Conquer Club

<Removed>

I don't really buy the argument that Romney is worse (or more embarrassing, either) than Palin.

Funny, heh....comparing one of the biggest morons of the Republican Party... Palin.

Romney is not exactly an expert on foreign policy, but Palin has a deficit of brain matter that makes Romney seem almost like a Einstein.

bedub1 wrote:Romney is an embarrassment to America.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/whats_w ... th_romney/

Boy, Sarah Palin must be happy. With British sources blasting Romney (anonymously) as “worse than Palin,” there’s some vindication for the woman reviled for her lack of foreign policy experience. Even George W. Bush has to enjoy it a little: Daily Mail political editor James Chapman tweeted midday “Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”

I’ve found myself wondering over the course of the campaign whether Romney has some kind of personality disorder, so dissociated does he occasionally seem from the well-worn routines of normal human interaction. Maybe we should be asking to see his medical records and not just his tax returns. I don’t mean to be flippant about that or insensitive to any kind of problem he may struggle with. But his struggles are our struggles; he’s running to be our president. There is something very odd about Mitt Romney.

The man is clearly incompetent, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars he made in the private sector. A man with hair that perfect really should be a billionaire.

GabonX wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Romney is an embarrassment to America.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/whats_w ... th_romney/

Boy, Sarah Palin must be happy. With British sources blasting Romney (anonymously) as “worse than Palin,” there’s some vindication for the woman reviled for her lack of foreign policy experience. Even George W. Bush has to enjoy it a little: Daily Mail political editor James Chapman tweeted midday “Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”

I’ve found myself wondering over the course of the campaign whether Romney has some kind of personality disorder, so dissociated does he occasionally seem from the well-worn routines of normal human interaction. Maybe we should be asking to see his medical records and not just his tax returns. I don’t mean to be flippant about that or insensitive to any kind of problem he may struggle with. But his struggles are our struggles; he’s running to be our president. There is something very odd about Mitt Romney.

The man is clearly incompetent, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars he made in the private sector. A man with hair that perfect really should be a billionaire.

Making money doesn't have anything to do with humiliating yourself on a global scale.
And by the same right, you just said everybody that's poor is stupid.

Somebody hates Mormons...

GBU56 wrote:Funny, heh....comparing one of the biggest morons of the Republican Party... Palin.

Another victim!

Clearly Obama is the better candidate,

Palin at least had people around to stop her talking to people after a certain point, Romney fired his foreign policy expert because he was gay.

Or, if you believe the spin, he left of his own accord.

Still, this is what you get when you don't have a foreign policy adviser, and you're an idiot. Romneyshambles is the go-to term in the UK. Easiest foreign gig for an American presidential candidate bar Israel. Will be interesting to see how he messes up that one.

bedub1 wrote:

GabonX wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Romney is an embarrassment to America.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/whats_w ... th_romney/

Boy, Sarah Palin must be happy. With British sources blasting Romney (anonymously) as “worse than Palin,” there’s some vindication for the woman reviled for her lack of foreign policy experience. Even George W. Bush has to enjoy it a little: Daily Mail political editor James Chapman tweeted midday “Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”

I’ve found myself wondering over the course of the campaign whether Romney has some kind of personality disorder, so dissociated does he occasionally seem from the well-worn routines of normal human interaction. Maybe we should be asking to see his medical records and not just his tax returns. I don’t mean to be flippant about that or insensitive to any kind of problem he may struggle with. But his struggles are our struggles; he’s running to be our president. There is something very odd about Mitt Romney.

The man is clearly incompetent, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars he made in the private sector. A man with hair that perfect really should be a billionaire.

Making money doesn't have anything to do with humiliating yourself on a global scale.
And by the same right, you just said everybody that's poor is stupid.

Not everybody that is poor is stupid. Most people that are poor are stupid, like the vast majority, but not all of them..

As for this whole foreign relations non issue, it really doesn't bother me that much. The UK is a withered husk of a once great nation. Their backwards social values are destroying their society from the inside out, and if the US wishes to avoid similar degeneration we should not over emphasize the importance of our relationship with them. That's actually one thing Obama got right...

The other thing is, Romney is uniquely qualified to talk about the Olympics as he oversaw organizing the event in 2002. That, and in typical modern UK fashion, the English government is doing all sorts of ridiculous, counter productive, freedom squelching shit:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19932_5- ... mpics.html

GabonX wrote:The other thing is, Romney is uniquely qualified to talk about the Olympics as he oversaw organizing the event in 2002. That, and in typical modern UK fashion, the English government is doing all sorts of ridiculous, counter productive, freedom squelching shit:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19932_5- ... mpics.html

I don't think you and I have the same understanding of the word "uniquely". Also, how far we trust cracked.com as a source of information. Still, it's interesting that supporting Romney causes you do damn a close ally.

