punked Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 That is a good point. Or on the inverse with same sex marriage, Obama had two years in which he could have “legalized” it. How did DOMA hold up again? Looks like all that hard fought Republican work went down the toilet when Obama did just what he said he did. It is statements like this, that show you don't even know what you are talking about. Give us the DOMA time line or shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Just wanted to add, for what it's worth, the current mayor of Houston is a Lesbian with adopted children http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/ You want me to judge all of Texas based on the votes of 0.2% of the population? Wow that is some logic you got there. Next you will be telling me how Conservative Quebec is because of the mayor of Fort-Chambly has some guy who is Conservative in office. That is silly. Edited October 22, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 How did DOMA hold up again? Looks like all that hard fought Republican work went down the toilet when Obama did just what he said he did. It is statements like this, that show you don't even know what you are talking about. Give us the DOMA time line or shut up. So thanks to Obama, gay people can marry wherever they wish now in the United States? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 You want me to judge all of Texas based on the votes of 0.2% of the population? Wow that is some logic you got there. Next you will be telling me how Conservative Quebec is because of the mayor of Fort-Chambly has some guy who is Conservative in office. That is silly. But, instead you choose to judge a geographic region, such as Texas, based on stereotypes? Cleary you’ve never been there, nor understand how the larger segments of it’s economy draw people of all races, colors and creeds from across the United States and the world…….. Kinda ironic that you’re judging a place to be judgemental no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) But, instead you choose to judge a geographic region, such as Texas, based on stereotypes? Cleary you’ve never been there, nor understand how the larger segments of it’s economy draw people of all races, colors and creeds from across the United States and the world…….. Kinda ironic that you’re judging a place to be judgemental no? I ma judging a place based on the laws it passes and the people that are elected state wide. Don't worry though because Texas is trending Blue and will be in play in the next 20 years. Edited October 22, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I ma judging a place based on the laws it passes and the people that are elected state wide. Don't worry though because Texas is trending Blue and will be in play in the next 20 years. What laws? And what people? So, Texas is full of bigots based on the people they elect and the law they pass, but it’s turning Blue? That makes no flipping sense……….Tell you what……..You win, I’ll leave you to Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 What laws? And what people? So, Texas is full of bigots based on the people they elect and the law they pass, but it’s turning Blue? That makes no flipping sense……….Tell you what……..You win, I’ll leave you to Shady Never said that but using the votes of 0.2 percent of Texas to prove their open mindedness is very much a Shady move. The new mayor of Halifax got more votes then the mayor of Huston in a state whose population is compatible to Canada. Dose that mean I get to use him as an example of why Canada is all Liberal? No that is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 That and Romney's word is absolutely meaningless. Conservative newspapers are endorsing Obama for no other reason than they don't know where Romney stands on anything because he has lied so many times. I actually don't have a problem with Romney playing the religious right in the republican party for suckers to win the nod. He's a capable manager that has a track record of getting the job done. Would I want mr. Nice guy to win or mr. Get the job done? I didn't believe Romney's comments in the primaries because Romney's main belief is being the guy in charge and staying there. He didn't become governor of mass. By being like mr. Canada. Politicians will say anything to get elected. I'd even go further to say it's refreshing to have somebody with his ear out and going with how the electorate is shifting. It's just smart politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Because we have fools like you on our team who don't know their head from their ass and are a branding nightmare who scare away independent voters. That's the first time i think i've heard a conservative say such a thing to another conservative. Kudos blueblood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Or perhaps those that support Romney have researched how he actually governed Massachusetts, well realizing politicians will tell “fibs” to the extreme elements of their own party so they can win said parties nomination to run in the general election………… Well, I guess you could try to do that with his domestic policy, but what about foreign policy? Romney has no record there, we can only rely on his words. But Romney`s words have zero credibility. He is clearly an avid liar, his views are horribly inconsistent. So now we have 3 Romney`s with 3 different views: Governor Romney, GOP candidate Romney, and Presidential candidate Romney. I`m guessing a President Romney would make that a new 4th version of Romney we`d see since he`d have to pander to an entirely different population than he did as Governor. Who the heck knows what Romney would do as president! That's legitimately concerning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well, I guess you could try to do that with his domestic policy, but what about foreign policy? Romney has no record there, we can only rely on his words. But Romney`s words have zero credibility. He is clearly an avid liar, his views are horribly inconsistent. So now we have 3 Romney`s with 3 different views: Governor Romney, GOP candidate Romney, and Presidential candidate Romney. I`m guessing a President Romney would make that a new 4th version of Romney we`d see since he`d have to pander to an entirely different population than he did as Governor. Who the heck knows what Romney would do as president! That's legitimately concerning. Do Americans (Or Canadians for that mater) really care about foreign policy? I think both Obama and Romney’s positions were similar and the finite differences are buried within the minutiae…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 President Obama's foreign policy is very consistent with his predecessors Bush and Clinton, including another war, military interventions, CIA drone strikes, sanctions, "war games", deployments to Asian rim nations, arms sales, etc., etc. Those who support Obama without recognizing this obvious continuation of U.S foreign policy are just kidding themselves. As for Romney being an unknown factor, we know for certain that, unlike Obama, he hasn't bombed anybody yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 