Mitt Romney: The Least Interesting Man in the World

His whole arguments are nothing but innuendo, if not pure fantasy, and insults.

 

I'm not calling the wikipedia article "evidence", you are. I will however ask if you believe Bush Jr. has ever been asked about whether or not he has ever used cocaine, and if in the affirmative, what his answer was.

Since I'm already aware that the question and answer are public knowledge I'll go further and explain why your comment is avoiding the issue.

By not answering, Jr. is correct in believing "plausible deniability" comes into play, that is to say, he has not answered so he doesn't need to deny the accusation. That works well for people sitting in most courtrooms, except in civil cases. But then again, and I can't believe I have to say this again so soon... we're not in a courtroom. Please don't make me use bigger letters again lol

Fact: The question was asked to him repeatedly over the years.
Fact: He has not answered the question.
Fact: I am not in a courtroom lol

Now that the facts have been stated let's look at reasonings:

If Jr. had indeed used coke in 1972, an era where the use of coke was less restrictive than now (it was encouraged even, a mainstream part of the nightclub culture), it would be seen today by most people as just that, a normal behavior for a well-off party-boy.

So if Jr. had said "yes", the general public wouldn't have held it against him, but the political choice is to not respond unless you absolutely can say without a shadow of a doubt that you had never used cocaine. The reason? If you should say "no" and later it is discovered there is proof of you using coke in 1972, that lie would be used against you politically.

I repeat: You only say "no" to that question when you have never used coke. If you have, but you are afraid to say so, you simply don't respond.

Now, that may not hold up in most courts, but here on Partisan Lines I can absolutely say without a shadow of doubt that Jr. was a coke-snorting idiot, because he failed to say "no."

 

Again, I respect Obama, therefore I have no need to refer to him as a coke-snorter. I have no respect for Jr. though, and that should be self-evident as well. But that's not the real issue you are having here. What you are having an issue with is my disrespect towards Jr. You don't want me to refer to him as a coke-snorting idiot.

 

Time may tell whether you understand the issue, but I don't feel like waiting for something that may or may not occur so I'll just get to the point: You don't want me to call Jr. a coke-snorting idiot.

 

Again, all three righties are on the same page... and again, I'll point out the issue: You don't like me calling Jr. a coke-snorting idiot. Is that an insult? Why yes, yes it is. If you were Jr. you'd have the right to complain about it, and I'd be more than happy to let you take a swing at me, but here you don't have a leg to stand on, the person being insulted is a public figure and there is more than enough evidence out there for me to say it's an accurate description of him. It's not fantasy. It's reality. Nice try incorporating that in though.

 

But again, I give the righties here (righties exclusively being David, rlm and coin) amunition and they fail to use it LOL ...it's good ammo you know, it directly counteracts the idea of Romney being the only "stiff" in politics... I swear, I didn't spit or pee on it or anything! LOL

What do I have to do? Do I have to giftwrap it for ya? LOL

 

Bush brought this country to the brink of economic disaster by EVERYONES assessment. There isn't one iota of difference between the policies of George Bush and Mitt Romney's proposed economic policies except that the Ryan budget plan is even more draconian than Bush's policies. If someone here can point out even one substantive difference between their policies, please do. Many of the same people from Bush's administration have already been tapped for a possible Romney presidency heaven forbid. If you liked Bush, you'll absolutely love Romney and I don't hear anyone holding up Bush as an ideal that they'd like to try again.
Yet the same people that voted for Bush are here telling us again that they know who is best for the country. Why believe them this time when there is virtually no difference between Bush and Romney and they were completely wrong about Bush? Republican do nothing but lie on the stump and idiots believe their lies. Reagan was the biggest proven liar on the stump that ever ran and they worship him. Now they feel like they have credibility to pass judgment again. Sorry, we are just not buying your deceit even if you do willingly.

 

Hell, I'll throw 'em another bone and be completely bi-partisan: (the following is a lie... I repeat: The following is a lie...)

On Ronald Reagan's last night as President he asked Bill Clinton to give him a quickie, but it turned into an all-night affair!

