Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

I thought his policy was that he was generally against terror but wouldn't get into specifics.

 

[BotoxAgent]

I've seen this going around Facebook

Is that actually a real quote? Where did it come from?

Because it's hilarious.

bwhahaha, this Romney in a nutshell

 

[kehs]

Yup, the debates are going to be amazing. Romeny's response:



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-feckless-obamas-bin-laden-talk-cheap

What policies are those?

”President Obama’s feckless foreign policy has emboldened our adversaries, weakened our allies, and threatens to break faith with our military. While the Obama administration has naively stated that ‘the war on terror is over,’ Gov. Romney has always understood we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the myriad threats America faces.”

This is so hilarious, switch a couple of names around and this is straight dem talk from a few years ago.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What policies are those?

He believes in an America that believes in it's belief against terror. That is the America he loves. Obama doesn't love that America.

 

[Neuromancer]

Obama straight up trolling Romney on Bin Laden, wow
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-needles-romney-on-old-bin-laden-quotes.php?ref=fpblg

There seemed to be a concerned effort in 08 to cast Obama's comments on Pakistan as a naive politician with no foreign policy experience attempting to talk tough. Even President Bush joined the gang pile to attack Obama's statement - before he was even the nominee, mind you.

Obama is simply using the same playbook republicans used for a decade on "mommy and daddy" foreign policy, and they're pissed. Romney has no leg to stand on, and this will be even more apparent during an actual debate where Obama will get to do what the media most likely will not do: bring up Romney's previous comments on Pakistan and keep pressing for the world to see.

Romney and Republican officials have condemned Obama’s campaign for campaigning on bin Laden’s death. A Romney spokesman called it an effort to “divide” Americans; McCain said doing so “politicizes” national security.

Hahaha

 

[Officerrob]

If Romney is not attacking on the economy, he's losing.....badly

 

[Something Wicked]

Are you this anchorwoman or possibly related to her? Sounds like he hit pretty close to home.

Yes, I am Trish Regan and I'm typing on GAF as I'm live on the air here at Bloomberg TV...

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone with very little financial industry and economics insight calling someone else with quite a bit of financial industry and economics insight "dumb as bricks." Either Oblivion should admit to being "dumber than bricks" or research Ms. Regan's career a bit and his retract his statement.

And then, you guys can go back picking apart some useless conservative internet blog's title or whatever. Pointing out the falsehoods and exaggerations of non-issues on opinion pieces meant to be consumed by idiots is a better use of one's time indeed. The rest of middle-class America is eagerly awaiting the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal blog demonstrating how stupid those Rethugs are and that President Obama is bestest person to ever live.

Something Wicked - "I believe a Nobel Prize winner is an idiot."

More like "Something Wicked- 'I believe many Noble Prize winners are idiots. However, I also believe many Noble Prize winners are absolute geniuses.'"

I don't exactly put too much stock into such subjective awards in general, especially one's not involving the more concrete sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

If Romney is not attacking on the economy, he's losing.....badly

This is so true.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

If Romney is not attacking on the economy, he's losing.....badly

Just give it time, he will.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yup, the debates are going to be amazing. Romeny's response:

And the best thing is that if Romney attempts to accuse Obama of dividing the country on the issue in a debate, Obama can simply ask him if he meant what he said in 08, or whether he has changed his mind (again).

 

[Atilac]

The question is not why does the Senate exist, it is why should it. The Federalist papers present an argument for it, but that is just an argument. And it is one rooted in 18th century America. The "impetuous vortex" reference explains why an executive branch exists, not why the Senate exists. You'll need to look at 62-66 for that (which do include a reference to the Senate as an "additional impediment ... against improper acts of legislation," but this is in passing and not the primary argument put forward for the Senate's existence. Of course, I've already quoted, long ago, Madison's remarks at the convention as to his opinion (that the Senate would be useful to protect the interests of the landed gentry--i.e., himself).

