Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:Romney debates against himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&hd=1

And then...Phatscotty should like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related

bedub1 wrote: Given it <his position> changes on a daily basis, and changes based upon who he's talking to. The reason he <Romney> "won" the debate is cause <because> he lied his ass off to make himself appeal to lots of people. He backtracked on everything he said during his campaign, and his position has now swung 180 degrees to the other side.

Night Strike wrote:

bedub1 wrote:When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

He clearly said in the debate that he wouldn't lower the share of taxes paid by the riches, which means the overall percentage of taxes paid by the rich. That is achieved by closing deductions and/or capping them.


By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

jimboston wrote:I would normally be a Romney supporter... by his flip-flopping HAS been so annoying that it's turning me off.
So I'm voting for the Libertarian. Not that it matters here in Mass.... because our Electoral votes are going to Obama anyway... but that's a different topic.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

bedub1 wrote:When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

He clearly said in the debate that he wouldn't lower the share of taxes paid by the riches, which means the overall percentage of taxes paid by the rich. That is achieved by closing deductions and/or capping them.


By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

and let's not forget W with weapons of mass descruction in iraq, and clinton about having sex with that woman... I honestly can't think of a president that hasn't lied about something, much less your run of the mill politician... if we had to arrest every politician who lied we'd probably have more politicians than murderers in jail, and fewer politicians left in govt. than janitors...

BigBallinStalin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

bedub1 wrote:When rMoney states that he won't lower taxes on the rich, but his plan clearly does this, should he be disqualified from the election?

He clearly said in the debate that he wouldn't lower the share of taxes paid by the riches, which means the overall percentage of taxes paid by the rich. That is achieved by closing deductions and/or capping them.


By the way, why do you only name Romney in your post as a liar? What about the lies Obama has told about Libya, just to name one?

and let's not forget W with weapons of mass descruction in iraq, and clinton about having sex with that woman... I honestly can't think of a president that hasn't lied about something, much less your run of the mill politician... if we had to arrest every politician who lied we'd probably have more politicians than murderers in jail, and fewer politicians left in govt. than janitors...

Sorry but prisons are reserved for serious crimes like smoking a joint and getting angry in a bar and punching someone in the face.

There may be some truth to Eddie Izzard's stand-up routine. You talks about serial killers and one-time murderers. Boo hiss! Evil men, throw them in jail. But if you kill > 6 million people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot have done, then... he jokingly congratulated them on how impressive that was. Politicians can enable mass killings, but most tend to not view them as the direct causes of the deaths. This may be why people get upset when you tell them that American President So-and-So should be tried for war crimes (for killing innocent civilians, invading 2 countries, bombing so-and-so, supporting terrorists at place X, etc.).

I blame it on nationalism to explain the general public's lack of demand for justice here, but more importantly it's the rules of the game for politicians. The institution in which they operate does not hold them accountable (sorry, PLAYER, voting is ineffective). It's the "who watches the watchman" problem.

tzor wrote:

jimboston wrote:I would normally be a Romney supporter... by his flip-flopping HAS been so annoying that it's turning me off.
So I'm voting for the Libertarian. Not that it matters here in Mass.... because our Electoral votes are going to Obama anyway... but that's a different topic.

But Jim, that's just like a vote for Obama. Do I have to remind you, a true son of Boston that Obama is a White Sox fan? That he nominated and had confirmed a Yankee fan to the Supreme Court? Do you want four more years of that? It's apathy like this that resulted in the Red Sox meing managed by a has been ex Met who then traded out over half of the team away before the season ended, a move that was almost close enough to the most dreaded year when the World Series winning Florida Marlins were traded out in their entirity by the money grubbing owner of the team, dooming them to a decade (or more) of being outright pathetic and not worth anyone's time, even with a new stadium and an attempt to connect to the occasionally non city of Miami.

You can defeat Obama if you try. They said the senate seat wouldn't fall to a Republican in Mass either. Don't make John Adams rise from his grave and kick your ass.

tzor wrote:That he nominated and had confirmed a Yankee fan to the Supreme Court?