• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Should I Care About Ann Romney's Resume? [W:52]

Ahh. Nice try, but I am not taking the bait. Onto the old ignore list you go.


NOTE: In my 15 years on internet forums, I have seen much better people than you attempt to bait me. In fact, your attempts here are pretty weak sauce. If you want to be successful at baiting people on the internet, then you are really going to have to step it up a few notches. Just trying to help you out here so that you don't flop so badly in your future baiting endeavors. Have a nice day...... And adios. LOL.
Adios, I mean you were already ignoring me pointing out that you had some basic facts about me wrong. I guess putting me on "ignore" is easier than admitting you were wrong about my lean (has not changed since the day I joined) or the fact that I've never posted a word about Romney at this forum. Ever. Or about whom I will support for POTUS. So yeah, you better take the high moral ground route all brave internet warriors take and put me on "ignore". Which is a laugh for a lot of reasons aside from how weak you look going to that cliched weak as hell internet hack whine.

Yeah, I think I've got your number down and your "game" succinctly called out. Better call it "baiting you" and "attacking you" and you will just use the ignore feature! The one that we all know does not mean you won't still be reading and seeing every single post I make! The only thing IMO more stupid and useless than the ignore feature are the posers who say they are going to use it. Attah boy danarhea!
 
Adios, I mean you were already ignoring me pointing out that you had some basic facts about me wrong. I guess putting me on "ignore" is easier than admitting you were wrong about my lean (has not changed since the day I joined) or the fact that I've never posted a word about Romney at this forum. Ever. Or about whom I will support for POTUS. So yeah, you better take the high moral ground route all brave internet warriors take and put me on "ignore". Which is a laugh for a lot of reasons aside from how weak you look going to that cliched weak as hell internet hack whine.

Yeah, I think I've got your number down and your "game" succinctly called out. Better call it "baiting you" and "attacking you" and you will just use the ignore feature! The one that we all know does not mean you won't still be reading and seeing every single post I make! The only thing IMO more stupid and useless than the ignore feature are the posers who say they are going to use it. Attah boy danarhea!

Moderator's Warning:
This thread is NOT about the lean of other posters. Try to remember that or a thread ban is imminent.
 
Oh no no no! :rofl:

Don't tell me you believe that news papers (which few people actually read these days) and mainstream 24/7 news dribble is the ONLY source for such information. :rofl (and heck - lets inclue their online websites while we're at it)

I'm very well informed - and don't engage in either: I do research - lots of it . . .and extensive amount of reading (books, journals, articles) - not affiliated with mainstream anythings. . . I engage in debate and discussion (fascinating stuff others can bring up in a debate).

The path to knowledge doesn't have to be defined by some faux journalists cleaving to a secret ideology defined by their ratings - er - I mean 'audience'

Sometimes I go to foreign news sources - it's surprising sometimes the vast variety of US news you get from places like Reuters and China Daily.




Well I agree with searching out various sources of information. Then comes the hard part. Trying to get the facts from the biased drivel.

Stopped relying on the AP, to much opinion and not enough "just he facts". Reuters is my last hope for "just the news".

Sad, but there isn't much out there I would consider quality; most newspapers/news shows/etc., all have a bias. And that puts all of us in harms way. Sad really.
 
I will say this about some of the vets around DP, virtually everything I was told with regard to the "prankster duo" has been spot on! Thanks for the heads up. Including the fact that one of the two runs to the other for protection whenever his hackery gets noted. You said he would do it, and wallah like magic he did and then as if it never ever ever has happened before, him is here, doing exactly what you said he would. I call it cadet nincompoopery, but no matter what you call it, it is a by the book and obvious as I was told it all would be!:lamo
 
I will say this about some of the vets around DP, virtually everything I was told with regard to the "prankster duo" has been spot on! Thanks for the heads up. Including the fact that one of the two runs to the other for protection whenever his hackery gets noted. You said he would do it, and wallah like magic he did and then as if it never ever ever has happened before, him is here, doing exactly what you said he would. I call it cadet nincompoopery, but no matter what you call it, it is a by the book and obvious as I was told it all would be!:lamo



Hey Gie. :)

What did you think about Maher's comment on Ann Romney - "she never got her arse out of the house in the cold etc." - was really what DNC strategist Rosen really was trying to say? As to Ms. Romney's resume maybe she can add trashed by Bill Maher on national TV.

Bill Maher, IMO, should at least try to be funny, since his resume says he a comedian, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Hey Gie. :)

What did you think about Maher's comment on Ann Romney - "she never got her arse out of the house in the cold etc." - was really what DNC strategist Rosen really was trying to say? As to Ms. Romney's resume maybe she can add trashed by Bill Maher on national TV.

