What's new
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.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

leswp1 said:
I wouldn't decide my vote - I watched him as governor and that would cure me voting for him even if he sudden'y could walk on water. It gives me pause not just for his reaction now but that he act in that way at any age.

I have been asking myself all day why I had such a visceral reaction to the incident. I understand that he was a kid. They were both talking about the same age but my reaction to Romneys 'incident' was much stronger reaction than to Obama saying he got wasted the last few yrs of HS. I don't applaud what Obama did. What he did was stupid for sure but it wasn't aimed at making someone else feel bad. Having the ability to act that way to another person is something that I think of as a personality trait that usually doesn't go away. They may grow up and figure out how to behave with more finess but most people wouldn't consider acting that way to another person no matter how old we were/are. Probably an extreme analogy but if the person kicks his dog and is nice to his mother I still would be wary even if it was yrs later and the person seemed nice.


I have one word. Edwards
Click to expand...

Practicing psychology without a license again, I see. "Oh Magic 8 Ball, am I right to judge Romney based on a biased story with made up quotes? Is it okay for me to play mindreader?" *shake shake shake* YES.

The "victim's" family has denounced the story. The quoted Romney school mates are all Democrats (one even worked in the Obama campaign) whose quotes were still edited to make them seem worse then they actually were.And they've amended their statements. This hit piece is unraveling, yet you believe every word of it (insofar as it smears Romney). And are prepared to attribute "homophobia" to Romney. Evidence? Or are you wearing your turban again? The fact that this dovetails nicely into His Oneness' campaign is, just as the timing of this piece, merely a coincidence.

Romney's had a couple of subsequent incidents where he jumped into the water to save total strangers. Does that count in your "fair and balanced nuanced analysis" of what his teenage behavior may or may not tell us about how he would perform as president? No.

If the WaPo did a story that in high school Romney was a "well known thespian," you'd be shocked and blather on about how that would be predictive of his behavior nearly half a cerntury later. And you'd worry that he'd be likely to launch into the Mikado song in the oval with no warning. This sh*t is pathetic. And not persuasive in the slightest. At least not to anyone who isn't hitching a ride on the Freedom Train (to the Maldives, no doubt).

I'm truly sorry your viscera are in a tizzy over what Romney did in high school. I'd recommend a crap and a nap.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Priceless said:
Anyone who was undecided and uses this as the deciding factor is worthless. However, to think no one in the opposition camp is going to make hay with the story is the height of naivete. It's what campaigns are about. It isn't anything new.
Click to expand...

Possibly the nastiest election campaign in history was Andrew Jackson's first campaign, when the Adams camp started rumors that his wife was a bigamist.

Politics never changes.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Possibly the nastiest election campaign in history was Andrew Jackson's first campaign, when the Adams camp started rumors that his wife was a bigamist.

Politics never changes.
Click to expand...

One campaign of which mercifully I have no personal knowledge. My father gave me a campaign button with the famous picture of Adlai's shoe with a hole in it. It said: "Don't let this happen to you. Vote for Ike."
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Possibly the nastiest election campaign in history was Andrew Jackson's first campaign, when the Adams camp started rumors that his wife was a bigamist.

Politics never changes.
Click to expand...

or one of the campaigns involving Grover Cleveland, in which it was asserted that he fathered a child out of wedlock. There was a campaign slogan against him, "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?"
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Priceless said:
If this had been a story about Barack Obama, do you suppose for a minute Fox "News" or the rest of the right-wing media would have shown restraint and said, "No, this is a story from so long ago it doesn't matter now." If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it.... I heard it related to me from an unknown right-wing media source where someone wrote, if we wanted to, all we'd have to do is copy down quotes word-for-word from Obama's own self-glorifying tome about how he brags about beating up some little girl when he was in school. The funniest part was where he said, "I wonder if it was a composite of all the women he's beaten?"
But no, you're exactly wrong in your stupid assumption. The story has never been used against Obama because it's about some childhood bullying incident that JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Possibly the nastiest election campaign in history was Andrew Jackson's first campaign, when the Adams camp started rumors that his wife was a bigamist.

Politics never changes.
Click to expand...

Wiki:

The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most brutal ever. On the one hand, Bush switched his label for himself from "compassionate conservative" to "reformer with results", as part of trying to co-opt McCain's popular message of reform. On the other hand, a variety of business and interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.

The day that a new poll showed McCain five points ahead in the state, Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us." Incensed, McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton,[14] which Bush complained was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary."[14] An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like. These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[49]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

5mn_Major said:
Wiki:

The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most brutal ever. On the one hand, Bush switched his label for himself from "compassionate conservative" to "reformer with results", as part of trying to co-opt McCain's popular message of reform. On the other hand, a variety of business and interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.

The day that a new poll showed McCain five points ahead in the state, Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us." Incensed, McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton,[14] which Bush complained was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary."[14] An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like. These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[49]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.
Click to expand...

A single state party primary which, oddly enough, gives you a chance to bash Bush. Give it up.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
A single state party primary which, oddly enough, gives you a chance to bash Bush. Give it up.
Click to expand...

So you're brushing off what Bush did to McCain, a far more legitimate war hero, in the 2000 campaign? I'm clarifying here, my apologies if I've misinterpreted.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
So you're brushing off what Bush did to McCain, a far more legitimate war hero, in the 2000 campaign? I'm clarifying here, my apologies if I've misinterpreted.
Click to expand...

I don't give a sh*t. "A far more legitimate war hero" than who, exactly (John Kerry for certain)? And how is that relevant now? Bush is yestereday's news (despite the obvious obsessions and rules of engagement* around here).

George Will once said: "Chicago politics, like Chicago baseball, is not for the squeamish. That's true of politics generally. The problem is when presumably neutral "journalists" take sides and disguise it as "news."


*It's Bush's fault
Bush did it first
Bush was way worse.

Rinse, lather, repeat.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
I don't give a sh*t. "A far more legitimate war hero" than who, exactly (John Kerry for certain)? And how is that relevant now? Bush is yestereday's news (despite the obvious obsessions and rules of engagement* around here).

George Will once said: "Chicago politics, like Chicago baseball, is not for the squeamish. That's true of politics generally. The problem is when presumably neutral "journalists" take sides and disguise it as "news."


*It's Bush's fault
Bush did it first
Bush was way worse.

Rinse, lather, repeat.
Click to expand...

A discussion about past nasty campaigns, someone says "Bush" and you blow up like a firecracker. Hilarious. I wonder if they work you up enough if you'll just walk around saying "Libs Libs Libs" and making up new names for Obama.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

bronconick said:
A discussion about past nasty campaigns, someone says "Bush" and you blow up like a firecracker. Hilarious. I wonder if they work you up enough if you'll just walk around saying "Libs Libs Libs" and making up new names for Obama.
Click to expand...

It's so Pavlovian.



(as will be the tantrum that responds to this)
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

romney_vs_obama_may_12_2012.jpg


This is TF :)
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

bronconick said:
A discussion about past nasty campaigns, someone says "Bush" and you blow up like a firecracker. Hilarious. I wonder if they work you up enough if you'll just walk around saying "Libs Libs Libs" and making up new names for Obama.
Click to expand...

You are capable of distinguishing between a campaign for president (which was being discussed before the poodles brought up Bush) and a primary, right? I would have said hand grenade instead of firecracker, but that's just me. In any case, pointing out how pathetic the ladies of the chorale are is my civic duty. And new names for His Transcriptlessness is more in the nature of a hobby than anything else. The fact that is annoys you is a bonus.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This would give a few of our board members an Excedrin headache:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,

Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

Approved, March 1, 1845.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top