j44
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by j44
-
-
I think the funniest line was as someone said that let's help Obama finally get a job in the private sector, hopefully as soon as January.
The best line was Eastwood deriding lawyers and saying that they shouldn't be president.
Romney went to law school.
-
the RNC-Romney intro video was actually quite well done... however, it was pushed forward out of prime-time coverage to allow for the Eastwood placement/timing. Eastwood's bizarre act is taking away from... and will continue to somewhat overshadow... the actual Romney speech
This.
Apparently he was scheduled for 5 minutes. He went on for 12 (it felt waaay longer to me) AND he went off script.
I can't imagine the Romney are calm and happy tonight. Not earth shattering but it all could have gone better.
-
IMO, his speech is pretty wooden, and dead.
So far, I'm with you.
Note: the Eastwood thing was so off that the camp put out a statement saying it was a 'break' from the other speeches.
Edit: I'll add that the Eastwood thing kinda took the momentum from the video they showed.
I was in and out on Rubio but the parts I caught didn't impress me. Again, could be that I was expecting a lot from him.
Romney's speech was ok. There were a few lines I read beforehand that I felt fell flat a little. Not great but not terrible either.
Alex whatever the hell is last name is, the GOP strategist on CNN said it was 'good enough.'
I think that says enough.
-
Americans have always dreamed the big dream. I am not sure what is wrong with that.
Nothing. But the contrast could hit well.
-
That is pretty good, who said that?
Apparently it is in Romney's speech.
According to the 'leaked' parts there are several good lines in it, in my opinion.
-
Best line from tonight.
"Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."
-
Saw this scroll across the bottom of theTV screen on CNN while watching the Republican Convention. Somehow I missed this:
Wow, just wow. Good luck getting this one through Mitt!
I was under the impression that they came out and said this recently. The link is from May?
-
TAMPA — Mitt Romney on Thursday night will cast himself as a capable and tested executive for a country that has been deeply let down by President Obama, in a speech that will mark the end of his five-year quest for the Republican presidential nomination.
Romney, 65, is set to deliver the most important speech of his life at the Republican National Convention sometime after 10 p.m. Eastern time. According to early excerpts released by Romney’s campaign, he will reach out to disaffected voters who were excited about Obama as a candidate in 2008.
“If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama?” Romney will say. “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him. “
Romney will also cite his long career in business as evidence that he can do a better job managing the country’s economy. According to the speech excerpts, he will call the company he founded -- Bain Capital-- a “great American success story.”
“What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn’t take a special government commission to tell us what America needs,” Romney will say. “What America needs is jobs. Lots of jobs.”
In addressing a national television audience of millions, the former Massachusetts governor also is expected to seek a more personal connection with voters, in part by forthrightly discussing his Mormon faith.
-
As time is passing I’m looking at Ann Romney’s speech and thinking less of it (maybe because Ryan’s was much better) and I didn’t think it was very good to begin with. I really, really do think that she (and the campaign) needed/needs to make him look….nicer. Not only did she not do that and not tell any great stories about him but she didn’t hit on the other point that she needed to drive home. If they weren’t going to go with the ‘he IS nice’ they needed to hit harder on him being a fixer. That ‘he will not fail’ line was good but that should have been the theme. She should have said it over and over again. And stressed that he was there for her during her illnesses while being a success with the games in Utah, governor etc etc.
I really do think her speech was more important than Ryan’s in the sense that it could have had a greater impact. His was good (maybe even very good) despite the factual problems. But I can’t stress enough how strongly I feel that they need to make Mitt likeable. This race is close and if he can improve his image personality wise it could put him over the top. He doesn’t even have to be as likable as Obama is. He just has to be more likable than he is now.
I think she was their best chance to do that. I could be wrong and he could come out tonight and come off as an actual person or give this mind blowing speech. We will see.
-
your sentence structure is open to that interpretation... my apologies for misinterpreting your intended meaning.
No problem, I re-read it and it does sound like that is what I meant. Although, I would be lying if I didn't admit that the tone of the 'engaging' plays a role in my too partisan comments. But I'll admit the tone is also a result of Shady's....approach.
-
Abortion and gay marriage.
How strongly do you feel about them? on a scale of 1-10 and compared to other issues.
-
Abortion and gay marriage.
Interesting.
-
I was considering voting for Romney until he picked Ryan as his running mate, so these things do make a difference to some.
did you decide against him because of Ryan's views on abortion and/or gay marriage or his economic solutions?
-
you either choose to ignore MLW member, 'Shady's', outright lies... to ignore Shady, outright... or you engage the miscreant. That is not being, as you suggest, 'too partisan'. In terms of purposefully misleading and spreading lies, MLW member, 'punked', just offered legitimate, multiple sourced, damning statistics on the behaviour of U.S. Republicans as compared to Democrats. MLW offers a like microcosm on the behaviour of MLW member, 'Shady'.
