What would Romney have to do?

[tonymctones]

I disagree. I don't think Romney would do anything different at all...

I ask people this all of the time, what would Romney do different? Please tell me... because so far, I haven't heard a single thing that would make me think he would do ANYTHING differently.

The only thing I do know is that Obama didn't do a lot of the things he SAID he would and that shit pisses me off... especially when it comes down to liberty.

to do worse all Romney will have to do is generally stay on the same course which is what he will fucking do.

you both think romney would have passed a health care bill like obamas?

you think he would have passed a shell of a financial regulation bill like obama?

you both think he would have basically halted public drilling and make a 3000+ page oil well application out a 30 page application like obama did?

you think he would have toyed with letting the bush tax cuts expire?

you both think he would not pass the keystone pipe line?




SERIOUSLY, you two are freaking delusional.

again someone would have to try to do worse than obama has done on the economy?

[tu_holmes]

you both think romney would have passed a health care bill like obamas?

you think he would have passed a shell of a financial regulation bill like obama?

you both think he would have basically halted public drilling and make a 3000+ page oil well application out a 30 page application like obama did?

you think he would have toyed with letting the bush tax cuts expire?

you both think he would not pass the keystone pipe line?




SERIOUSLY, you two are freaking delusional.

again someone would have to try to do worse than obama has done on the economy?

I believe so on ALL counts.

Go ahead and vote for the guy... Let him win... Then when he does ALL of the things that you claim he wouldn't do... I'll be happy to post back in this thread with a simple statement.

"I told you so."

[tonymctones]

I believe so on ALL counts.

Go ahead and vote for the guy... Let him win... Then when he does ALL of the things that you claim he wouldn't do... I'll be happy to post back in this thread with a simple statement.

"I told you so."

Not even close he may have done parts of these things but nothing like obama has done.

He may have passed a financial reform bill but not something that was a shell with no details.

I really dont see him doing anything else.

You think health care was a real big issue prior to obama bringing it to the fore front? it wasnt really.

you think the reps in congress would let romney get away with not approving keystone?

or letting the tax cuts expire?

again youre delusional if you think he would have been as bad as obama has been...

there wont be any need b/c unlike the typical obama supporter Ill be on here bashing the crap out of him for doing it b/c I voted for him and expected better.

[tu_holmes]

Not even close he may have done parts of these things but nothing like obama has done.

He may have passed a financial reform bill but not something that was a shell with no details.

I really dont see him doing anything else.

You think health care was a real big issue prior to obama bringing it to the fore front? it wasnt really.

you think the reps in congress would let romney get away with not approving keystone?

or letting the tax cuts expire?

again youre delusional if you think he would have been as bad as obama has been...

there wont be any need b/c unlike the typical obama supporter Ill be on here bashing the crap out of him for doing it b/c I voted for him and expected better.

You are being very small minded.

I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.

During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.

The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.

I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.

You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.

You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.

[tonymctones]

You are being very small minded.

I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.

During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.

The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.

I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.

You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.

You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.

I never said he would overturn obamas policies, hopefully the SC will handle part or all of obamacare.

will he help keystone, I think he will

other than that he may want to but may not get a chance depending on congress.

P.S. we will all be worse off and even more disappointed in 4 years if obama wins. Im not a big romney fan but he is far better than obama.

[Hugo Chavez]

tony, don't be silly...  Of course he's not going to do exactly the same stuff Obama has done.  I have no doubt he'll have his own brand of WTF are you thinking to hit America with and I have no doubt it'll be equally wrong for the country.

[tonymctones]

tony, don't be silly...  Of course he's not going to do exactly the same stuff Obama has done.  I have no doubt he'll have his own brand of WTF are you thinking to hit America with and I have no doubt it'll be equally wrong for the country.

Ill agree with that, and it will be extra frustrating b/c he will present it in a "conservative" light which will piss me off to no end.

In my honest opinion though I dont think anyone could hurt the economy as much as obama has and not do it on purpose.

[Fury]

It's simple, really. Obama has been this bad and he has to run for reelection. I can't even begin to fathom what this jerk-off will do without having to worry about that.

Romney will have to worry about reelection.

Easy choice. Of course, this board is full of dipshit parasites so I guess that becomes a difficult choice. Keep talking about Zimmerman. 

[Soul Crusher]

It's simple, really. Obama has been this bad and he has to run for reelection. I can't even begin to fathom what this jerk-off will do without having to worry about that.

Romney will have to worry about reelection.

Easy choice. Of course, this board is full of dipshit parasites so I guess that becomes a difficult choice. Keep talking about Zimmerman. 

.

[Fury]

.

It amazes me. He has yet to offer one viable fucking solution as to how he'll fix the economy in the second term and these clowns still want to vote for him. It all makes sense when you take into account their parasitical nature and the fact that they derive their income from government handouts.

[syntaxmachine]

You are being very small minded.

I am exactly upset at Obama because I voted for him and thought he would do better, but has not.

During this time frame, I have realized that they are EXACTLY the same.

The economy would not be better, Romney will NOT overturn Obama's policies (we can bet on it if you want) and when it's all said and done, they will be virtually identical.

I believe Romney will be EXACTLY the same.

You call me delusional, but I simply don't see a difference in their actual actions... in the rhetoric, sure... but Romney wants to get voted in, so he's going to "say" whatever he thinks will get him elected.

You will be sorely disappointed if he wins in 4 years.

You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.

Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."

[tu_holmes]

You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.

Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."

He did not repeal the Patriot act.

He did not truly have that "transparency" he claimed he would have.

He did not promote liberty as he stated he would return to the people.

