Author Topic: Old news - but not publicized much:  (Read 1468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Old news - but not publicized much:
« on: April 23, 2012, 09:28:33 PM »
Anyone ever read McCain's mud slinging research on Romney? http://www.docstoc.com/docs/102095500/The-Romney-Book


'Lotta scary stuff there.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Bloodfart

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5663
  • I don't run out of gas.
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2012, 11:47:29 PM »
DNR all of it or much of it.  Printed it and will read later.  Last quote was very telling.

Quote
I thought becoming rich and famous would make me happy.  Boy was I right.

 :blank:

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2012, 11:22:23 AM »
DNR all of it or much of it.  Printed it and will read later.  Last quote was very telling.

Quote
I thought becoming rich and famous would make me happy.  Boy was I right.

 :blank:

Whatever drives you to succeed isn't a bad thing, as long as it's legal. I think most people, without mental problems, would agree that rich is better than poor. I know there are a few other reasons to try and succeed, like for the good of humanity, to prove your self worth to someone else, blah blah blah, but, in reality the one universal driving force to succeed is money, and the liberals are trying to squash this incentive. Why work that much harder when the government is going to take a higher and higher percentage of your incentive? Why hire more people and expand when the returns are proportionally diminished? "Wealth punishment" is the mindset of those who don't believe they can overcome their own laziness or lack of mental capacity to become truly wealthy, but, in America, you are free to become comfortable working for a wealthy person. As a wise man once said, "The world needs ditch diggers, too".

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 11:49:28 AM »
Romney becoming happier after becoming wealthier is not why I posted this.  I think reading through this showed me that Obama and Romney are really not that different. He favors strict gun control, socialized medicine, can't decide if he's pro-life or pro-choice, shows no signs of actually cutting spending, among other things. The quotes just show that he's a grease ball - which is no surprise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37111
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2012, 01:20:29 PM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2012, 09:06:59 PM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Plus, they are both the Michael Jordan of special interest.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2012, 09:39:41 PM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Romney WAS a democrat until 1993.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37111
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2012, 12:03:12 AM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Romney WAS a democrat until 1993.

That is irrelevant. If Romney has proven anything, it's that his personal feelings do not matter. He will take the stance that the poll numbers tell him to take.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2012, 08:30:34 AM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Romney WAS a democrat until 1993.

That is irrelevant. If Romney has proven anything, it's that his personal feelings do not matter. He will take the stance that the poll numbers tell him to take.

So he's Clinton without the sex addiction. Liberals should be voting for him in droves.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2012, 09:23:45 AM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Romney WAS a democrat until 1993.

That is irrelevant. If Romney has proven anything, it's that his personal feelings do not matter. He will take the stance that the poll numbers tell him to take.

Not that I don't think that's a tremendous load of bullshit, but if that's true - that's just what we need; another president without any principles or morals.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37111
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2012, 09:25:29 AM »
The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama will veto any legislation proposed by the republicans while Romney will veto any proposed legislation by the democrats. They are very similar as people, though Obama is much better at not seeming completely out of touch.

Romney WAS a democrat until 1993.

That is irrelevant. If Romney has proven anything, it's that his personal feelings do not matter. He will take the stance that the poll numbers tell him to take.

So he's Clinton without the sex addiction. Liberals should be voting for him in droves.

Agreed, though to be fair, we might just not know about his sex addiction yet.

Offline Bloodfart

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5663
  • I don't run out of gas.
    • View Profile
Re: Old news - but not publicized much:
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2012, 10:45:53 PM »
The only issue Romney is consistent on is more taxes.  I know they are a necessary evil but c'mon.

Quote
Romney Tax On Being Blind Was Opposed By Veterans Groups.
 “It now costs to be blind in Massachusetts. The state’s approximately 35,000 blind and legally blind residents must now pay $10 annually for a certificate of blindness and $15 every four years for a blind identification card. … The fees originated in February, in Gov. Mitt Romney’s budget proposal for fiscal 2004. … ‘It’s just another form of taxation,’ said Stephen Matthews, a national service officer for the Blinded Veterans Association, who has lobbied against the fees. ‘They’re burdening the people who can least afford it.’”

Where the eff do they come up with these ideas for taxing?