Bill Maher, IMO, should at least try to funny, since his resume says he a comedian, don't you think?
I'm not familiar with it, I'm a couple of weeks behind on my DVR so imagine I'll see it soon enough. Mahr is a humorous shill for the DNC, as such I would fully expect him to leap, nay throw himself on the Romney controversy even as the source of same backpedals and makes more and more apologies for it. That is how the game is played!
 
I'm not familiar with it, I'm a couple of weeks behind on my DVR so imagine I'll see it soon enough. Mahr is a humorous shill for the DNC, as such I would fully expect him to leap, nay throw himself on the Romney controversy even as the source of same backpedals and makes more and more apologies for it. That is how the game is played!



Of course he's a shill for the Libbys. He also gave $1 million to President Obama's campaign now he, along with Ms. Rosen, seem to be the Obama Admin hit squad.
 
Of course he's a shill for the Libbys. He also gave $1 million to President Obama's campaign now he, along with Ms. Rosen, seem to be the Obama Admin hit squad.
That's OK, I don't mind. Just as long as one is forearmed with knowledge going in, and I don't think anyone does not know Maher's political lean and biases. I personally think he is at his weakest when he starts going after the right with his "comedy" as it gets pretty puerile when he is doing so. When he is just being a comedian and not whining about republicans, but being creative and funny, then he is funny. IMO he gets downright stupid when he has to craft his humor to attack the right. I've even seen an interview with him where he pretty much admitted the same, but as it is now a HUGE part of his shtick, he is obligated to do that material, even though he knows he sounds like a bit of a shrill shill doing so.
 
Bill Maher, IMO, should at least try to be funny, since his resume says he a comedian, don't you think?

So is Victoria Jackson. At least technically.

Personally, I've never found either of them especially funny.
 
For someone who supports a candidate who has done more Liberal things than most Democrats have done, you are in no position to question my lean, nor that of anybody else.

Dan with all due respect you parroted the liberal talking points with absolutely no context and expect not to be questioned on where you stand? Thats pretty weak. See post 20 here is a reminder :

Originally Posted by danarhea
This is something I have been agreeing with for some time, but I just found something out....

Romney has been defending his wife's wish to be a stay at home mom.... So far, no problem. But in January, he said this:



Apparently, it is OK for his wife to be a stay at home mom, but not OK for regular Americans. Now, as far as Ann Romney goes, this is not about her, and we shouldn't be jumping all over her for her decisions in life, which are just as valid as decisions made by any other American. But, apparently, Mitt Romney believes that the choice to be a stay at home mom is a privilege that should only be enjoyed by wives of billionaire elitist assholes like himself.
Oh yea, and Mitt wants the government to spend more money too. You sure he ain't really a Democrat billionaire elitist asshole?


Dan, now provide the rest. Hes referring to mothers on public assistance. Your comment is so toolish you can pick it up off the shelf at Ace.

CONTEXT DAMMIT. Even the LA Times did a better job at the context than you did with your comment.


Romney’s remarks were in reference to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which was created in 1996 as a part of welfare reform. Providing block grants to states, which are then intended to be directed to families in need, the number of families assisted by TANF has decreased from 68 for every 100 in poverty in 1996 to 27 for every 100 in 2010, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study. Along with allowing for the government to aide women in returning to the workplace, Romney also proposed a unemployment account set up by individual workers to serve as a form of insurance should they lose their jobs.

The Romney campaign defended the former Massachusetts governor’s remarks, citing the bipartisan nature of 1996’s welfare reforms.

"Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5% in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration's economic policies have been devastating to women and families," Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokesperson said.

Romney’s remarks aren’t far removed from those made by President Bill Clinton, in a statement released August 22, 1996.

“Most important, this Act is tough on work. Not only does it include firm but fair work requirements, it provides $4 billion more in child care than the vetoed bills—so that parents can end their dependency on welfare and go to work—and maintains health and safety standards for day care providers,” Clinton said
.

You not only made a crappy argument, you made a crappy liberal talking point argument AND took it out of context to make your point. You look like a liberal hack when you do nonsense like that. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.
 
and this "lets move" BS is simply aweful propganda

It's like every initiative every first lady pushes! How on earth do people get upset about making kids healthier! You'd think that wouldn't be a controversial topic!
 
Dan with all due respect you parroted the liberal talking points with absolutely no context and expect not to be questioned on where you stand? Thats pretty weak. See post 20 here is a reminder :



You not only made a crappy argument, you made a crappy liberal talking point argument AND took it out of context to make your point. You look like a liberal hack when you do nonsense like that. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.
In addition to letting his mask slip danarhea also attributed positions and statements to me that I've never taken, never held and never posted at DP. When challenged on this, the genius just repeated them. And then he repeated them again. Eventually he decided the ballsy thing to do, the thing to do with the taste for integrity that most appealed to him was to run away. Take his blanket and whine a bit, then run away. But not before he contacted his tag team prank partner and cried that his years old prank was getting noticed. Again. But really, he wants to be taken seriously, that is why he did as you pointed out and then had a tantrum when his flim flam was a no sale and ran away. As you said, he looks exactly like a liberal hack when he pulls this kind of limp wristed hackery.
 