The vortex reference explains why the the legislator is divided into a bicameral existence. The executive branch exists to enforce the laws and hold checks over the legislator as whole, in addition to dividing it into "different modes of operation and election". You'll need to read to federalist paper 10 to understand the founders views on human nature, and in turn the purpose as to why the US government is arranged in such a manner. Madison's remarks at the constitutional convention represents a small caveat to his views. The bulk of his views are illustrated in federalist 10.

Speaking of federalist paper 62:

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

The federalist presents an argument for the existence of the senate, by the people who actually created it. Thus it holds tremendous sway.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This is so hilarious, switch a couple of names around and this is straight dem talk from a few years ago.

You can tell Romney - and the GOP in general - are absolutely indignant that Obama would dare attack them on foreign policy. It really is a role reversal, and they're not fond of it. 9/11 is supposed to be their turf!

 

[Tamanon]

And the best thing is that if Romney attempts to accuse Obama of dividing the country on the issue in a debate, Obama can simply ask him if he meant what he said in 08, or whether he has changed his mind (again).

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-needles-romney-on-old-bin-laden-quotes.php?ref=fpblg

“I just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of what they thought was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden,” Obama said at a press conference in the White House. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I would go ahead and let them explain it.”

Pretty subtly hammering that home here.

 

[Tim-E]

I don't exactly put too much stock into such subjective awards in general, especially one's not involving the more concrete sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).

It's awesome that you agree with the number of Nobel winners who fight against climate change, then.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)

 

[Dram]

GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Says The Country Only Elected President Obama Because He’s Black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9NsnQu3Oxug

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)

Gotta earn those beltway invitations to parties at DC townhouses

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Gotta earn those beltway invitations to parties at DC townhouses

Those parties aren't even that great. Boring as fuck.

 

[RDreamer]

Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)

Oh come on with this shit. You know how many ads would be flooding the air if it had failed? I mean seriously? Republicans have been using this 9/11 shit for a long time now, so they don't get to cry fowl now.

 

[empty vessel]

The vortex reference explains why the the legislator is divided into a bicameral existence.

No, you don't understand the purpose of Federalist 48. It was not a justification of the Senate, but a justification of the executive branch as a check on legislature (including the Senate).

Madison's remarks at the constitutional convention represents a small caveat to his views. The bulk of his views are illustrated in federalist 10.

I don't know what makes you think it a "caveat." It is fully consistent with his views expressed in the Federalist essays. It is just more overtly stated. Nor do I understand anymore what point you are trying to establish. No. 10 is not about the Senate per se (it doesn't even mention it); it is intended to explain how the system as a whole is meant to reduce the effects of "factions," and in particular how in Madison's view large republics were better suited to this than either small republics or "democracy."

Speaking of federalist paper 62:

The federalist presents an argument for the existence of the senate, by the people who actually created it. Thus it holds tremendous sway.

I quoted this and explained it in the very post to which you were responding. Are you even reading what I am writing? And, please, restate what proposition you are defending or asserting, because I no longer have any clue. The only assertions I am defending are (1) the Senate was intended to protect the interests of the landed gentry (explicitly stated by Madison); and (2) the founders did not fear the legislative branch nearly as much as the executive branch (as evidenced by the Constitution, which created a more powerful legislative branch than executive branch). If you take no issue with either of these assertions, I don't know what else there is to discuss.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Oh come on with this shit. You know how many ads would be flooding the air if it had failed? I mean seriously? Republicans have been using this 9/11 shit for a long time now, so they don't get to cry fowl now.

While I don't like "both sides do it!" arguments, there's a point here that needs to be made. Any president who was commander in chief when OBL was taken out would be running on it for re-election. Likewise if the mission had gone wrong, the other party would be questioning the move. Everything is political, unfortunately. And republicans pretending like Obama is breaking some sacred rule seem to be forgetting the last decade of them questioning the patriotism of democrats, and tying Iraq to 911, and the general exploitation of 911.

If this was a republican administration, the message would be clear: only the strong leadership of a republican could have possibly made this decision, while a democrat would be too concerned with collateral damage or the rule of law to make such a risky decision. Republicans take the fight to the enemy, democrats cut and run. That's exactly what would have happened if President McCain made this call.

