Why? Who do African Americans go 95%+ and Latinos go 70%+ for (D)?

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by cant wait

thanks for proving me right you fcking crybaby

Please watch the profanity. Good thoughts to you.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

Get a rich dad and hire accountants to find loopholes for you. Then put your dog on the roof rack and hit the highway at 70 mph.

Ahh. The class warfare. Why so much hate for rich people? Yes, he was born rich. Good for him. His father was a smart man and now his family will benefit for generations. THAT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!! It is a good thing. I believe in equal opportunity NOT equal outcome. Either Mitt's father or grandfather started from the same position most of us are in now AND THEY MADE IT. Can't blame Mitt for that. I admire that.

As for tax loopholes, he is not breaking the law so I can't cry about it. Do I think we need tax reform to close the loopholes? Hell yes, but I am not demonizing people for having the means to benefit.

EDIT. Just looked up the dog story. -- Can't defend the dog story. I am a dog lover and it did bother me to hear that. But the version I heard said they shielded the crate. But then again OBAMA ATE DOGS!!! Phuckin savage.

[Jetdawgg]

Is this not insulting and disgraceful?

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Dunno.

Why did whites go 71% for Romney?


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

They didn't...

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by FF2®

A president doesn't really run our economy.

Touché, bad choice of words from me but lets not get sidetracked from Timmy's main point or my response as to who the more qualified person is regarding the economy.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Ahh. The class warfare. Why so much hate for rich people?

Never said I hated the rich. A smart rich guy would be a perfect president.
Mitt's not smart, he's in big trouble when he opens his mouth without a planned response. There are 5-10 guys in the Hampur, and I'm one of them, who would crush Mitt on an IQ test.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Ahh. The class warfare. Why so much hate for rich people? Yes, he was born rich. Good for him. His father was a smart man and now his family will benefit for generations. THAT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!! It is a good thing. I believe in equal opportunity NOT equal outcome. Either Mitt's father or grandfather started from the same position most of us are in now AND THEY MADE IT. Can't blame Mitt for that. I admire that.

As for tax loopholes, he is not breaking the law so I can't cry about it. Do I think we need tax reform to close the loopholes? Hell yes, but I am not demonizing people for having the means to benefit.

EDIT. Just looked up the dog story. -- Can't defend the dog story. I am a dog lover and it did bother me to hear that. But the version I heard said they shielded the crate. But then again OBAMA ATE DOGS!!! Phuckin savage.

Wait!? That wasn't a National Lampoon's Vacation reference????

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

Never said I hated the rich. A smart rich guy would be a perfect president.
Mitt's not smart, he's in big trouble when he opens his mouth without a planned response. There are 5-10 guys in the Hampur, and I'm one of them, who would crush Mitt on an IQ test.

You? LMAO. Isn't there a warrant out for your arrest in more than one location? Seem to recall that lament.

Mitt's verbal delivery style is not the best I've heard. And Obama is a dolt without the teleprompter. Neither would have fared well in the corporations I served where verbal presentation is critical for survival.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Is this not insulting and disgraceful?

Goes both ways. I don't condone it but lets be honest, Eastwood was child's play compared to some of the things that have gone in the past two elections:

What about insinuating your opponent is responsible for the death of someone's wife. Or calling Bush "unpatriotic".

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That's irresponsible, that's unpatriotic," he said.

What would Obama call himself for his $6T tab?

Originally Posted by Timmy®

Never said I hated the rich. A smart rich guy would be a perfect president.
Mitt's not smart, he's in big trouble when he opens his mouth without a planned response. There are 5-10 guys in the Hampur, and I'm one of them, who would crush Mitt on an IQ test.

How exactly does having a high IQ make someone a good President? And since you have a high IQ, I do not need to remind you of Obama's gaffes when he has spoken off the cuff, sans teleprompter.

Romney has had success in both the private and public sectors. He has a record as a problem solver. Obama has a record too and in 4 years I am not sure if the George Bush excuse is going to cut it anymore. Actually, maybe it will if he has enough people on the Gov't nipple. Or maybe the liberal media will demonize the "House Republicans" to the point where that becomes an excuse.

[Jetdawgg]

Just how well did this backfire work for the r's?

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Goes both ways. I don't condone it but lets be honest, Eastwood was child's play compared to some of the things that have gone in the past two elections:

What about insinuating your opponent is responsible for the death of someone's wife. Or calling Bush "unpatriotic".

What would Obama call himself for his $6T tab?



How exactly does having a high IQ make someone a good President?

I believe a president needs a high IQ.

I can think of three real gaffes by Obama.

Getting caught saying he'd work with the Russians after he was re-elected.

Calling blue collar workers in the midwest "bitter".

Making a tasteless joke about the special olympics.

I'm sure there have been many more, but he has been walking around with a microphone in his face for 4 years. Romney went to England for a Goodwill tour and on the second day there was a headline of Mitt the Twit.

My IQ is 120-125, that will be plenty.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Goes both ways. I don't condone it but lets be honest, Eastwood was child's play compared to some of the things that have gone in the past two elections:

What about insinuating your opponent is responsible for the death of someone's wife. Or calling Bush "unpatriotic".

What would Obama call himself for his $6T tab?