I didn't say he was too partisan because he engaged Shady.
-
No it's not. It's selective, but it's not hypocrisy.
Fair point.
-
You seem to be assuming that Conservatives are all against gay marriage, which is not the case, or that all conservatives feel that this is a federal issues, which is also not the case.
On Tuesday Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mitt Romney’s most prominent Mormon supporter in the U.S. Senate, broke with the presidential candidate on amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, saying that even though he doesn't agree with marriage equality, "I'm a believer that the states should make their own determination” and “have a right to do it.”Cheney also felt it was a state issue, not a federal issue. Personally, I feel that it has to be a federal issue, but I don't think this is going to fire up any more people than their abortion stand has - and I think it will turn moderates/independents off.
Not all, but I am assuming a good chunk of their base are against it. Good point though with the Fed v states comment. I do think it is possible that it could help show some uncertain conservatives (uncertain about Romney I mean) that is he conservative. Even if they do think it should be a state issue.
And it could turn off some moderates and independents but I don't think it will do that much.
-
You mean in the other thread where I said something wasn't a lie and Shady it was a lie based on a Washington Post fact check that the Washington Post then walked back and said they were wrong it wasn't a lie? Yep I stand by that not being a lie. Again Romney's whole campaign is based on lies there is nothing else. Stop with the both sides do it garbage. If Obama is telling saying one misleading statement (which is often debatable) out of a hundred, and Romney is saying hundred out of a hundred that one misleading statement DOES NOT give Romney the right the run a whole campaign on lies. Giving him a pass on every lie because a small amount of misleading statements is a road to hell.
You are part of the problem.
I didn’t say that I was giving team Romney a pass on their lies. I simply implied that it was hypocritical to constantly point out one sides' lies.
How about some numbers then. According to Politifact "PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims for 2011". That is 10 to one. What do you want me to do? You want me to say "Both sides do it" when one does 10 times more then the other? That is the problem. Either you reward the side that tells a lot less lies or the side who tells the most lies will continue to do so. It isn't like this is in the margin of error here it is 10 to 1.
THAT IS A PROBLEM. Head over to politi fact and see how many pants on fire the Republicans have vs. everyone else.
Steve Benen Reports in 30 WEEKS he has counted 533 lies AND DOCUMENTED ALL OF THEM from Romney. What do you want me to say? Seriously it is crazy and uncomparable. It is so bad that the Washington Post ran a story about how members of the media are even starting to have behind the camera discussions about how to handle it. They don't want to call the man who might be President a lair and for a long time the lies have been so small or easy to correct that the media has ignored in Presidential campaigns. Now it has gotten so bad from Romney they have to have meetings to figure out what to do.
I am sorry they aren't the same thing no matter how much you want them to be. "Once Obama said there was 57 states that means we can tell the American people whatever we want. Lets make a new commercial that says Obama wants to pass a law where he wants end Work requirements for welfare who cares if it is a huge lie". That does not cut it. If you think they are the same then give me an example.
I'm obviously not doing that. You could be right, but I'm not getting into this nonsense. Team Obama has thrown out some big ones. Maybe Romney's team has lied a lot more. Maybe it is 10:1. You can fight over it all you want but I don't really care. I don't understand this constant bickering. I'm all for debate that moves things forward but the way you and Shady go on...I'm sorry but I don't get it. You aren't convincing anyone that isn't already on your side. So, to me, it is totally pointless. It is bad enough to go over every single issue in this manner but it is exponentially worse to do it over ever single sentence by the candidates, their parties and their surrogates.
I’m not going to waste my time going back and forth with you like Shady does and tell you over and over that you are too partisan almost to the point of being irrational. I’ll leave that stuff up to Shady; it is pointless.
If you want to go on and on about how you are right, Romney is pure evil and so forth feel free. Shady is here for you.
-
As a history major, Ill put in my analysis on this:
The world doesnt know who the rebels are. Therefore, no one can really help them. In Libya, the situation was completely different. Everyone knew that the rebels were the "good guys", so therefore, the U.S. and the international community was able to go in and get rid of Gaddafi. The rebels in Syria could well be Al-Qaeda numerous reports indicate that there are traces of them in the rebel organization.
Secondly, the rebels are also doing a lot of crazy things as well. Theres even been reports of them attacking and killing the already small Christian population in Syria. I feel really sketchy about this "Free Syria Army". Im not a fan of Bashar Al-Assad at all, either, but this will have to blow over by itself; its already a huge civil war as it is. If any country intervenes, this conflict could well spill into Jordan, Turkey, or even Israel. This needs to blow over by itself; intervening in it could well start something resembling World War III.