The only unfair thing about this is the assertion that under the exact same circumstances, Romney would not have attacked the compound. We can't know that for sure regardless of Romney's public position in 08; maybe he gives the call, maybe he doesn't. The only fact we have is that Obama gave the order despite more than half of his security team being in opposition, and in 2008 he told the entire world he'd do it. Meanwhile Romney told the entire world that such a move would be wrong. Romney has to live with that, and Obama exploiting that is no different than what any other president does on national security issues during an election.

This is a guy who has thrown civil liberties out the window, increased drone attacks significantly, agreed to a massive Afghanistan surge, and decimated terrorist networks across the globe. In many ways these moves are far more in line with republican administrations (especially the last one) than modern democrat ones. It seems like Romney and the right don't know how to respond to that. Remember the outrage over Obama getting a Nobel prize, and whether he would sell out our defenses in order to live up to the award? Remember the claims that he'd be soft on terror, and insinuations he had more in common with our Islamic enemies than with Americans? All that shit went out the window pretty fast, yet Romney is trying to revive it. It's not going to work unless we get hit by a terrorist attack, or if Iran goes crazy.

 

[Atilac]

No, you don't understand the purpose of Federalist 48. It was not a justification of the Senate, but a justification of the executive branch as a check on legislature (including the Senate).

Except I'm now talking about federalist 62, which deals with the justification for the existence of the senate.

I don't know what makes you think it a "caveat." It is fully consistent with his views expressed in the Federalist essays. It is just more overtly stated. Nor do I understand anymore what point you are trying to establish.

It is a caveat because the combined writings of Publius as a whole, are more detailed and complex then just protecting the "landed gentry".

No. 10 is not about the Senate per se (it doesn't even mention it); it is intended to explain how the system as a whole is meant to reduce the effects of "factions,"

EV... factions cause tyranny, factions exist in the nature of man, that's a key point in federalist 10. You reduce the effects of faction by having a bicameral legislator and placing a muzzle on monistic thought, this muzzle is the senate.

I quoted this and explained it in the very post to which you were responding. Are you even reading what I am writing?

I can ask the same as you: I quoted Federalist 62, and posted a large excerpt from it, you ignored it.

And, please, restate what proposition you are defending or asserting, because I no longer have any clue. The only assertions I am defending are (1) the Senate was intended to protect the interests of the landed gentry (explicitly stated by Madison); and (2) the founders did not fear the legislative branch nearly as much as the executive branch (as evidenced by the Constitution, which created a more powerful legislative branch than executive branch). If you take no issue with either of these assertions, I don't know what else there is to discuss.

1) the point of the senate is too mediate the effects of faction and prevent tyranny (as evident by federalist 62 and reinforced by Madison's views of human nature in Federalist 10), its sole existence is not to protect the landed gentry.
2) The founders feared an all power legislator which is why it was divided into two parts, separated by different modes of operation and different means of election. If you cannot understand this point then it is pointless to continue talking to you.

 

[empty vessel]

I can ask the same as you: I quoted Federalist 62, and posted a large excerpt from it, you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it before you did. Me: "You'll need to look at 62-66 for that (which do include a reference to the Senate as an 'additional impediment ... against improper acts of legislation,' but this is in passing and not the primary argument put forward for the Senate's existence."

You then quoted 62, bolding the very part I quoted. But your quotation just confirms exactly what I said. Note especially that of that very long quote, you bolded just one sentence, exactly what one might call a "passing reference."

1) the point of the senate is too mediate the effects of faction and prevent tyranny (as evident by federalist 62 and reinforced by Madison's views of human nature in Federalist 10), its sole existence is not to protect the landed gentry.

First, you are taking the Federalist at its word, which I already said one ought not do. The Federalist papers are rhetoric. Second, you appear not to dispute the contention that the intent of the Senate is to protect the landed gentry.

