[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Huh?

The overwhelming majority in the legislature are Democrats. How is this supposed to be so profoundly different than in Massachusetts that it would be a detriment to him?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The overwhelming majority in the legislature are Democrats. How is this supposed to be so profoundly different than in Massachusetts that it would be a detriment to him?

It's 241(R) and 191(D) in the House.
It's 47(R) and 53(D) in the Senate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's 241(R) and 191(D) in the House.
It's 47(R) and 53(D) in the Senate.

Okay, overwhelming was a poor choice of words, but I still don't see how this makeup poses more a problem for him than the environment in Massachusetts?

[subego]

This seems so obvious I feel like I must be missing your point.

What similarity are you seeing between two evenly split branches of legislature, one controlled by one party, one controlled by the other, and a scenario where both branches are controlled by the same party, with a filibuster and veto-proof majority of over 80%?


It's one thing to reach across the aisle, it's another to have no choice but to do that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They're important because they give you cold, hard facts about the person you're considering voting for. That's something we otherwise don't really get during a campaign. They tell you something about that person's character in a way that is completely honest, and they show that the candidate is even willing to be honest and to open up themselves for scrutiny.

That said, I don't think it's essential that a candidate release their returns. The way that Romney is handling this, however, is nothing other than evasive and dishonest. He clearly, and plainly, refuses to open himself up for scrutiny, which, while it proves nothing, certainly fuels suspicions. However I suspect that this won't really hurt him in the polls. It may actually help. It will endear him to the less thoughtful of the libertarian-leaning voters who will think that Romney's reluctance to release his own tax returns will translate somehow to him being willing to adjust the system to keep the public (read: government) out of their own (comparatively very meager) finances. It won't, of course, but people will talk themselves into believing it anyway.

I do find it interesting, that to the extent that's he's given in at all, he's released only very limited information about a single year of this taxes. There's a problem with that, namely that, 'Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much… One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul'.

That happens to be a direct quote from George Romney, Mitt's father. He also happens to have been the first Presidential candidate to release his tax returns: he released 12 years of them to counteract the aforementioned problem.

From what I can tell, George Romney is exactly the sort of man I would have wanted to elect as my President. His son, however, has deviated from his father's course in many, not particularly attractive ways.

Quoting because I'm jealous I can't express my thoughts in such a cogent manner.

[BadKosh]

Romney is doing this to see how much the MSM will scream about it.
Then he can say where are Owe-bamas COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS?

The MSM will fall silent, because it suggests THEY never did find them, being incompetent and compromised.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Romney is doing this to see how much the MSM will scream about it.
Then he can say where are Owe-bamas COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS?
The MSM will fall silent, because it suggests THEY never did find them, being incompetent and compromised.

If he is, he must be a fan of letting the anticipation bubble for two months+.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

do you know what mormons believe?
doesn't matter to me cause i think any religion is silly

Ask Harry Reid. Unlike Romney who was born into the faith, Reid and his wife joined the Mormon church in college (1960s)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Romney is doing this to see how much the MSM will scream about it.
Then he can say where are Owe-bamas COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS?
The MSM will fall silent, because it suggests THEY never did find them, being incompetent and compromised.

It may not be about his grades, but what classes he took. In Dreams from My Father, he stated that when he got to college, he attended "socialist conferences" and "hung out" with Marxist professors. Did that include taking their courses?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It may not be about his grades, but what classes he took. In Dreams from My Father, he stated that when he got to college, he attended "socialist conferences" and "hung out" with Marxist professors. Did that include taking their courses?

Is there really a difference for those who accuse him of being socialist?

I took bible classes in college, does that mean I'm Christian?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is there really a difference for those who accuse him of being socialist?
I took bible classes in college, does that mean I'm Christian?

Did you seek out Christian professors and attend Christian conferences?

[andi*pandi]

Dakar, you damn sneaky dirty Christian, you.

I demand your transcripts!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Did you seek out Christian professors and attend Christian conferences?

See, that's my point. Do the classes really make a difference if you do the first two?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Dakar, you damn sneaky dirty Christian, you.
I demand your transcripts!

