn't make any sense to me. Gay issues are not the only thing that is important to me but I could never, in good conscience, vote for or support someone who would seek to deny me equal standing in this country.

That suddenly reminds me of an episode of the West Wing where the democrat was complaining about the NRA.

The guy he was talking to said something to the effect of, "You're doing it all wrong. You shouldn't be ignoring them. There are two million members of the NRA. Get three million liberals to sign up, call a vote for gun control, and bam, you've got gun control."


I wonder how much power they'd have in the party if all gays did sign up with the Republicans ;)
 
Rob, Rob, Rob... The Democrats don't hate gay people. That's your party. If we had left gay rights up to your lot, sodomy would be illegal in almost every state, homosexual teachers and soldiers would be forbidden and a lesbian wouldnt be able to adopt a kid. Don't play the old Rovian game of projecting your weaknesses on to your opponents. Everyone knows the Grand Ole Party hates the gays.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative--closer to a libertarian than anything. And if you don't think there's a difference between being conservative and being Republican, you don't remember "Dubya." But hey, let's see where else you're wrong about me (since you've jumped to conclusions in the past about me that were also wrong).

I oppose sodomy laws. The government has no right to dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I believe that the decision whether or not to let gays openly serve should be up to military leaders. If they're fine with it, I'm fine with it. I don't know of anything that would make a homosexual inherently less capable of service than a straight person, and I personally wouldn't ban them if it were my decision. As far as gay teachers and adopters go, I wouldn't criminalize either. I would hope all teachers and adoptive parents would be conservative, devoted Christians (as I believe that's the best kind of adult kids can be around--and I won't back down from that), but I wouldn't dare codify that in law. Between government dictates and liberty, I'll generally fall toward liberty.

So once again, great job at making the wrong assumptions, hoss! :funny:
 
Last edited:
Nah. All you'd need is enough to help offset the ultra-right. Or freak them out enough that they leave the Party out of fear and start their own.

At the point, the two-party system will kill them off, or they'll change the system so 3rd parties actually have a voice, which means they'll get drowned out anyway.

It's Win-Win! :p
 
Rob, to be honest I dont give a fig about you. You were the one harping on about a Republican candidate you have a crush on. I find it funny how you libertarians are so quick to point out you're not Republicans. But the only candidates you ever support ARE Republicans.
If it quacks like a duck...

And the reason you're making such a big issue out of this candidate is exactly because there's such a stunning lack of diversity in the GOP compared to the Dems. If she was a Dem, no one would bat an eye. Still waiting on the mainstream gay Republican running for statewide office though. Get back to me when there's one of those.
 
That suddenly reminds me of an episode of the West Wing where the democrat was complaining about the NRA.

The guy he was talking to said something to the effect of, "You're doing it all wrong. You shouldn't be ignoring them. There are two million members of the NRA. Get three million liberals to sign up, call a vote for gun control, and bam, you've got gun control."


I wonder how much power they'd have in the party if all gays did sign up with the Republicans ;)

They'd revolt and start their own party...in which case, everyone would see how backward they truly are. :cwink:
 
Also you Ron Paul fanatics can stop hyperventilating about a media conspiracy against him. The same survey showed he had by far the most positive coverage of anyone running for President.
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report

The problem with Ron Paul is the media treats him as a secondary candidate, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Paul for argument sake should have gotten an equal amount of airtime as Santorum when the Primaries started in Iowa(he was a close 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire) but they treated him basically as an afterthought in both.

It's hard to get any momentum when you have the media drilling you aren't important. I would much rather have the media given Paul an equal amount of time and drill him on some issues(ie negative coverage) then a small amount of time in a somewhat positive fashion but treat him like an afterthought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"