Jump to content

Romney Derangement Syndrome


Shady

Recommended Posts

If anyone hasn't noticed, Romney Derangement Syndrome has gone off the charts in the last few weeks.

Democrats have gone from calling Romney a felon, to insisting he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years, to calling him a murderer, to now connecting him to El Salvsdor death squads! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anyone hasn't noticed, Romney Derangement Syndrome has gone off the charts in the last few weeks.

Democrats have gone from calling Romney a felon, to insisting he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years, to calling him a murderer, to now connecting him to El Salvsdor death squads! :rolleyes:

How is your Obama Derangement Syndrome being treated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are, but what am I?

Apparently GH thinks that legitimate criticisms regarding the policy of a politician is somehow "derangement." meanwhile, he thinks the world trade centre was destroyed in a controlled demolition by the CIA. What sounds more like derangement? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone hasn't noticed, Romney Derangement Syndrome has gone off the charts in the last few weeks.

Democrats have gone from calling Romney a felon, to insisting he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years, to calling him a murderer, to now connecting him to El Salvsdor death squads! :rolleyes:

Sounds similar to the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" or the "Gutting Wealfare" or the "Take your guns away" or even the "he's a Communist/Socialist" lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds similar to the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" or the "Gutting Wealfare" or the "Take your guns away" or even the "he's a Communist/Socialist" lines.

Really? So calling him a Muslim, or not born in America, etc is the same as pointing out his waiving of the work requirements in Clinton's welfare reform legislation? That's asinine and you know it. That's a legitimate policy debate of his illegal waiving of rules that said legislation specifically states cannot be waived. You need to better inform yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So calling him a Muslim, or not born in America, etc is the same as pointing out his waiving of the work requirements in Clinton's welfare reform legislation? That's asinine and you know it. That's a legitimate policy debate of his illegal waiving of rules that said legislation specifically states cannot be waived. You need to better inform yourself.

Yes, they are all the same due to the fact that they are all untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds similar to the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" or the "Gutting Wealfare" or the "Take your guns away" or even the "he's a Communist/Socialist" lines.

A new one just surfaced this week from teabagger, Jerome Corsi, Obama was once married to a gay Pakistani man, proving that he is a homosexual or maybe a bi-sexual.

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12643&MediaType=1&Category=26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one guy on this board who was insisting that Obama was going around telling people who started businesses that they didn't actually "build" them. Of course, he was talking about roads and bridges, but this guy was so consumed with ODS, he wouldn't even listen to reason. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Obama actually did waive the work requirements of the welfare reform legislation. That is absolutely true.

you are the kingBSartistExtraordinaire!!! Even when previously refuted, you have the utter gall to outright lie!

while you're doing that make sure to comment on an actual official purposely false Romney campaign ad - the one where the Romney campaign falsely claims Obama is 'gutting welfare reform':

the only one repeatedly lying here... is you... in both your immediate preceding post as well as your related MLW status update messages...

since you appear to have Politico at the ready dancing to their "Pants on Fire" declarations, take a spin on their assessment/rating of the aforementioned
actual Romney campaign ad lies
about Obama "gutting welfare reform"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one guy on this board who was insisting that Obama was going around telling people who started businesses that they didn't actually "build" them. Of course, he was talking about roads and bridges, but this guy was so consumed with ODS, he wouldn't even listen to reason. :lol:

He said "If you've got a business, you didn't build that...somebody else made that happen."

Now, are you asserting that by "that" he meant "roads and bridges"?

Are you suggesting that the proper interpretation of that sentence should be:

"If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges."

Sorry, Bubber. That just does not fly. Shady is right on that one.

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Bubber. That just does not fly. Shady is right on that one.

You obviously never saw the video in its full context. You would be very embarrassed if you had. You would see how you've been lied to and how you've been gullible enough to believe it.

Yes. He was talking roads and bridges and it's obvious in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously never saw the video in its full context. You would be very embarrassed if you had. You would see how you've been lied to and how you've been gullible enough to believe it.

Yes. He was talking roads and bridges and it's obvious in the video.

I have seen the whole speech. It is the same speech you have seen. So, how you can suggest that I am gullible to believe something or other, when all I am doing is quoting Obama directly. I would say the gullible ones are those who are contorting themselves every which way to make it so that Obama didn't say precisely what Obama said. (Or did someone else make that happen.)

Now I will ask you again. It is a very simple question.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

What does the pronoun "that" refer to?

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen the whole speech. It is the same speech you have seen. So, how you can suggest that I am gullible to believe something or other, when all I am doing is quoting Obama directly. I would say the gullible ones are those who are contorting themselves every which way to make it so that Obama didn't say precisely what Obama said. (Or did someone else make that happen.)

