Mitt Romney is a doushe

[raunchyrick]

[Grubby Mits]

fuck this guy, bad move for him anyway, he underestimates the power of the internet

[professional]

If you can throw a casual bet of $10,000 on the table, on television, in front of the general public, you are not in touch with what's really going on.

[dude]

And he likes to fire people!

[Grubby Mits]

[S.E.]

Mitt Romney is a shady piece of shit

[Rumpleforeskin]

What a dick.

[FART BOY]

Romney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.

[layzieyez]

When I saw that Mitt had a bunch of sons, I thought he would name them all something like Glove, Sock, Scarf, Bandana, and Belt.

[Brandon]

When I saw that Mitt had a bunch of sons, I thought he would name them all something like Glove, Sock, Scarf, Bandana, and Belt.

/thread

[Tufty]

 Of course he is a douche. He is a politician. Thread title should be Mitt Romney cant hide his douchebaggery.

[pizzafliptofakie]

This might be as bad as that Strong video.

[GarglesCmen]

When I saw that Mitt had a bunch of sons, I thought he would name them all something like Glove, Sock, Scarf, Bandana, and Belt.

I would give you some sort of prize if I could

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

Romney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.

mitt romney is a douche but ron paul is not much better. if you listen to how paul frames his answers it's always "i don't think the federal government should be involved with that." the reality is that a majority of state legislatures and a majority of governors are republican and tend to be extremely conservative. the people who vote in these races tend to be elderly and religious. in reality, leaving the issue up to the states would still make marijuana illegal in the vast majority of states and would ensure that dispensaries receive no federal assistance. his health care stance is similiar- but if insurance companies HAD to cover someone's medicine and marijuana was included as part of federal law it would ensure that sick people got the care they needed. while ron paul's principles may be different than the other republican candidates most of them lead to the exact same outcome. for example on abortion- he can say he's pro-choice but repealing roe v wade (which he's in favor of) would effectively make abortion illegal nationwide. the point is we actually don't need less government (i would agree we need more) we need BETTER government.

oh, and there's no way newt is getting the nomination. he's trailing jon hunstman after the last primary. it's going to be romney, which i hope will lead the paultards to split the vote like nader did for gore. this election is going to be depressing as fuck.

[Omamori]

^^^
I like Ron Paul even though some of his ideas are stupid. If he became president, would he even have the power to get rid of the department of education, let states choose to make marijuana legal, etc?

[Alan]

^^^
I like Ron Paul

Not sure if trolling...

[grimcity]

If he became president, would he even have the power to get rid of the department of education, let states choose to make marijuana legal, etc?

Not without the House & Senate, and probably a number of visits to the Supreme Court. Thing is, even though he pretty much claims ownership of Constitutional knowledge, he's still going by an interpretation.

Also, nearly everyone in the Senate and a ton on the Hill  have their names attached to at least one education bill, program, or piece of legislation. Paul would never be able to caucus with either party so he'd be a lame duck as soon as he got sworn in.

[bakedRice]

Expand Quote

^^^
I like Ron Paul

[close]

Not sure if trolling...

or if you're stupid.

the man made a couple valid points, paul of course has good ideas, but his views on public education (no matter how shitty it is now) does raise concern for a lot of middle-lower income families.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

RE: Ron Paul

Beware any candidate that uses the phrase "states rights"

In terms of his economic policy- it would be the biggest business free for all in the history of the U.S. We would be owned by the corporatocracy.

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Romney comes off of a piece of shit. I can understand if he couldn't talk with the guy for a good amount of time in that video, but at least listen to what he has to say. Don't turn your back to someone and put up the invisible douche-bag wall when the guy is asking a question about his medical needs. Him and all of the other candidates look like robots, it's sickening. Ron on the other hand addressed it in a very good way with actual emotion and made valid points on this hoax of a war on drugs. I'm down for Ron and would definitely vote for him but with the way the country is going and the elites who run it I know he doesn't stand a chance, even though hes the most suitable candidate in the race. I know Obama will somehow pull this election off with these shady deals going on behind closed doors. But IF he doesn't psychopath Newt is right behind him.