Look, I attended classes, a lot of them. I put in all the credits required of me.

[subego]

Here's what I don't get.

If you're looking for insightful information on how someone will act as President, isn't 3½ years of, oh, I don't know... being President, going to make for a better resource to draw from than college transcripts?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's what I don't get.
If you're looking for insightful information on how someone will act as President, isn't 3½ years of, oh, I don't know... being President, going to make for a better resource to draw from than college transcripts?

You're kind of getting a head of me, but my next question is why this closeted socialist's administration is littered with connections to capitalist lapdogs.

But to answer your question, Obama is the best possum ever (Much like Romney and his tax returns). Two epic rope-a-dopes for the ages.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It may not be about his grades, but what classes he took. In Dreams from My Father, he stated that when he got to college, he attended "socialist conferences" and "hung out" with Marxist professors. Did that include taking their courses?

This is a positive in my book, not a negative. There is nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity, and it is to be expected at that age anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Did you seek out Christian professors and attend Christian conferences?

The question is completely irrelevant, you seem to have a knack for fussing over inconsequential things.

Even if Obama was intellectually curious enough to go to these conferences or even if he *was* a socialist back then, people can change you know, it's not a big deal.

I mean, Abe used to be a liberal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is a positive in my book, not a negative. There is nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity, and it is to be expected at that age anyway.

I went to art school. It clearly turned me into a communist zombie.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's what I don't get.

If you're looking for insightful information on how someone will act as President, isn't 3½ years of, oh, I don't know... being President, going to make for a better resource to draw from than college transcripts?

And that right there shows just how utterly retarded this entire "college transcripts" mantra is.

OAW

[besson3c]

You want to sell somebody on Romney *with* mentioning Obama? Stop throwing the anti-Obama spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. A little focus and coherency will make some of the Republican viewpoints seem less out there, and this focus includes dropping complete non-issues or issues that are of little importance such as his college transcripts, birth certificate, who he hung out with, him being a secret communist socialist Muslim foreign agent, etc. That I can keep referring to that crazy long list of all of the random charges against Obama that started to accumulate in the run up to the 2008 election is rather pathetic.

You can disagree with him without him having to be the dark lord.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And that right there shows just how utterly retarded this entire "college transcripts" mantra is.
OAW

The college transcripts thing is multiple levels of retarded. It is like an onion, you can keep on peeling back layers and discovering new levels of retarded.

[The Final Dakar]

Good job guys, you scared Chongo away! Now we'll never know.

[subego]

The Chongonator will be back.

[The Final Dakar]

Okay, Mods need to add Chongonator tag.

[Chongo]

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTynx1hnfig[/VIDEO]

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're kind of getting a head of me, but my next question is why this closeted socialist's administration is littered with connections to capitalist lapdogs.

Do you know what socialism is?

[Wiskedjak]

Its very interesting that the "sell me on Romney thread without mentioning Obama" thread seems to be all about Obama ...

[kimosABE]

Romney is a courageous, caring, intelligent, hard-working, accomplished, principled, devout, family man, business superstar (specializing in large organizational turnarounds) and seasoned political leader who will save the United States from it's current crises and will be an example of America making the best choice for POTUS since Ronald Reagan. He is a man your children can use as a role model.

He is a fine leader and a fine man.

We may never again have as fine a choice of leader as Mitt Romney.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The college transcripts thing is multiple levels of retarded. It is like an onion, you can keep on peeling back layers and discovering new levels of retarded.

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Romney is a courageous, caring, intelligent, hard-working, accomplished, principled, devout, family man, business superstar (specializing in large organizational turnarounds) and seasoned political leader who will save the United States from it's current crises and will be an example of America making the best choice for POTUS since Ronald Reagan. He is a man your children can use as a role model.
He is a fine leader and a fine man.
We may never again have as fine a choice of leader as Mitt Romney.

I saw you mention in the other thread Romney wasn't the best candidate in 2008.

Seems a little odd to say we may never have as fine a choice when four years ago we had a better choice.