Last edited:
It's like every initiative every first lady pushes! How on earth do people get upset about making kids healthier! You'd think that wouldn't be a controversial topic!


I have no problem with Ms. Obama's working on healthier kid programs. We do have a problem with over weight adults and kids.

My problem is when it goes from suggestions to mandates.
 
Uh huh ... and Sean Hannity? And Bill O'Reilly? And about 20 other videos I could pull up if necessary?
Uh huh....if you had not edited my response and read it instead, you might look a little less foolish than you do. Maybe you should go back and take a second run at it? Or is editing out the part of a post that actually answers the question you posed after editing out that part of the post, that answers the question you are rather idiotically asking, your idea of a really snazzy post? Go ahead and link us all up to 20 more pathetic videos that start with hackishly edited material that is easily debunked with a Google search. Then make sure the rest of your pathetic video is clips of paid opinion commentators making comments that are not particularly salacious or comparable to the comments about Mrs. Romney that this thread is about.

Let me repeat myself, as you just demonstrated I had a pretty solid point before you did a hack run 101 with your copy and paste option. You should probably avoid using You Tube videos as your source. That advise goes to any other quick studies from any political stripe. In fact, not using "edited" You Tube videos as a source for anything but demonstration of your own naivete is what I'd call tribal knowledge. In some circles known as common sense.
 
Last edited:
Oh and uh huh Adam T, using none too cleverly edited videos (complete with jarring sounds like a needle dragged across a record between "quotes") is usually the territory of pbrauer and the multi fangled "Hazels" and Boo flingers. They will be delighted to learn a Ivy league "character" of your stripe is assisting their cause to rape and pillage common sense and that which is at the outer reaches of internet claims. Guess it goes to demonstrate what folks always said about G. W. Bush and an Ivy League edUmAcation. Mmm hmmm.
 
Carl Edwards: Resume for consideration for the office of the president of the united states reads as follows; lying, cheating, dirty, filthy pig
 
Carl Edwards: Resume for consideration for the office of the president of the united states reads as follows; lying, cheating, dirty, filthy pig

Sounds like he would be a great GOP candidate!
 
Oh and uh huh Adam T, using none too cleverly edited videos (complete with jarring sounds like a needle dragged across a record between "quotes") is usually the territory of pbrauer and the multi fangled "Hazels" and Boo flingers. They will be delighted to learn a Ivy league "character" of your stripe is assisting their cause to rape and pillage common sense and that which is at the outer reaches of internet claims. Guess it goes to demonstrate what folks always said about G. W. Bush and an Ivy League edUmAcation. Mmm hmmm.

As I mentioned above, I could easily post a dozen or more unedited Fox News videos attacking Michelle Obama. It was just more convenient to post a composite video.

For example, one of many Fox broadcasts discussing a nonexistent tape of Michelle using the word "whitey".

 
Last edited:
As I mentioned above, I could easily post a dozen or more unedited Fox News videos attacking Michelle Obama. It was just more convenient to post a composite video.

For example, one of many Fox broadcasts discussing a nonexistent tape of Michelle using the word "whitey".
I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about. Now you say you can post more of them and you find "them" more convenient to use?

Yeah that was kinda of the point, which went right over your pointy hat.

So lets take a look at the "source" of your latest video "compilation" which is also the source for such other high minded intellectual material as the following "convenient" video compilations:

"Mentally Disabled Man Forced to Vote for Obama"

"Sarah Palin is a C*NT say Obama supporters"

"Barak Obama and the Jews"

"Racist Guy Supports Obama"

"Barak Obama - Accidental Muslim"


And the list of these oh so intellectual "videos" you keep posting goes on and on, and gets more funny the more you look into just their oh so creative titles.

What next? You gonna step it up to the next level of "convenient" video compilations and just start posting straight from Media Matters? Or you just prefer the journalistic video editing of that infamous bringer of *truth* known to the world as "billemo2" the world renowned author of such sterling works as listed above and of course who can forget his other brilliant forays into intellectual video editing as this too?



I'm absolutely certain that you would probably be happy to keep showing us your idea of great easy to use convenient video compilations from You Tube, by such sterling journalistic sources as billemo2 and which you did not bother to watch or acquaint yourself with the contents of before you posted them. My request would of course be, please oh pretty please keep doing so?

Oh here is one more you missed by this source of your Ivy League material, billemo2!
"Barack Obama Gay Sex Scandal New Evidence"

Yeah I think you should keep showing us at DP what your idea of conveyance is, despite how obvious that already is to anybody with an IQ above oh say what? 70?
 
