Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

# RomneyShamblesFollow

#177 Sep 13 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
I dunno, those pep rally kids can put up quite a fight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Sep 13 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Don't retreat, just reload.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#179 Sep 13 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
A new Esquire/Yahoo News poll confirms what most other national polls are showing this week: President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters nationwide, 50% to 46%.

Also interesting: Americans believe Obama would win in a fistfight with Romney, 58% to 22%.
Smiley: laugh

In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#180 Sep 13 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#181 Sep 13 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
It'd be fun to listen for Teddy to scream "BULLY!" after every kill, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#182 Sep 13 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.

Too bad we can't put FDR in a Mech.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#183 Sep 13 2012 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
I can see Ford tripping over himself and gutting himself.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#184 Sep 13 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.


Didn't he go with TR?

My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.
#185 Sep 13 2012 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.
This. No contest. Teddy was angry, but too fat.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#186 Sep 13 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Don't retreat, just ******.

#187 Sep 13 2012 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#188 Sep 13 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Grant would be my first and most obvious pick. I'd have to study the bios, stats etc before actually putting any money on the contest though.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#189 Sep 13 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If fifty-eleven years of Survivor has taught us anything, it's that all the average guys vastly outnumber the exceptional guys and will dogpile them down, thus assuring that the eventual winner is just a hair above average but not good enough to have been a first minute target.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Sep 13 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
So many old people on that list.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#191 Sep 13 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.

Didn't Teddy get shot during a speech and still finish it?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#192 Sep 13 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.

Tall guy, long reach. Skinny guys fight 'till they're burger.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#193 Sep 13 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,403 posts
Debalic wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.

Tall guy, long reach. Skinny guys fight 'till they're burger.


Shatner. I'd fight Shatner.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#194 Sep 13 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
However, I'm curious. You insist that Romney wasn't targeting Obama himself with his statements of disgraceful sympathizers but you haven't said WHO exactly the disgraceful sympathizers are.


First off, let's stop calling them "sympathizers". That word has a whole extra connotation that is not present in Romney's statement.

Secondly, let's stop playing games with tense. Since all the events at the time were past tense, Romney's statement is past tense. But two things which both occurred in the past did not necessarily happen at the same time. You (and a lot of other people apparently) are interpreting Romney's statement that "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” as though the administration sympathized with the attacks themselves. But his statement doesn't say that. It simply says that they sympathized (past tense) with those who waged the attacks (also past tense).

The attacks happened after the sympathy. If a man feeds his dog, and then later the dog bites him, it would be perfectly correct to say after the fact that the man fed the dog who bit him. If you give a hitchhiker a ride downtown and that guy later robs a bank, it would be correct for someone (also after the fact) to say that you gave a ride to the man who robbed the bank. If the US gives foreign aid to a country and that country later engaged in an attack on us, we would also be correct to say that we gave aid to the same country that attacked us. In all cases, we're pointing out something bad someone (or a dog in the first case) did despite us doing something presumably beneficial to them before hand.

See how that works? Just want to clarify that since it seems like some people are getting confused about the order of things and thus what Romney was talking about.

Quote:
It's not enough to just say "the administration". "The administration" is made up of people.


It's a label Joph. So is "the Obama administration". If we're both talking about the same thing, we're talking about the same thing. Did you think there was some other administration in charge of our embassies involved here? You can't possibly be seriously arguing that by including Obama's name in the phrase this somehow makes it more an attack on Obama?

It's his administration. He sets the policy. He's responsible for that policy. What part of this is confusing you?

Quote:
We know where the statement, and later Tweet, originated from so is Romney calling the people of the US embassy in Cairo disgraceful sympathizers?


No. He's saying that it's disgraceful that their first response was to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. It's right there in the quote. Are you unable to understand plain English. He's not saying they sympathized with the attacks but with those who waged them. And he's exactly correct. The approach was to attempt to appease the angry mob by taking their side on the whole video issue. Obviously, it failed miserably, but more to the point it's not in keeping with the principles and presumed policy of the US.