Symmetry wrote:

GabonX wrote:The other thing is, Romney is uniquely qualified to talk about the Olympics as he oversaw organizing the event in 2002. That, and in typical modern UK fashion, the English government is doing all sorts of ridiculous, counter productive, freedom squelching shit:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19932_5- ... mpics.html

I don't think you and I have the same understanding of the word "uniquely". Also, how far we trust cracked.com as a source of information. Still, it's interesting that supporting Romney causes you do damn a close ally.

I don't even like Romney that much. It's just that I know he's capable of problem solving unlike our current president.

He's uniquely qualified among politicians in this discussion. I didn't think I would have to dumb things down like that but I guess I should have. I mean I did assume that the cracked article would be on about the right level, so my bad.

How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Nola_Lifer wrote:How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Meh... He's still up 5 points.

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Meh... He's still up 5 points.

Says the polls that no one cares about? Seriously, it was an easy political comment to make. Why make things harder?

Nola_Lifer wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Meh... He's still up 5 points.

Says the polls that no one cares about? Seriously, it was an easy political comment to make. Why make things harder?

Nobody cares about Rasmussen? If you say so...

As for the comment being stupid, from a political perspective it probably was a little bit, but it's really not that big a deal. Romney is usually pretty good about pandering to the crowd, probably my least favorite thing about him, but he's really not under any political strain to pander to backwards Britain.

There's definitely some issues with the guy, lack of transparency, instituting a health care program almost identical to the one he now opposes, etc., but the fact is that his skill set in rebuilding business insfrastructure is exactly what the country needs right now. He's not my ideal candidate, but he's already proven in the private sector that he has the ideal skill set for the current problems we face as a nation.

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Meh... He's still up 5 points.

Says the polls that no one cares about? Seriously, it was an easy political comment to make. Why make things harder?

Nobody cares about Rasmussen? If you say so...

As for the comment being stupid, from a political perspective it probably was a little bit, but it's really not that big a deal. Romney is usually pretty good about pandering to the crowd, probably my least favorite thing about him, but he's really not under any political strain to pander to backwards Britain.

There's definitely some issues with the guy, lack of transparency, instituting a health care program almost identical to the one he now opposes, etc., but the fact is that his skill set in rebuilding business insfrastructure is exactly what the country needs right now. He's not my ideal candidate, but he's already proven in the private sector that he has the ideal skill set for the current problems we face as a nation.

Except for anything to do with global economics, diplomacy, foreign affairs, and international relations, right?

Cause he's proving to be a clusterfuck so far if you think America's future relates to any of those.

Symmetry wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:How easy is it to say that the Olympics are going to be great and fun and that London did an excellent job? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot for no apparent reason. This should of been a simple answer and move on. Instead Romney screwed the pooch.

Meh... He's still up 5 points.

Says the polls that no one cares about? Seriously, it was an easy political comment to make. Why make things harder?

Nobody cares about Rasmussen? If you say so...

As for the comment being stupid, from a political perspective it probably was a little bit, but it's really not that big a deal. Romney is usually pretty good about pandering to the crowd, probably my least favorite thing about him, but he's really not under any political strain to pander to backwards Britain.

There's definitely some issues with the guy, lack of transparency, instituting a health care program almost identical to the one he now opposes, etc., but the fact is that his skill set in rebuilding business insfrastructure is exactly what the country needs right now. He's not my ideal candidate, but he's already proven in the private sector that he has the ideal skill set for the current problems we face as a nation.

Except for anything to do with global economics, diplomacy, foreign affairs, and international relations, right?

Cause he's proving to be a clusterfuck so far if you think America's future relates to any of those.

Nah, he's got most of that shit right.

Have you watched the debates? Romney doesn't know shit.

GabonX wrote:I don't even like Romney that much. It's just that I know he's capable of problem solving unlike our current president.

The ONLY reason...and I stress "ONLY"...that Romney could have less trouble in problem solving than Obama has had is because he won't have a Congress that is doing everything it possibly can to subvert his Presidency. It's amazing to me how much the Republican populace has ignored the utter disdain which the Republican Congressional leadership treat this nation in the effort to do whatever they can to make Obama look bad. Sometimes, it makes me believe that both the Republican Congressional leadership AND the Republican populace at large don't really care about the nation as much as they care about "winning".