[kimosABE]

If I told you the person you were going to have unprotected sex with was suspected of having a history of high-risk sex, you sound like someone who would look at the suspected sex partner, become enthralled with their appearance or some other aesthetic and insist on NOT asking them the tough questions. You seem as though you certainly wouldn't practice safe sex with that charming suitor.

Oh, you say you WOULD (wisely) ask them about their sexual history?

You say you WOULD practice safe sex?

Then why in hell would you insist on giving a candidate for the job of most powerful man on Earth to someone who refuses to answer questions that are crucial to making an informed choice about this country's future?

You wouldn't let someone with suspect germs infect your body. But you'd casually allow a potential cancer in our highest office togo unexamined.

That is lunacy.

Scary.

BORDERING ON CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

Some might say, well why don't you call for Mitt to release more than two years of tax returns?

Because Mitt has met the legal requirements. And giving up anything beyond those two years' returns just supplies his opponents ammunition to 'fly speck' him with. His returns are not crucial to knowing whether Mitt's mere presence might be a threat to our nation's future.

Obama's transcripts could tell us a great deal about Obama's past. They would help explain why he is so hostile to business. How he can so casually cut so much from our national defense budget. Why he has made our nation's friends feel alienated and our nation's opponents feel fortified and encouraged as they roll out dangerous and provocative policies. How he can abide 42 straight months of 8% + unemployment and have the gall to expect to earn reelection. How he can so easily and readily launch a campaign of class warfare deaignedbto bring out the worst in our nature.

Do I have to go on???

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I saw you mention in the other thread Romney wasn't the best candidate in 2008.
Seems a little odd to say we may never have as fine a choice when four years ago we had a better choice.

I said that Mitt wasn't the best candidate in '08. McCain was. Mitt is the beat choice we have had since Reagan and in the same vein as FDR if he does what he's shown he can do and has done before.

[subego]

Mitt is the best choice since Reagan, except for the choice we had with McCain, who's better than Romney?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You want to sell somebody on Romney *with* mentioning Obama? Stop throwing the anti-Obama spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. A little focus and coherency will make some of the Republican viewpoints seem less out there, and this focus includes dropping complete non-issues or issues that are of little importance such as his college transcripts, birth certificate, who he hung out with, him being a secret communist socialist Muslim foreign agent, etc. That I can keep referring to that crazy long list of all of the random charges against Obama that started to accumulate in the run up to the 2008 election is rather pathetic.

You can disagree with him without him having to be the dark lord.

You keep saying things like THAT. As though we are just making this stuff up without any reason.

Let's try this...

besson3c, what if all the things we are saying about him are true? What if our suspicions are proven to be well founded?

Would you support Romney?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Mitt is the best choice since Reagan, except for the choice we had with McCain, who's better than Romney?

I don't get your question.

Romney is the best NOMINEE since Reagan.

Does that make it clearer to you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I don't get your question.
Romney is the best NOMINEE since Reagan.
Does that make it clearer to you?

Yes, but it brings us back to besson's question. If he's such an awesome nominee, why did he fail to get nominated in 2008?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You keep saying things like THAT. As though we are just making this stuff up without any reason.
Let's try this...
besson3c, what if all the things we are saying about him are true? What if our suspicions are proven to be well founded?
Would you support Romney?

What if unicorns are real?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

See, that's my point. Do the classes really make a difference if you do the first two?

If your subsequent behavior suggests you've adopted the philosophy you were exposd to, then yes! The classes made a difference to you and yes they make a difference in our trying to make an informed decision about whether we want to give you access to the steering wheel of state.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What if unicorns are real?

So, you are actually the one who is closed minded. We can all see it now. Thank you for finally being (unintentionally) straight with us.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes, but it brings us back to besson's question. If he's such an awesome nominee, why did he fail to get nominated in 2008?

He wasn't as good a candidate then as he is now. The process of running and then losing and running again has made him a better candidate.

AND, as I said earlier, the GOP rank & file as well as the Party eatablishment seemed to want to give McCain a chance at POTUS.

It was his turn at bat.

He deserved it and he'd earned it in more ways than one.

[subego]

Gotcha. Makes sense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

So, you are actually the one who is closed minded. We can all see it now. Thank you for finally being (unintentionally) straight with us.

