I don't like Mitt RomneyFollow

Mitt spelled backwqards is Ttim!

Don't believe the too little too late spin. The real Republican primaries don't start until South Carolina. Fred Thompson will be the nominee, so you don't have to worry about Mitt.

Edited, Jan 13th 2008 2:29am by JoltinJoe

If Hillary loses, I bet they make one for Lifetime. "In a Man's World" or something of that nature. Of course, Bill will be abusive, but that's what she gets.

Nexa

Anyone else trying desperately to get the image of Joph tickling Gbaji's tummy out of their brains?

Where'd I put that bleach and steel wool?

Edited, Jan 13th 2008 10:39am by Ambrya

Last I saw, your baby had them.

I don't know about that but what he did do was veto'd every spending bill after congress was out of session--right at the end of his administration so he'd never have to deal with the aftermath--he left that for Deval Patrick. I remember it particularly b/c in the trial courts/dmh split funding that we need, we have been flat funded for eight years, finally got an increase and Mitt slashed it at the last minute, unilaterally and it wasn't restored until next time congress was in session with the new governor.

That was his slashing spending. Other than that, he just played the game in Massachusetts like everyone else did.

With that said, I don't know if being an insider of Massachusetts power system is something to be proud of nor is it something that necessarily gives you the skills to make a reasonable analysis of the effectiveness of a particular politician.



Edited, Jan 13th 2008 8:51pm by Annabella

I know tons of people either at least as or much more politically connected than it sounds like you are. I think the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees" often applies.

Name five things...easy.

1. I am an economist and an FX Trader. In my 2007 FX forecasts made in January, I predicted the EUR would not break 1.45. I was wrong. fucking subprime mortgages

2. I should not have invested in Home Depot. I took a huge loss.

3. I should not have blown all that money in Vegas. My wife still holds it against me.

4. I made bad decisions while raising my son. I made some mistakes that I wish I could correct. All in all though, he has a very good set of morals.

5. I should not have had two Egg McMuffins for breakfast. Heartburn blows.

Let me add just one more for you.

6. I was wrong to think that you were part of the top tier of posters here. I usually enjoyed reading your posts. I may not have agreed with them but, usually they were filled with your opinion based off of facts. Your arguement of "No he wasn't, your wrong" and, "I know because Ray Flynn taught me how to drive" is ridiculous.

Smash, you are entitled to your opinion, everyone is, but I have a problem when people can't back up their opinion. Opinions are usually based off of who one perceives the facts and you haven't backed a damn thing up.



Sweet baby Jesus, Hell hath frozen over, I agree with Katie.

Your arguement of "No he wasn't, your wrong" and, "I know because Ray Flynn taught me how to drive" is ridiculous.


Yes. that's true. What it isn't, however, is my argument. My argument is this:

If you've come to the point of view you've espoused without some sort of recent brain injury, there is no point in my arguing my case with facts and logic. You see, if you're possessed of the sort of willfully ignorant mindset that allows you to unquestioningly accept obvious propaganda as fact, and who's starting point for research is that things spoken by for profit radio show hosts are generally true, it's a waste of my time. Comprende?

What's the motivation for me here to have a rational discourse with you? You're not capable. Were you capable, at your present age, you wouldn't be afflicted with this strange ability to live in some fantasy world where things you'd personally like to be true are treated identically to things that are true. Because you are, this is a massive waste of my time. Now, since I have no motivation to attempt to change your mind, what reason is left for me to post?

Ridicule. I enjoy it. It makes me laugh. If you want to engage me in an actual discussion, you have to put forth something that's open for some sort of debate.

Here's a hint:


He isn't that bad. He really did try to clean up Mass. but was cockblocked by the high-spending, patronage job offering democratic state Congress.

This isn't it.

I'm not going to seriously argue with you about something that's obviously false. Just as I wouldn't argue with a 2 year old if she told me there was a dinosaur in the other room. I'd play along and laugh and be amused by her imagination. Were she 35 and telling me seriously that there was a dinosaur in the other room, I'd start of @#%^ing with her, then if she persisted, I'd just be worried for her sanity.

The longer you persist in trying to take this seriously, the more worried I become.



Edited, Jan 14th 2008 1:42pm by Smasharoo

It isn't worth trying to debate you

Due respect, you're not capable.

I'll play along, though. In 20 words or less state what it is you'd like me to "prove" to you and then in 100 words or less state any proof you've offered of the opposite. This idea that I'm somehow required to disprove your arbitrary assertions is mindless. Am I supposed to "prove" that Romney didn't do a good job as Governor? How would one "prove" such a thing. His hand picked successor was obliterated in the election by a black guy from Chicago. Is that a good indication that he was doing a good job? He couldn't get any GOP reps elected as part of the GOP machine here and thus his legislative agenda was a non starter from the first day he took office. Is that a good indication that he was doing a good job?

I'm not so partisan that I think a Republican Governor of this state can't do a good job. I think Bill Weld did a good job. This isn't a party issue for me. There have been plenty of corrupt awful Democratic Governors of this state. In Romney's case, he was just an impotent, ineffective, corrupt Govenor who *happens to coincidentally* be a Republican.

Edited, Jan 14th 2008 3:03pm by Smasharoo

I stated my arguement why I thought he wasn't "that bad" and linked different websites to back me up. You then proceeded to tell me I had no clue and that you had circle jerks with different Mass politicians.

Yup, then you told me I didn't live in Massachusetts. You're batting 1000 on making unwarranted wrong assumptions so far in your timeline. Keep going.

And you have facts to back up these claims? And where would these facts be? My guess would be in Santa's Enchanted Village living with the Easter Bunny?

What fucking delusional world do you live in. If I am correct, you said my opinion was wrong and offered no fucking proof why. Don't play this reverse psychology bullshit on me. Answer the question. Why was Romney a bad Governor and support it with facts. Huh, huh? Why am I wrong? Huh, Huh? Sorry, its because I am a unique snowflake. Great arguement, that holds up real well.