Romney's Class War!
GoonSquad wrote:
Quote:
In his press conference, in California, Romney basically repeated the case he made in the video that the 47% dependent on the government would vote for Obama, though couched in slightly less inflammatory language.
What a douche.
In a bit of poetic justice
http://news.yahoo.com/irony-alert-mitt- ... ction.html
Mr. Romney ended up being the candidate of the 47%.
Still, it is disconcerting: 47 percent of the country is made up of irrascible right-wing nutjobs, idiots and scumbags.
Oh well. With our shifting demographics, hopefully the threat of the Angry White Males will be diminishing in future elections.
ArrantPariah wrote:
Still, it is disconcerting: 47 percent of the country is made up of irrascible right-wing nutjobs, idiots and scumbags.
.
Wrong. It is 47 percent of those who (1) are eligible to vote (2) who have registered to vote and (3) who in fact voted.
If you total up the number of people who actually voted it is considerably less than the adult population of the country.. Think of all the people who did not give a damn. Are they right-wing nutjobs, idiots and scum bags?
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Still, it is disconcerting: 47 percent of the country is made up of irrascible right-wing nutjobs, idiots and scumbags.
.
Wrong. It is 47 percent of those who (1) are eligible to vote (2) who have registered to vote and (3) who in fact voted.
If you total up the number of people who actually voted it is considerably less than the adult population of the country.. Think of all the people who did not give a damn. Are they right-wing nutjobs, idiots and scum bags?
No. Just the ones who voted for Romney, or would have if they had remembered to get off the couch that day.
ArrantPariah wrote:
No. Just the ones who voted for Romney, or would have if they had remembered to get off the couch that day.
You know there are perfectly reasonable people who do not wished to be governed (or ruled) by Presidential Decree or Executive Order. And you man, Obama signed into law a law that makes indefinite detention possible. Good bye habeas corpus.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
You did not answer the question.
Now. Which would you rather have: Obamacare and no habeas corpus. Or no Obamacare but you have habeas corpus.
ruveyn
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
You did not answer the question.
Now. Which would you rather have: Obamacare and no habeas corpus. Or no Obamacare but you have habeas corpus.
ruveyn
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and he's remembered as our greatest President.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
You did not answer the question.
Now. Which would you rather have: Obamacare and no habeas corpus. Or no Obamacare but you have habeas corpus.
ruveyn
I was never for Obamacare because it involves insurance companies, which I blame for helping rape our health care system and making it even more expensive for those who are uninsured, and even for many of us who are, while they denied care for people who needed it. Handing a guaranteed income over to them was unconscionable, IMO, and I'm not at all surprised that the same Supreme Court that ruled as it did on Citizens United decided to keep it.
I was for HR 676, which Obama seemed to ignore, and which would have provided universal coverage across the board - and which Republicans would, I'm sure, have fought tooth and nail as "communist." Obamacare is a result of so much compromise that I'm surprised Republicans, especially GOP politicians who get big corporate donations, don't claim as their own. Oh, wait, didn't Romney do that at one point?
So I'm for no Obamacare ONLY if it is replaced by universal health care, a return to Habeas Corpus (fair trials for those imprisoned - or release), and throwing out the Patriot Act.
When all the two-party politicians, banks and corporations, including Mr. Romney, ever get done demolishing our country and our civil rights, sending jobs overseas, destroying neighborhoods through foreclosures and high rents, increasing the cost of living for hardworking Americans (especially through the back door with layoffs and creation of an increasing percentage of minimum wage and not quite full time jobs) and at the same time telling us our cost of living hasn't gone up, and if they ever actually act as if they give a damn about the future - everyone's future - then maybe we can get back to working, living, and taking care of each other. Until then, now that I've cast my vote against Romney, I'll very likely register with the Green Party.
SpiritBlooms wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
You did not answer the question.
Now. Which would you rather have: Obamacare and no habeas corpus. Or no Obamacare but you have habeas corpus.
ruveyn
I was never for Obamacare because it involves insurance companies, which I blame for helping rape our health care system and making it even more expensive for those who are uninsured, and even for many of us who are, while they denied care for people who needed it. Handing a guaranteed income over to them was unconscionable, IMO, and I'm not at all surprised that the same Supreme Court that ruled as it did on Citizens United decided to keep it.