Now I will ask you again. It is a very simple question.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

What does the pronoun "that" refer to?

If you quote the sentence before and after the "you didn't build that" I might believe you. Your problem is you don't want anyone to know what those sentences are. Guess what though? This argument is already lost Romney has dropped almost 4 points from the start of you didn't build that. Keep it up though, when a conservative is digging a hole (from my experience) their idea when they see they have gotten to fair into it is they keep digging. So keep digging and we will keep pointing out why it is a lie and in the end all that we will remember about the Romney run was the terrible lies no one believed even his own team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you quote the sentence before and after the "you didn't build that" I might believe you. Your problem is you don't want anyone to know what those sentences are. Guess what though? This argument is already lost Romney has dropped almost 4 points from the start of you didn't build that. Keep it up though, when a conservative is digging a hole (from my experience) their idea when they see they have gotten to fair into it is they keep digging. So keep digging and we will keep pointing out why it is a lie and in the end all that we will remember about the Romney run was the terrible lies no one believed even his own team.

I don't want anyone to know what those sentences are? Don't you think that sounds little paranoid? I quote what is relevant. Here is some more for you. And if you like you can add more if you wish.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Is that enough for you?

Now answer the question.....

In the part which says "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that", what does "that" refer to?

Are you suggesting the sentence should be rightly interpreted as....

If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges.

Edited by jefferiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want anyone to know what those sentences are? Don't you think that sounds little paranoid? I quote what is relevant. Here is some more for you. And if you like you can add more if you wish.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Is that enough for you?

Now answer the question.....

In the part which says "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that", what does "that" refer to?

Are you suggesting the sentence should be rightly interpreted as....

If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges.

The sentence while grammatically incorrect when interpreted as "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges". Context matters Obama talks about public infrastructure before the that and after. Your interpretation doesn't even fit into the idea of the paragraph. He talks of public investment which has made America better BEFORE AND AFTER the that. However you want me to believe sandwiched in between Obama talking about public investment and how it has helped American, its people, and its business, Obama just makes a dig at people who start business? Seriously? Your context doesn't even make sense.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sentence while grammatically correct when interpreted as "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges". Context matters Obama talks about public infrastructure before the that and after. Your interpretation doesn't even fit into the idea of the paragraph. He talks of public investment which has made America better BEFORE AND AFTER the that. However you want me to believe sandwiched in between Obama talking about public investment and how it has helped American, its people, and its business, Obama just makes a dig at people who start business? Seriously? Your context doesn't even make sense.

I just want you to tell me what "that" was.....

Do you assert it is the aforementioned business or roads and bridges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want you to tell me what "that" was.....

Do you assert it is the aforementioned business or roads and bridges?

He is talking about public infrastructure. That can be interpreted as any public infrastructure that business uses. The that here is roads and bridges but the larger point if you listen to the whole speech is that public money has done America well. The Internet, roads bridges, education etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same way your Police State Derangement Sydrome is? Also, how do you treat you 911 Truther Syndrome?

You simply cannot handle the truth or reality. This is why you are still stuck on the left/right Dem/Rep mindset. You think that there is a left and a right. You think Romney will actually improve the situation in the USA. Romney if elected will get tied up in at least one war within 6 months of him being in office.

The other lovely thing is that once Obama is gone, you can blame/praise Romney for everything that goes on afterwards. Or you will bitch and say that it was Obama's fault. Which is hypocritical because you blame Obama for everything without putting the appropriate blame on Bush.

Not one president that I can think of in the past few decades, that has NOT been tied up in at least one war.

You need to change your gameplan up, you are too predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is talking about public infrastructure. That can be interpreted as any public infrastructure that business uses. The that here is roads and bridges but the larger point if you listen to the whole speech is that public money has done America well. The Internet, roads bridges, education etc.

So the sentence is actually......

If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges, etc.

Hmmmmmm........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is talking about public infrastructure. That can be interpreted as any public infrastructure that business uses. The that here is roads and bridges but the larger point if you listen to the whole speech is that public money has done America well. The Internet, roads bridges, education etc.

He's talking about that and the entire system:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive ... you didn't build that [by yourself]."

Any other interpretation is utter bullshit politics. It's exactly the same kind of garbage games people played when they tried to paint Romney as getting pleasure from firing people.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the sentence is actually......

If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges, etc.

Hmmmmmm........

If you listen to the quote you would get that. BTW Obama isn't the first president or American leader to say something like that. Both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt made the same argument as well as Ben Franklin, Eisenhower made the case when he you know invested huge in the highway system. This idea has been a part of a successful American leadership for a long long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...