Foxton
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
It was like getting hit by...
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
She's not a candidate. She's not even in politics anymore. Yet somehow libstain putzes like you just can't let it go. Don't forget--she was also "responsible" for the shootings in Tucson. Don't ever let her off the hook for that.
She's not a candidate. She's not even in politics anymore. Yet somehow libstain putzes like you just can't let it go. Don't forget--she was also "responsible" for the shootings in Tucson. Don't ever let her off the hook for that.
You seen aggravated Opie. Either you see Romney's poll #'s starting to flatline or the orderlies haven't helped you change your diapers yet. Either way, can you please explain how Romney in the morning claimed he'd sign no new abortion laws restricting abortion, and then in the evening said he would? I mean, all politicians contradict themselves, but usually not in the same day!
----------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register that he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, an abrupt switch for a candidate who has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Said Romney: "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
Spokeswoman Andrea Saul later walked back the comment telling the National Review that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Meanwhile, Stephanie Cutter (you remember her )puts the blame for Benghazi and the resulting coverup squarely where it belongs: on Mitt Romney.
http://freebeacon.com/cutter-benghazi-is-only-an-issue-because-of-romney-and-ryan/
D*mn him for bringing up administration failures a month before an election. What's he thinking of?
And the "human toilet brush" tries to explain that "wrong" statements about Benghazi weren't "false."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._about_libya_doesnt_mean_they_were_false.html
Meanwhile, Stephanie Cutter (you remember her )puts the blame for Benghazi and the resulting coverup squarely where it belongs: on Mitt Romney.
http://freebeacon.com/cutter-benghazi-is-only-an-issue-because-of-romney-and-ryan/
D*mn him for bringing up administration failures a month before an election. What's he thinking of?
And the "human toilet brush" tries to explain that "wrong" statements about Benghazi weren't "false."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._about_libya_doesnt_mean_they_were_false.html
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
This election will not be won or lost on the issue of abortion, despite libstains' strenuous efforts. Besides, His Panderness already has Sandra Fluke's vote. Former middle aged school girl who wants me to pay for her birth control. She ought to pay for her own. How 'bout means testing? She could afford 47K tuition to go to Georgetown Law but not a few bucks for generic pills from Target?
This election will not be won or lost on the issue of abortion, despite libstains' strenuous efforts. Besides, His Panderness already has Sandra Fluke's vote. Former middle aged school girl who wants me to pay for her birth control. She ought to pay for her own. How 'bout means testing? She could afford 47K tuition to go to Georgetown Law but not a few bucks for generic pills from Target?
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Responding to your own responses? How far down the rabbit hole have you gone?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Still way better then telling everyone you're going to cut their taxes 20%, you're going to expand the Navy (ships and subs), and you're going to eliminate the death tax. While at the same time cut the deficit to zero and balance the budget.
Talk about tall tales. No one holds a candle to Mittens.
It couldn't possibly be far enough.
Still way better then telling everyone you're going to cut their taxes 20%, you're going to expand the Navy (ships and subs), and you're going to eliminate the death tax. While at the same time cut the deficit to zero and balance the budget.
Talk about tall tales. No one holds a candle to Mittens.
It couldn't possibly be far enough.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Just trying to bring a little light into your parents' basement. Would you like some cookies and milk, dear?
Just trying to bring a little light into your parents' basement. Would you like some cookies and milk, dear?
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
His Dishonestness' lies are justifiable? Ends justify the means? Well, at least you admit it. The therapy appears to be working.
His Dishonestness' lies are justifiable? Ends justify the means? Well, at least you admit it. The therapy appears to be working.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I hope Ryan kicks Aunt Blabby right in the blue ox hole.
I hope Ryan kicks Aunt Blabby right in the blue ox hole.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
This starts out as the inverse of the presidential debate. If Biden can get through it without anally assaulting Martha Raddatz while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and smoking reefer, he'll be called the "winner."
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
So there's like a 40% chance?
So there's like a 40% chance?
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I guess that means Biden will be telling the truth? How's that kool aid anyway?
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Yup, being an Obama follower, you certainly do love tall tales. Not sure you'll get your fill from Ryan though. He's a facts and figures guy. But, I bet Biden'll tell some stories tonight, as he can't match up with Ryan, so he'll try to look like the kindly old wise senior statesman.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Trouble is, that's business as usual. Congre$$ takes in more money and spends it, instead of paying down the mortgage.
One way it works if more people work and start paying taxes in lieu of taking money from the system. Then there is more income in the system.
Trouble is, that's business as usual. Congre$$ takes in more money and spends it, instead of paying down the mortgage.
Foxton
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
Where the **** do these jobs magically appear from? How many years of trickle down economics failing does it take? Or do we just have to cut taxes completely on the rich/job creators before they finally start moving some of that money they've saved up back into the economy?
What a joke.
Oh so the jobless will all get employed building military hardware?
Where the **** do these jobs magically appear from? How many years of trickle down economics failing does it take? Or do we just have to cut taxes completely on the rich/job creators before they finally start moving some of that money they've saved up back into the economy?
What a joke.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I have enjoyed piling on Joe Biden's gaffes as much as anyone. He does tend to be garrulous occasionally. But much of that is our tendency to mythologize. Many of us believe the most athletic person ever to occupy the WH was some sort of stumblebum because of a football injury he sustained while earning MVP honors in the Big Ten. Many of us believed another president was "athletic" despite the fact that his war injuries left all of that in his past.
Similarly, Biden's nobody's fool. And a sharp elbowed pol. Remember as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee he told "civil rights" groups he would do his best to stop the Bork nomination--before the hearings began. So much for even a patina of a fair hearing.
So he'll do fine. And since the bar for his performance has been set so low, "doing fine" will be defined as "just the tonic the Obama campaign needed," and "a shot in the arm," and "a momentum changer." My comments are predicated on the assumption that neither one of them makes a major blunder.
John Nance Garner had the Vice Presidency about right.
I have enjoyed piling on Joe Biden's gaffes as much as anyone. He does tend to be garrulous occasionally. But much of that is our tendency to mythologize. Many of us believe the most athletic person ever to occupy the WH was some sort of stumblebum because of a football injury he sustained while earning MVP honors in the Big Ten. Many of us believed another president was "athletic" despite the fact that his war injuries left all of that in his past.
Similarly, Biden's nobody's fool. And a sharp elbowed pol. Remember as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee he told "civil rights" groups he would do his best to stop the Bork nomination--before the hearings began. So much for even a patina of a fair hearing.
So he'll do fine. And since the bar for his performance has been set so low, "doing fine" will be defined as "just the tonic the Obama campaign needed," and "a shot in the arm," and "a momentum changer." My comments are predicated on the assumption that neither one of them makes a major blunder.
John Nance Garner had the Vice Presidency about right.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
What facts and figures? He ran from Chris Wallace when he tried to ask him about facts and figures. That's friendly Fox News.
What facts and figures? He ran from Chris Wallace when he tried to ask him about facts and figures. That's friendly Fox News.
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!
I know I'm several hours behind, but this is the funniest thing I've read in days. Isn't this a federal law?
18 USC § 1111 - Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).
I know I'm several hours behind, but this is the funniest thing I've read in days. Isn't this a federal law?
18 USC § 1111 - Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).
- Status