If it were in keeping with those principles, the Obama administration would not have later disavowed the statement(s). Get it? I thought I already explained this to you like twice now.

Quote:
And do you support Romney's opinion of them?


Of them? Why do you have to make it personal Joph? I support Romney's opinion of their actions with regard to the statements in question. And what's funny is that so does Obama. So what are you complaining about? If Obama wanted to argue that what Romney said was wrong, he could have stood by the statements that Romney was attacking. But he not only didn't, but disavowed them himself (well, his press folks did anyway). So Romney and Obama both agree that those statements were not in line with the policies and principles of the United States.

So what is your beef exactly? You seem to want to blame Romney for saying something which Obama agrees with. Why aren't you criticizing Obama for not standing by his embassy personnel and their statements if you really feel so strongly about this?

Quote:
And if he's not saying it about Obama and he's not saying it about the people who issued the statement, then WHO exactly is the disgraceful sympathizer Romney is attacking?


Huh? You're not even making sense anymore. You're like a broken record at this point. Get back to me when you can ask an intelligent question. He's saying it about the embassy personnel who wrote the **** messages. Those people are part of the Obama administration. I'll ask again: what part of this is confusing for you. He never said it came from Obama himself. He said it came from the Obama administration.

You're going to great lengths to twist the words around in order to make a pretty weak point. How about you not do that and just take the message for what it meant: That the statements being made by the embassy personnel were disgraceful. They basically took the side of the angry mob in opposition to our own first amendment. I'm sorry, but that's a big deal and Romney was absolutely correct to point it out.


I'll ask for the third time: Do you believe that if Romney (or someone) hadn't made a big deal about this that the White House would have disavowed the statements. Or would they have just ignored it and hoped no one noticed that one of their embassies basically just told the Muslim world that we reject the use (abuse is the word they used IIRC) of freedom of speech which might involve things which Muslims view negatively (like burning a Koran). Do you think that's in line with the official position the US has towards freedom of speech? Cause if it is, you and I have a completely different opinion of the first amendment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#195 Sep 13 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
No, that's not how English works.
#197 Sep 13 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, let's stop calling them "sympathizers".

No. Romney said they sympathized with the attackers. One who sympathizes is a sympathizer. I'm sorry Romney's words are ones you're spinning hard to support but that's just the problem with blindly supporting the man.

Do you agree with Romney's statement that the people in the US embassy in Cairo sympathized with their attackers?
Quote:
Of them? Why do you have to make it personal Joph?

Because despite your conservative belief that "the government" is just some faceless thing, these were real people facing a real fear that Romney called sympathizers with their attackers and refered to their statements as disgraceful. Why can't you man up and answer the question instead of trying so hard to deflect it and pretend that this WASN'T about real people?

Edited, Sep 13th 2012 5:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Sep 13 2012 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.


Teddy Roosevelt got shot in the chest and finished his speech.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#199 Sep 13 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,553 posts
Samira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.


Teddy Roosevelt got shot in the chest and finished his speech.




Since Teddy Roosevelt was an alien robot sent back into the past to try to take over the world, that really doesn't count.
#200 Sep 13 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
No, that's not how English works.


Um... Yes, is it. He's referring to the people that the embassy's statement sympathized with. Those people were (among others) those who attacked our embassies. Thus they sympathized with those who attacked our embassies. That is absolutely correct English. What is *not* correct is to interpret that to mean that he's claiming that they sympathized with the attacks themselves. There's absolutely nothing in his statement which says that, yet it seems like that's how many of you want to interpret it anyway.


Why spend so much time trying to make the statement say something it doesn't. Just read the statement. It's pretty darn clear if you aren't using a politically motivated filter. I'll point out (again) that the same statement Romney called disgraceful was later disavowed by the White House. So what are people complaining about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Sep 13 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why spend so much time trying to make the statement say something it doesn't.

In your case, I'm guessing "blind desperate defense of Romney".

The man is too cowardly to stand up to his party in regards to their platform but is the first to accuse embassy workers of "sympathy" with those mobbing the building. He's an opportunistic craven little shit of a man with no spine and I'm just glad that he's almost certain to lose this election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)