I am saying both btw... Romney would not and will not do anything different.

I'm not even saying I'm voting for Obama... I'm pretty sure I'm not... BUT, when I vote for Romney, I know full well, I'm voting for the EXACT same shit I voted in last time.

[dario73]

You still haven't said what Obama did to disappoint -- he carried out the majority of his agenda as stated in his second book.

Also there's some ambiguity here: I'm not sure if you're saying "Romney wouldn't have done anything different these last fours years," or "Romney won't do anything differen these next four years."

Look at this imbecile.

Obama is not a disappointment? What the hell??

[syntaxmachine]

Look at this imbecile.

Obama is not a disappointment? What the hell??

Tell me where in my post it says 'Obama isn't a disappointment,' the claim you are apparently attributing to me.

You need to amp up your reading comprehension, to the extent that that's possible: I asked why tu was disappointed with Obama, given that he voted for him and given that Obama has in fact achieved or attempted the majority of the policy outputs he said he would. In other words, I'm asking why tu is disappointed given the man he voted for more or less did what he said he'd do.

[garebear]

.

[MCWAY]

.

Since Jesus was hardly a socialist (see the parable of the talents), file this in the foolishness category for Garebear.

[syntaxmachine]

He did not repeal the Patriot act.

Ok.

He did not truly have that "transparency" he claimed he would have.

He did not promote liberty as he stated he would return to the people.

These are vague promises rather than specific policy proposals, and thus it shouldn't be any surprise they weren't fulfilled. You have to evaluate presidents based on the actual policies they say they are going to implement, not content-free promises to "make America better," and so forth.

So, you've mentioned a single specific policy goal Obama failed to achieve. There are others, of course, but I encourage you to read his second book, which contains dozens of proposals and gives a pretty clear indication of what Obama was going to do as president. The majority of these proposals were enacted once he got the job. I think your disappointment may be in expecting the impossible, in conjunction with the state of the economy, rather than any set of policy failures on Obama's part. I don't blame you, since most people do this rather than only evaluating the policy.

[garebear]

Since Jesus was hardly a socialist (see the parable of the talents), file this in the foolishness category for Garebear.

Yep. Jesus hated the poor and he certainly didn't want anyone helping them.

File this in the 'MCWAY makes another great point' category with his "religion".

[tu_holmes]

Ok.

These are vague promises rather than specific policy proposals, and thus it shouldn't be any surprise they weren't fulfilled. You have to evaluate presidents based on the actual policies they say they are going to implement, not content-free promises to "make America better," and so forth.

So, you've mentioned a single specific policy goal Obama failed to achieve. There are others, of course, but I encourage you to read his second book, which contains dozens of proposals and gives a pretty clear indication of what Obama was going to do as president. The majority of these proposals were enacted once he got the job. I think your disappointment may be in expecting the impossible, rather than any set of policy failures on Obama's part. I don't blame you, since most people do this rather than only evaluating the policy.

I have no desire to read any of his books.

I listened to his debate. I watched and heard his speeches.

There are tons of things he didn't do that I and many others were told he would do.
They were not.

None the less. It does not change te fact that McCain would have been virtually the same and Romney will be as well if elected.

[MCWAY]

Yep. Jesus hated the poor and he certainly didn't want anyone helping them.

File this in the 'MCWAY makes another great point' category with his "religion".

Helping the poor has nothing to do with socialism. Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.

Thanks for playing!!!

[garebear]

Helping the poor has nothing to do with socialism. Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.

Thanks for playing!!!

Nevermind that.

Tell me the part about the talking snake.

[MCWAY]

Nevermind that.

Tell me the part about the talking snake.

Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.

[240 is Back]

Tell me where Christ stated that the government should take other people's money to help them again.

Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur

[syntaxmachine]

I have no desire to read any of his books.

I listened to his debate. I watched and heard his speeches.

There are tons of things he didn't do that I and many others were told he would do.
They were not.

You just can't name any of them, that's all? Memory plays funny tricks on us and I think it's more likely you're imagining this huge list of unfulfilled promises, plus taking vague and content-free ones like "promoting liberty" seriously; again, those sorts of promises everyone makes and can't be evaluated as fulfilled or not because they are too subjective. Only the specific policy proposals matter, and, once again, the majority of them were fulfilled (for better or worse).

[MCWAY]

Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

So here, we have a very good example of Utopian Socialism in action with Jesus telling the wealthy young man the only way to follow him and gain heaven was to give away his great wealth to the poor, in other words redistribution of personal wealth to those with great need from those with great riches. Naturally, this must be very difficult for some to swallow, notice that the young mans face ‘fell’ when told he must give away his wealth to follow Jesus. Here though is our first proof, we must have no personal wealth beyond our needs; Socialism seems to be de rigueur

Not really! Look at the same book, a few chapters later, to Matt. 25:

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
        
But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
         
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
        
He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
        
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
        
And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
        
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

(Imagine that!! A businessman wanting to make a PROFIT....OH THE HUMANITY!!!).
        
Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.         

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Hmmmm....that don't sound like socialism to me. And, neither the master nor the two servants, who doubled their talents, were ordered to give all their money away. And why didn't the master "redistribute the wealth" from the other two servants to the lazy one?

Nicodemus, the Pharisse: Rich guy, not ordered to give his money away. Jesus told him he had to be born again to be saved, NOT give away his money.

Zaccheus, the tax collector: Rich guy, not ordered to give his money way (but did so of his own accord and gave it DIRECTLY to people, not the government).

Then, there's that pesky verse in 2 Thess. 3:10, If anyone would not work, neither should he eat

Socialism? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!