2) The founders feared an all power legislator which is why it was divided into two parts, separated by different modes of operation and different means of election. If you cannot understand this point then it is pointless to continue talking to you.

Nobody ever asserted that the founders supported an all-powerful legislative branch. Hence the existence of three branches. But it is the purpose of the other branches to provide a check on the legislature, which otherwise was given the most power. The Senate is a check specifically on popular democracy and for the purpose of protecting the landed gentry from it: "They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

This connection could not be clearer. "The senate ... ought to be this body ... to protect the minority of the opulent against the [political] majority." Remember that the Senate was originally a body appointed by state legislatures and not directly democratically elected. This is not at all inconsistent with the arguments Madison presents generally in the federalist papers (hence my confusion at your pointing to the Federalist papers as a rebuttal of some kind); as I said, it's just not as explicitly stated there.

 

[Jackson50]

Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Great insight into Obama's methodical deliberation process.

his is one of those issues where Romeny's previous position was absolutely crystal clear - he reamed Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan if they thought Osama was there. He's done a clean reversal, even more so than on the auto bailout. He's running such a sad campaign; a better man would give the president credit for the call and the success and then argue he's have done the same, rather than try to minimize it. It's all just so petty.

If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.

 

[Chumly]

Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)

What do you call the republican party of the last decade then? Republicans are just being a bunch of babies because they can't handle the fact that a democrat president was hard on terror. Thats the bread and butter of the republican party... national defense. They have been exploiting it for the past 30 years and now that they can't they are trying to cry foul.

 

[Measley]

Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.

Conservatives are making an ass out of themselves by trying to downplay it.

Besides, we all know damn well that if the mission failed and the Navy Seal team had been killed, Republicans would be running that shit all day every day right up to November.

 

[kehs]

SNOPA bill being introduced

A Bill has been introduced in Washington to stop employers and schools from demanding access to people’s social network accounts. On Friday, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) presented SNOPA, which stands for the Social Networking Online Protection Act. Under SNOPA, employers can’t ask current workers or new job applicants for access to their social networking accounts. If employers ignored the ruling they would pay $10,000 as civil penalty. The ban on such information demands would also apply to schools.

 

[Chumly]

Conservatives are making an ass out of themselves by trying to downplay it.

Besides, we all know damn well that if the mission failed and the Navy Seal team had been killed, Republicans would be running that shit all day every day right up to November.

Can you imagine them saying

" Well the president tried and we admire him sticking his neck out there to try and kill Bin Laden"

LOL..... McCain would be doing interviews railing Obama on his foreign policy instead of crying in a corner.

 

[GhaleonEB]

If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.

A good point entirely lost in the back and forth. It's a perspective entirely missing from the national 'discourse' on this.

 

[Allard]

If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.

Yep, Obama threw a gambit and Romney lost a chance to take the high ground. Its one thing to have a legitimate differing opinion, its another to revision your own history; not that I'm surprised. It really, really is getting hard to see what exactly a Romney presidency would be like because Romney has hit the quantum point where he wants to be in two states at all times even if they are direct opposites. Even if there has been plenty of things I disagreed with what Obama has done I at least knew what I was getting when I elected him. Outside of a few (but large) missteps on civil policy he has behaved exactly as he said he would on the 2008 campaign trail.

 

[NullPointer]

In 2008, the slogan was "Change;" in 2012, it's "Forward." Here's a nice video that hits on pretty much everything he plans to run on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=g-all-u

Holy shit.

*applause*

BTW: I could read you guys all day Empty and Atilac. I'm loving this analysis.

 

[Measley]

Can you imagine them saying

" Well the president tried and we admire him sticking his neck out there to try and kill Bin Laden"

LOL..... McCain would be doing interviews railing Obama on his foreign policy instead of crying in a corner.

It truly amazes me that conservatives are so myopic that they can't give the president credit for ANYTHING. It is utterly ridiculous.

 

[XMonkey]

Is the Romney campaign going to do anything right? Can't wait for the debates now.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone with very little financial industry and economics insight calling someone else with quite a bit of financial industry and economics insight "dumb as bricks."