Last edited:
I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about.

Not sure why you seem so upset by this. The first video contained many legitimate clips of Fox on-air personalities and their guests attacking Michelle Obama. That was the point. To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right? Because Ann Romney has not been attacked, but Michelle has been attacked repeatedly? Then I posted an unedited clip that you seem to have ignored. Want another one?

How about fat-ass Rush Limbaugh ironically commenting on the first lady's derrier?



Got any film critique on that? How was the sound mixing? levels a little too high?

I don't think the ad hominem really adds anything to your argument -- such as it is -- so I'll just ignore it.
 
Not sure why you seem so upset by this. The first video contained many legitimate clips of Fox on-air personalities and their guests attacking Michelle Obama. That was the point. To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right? Because Ann Romney has not been attacked, but Michelle has been attacked repeatedly? Then I posted an unedited clip that you seem to have ignored. Want another one?

How about fat-ass Rush Limbaugh ironically commenting on the first lady's derrier?

Got any film critique on that? How was the sound mixing? levels a little too high?

I don't think the ad hominem really adds anything to your argument -- such as it is -- so I'll just ignore it.

Upset? I'm completely amused with your hackish videos! The first one, which you clearly never bothered to watch, I debunked for you. I asked earlier, you never answered then, did you need another run at it? Clearly the answer is yes you did. Somehow on a second pass you still have not figured out the 1st video started with a poorly edited attempt to twist the position of Jane Hall of the American University School of Communication. Not a Fox News anchor, a guest and her comments were poorly edited to make it look like she was attacking Obama, when in fact she was speaking about some of the attacks others were making and tactics she was seeing employed. Her stances on matters like this are quite well documented and easily located through just a Google search using Jane Hall of the American University. The rest of the pathetic video you posted was opinion commentators commenting on Mrs. Obama's public statements and stances, and none of it was very salacious either.

Of course you also somehow decided that I "ignored" your other video, despite this reply to it in post #69, you know the one you were replying to with this last post of yours, the one you actually included the quote from? I realize that you probably did not enjoy my debunking your source, who was it? billemo2 the author of so many important and well researched videos! Here let me help you with the "source" you picked:

I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about. Now you say you can post more of them and you find "them" more convenient to use?

Yeah that was kinda of the point, which went right over your pointy hat.

So lets take a look at the "source" of your latest video "compilation" which is also the source for such other high minded intellectual material as the following "convenient" video compilations:

"Mentally Disabled Man Forced to Vote for Obama"

"Sarah Palin is a C*NT say Obama supporters"

"Barak Obama and the Jews"

"Racist Guy Supports Obama"

"Barak Obama - Accidental Muslim"


And the list of these oh so intellectual "videos" you keep posting goes on and on, and gets more funny the more you look into just their oh so creative titles.

What next? You gonna step it up to the next level of "convenient" video compilations and just start posting straight from Media Matters? Or you just prefer the journalistic video editing of that infamous bringer of *truth* known to the world as "billemo2" the world renowned author of such sterling works as listed above and of course who can forget his other brilliant forays into intellectual video editing as this too?



I'm absolutely certain that you would probably be happy to keep showing us your idea of great easy to use convenient video compilations from You Tube, by such sterling journalistic sources as billemo2 and which you did not bother to watch or acquaint yourself with the contents of before you posted them. My request would of course be, please oh pretty please keep doing so?

Oh here is one more you missed by this source of your Ivy League material, billemo2!
"Barack Obama Gay Sex Scandal New Evidence"

Yeah I think you should keep showing us at DP what your idea of conveyance is, despite how obvious that already is to anybody with an IQ above oh say what? 70?


You mean you are not going to post more videos? I mean surely you have more sources like billemo2. What ya got next? Some 9/11 "conspiracy" videos about how the government really did it? Maybe some Obama birth certificate videos made by a guy in a clown suit riding a tricycle? I don't think acting like a complete and naivee idiot does much for you or your hackish videos, but here you are doing all of this all on your own. I say more power to you, keep on keeping it on. It is patently funny.
 
Last edited:
She's not running for anything. I assume they have children, and she was a stay-at-home Mommy. Good for her, good for the kids.

Now the only people we'll consider eligible to become President have to be married to people with similar qualifications? Since when?

This nauseating inquiry into Romney's personal life is distracting and annoying. What is Mitt's plan regarding the economy? Anyone know? Or are we just gonna chase shiney things around until November like a bunch of Pavlov's dogs?

Well Mit Romney is the John Kerry of republicans in this election. John Kerry's wife was the hier to the Heinz ketchup fortune which was an issue and talking point for the republicans back in 2003 - 2004 Calling he and his wife 'detatched' from the american public due to their wealth.

I imagne the same rules apply here.

I wonder if history repeating itself is speeding up?
 
Back
Top Bottom