Woodruff wrote:
The ONLY reason...and I stress "ONLY"...that Romney could have less trouble in problem solving than Obama has had is because he won't have a Congress that is doing everything it possibly can to subvert his Presidency. It's amazing to me how much the Republican populace has ignored the utter disdain which the Republican Congressional leadership treat this nation in the effort to do whatever they can to make Obama look bad. Sometimes, it makes me believe that both the Republican Congressional leadership AND the Republican populace at large don't really care about the nation as much as they care about "winning".

Now, I agree that Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) will quickly put "winning" above the good of the nation.

However, I have to mention that Obama and his Democrat party had Supermajority in House and Senate for the first two years of his term.
I mean, the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop or move anything at all. They couldn't even filibuster. How much subversion could they possible do under those circumstances? The Democrats had tough times with their own people getting certain things passed and done during the time that really had nothing to do with Republicans, but that Democrat politicians knew they were facing political suicide positions often enough to give them pause.

The fact that the Democrats took such a whipping during the 2010 midterms shows that those Democrat politicians were quite correct at the cost of "going with the flow" of what Obama and the Dem leadership wanted.

Just sayin' is all. But yes, both parties are equally as bad at looking out for themselves than looking out for the nation.

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
The ONLY reason...and I stress "ONLY"...that Romney could have less trouble in problem solving than Obama has had is because he won't have a Congress that is doing everything it possibly can to subvert his Presidency. It's amazing to me how much the Republican populace has ignored the utter disdain which the Republican Congressional leadership treat this nation in the effort to do whatever they can to make Obama look bad. Sometimes, it makes me believe that both the Republican Congressional leadership AND the Republican populace at large don't really care about the nation as much as they care about "winning".

Now, I agree that Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) will quickly put "winning" above the good of the nation.

However, I have to mention that Obama and his Democrat party had Supermajority in House and Senate for the first two years of his term.
I mean, the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop or move anything at all. They couldn't even filibuster. How much subversion could they possible do under those circumstances? The Democrats had tough times with their own people getting certain things passed and done during the time that really had nothing to do with Republicans, but that Democrat politicians knew they were facing political suicide positions often enough to give them pause.

The fact that the Democrats took such a whipping during the 2010 midterms shows that those Democrat politicians were quite correct at the cost of "going with the flow" of what Obama and the Dem leadership wanted.

Just sayin' is all. But yes, both parties are equally as bad at looking out for themselves than looking out for the nation.

How does this relate to International relations? Clearly the Repubs are terrible at dealing with the rest of the world, and even if you're right or left leaning, Romney is awful at it.

At some point the US electorate should be thinking about about how the US will deal with its traditional allies (hint: Romney just did a piss poor performance), and how it will deal with emerging powers (Romney knows f*ck all, but he helped staged the Olympics, not like being President for four years).

But hey...

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
The ONLY reason...and I stress "ONLY"...that Romney could have less trouble in problem solving than Obama has had is because he won't have a Congress that is doing everything it possibly can to subvert his Presidency. It's amazing to me how much the Republican populace has ignored the utter disdain which the Republican Congressional leadership treat this nation in the effort to do whatever they can to make Obama look bad. Sometimes, it makes me believe that both the Republican Congressional leadership AND the Republican populace at large don't really care about the nation as much as they care about "winning".

Now, I agree that Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) will quickly put "winning" above the good of the nation.

However, I have to mention that Obama and his Democrat party had Supermajority in House and Senate for the first two years of his term.
I mean, the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop or move anything at all. They couldn't even filibuster. How much subversion could they possible do under those circumstances? The Democrats had tough times with their own people getting certain things passed and done during the time that really had nothing to do with Republicans, but that Democrat politicians knew they were facing political suicide positions often enough to give them pause.

The fact that the Democrats took such a whipping during the 2010 midterms shows that those Democrat politicians were quite correct at the cost of "going with the flow" of what Obama and the Dem leadership wanted.

Just sayin' is all. But yes, both parties are equally as bad at looking out for themselves than looking out for the nation.

How does this relate to International relations? Clearly the Repubs are terrible at dealing with the rest of the world, and even if you're right or left leaning, Romney is awful at it.

At some point the US electorate should be thinking about about how the US will deal with its traditional allies (hint: Romney just did a piss poor performance), and how it will deal with emerging powers (Romney knows f*ck all, but he helped staged the Olympics, not like being President for four years).

I don't think his response was directly at international relations so much as a direct response to what I was talking about (which was much more general in nature).

Bugger, yes- you're right. My mistake. Still, it was a good mistake.