Rich.

 

[Kosmo]

Holy shit.

*applause*

BTW: I could read you guys all day Empty and Atilac. I'm loving this analysis.

"He took on the Wall Street banks."

Uh, what?

He does have a great marketing team, though, I won't deny him that.

 

[Tim-E]

"He took on the Wall Street banks."

Uh, what?

He does have a great marketing team, though, I won't deny him that.

If he had gone after Wall Street harder, you would be crying about how he's imposing more regulations on private businesses and ruining the economy. Don't act like this is something you care about.

Congrats on rescuing your kids from Nobama, btw.

 

[RustyNails]

You know why I like watching Bill Maher?

He straight up called bullshit on SE Cupp's assertion about Romney the Friend of the Little Man. It will be a cold day in hell when mainstream media has the guts to do something like this.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

Wikipedia: "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publication"

 

[SouthernDragon]

"He took on the Wall Street banks."

Uh, what?

He does have a great marketing team, though, I won't deny him that.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is actually really good. It's one of the strongest pieces of the Reform (not that there was a lot of stuff that should have been included, but eh). Banks weren't too happy about that one. As to its effectiveness... well, it's hard to be effective when the Republicans have blocked it from having someone to lead it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The IRS has been particularly nice under Obama too (well to people like me who owe, and are struggling)

 

[RustyNails]

I think it is just the "broad" thing he does all the time. I could see how it would be offensive to some, sort of like saying trannie or other derisive terms. I am surprised some of GAF's ultra-offended crowd (or RiskyChris) hasn't popped in to express their outrage yet.

I think RiskyChris was permabanned

 

[Tamanon]

Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

Good stuff, uncovering the agenda of the Socialist regime one word at a time.

 

[NullPointer]

Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

Jesus Christ. These guys just don't know when to fucking quit with their nonsense.

 

[Chichikov]

Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

Poe's law.
Oh, no, wait, The Washington Times, yes, they are that stupid.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is actually really good. It's one of the strongest pieces of the Reform (not that there was a lot of stuff that should have been included, but eh). Banks weren't too happy about that one. As to its effectiveness... well, it's hard to be effective when the Republicans have blocked it from having someone to lead it.

Ask yourself this - had a Republican did the same, would you have been happy?

 

[Clevinger]

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is actually really good. It's one of the strongest pieces of the Reform (not that there was a lot of stuff that should have been included, but eh). Banks weren't too happy about that one. As to its effectiveness... well, it's hard to be effective when the Republicans have blocked it from having someone to lead it.

And have tried to kill it every step of the way, and will continue to do so. And I'm sure Kosmo is angry as hell about that.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Team Obama's new Ad against Romney titled, "Swiss Bank Account"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ma-ads-feature-swiss-bank-account-122108.html

 

[Tamanon]

Team Obama's new Ad against Romney titled, "Swiss Bank Account"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ma-ads-feature-swiss-bank-account-122108.html

I'm going to laugh if the commercial is about Romney keeping his policies offshore in a blind trust.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The "jobs saved" talking point in that Forward ad just doesn't work. It boils down to "things could have been a lot worse, and here are some estimations we can't back up to prove it!"

And it's also funny it claims equal pay for women has been achieved while democrats are starting a political fight over the issue as we speak. The Lily Ledbetter act did not create equal pay.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Jesus Christ. These guys just don't know when to fucking quit with their nonsense.

You're saying it's not intentional? I highly doubt it wasn't discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(generic_name_of_socialist_publications)
Look. Obama's campaign slogan has already been added to the list of socialist uses of "forward".

 

[Tim-E]

You're saying it's not intentional? I highly doubt it wasn't discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(generic_name_of_socialist_publications)
Look. Obama's campaign slogan has already been added to the list of socialist uses of "forward".

It's fucking Wikipedia. You probably added it.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

It's fucking Wikipedia. You probably added it.

I didn't. But one of you guys must have just deleted it.