The reports of Al-queda in Lybia/Egypt/Tunisia ect were reported. All those leaders talked about foreign fighters causing most of the problems. We sure do know who the rebels are.
The situation is pretty much the same, the west will look to arm the rebels (if they have not already) which have Al-queda among them. So are is the US/NATO arming Al-Queda? Sure, I don't see ANY blowback happening from this eh?
We now hear talks of no fly zones and secure refugee camps within the Syrian borders. ON that notion, there will have to be an invasion by NATO/UN whoever into Syria in order to accomplish this.
Why would the west arm Al-queda terrorists to take down Assad? I thought Al-Queda were the bad guys, the ones that are claimed to have taken down several buildings in NYC. I thought THEY were the enemy?
The only thing that will allow NATO to go full tilt into Syria is if they can create a divide between Russia and China in their support of Syria and get one partially on their side. But both China and Russia have seen the UN/NATO shenanigans enough to take the stance that they are taking. They both know that once Syria is 'resolved' then Iran is next.
But you are correct in thinking that this can easily escalate into another world war. One which will be quite devastating to many countries around the world. Tensions are high and this is no walk in the park. This will have great global impact and will be felt by everyone.
The only way a bigger war can be avoided is if NATO does NOT back the rebels and let's Syria take care of it's own affairs. Because NATO is supplying the rebels, and Iran knows it's in the sites as well, and Iran has stepped up and sent some members of the Iranian military to assist Assad.
An invasion of Syria by NATO will trigger a much bigger regional war.
With regard to the rebels, I couldn't disagree with you (and agree with GH)more.
However, Syria will not lead to WW3. Yes, there will be a proxy war between several competing countries but Syria is mostly important because of Iran and to a lesser extent Russia. In the grand scheme of things none of these countries will risk a massive war just to settle Syria. It isn't THAT important. Too often, people talk about a war and then jump to the 'it is going to cause another world war!'
-
You mean in the other thread where I said something wasn't a lie and Shady it was a lie based on a Washington Post fact check that the Washington Post then walked back and said they were wrong it wasn't a lie? Yep I stand by that not being a lie. Again Romney's whole campaign is based on lies there is nothing else. Stop with the both sides do it garbage. If Obama is telling saying one misleading statement (which is often debatable) out of a hundred, and Romney is saying hundred out of a hundred that one misleading statement DOES NOT give Romney the right the run a whole campaign on lies. Giving him a pass on every lie because a small amount of misleading statements is a road to hell.
You are part of the problem.
I shouldn't be surprised that this was your answer.
If you really can't see that both sides are lying pretty often you are more biased than I thought you were.
I support Obama and if he has to destroy Romney's character to win I am ok with that. I wish he didn't have to do it but he does.
Now, saying that Romney lies all the time and Obama lies 1% of the time is silly even for you.
As far as me being the problem, I take comfort in you thinking that. Because the problem in the US isn't that two irrational sides of both parties are yelling at each other and pandering to the extreme partisans in their camps (read: you and shady) and not willing to sit down and solve the country's problems, right?
-
Yep that is where we are going it is a Sad day when 45% of a country gives a guys a pass because of the better evil.
Didnt you claim (like on the previous page) that Romney's campaign was lying constantly but never admit to the lies from Obama's campaign?
-
This is why I never come to this section of the forum.
-
I'd think moderates/swing voters might be turned off of Romney from it.
I think it's kind of ridiculous this whole phenomenon of "firing up the base". Weird how apparently these people who aren't "fired up" are just content to sit at home on election day.
I don't think moderates/swing voters will care that much about the issue. They'll vote on jobs, the economy, etc.
Getting your supporters out and volunteering and giving money is always a big issue.
I'm sure Obama supporters last time around won't all come out this time. Sometimes
it is just a matter of getting them out. They won't vote for the other guy if they do.
-
Saw this scroll across the bottom of theTV screen on CNN while watching the Republican Convention. Somehow I missed this:
Wow, just wow. Good luck getting this one through Mitt!
I'm more worried that this will actually get their base come out and along with the Ryan pick get the hardcore conservatives excited more about Romney.
Edit: At the same time it could get Obama's base more excited too.
-
I'm looking forward to Rand Paul and Paul Ryan.
My favourite Rand Paul rant of all time...
I literally stood up cheering when I watched this for the first time!!!
This is nonsense. It was 1:22 and I barely lasted a minute.
'the toilets dont work in my house and I blame you.'
Even for a televised commitee it is garbage.
I have to hand it to him though; I didn't think he could get worse after the abortion starter.
Edit: and this is your favorite rant of his? Of all time?
Republican National Convention 2012 coverage
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Yes, of course that is what I mean buddy!!