There, see? It was completely bi-partisan!

 

You're turning a non-issue into an even bigger non-issue. Who cares if Bush snorted coke? He did. Or if Obama snorted coke? He did, too. Your inclination to add descriptors like these to their names is extremely juvenile. You may as well say, "Adulterating Bill Clinton" every time you mention his name. Or "Lying Hillary Clinton". Or "Tax Cheating Tim Geithner". What's the point?

 

If we can return to 5% unemployment & $1.84 gas, I'm all for it. I think most would agree.

 

What part of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression don't you understand....Conveniently? No economist anywhere said that this would be over in three years. Are you also waiting for the stock market to be at 6000? Are you also waiting for us to be losing 750,000 jobs a month? Are you also waiting for us to return to out of control spending on unnecessary wars, unfunded programs, and Osama bin Laden to return from the dead? Are you ready to be thrown off of your health care insurance because you got ill? Would you like to see Wall Street return to gambling rather than investing? Sure you would.

 

...and it began when? Around the time dems took control of both houses of Congress? And has only gotten worse under BO's "leadership"? Hmmm

 

Even you can't be that stupid. OK I might be wrong about that.

 

Oh, yes, most of us can be your kind of "that stupid" (AKA, those of us with enough sense to see that every action has an equal and opposite reaction), but only a select few can be so ignorant as to think democratic control of all bills had nothing to do with this recession.

 

BO is counting on voters being stupid enough to fall for his "it's everyone elses fault" defense of his failed agenda....I guess it is working in this case.

 

Really? Because even Romney had to finally admit both that Obama didn't cause the economic crisis and that it hasn't gotten worse although that was yet another flip-flop for him. So you saying it doesn't make it any truer but it does leaves you somewhere stuck in a past Right-wing lie. People who believe lies because they want to believe them ARE stupid ideologues.
At least I can point out scores of successes Obama has had. Romney lost to the guy who lost to Obama. Good luck trying to get your guy back to the middle after that primary season. It's all on tape and ready for the Obama team to trot out in endless commercials all summer. Your guy couldn't be a bigger piece of plastic phoniness. Only idiots would back an aristocrat and call the other side elitists. Yikes!

 

Ignorance must be bliss, moen. If you wanna see a dyed-in-the-wool, hardcore close-minded ideologue of world class proportion just look in the mirror.

 

Thanks for bringing up the subject of being a juvenile. I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday, but held off writing about it since it would only push you righties further into defensive-mode. But screw it, since you brought it up, it's fair game now.

Last night, while reading the rightie's whines about how Congress passed PPACA without republican support, I noticed they failed to acknowledge the truth of the situation in almost ever aspect. Blame, blame, blame, blame, and on and on... but without any significant mention of the actual mechanisms of making law.

It soon became apparent that the righties here were only following what their rightie-buddies in Congress were doing, and so I thought I'd take the time to mention, in the most basic terms possible (in order for those with lower comprehention skills to understand) how the behavior by the righties in Congress works while the lefties attempt to make law.

Here goes:

Picture a few hundred screaming little kids, stamping their collective little feet, eyes gushing tears, drool running out of their mouths, some are even wetting themselves. Got it? Ok, good. Those little buggers are the republicans. The democrats, the only adults in the room, are busy making law, but it's "take your little republican bugger to work day" and so they have to put up with the rancor. Now, some democrats try to console the little buggers, asking them if they want to help make the law, but the little buggers being little buggers will have none of that, they scream even louder, the flow of drool increases, and some of them even "make poo poo" in their diapers. Still, the lefties console the little buggers, asking them time and time again to join them in making law, even offering the little buggers some cookies and milk if they would just behave like good little boys and girls. But nope, they're little buggers through and through, and it's soon evident that they will never listen to reason. So the lefties have no choice but to let the little buggers scream bloody murder as the grown-ups work.

There ya go, hope that helps you righties understand how your buddies in Congress "work" with lefties to make law.

 

Post #38 P.S. - You'll never see a more accurate description of republican behavior in Congress... or online.