[close]

mitt romney is a douche but ron paul is not much better. if you listen to how paul frames his answers it's always "i don't think the federal government should be involved with that." the reality is that a majority of state legislatures and a majority of governors are republican and tend to be extremely conservative. the people who vote in these races tend to be elderly and religious. in reality, leaving the issue up to the states would still make marijuana illegal in the vast majority of states and would ensure that dispensaries receive no federal assistance. his health care stance is similiar- but if insurance companies HAD to cover someone's medicine and marijuana was included as part of federal law it would ensure that sick people got the care they needed. while ron paul's principles may be different than the other republican candidates most of them lead to the exact same outcome. for example on abortion- he can say he's pro-choice but repealing roe v wade (which he's in favor of) would effectively make abortion illegal nationwide. the point is we actually don't need less government (i would agree we need more) we need BETTER government.

oh, and there's no way newt is getting the nomination. he's trailing jon hunstman after the last primary. it's going to be romney, which i hope will lead the paultards to split the vote like nader did for gore. this election is going to be depressing as fuck.

Really? You think that more (and by proxy inefficient) government would make the U.S. better?  That's absurd.  Also-I hope Romney gets the candidacy because Americans won't vote in a Mormon.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[oyolar]

did you even finish reading that sentence?

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

[few123456789]

Expand Quote

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[close]

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

Maybe he was offended by your Morman comment.  Without passing judgment I agree that evangelicals will stay at home and not vote, so Romney would lose to Obama unless there was a very irregular circumstance.

Whoever said more government is more efficient is deranged.

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

Expand Quote

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[close]

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things.

[grimcity]

^ Speaking of the south, I'm still shocked that no local politicos here in Louisiana and Mississippi (5th and 1st poorest states, respectively) can remain so goddamned poor when the oil industry everyone's so protective of here DEPENDS on us, not only for drilling but refineries as well.

Seriously get sick of the caustic politics and the way everyone votes against their own best interests down here sometimes.

[professional]

reaping the rewards of raping and pillaging on the american middle class

!

[jay]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[close]

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

[close]

no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things.

Which also went hand in hand with corruption, bribery and government preference of a few select oligarchs, not unlike what we see today.

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[close]

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

[close]

no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things.

[close]

Which also went hand in hand with corruption, bribery and government preference of a few select oligarchs, not unlike what we see today.

I see what you're saying CUDDLEMONSTER. And although I don't agree with all of it, I do agree that it gets pretty ridiculous that libertarians and some conservatives refuse to look at ways to make government groups more efficient before saying they should just be done away with.

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

did you even finish reading that sentence?

[close]

Yes, I did. And it changes nothing about my disagreement.  Before he said we need better government, which I agree with, he said he would agree the U.S. needs more.  Presumably CUDDLEMONSTER meant more government.  If he did not, I'll admit I misunderstood his post.  But more government does not equal better government and in fact, I think more government would actually mean worse government.

[close]

no, you understand we just disagree. i do think we need more government in certain areas like infrastructure, financial regulation, health care and job stimulation. you're right- more government does not equal better government but where i disagree with people like ron paul (and libertarians in general) is with their belief that more government necessarily means inefficiency and the destruction of jobs. the rail roads are a great example. without massive government assistance we would have never completed the network of rail roads that connects this country and led to so much prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. businesses depended on this network in order to be more efficient and competitive but it never would have happened without a huge government program. food subsidies are another example. while there's a lot wrong with the way we subsidize farmers (mostly by subsidizing corn above all other crops) without these subsidies a significant portion of americans would be unable to afford food and it would be more expensive for everyone. that's what gets me about conservatives south- since the end of the civil war we've spent a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on the south (way more than they pay in taxes) yet they're the ones calling for their safety line to be cut. overall, i think libertarians tend to see a problem with a government program and think the only solution is the to destroy it. imo, that's a pretty fucked up way to go about fixing things.

[close]

Which also went hand in hand with corruption, bribery and government preference of a few select oligarchs, not unlike what we see today.

that's true- the rail roads were extremely corrupt. they also basically used slave labor and displaced native populations in their construction. but i think that kind of proves my point about the need for more (and better) government. when the rail roads were being built the united states had very few if any labor laws and no anti-trust laws to regulate their construction. that's what made the era of the rail road corrupt, not the actual construction which was beneficial for the country. we can look at industrialized countries, like most of europe and japan, and see a mass transit system that isn't corrupt, wasn't built on the back on slaves, is essential to business and provides a cheap service for everyone. i guess the choice comes down to whether we are willing to risk doing things wrong or whether we're happy not doing anything at all.