President Obama's foreign policy is very consistent with his predecessors Bush and Clinton, including another war, military interventions, CIA drone strikes, sanctions, "war games", deployments to Asian rim nations, arms sales, etc., etc. Those who support Obama without recognizing this obvious continuation of U.S foreign policy are just kidding themselves. As for Romney being an unknown factor, we know for certain that, unlike Obama, he hasn't bombed anybody yet. Well, by that logic he should also be welcomed with open arms within the republican party, but that's not how it goes, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Governor Romney was nominated for president by the Republican Party. He will receive millions of votes from Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats on election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Governor Romney was nominated for president by the Republican Party. He will receive millions of votes from Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats on election day. Welcome back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've been slumming over at the CBC news sites, but had to peek in here for the presidential election 'climax'. I see they have fixed up the joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've been slumming over at the CBC news sites, but had to peek in here for the presidential election 'climax'. I see they have fixed up the joint. Indeed……….Akin to putting lipstick on a pig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Wasn’t the exact same charges laid against PM Harper if he got a Majority? Or Obama himself ? With Harper and Obama, the scaremongering has always been that once they got power, they'd unveil a Secret Agenda. Whereas with Mitt, the scaremongering is that he'll do exactly what he promised his party he'd do a few months ago. You all seem to fail to grasp the concept that he’ll want to win again 2016.………. Well, either way he's got a bit of a problem. If he turns back into Massachusetts Mitt once he's in office, then his base is going to be asking "hey, what the hell happened to our Personhood Amendment and all the other stuff you promised??" Whereas if he delivers that stuff, he's going to alienate the independents he suckered into thinking he was just kidding when he promised that stuff. Either way he's going to be disappointing some people. He'd better hope his economic performance is such a big hit that everybody forgets all the social stuff he promised. In the meantime he's going to have to figure out which group is less important to his re-election chances. As to the rant about Texas & the South……….I’ve no idea what you’re talking about……….I’ve lived there, despite what some might think, weekends aren’t spent burning crosses and lynching civil rights leaders………..And if anything, Calgary and Edmonton are more “redneck” then Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth……. Then why do they keep electing such a bunch of dumbasses in Texas and the deep south? And the chances of this even passing a vote? If Bush, a neo-con, didn't touch abortion neither will Romney. It's all just fear mongering. It's fear mongering to say Romney will limit abortions to cases of rape and incest, when that's what he's promising to do? Since when is it fear mongering to take a guy at his word? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 That is a good point. Or on the inverse with same sex marriage, Obama had two years in which he could have “legalized” it. Its true, I dont believe that Mitt would open up re-criminalizing abortion as a legislative issue because that could get really messy. BUT... I COULD see him putting a pro womb-control justice on the supreme court which could open the door to rvw being overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've been slumming over at the CBC news sites, but had to peek in here for the presidential election 'climax'. I see they have fixed up the joint. For some reason I assumed you'd been sent on vacation by Charles Anthony Travel Inc. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 With Harper and Obama, the scaremongering has always been that once they got power, they'd unveil a Secret Agenda. Whereas with Mitt, the scaremongering is that he'll do exactly what he promised his party he'd do a few months ago. Another way to look at, is that he’ll do what he said he’ll do to the electorate that voted him into office………Or he’ll--- Well, either way he's got a bit of a problem. If he turns back into Massachusetts Mitt once he's in office, then his base is going to be asking "hey, what the hell happened to our Personhood Amendment and all the other stuff you promised??" Whereas if he delivers that stuff, he's going to alienate the independents he suckered into thinking he was just kidding when he promised that stuff. Either way he's going to be disappointing some people. He'd better hope his economic performance is such a big hit that everybody forgets all the social stuff he promised. In the meantime he's going to have to figure out which group is less important to his re-election chances. --Punt and allow the various States to decide on contentious issues.......... Gay people can marry and have abortions’ in California, well those in the South can cling to their Jesus magic………everybody wins. Then why do they keep electing such a bunch of dumbasses in Texas and the deep south? Rather wide brush no? Kay Bailey Hutchison, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint and Nikki Haley (etc) are hardly turnips......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Its true, I dont believe that Mitt would open up re-criminalizing abortion as a legislative issue because that could get really messy. BUT... I COULD see him putting a pro womb-control justice on the supreme court which could open the door to rvw being overturned. And a Democrat wouldn’t do the opposite? It's politics and if there were no votes behind such contentious issues, (Smart) Politicians wouldn’t cater to them………….As I said to Kimmy above Social issues (and economic issues) are something I’m of the opinion that Romney will let the States decide ultimately. As was mentioned by another poster, “W” had near Carte Blanche well in office and didn’t tar & feather women seeking abortions nor “round-up the gays”………I’m certain you’d agree that Bush wore his social values on his sleeve, all the while, prior to the GOP Primaries, Romney has managed to minimize public exposure to his magic Mormon underpants…………. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Do Americans (Or Canadians for that mater) really care about foreign policy? I think both Obama and Romney’s positions were similar and the finite differences are buried within the minutiae…….. That's what people said about Bush and Al Gore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've been slumming over at the CBC news sites, but had to peek in here for the presidential election 'climax'. I see they have fixed up the joint. Good to see you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Classy Obama is now using cancer terminology with his Romnesia nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.