I was for HR 676, which Obama seemed to ignore, and which would have provided universal coverage across the board - and which Republicans would, I'm sure, have fought tooth and nail as "communist." Obamacare is a result of so much compromise that I'm surprised Republicans, especially GOP politicians who get big corporate donations, don't claim as their own. Oh, wait, didn't Romney do that at one point?
So I'm for no Obamacare ONLY if it is replaced by universal health care, a return to Habeas Corpus (fair trials for those imprisoned - or release), and throwing out the Patriot Act.
When all the two-party politicians, banks and corporations, including Mr. Romney, ever get done demolishing our country and our civil rights, sending jobs overseas, destroying neighborhoods through foreclosures and high rents, increasing the cost of living for hardworking Americans (especially through the back door with layoffs and creation of an increasing percentage of minimum wage and not quite full time jobs) and at the same time telling us our cost of living hasn't gone up, and if they ever actually act as if they give a damn about the future - everyone's future - then maybe we can get back to working, living, and taking care of each other. Until then, now that I've cast my vote against Romney, I'll very likely register with the Green Party.
Obama is the one who has done a number on our civil rights. Romney has done no harm. His only sin is his stupidity and cluelessness.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
It was either that, or Good Bye Obamacare.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
And, Romney professed no plans to reinstitute habeas corpus.
Who is more reprehensible? The one who undermines habeas corpus or the one that does not promise to restore it?
ruveyn
The one who threatens to destroy Obamacare.
You did not answer the question.
Now. Which would you rather have: Obamacare and no habeas corpus. Or no Obamacare but you have habeas corpus.
ruveyn
I was never for Obamacare because it involves insurance companies, which I blame for helping rape our health care system and making it even more expensive for those who are uninsured, and even for many of us who are, while they denied care for people who needed it. Handing a guaranteed income over to them was unconscionable, IMO, and I'm not at all surprised that the same Supreme Court that ruled as it did on Citizens United decided to keep it.
I was for HR 676, which Obama seemed to ignore, and which would have provided universal coverage across the board - and which Republicans would, I'm sure, have fought tooth and nail as "communist." Obamacare is a result of so much compromise that I'm surprised Republicans, especially GOP politicians who get big corporate donations, don't claim as their own. Oh, wait, didn't Romney do that at one point?
So I'm for no Obamacare ONLY if it is replaced by universal health care, a return to Habeas Corpus (fair trials for those imprisoned - or release), and throwing out the Patriot Act.
When all the two-party politicians, banks and corporations, including Mr. Romney, ever get done demolishing our country and our civil rights, sending jobs overseas, destroying neighborhoods through foreclosures and high rents, increasing the cost of living for hardworking Americans (especially through the back door with layoffs and creation of an increasing percentage of minimum wage and not quite full time jobs) and at the same time telling us our cost of living hasn't gone up, and if they ever actually act as if they give a damn about the future - everyone's future - then maybe we can get back to working, living, and taking care of each other. Until then, now that I've cast my vote against Romney, I'll very likely register with the Green Party.
Obama is the one who has done a number on our civil rights. Romney has done no harm. His only sin is his stupidity and cluelessness.
ruveyn
He attacked women's reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, he also supported don't ask don't tell. In case you aren't aware, those ARE attacks on civil rights.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
SpiritBlooms wrote:
He attacked women's reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, he also supported don't ask don't tell. In case you aren't aware, those ARE attacks on civil rights.
Those were Romney's opinions. On the other hand you boy Obama has signed laws compromising our civil liberties and immunities. He has sign a law which could do away with habeas corpus. Romney spouted hot air. Obama has done foul deeds.
ruveyn
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
ruveyn wrote:
Those were Romney's opinions. On the other hand you boy Obama has signed laws compromising our civil liberties and immunities. He has sign a law which could do away with habeas corpus. Romney spouted hot air. Obama has done foul deeds.
Romney would have done far worse given the chance.