How exactly does having a high IQ make someone a good President? And since you have a high IQ, I do not need to remind you of Obama's gaffes when he has spoken off the cuff, sans teleprompter.

Romney has had success in both the private and public sectors. He has a record as a problem solver. Obama has a record too and in 4 years I am not sure if the George Bush excuse is going to cut it anymore. Actually, maybe it will if he has enough people on the Gov't nipple. Or maybe the liberal media will demonize the "House Republicans" to the point where that becomes an excuse.

You don't insult the POTUS in any venue like that. That act was very hostile and never done to ANY other POTUS. The rw is just to extreme for AA's to give serious consideration to becoming a part of.

Many AA's are religious too. There is damn near a church on every block in Harlem and the south is loaded with churches. So being conservative is an AA trait.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

You don't insult the POTUS in any venue like that. That act was very hostile and never done to ANY other POTUS.

Sorry, but every President in U.S. History has faced criticism and mocking. Every single one.

Some, like Bush, quite a bit more than others. Some, like Bush, rightfully so.

To portray Obama as facing some form of "unprecedented" criticism is either outright ignorance of history, or a flat out lie.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sorry, but every President in U.S. History has faced criticism and mocking. Every single one.

Some, like Bush, quite a bit more than others. Some, like Bush, rightfully so.

To portray Obama as facing some form of "unprecedented" criticism is either outright ignorance of history, or a flat out lie.

What other POTUS ever faced anything like that?

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I think W was pretty smart. Harvard MBA, fighter pilot. Some smarts required there.
Harry Truman was virtually uneducated BTW.

I feel sorry for any person who has to learn anything from you. You are the epitome of the Right Wing Bubble. Both R's and D's know that Bush was an idiot. Why do you think he was persona non grata during this whole election season? Clinton campaigned for Obama and spoke at the Dem convention, you couldn't even find a picture of Bush at the Repub convention. He was a legacy inclusion at Harvard so of course he passed (with C's). Fighter pilot? He took a couple flights over Texas for the National Guard. How dare you insult REAL Navy fighter pilots who have actually flown in hostile areas in and out of combat. Who did Bush have an aerial fight with, the Mad Pigeons of Lubbock?

Harry Truman was smart enough to go down as one of our best presidents. Don't insult the man by mentioning him in the same breath as Dumbya.

You're proof that money can't buy brains.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

What other POTUS ever faced anything like that?

Adams, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Grover Cleveland.
Off the top of my head. Some pretty nasty stuff.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

I feel sorry for any person who has to learn anything from you. You are the epitome of the Right Wing Bubble. Both R's and D's know that Bush was an idiot. Why do you think he was persona non grata during this whole election season? Clinton campaigned for Obama and spoke at the Dem convention, you couldn't even find a picture of Bush at the Repub convention. He was a legacy inclusion at Harvard so of course he passed (with C's). Fighter pilot? He took a couple flights over Texas for the National Guard. How dare you insult REAL Navy fighter pilots who have actually flown in hostile areas in and out of combat. Who did Bush have an aerial fight with, the Mad Pigeons of Lubbock?

But he still managed to beat Gore and Kerry.

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

But he still managed to beat Gore and Kerry.

True, he did. Several reasons for that.

2000: Gore ran a terrible campaign (he ignored Clinton), Lieberman was a bad VP pick (I actually voted Libertarian that year because of him), Nader took a lot of Dem votes, the whole Elian episode in Miami galvanized Cuban GOP voters, Bush had a known last name, and finally the recount debacle.

2004: Kerry was not a great candidate, he allowed himself to be Swift boated and defined by the GOP, Americans were hesitant to vote out an incumbent with two wars going on. The Dems made the same mistake the GOP made this year, betting on the "Anyone But Bush/Obama" vote.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

You don't insult the POTUS in any venue like that. That act was very hostile and never done to ANY other POTUS. The rw is just to extreme for AA's to give serious consideration to becoming a part of.

Many AA's are religious too. There is damn near a church on every block in Harlem and the south is loaded with churches. So being conservative is an AA trait.

So if I am reading this correctly you take issue with the venue, the RNC. So it is OK to put out ads basically calling someone a murderer and to refer to the sitting President as "unpatriotic" at campaign events but it is NOT OK for someone to "insult" the president at a political convention? Also like to add that Eastwood was unscripted and I haven't seen any proof that the RNC knew what he was going to say.

BTW those "churches" you refer to in the city, for many of them, religion is not their only purpose. Certainly you are not that naive. And being religious does not equal being conservative. Reps do not have a monopoly on religion.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

2004: Kerry was not a great candidate, he allowed himself to be Swift boated and defined by the GOP, Americans were hesitant to vote out an incumbent with two wars going on. The Dems made the same mistake the GOP made this year, betting on the "Anyone But Bush/Obama" vote.

Very true. And the GOP allowed the Dems to define them this year. The primary process was awful for the GOP. They cannot keep parading these loons. They need to focus on legitimate candidates only and they must realize that the longer the process goes on, the worse off the party is.

If the Reps don't learn from this then they get what they deserve. It will be very interesting to see how they handle the mid-term elections as well as the 2016 primaries. But above all they need to get off the abortion nonsense and revise their stance on immigration. They do that and they have a shot. Young women and Hispanics killed them.