In order for me to be closed minded I'd have to actually understand what it is you are talking about. I cannot agree with your summations without knowing the concrete specifics as to how you arrived at your conclusions. The summations definitely do not stand on their own. In fact, they are downright loony.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

If I told you the person you were going to have unprotected sex with was suspected of having a history of high-risk sex, you sound like someone who would look at the suspected sex partner, become enthralled with their appearance or some other aesthetic and insist on NOT asking them the tough questions. You seem as though you certainly wouldn't practice safe sex with that charming suitor.
Oh, you say you WOULD (wisely) ask them about their sexual history?
You say you WOULD practice safe sex?
Then why in hell would you insist on giving a candidate for the job of most powerful man on Earth to someone who refuses to answer questions that are crucial to making an informed choice about this country's future?
You wouldn't let someone with suspect germs infect your body. But you'd casually allow a potential cancer in our highest office togo unexamined.
That is lunacy.
Scary.
BORDERING ON CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
Some might say, well why don't you call for Mitt to release more than two years of tax returns?
Because Mitt has met the legal requirements. And giving up anything beyond those two years' returns just supplies his opponents ammunition to 'fly speck' him with. His returns are not crucial to knowing whether Mitt's mere presence might be a threat to our nation's future.
Obama's transcripts could tell us a great deal about Obama's past. They would help explain why he is so hostile to business. How he can so casually cut so much from our national defense budget. Why he has made our nation's friends feel alienated and our nation's opponents feel fortified and encouraged as they roll out dangerous and provocative policies. How he can abide 42 straight months of 8% + unemployment and have the gall to expect to earn reelection. How he can so easily and readily launch a campaign of class warfare deaignedbto bring out the worst in our nature.
Do I have to go on???

It's interesting that your ranting about Obama is 3x longer than your raving about Romney, in the "Sell Me On Romney Without Mentioning Obama" thread. If Romney is the best choice (rather than being the anything-but-Obama choice), shouldn't you have more to rave about him without having to resort to ranting about Obama?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Its very interesting that the "sell me on Romney thread without mentioning Obama" thread seems to be all about Obama ...

To be fair, the thread was doing pretty well until BadKosh derailed it with one of his patented rants. Then Chongo jumped in. Then it devolved.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's interesting that your ranting about Obama is 3x longer than your raving about Romney, in the "Sell Me On Romney Without Mentioning Obama" thread. If Romney is the best choice (rather than being the anything-but-Obama choice), shouldn't you have more to rave about him without having to resort to ranting about Obama?

Not necessarily.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In order for me to be closed minded I'd have to actually understand what it is you are talking about. I cannot agree with your summations without knowing the concrete specifics as to how you arrived at your conclusions. The summations definitely do not stand on their own. In fact, they are downright loony.

I'm taking a break from you. I'll let you know when the break is over.

Why a break?

You ask questions for the sake of getting me to elaborate while already knowing what I mean, sometimes. And, at other times I get the impression you don't use your own brain before asking legitimate questions.

And if you'd contest these beliefs of mine let's just say we both need a break from each other.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I'm taking a break from you. I'll let you know when the break is over.
Why a break?
You ask questions for the sake of getting me to elaborate while already knowing what I mean, sometimes. And, at other times I get the impression you don't use your own brain before asking legitimate questions.
And if you'd contest these beliefs of mine let's just say we both need a break from each other.

I usually actually have no idea what you mean, because you generally don't provide concrete specifics. Why not just make a habit out of doing so? We can't really discuss your feelings about Obama, or anybody's feelings about anything.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes, but it brings us back to besson's question. If he's such an awesome nominee, why did he fail to get nominated in 2008?

Same reason Obama was elected. America took a collective hit off the crack pipe and forgot that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Have you ever had that drunk friend that would do whatever everyone suggested to them, just to be liked and considered cool? Yeah, that was America and the alcohol was Bush-hate.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Same reason Obama was elected. America took a collective hit off the crack pipe and forgot that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Have you ever had that drunk friend that would do whatever everyone suggested to them, just to be liked and considered cool? Yeah, that was America and the alcohol was Bush-hate.