The Cellar - The Real Mitt Romney

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Real Mitt Romney (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28046)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

Obama has started calling terrorists associated with Al Qaeda - "folks"!

He's says he's going to hunt down the "folks" who attacked the consulate in Benghazi. Twice, he refers to the most violent terrorists who killed our Ambassador and killed a few other Americans, as "folks". Like the folks you meet at school or in your neighborhood.

They're surely not "folks" to me! :eek: :eek:

Really? That's bothering you? Because you didn't get scared enough? You must be desensitized by all the fearmongering you're used to hearing. Are they not people? What if he'd referred to them as people? Still a problem? I'll give you this, Adak, you're consistent. You *LOVE* your labels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

snip--

Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.

point of order, your protest is noted, but you don't get to enforce what people discuss in the threads. We have an extremely high tolerance for thread drift around here. Though, I can see how that might chafe someone who likes their stuff in the right box, and only the right box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

After tomorrow, this thread will become obsolete , no matter who wins the election. To that end, this will be my last post in this thread.

This thread will not become obsolete tomorrow, your words and their wisdom will be around for a long time, but I take your point that Mitt Romney's fifteen minutes will have long since expired.

Whether or not you make further posts in this thread remains to be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

Obama asks his black supporters at a rally to vote because "voting is the best revenge".

Romney asks his supporters to vote, because "you love your country".

That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates character, imo.

I voted for Obama because I love my country. What does that say about my character? Which candidate's advice have I followed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

Romney served as a missionary for two years, overseas. Obama hung out with radicals and practiced Chicago style politics.

Romney was out of the country stumping for God. Proselytizing foreigners

Obama was here, in our country, helping his fellow citizens. Helping his neighbors.

That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates' characters, imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

Romney has been a success in business, and in special projects like the Winter Olympics in 2000, which was WAY behind schedule when he took over the project.

Using oceans of taxpayer money from the federal government, taking credit for the result for himself, coyly omitting his largesse with Other People's Money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

Obama has never run a business - not even a lemonade stand.

But, he has "run" the nation, as President of the United States of America, something his worthy opponent can't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

And most damning of all, Obama left Ambassador Stevens to be killed by terrorists (which he calls "folks"), after a 6+ hour attack, despite calls for help to Washington, to the CIA (from their men who joined in Ambassador Stevens defense, and were also killed), and despite having a large Air Base, just 1 hour away. (The same air base that defended Benghazi against the slaughter that Ghaddafi had planned for them, Aviano, Italy).

There was even a recon drone overhead watching the last 2 hours of the attack, streaming live video to Washington.

And Obama watched them get taken out - and did NOTHING!

You are an invidious liar. I hope this *IS* your last post and libel and calumny like this is your legacy. I will not miss the constant bombardment of panicked bleatings like this by uninformed sheep who only know enough to be afraid. Not even your candidate will touch this shit, but you clearly have more conservative standards than he does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

We impeached Nixon for supporting a burglary where there was very little damage done, and no one got hurt. We tried to impeach Clinton over some hanky panky in the White House.

But Obama watches a US Ambassador and three CIA agents, under attack by terrorists, urgently requesting help by phone, email, and dedicated alarm, and does NOTHING TO HELP them.

And barely a peep of Obama having done anything wrong.

And that's VERY WRONG.

Oh yeah. It's wrong. Everything you've said about the topic is wrong. Have fun being frightened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837618)

This is my last post in this thread. The campaigning by both sides is over, and it's up to us who we want for President, and MANY other political positions.

Good luck to All! :)

You might be over and out, but your boy, he's still campaigning even tomorrow, election day. I thought all that adrenaline was supposed to energize you through the end, but I can see you're exhausted.

See ya, liar.

Exhausted? Or doesn't get paid after today?

Really? Maybe?

I can't believe somebody could draw an assignment like, go to the cellar, stir up some shit, I'll pay you one million dollars for every scalp you collect, or whatever. His stuff never added up, and, respectfully, the getting paid theory doesn't either. Show me the merits of your ideals. Show me the math. Persuade me. Teach me. I just didn't get any of that from him, consequently, I am not persuaded.

They have plenty of campaign workers on internet duty, which doesn't prove a thing. However, his party line arguments he adhered to, despite being conclusively proven wrong by numerous links, made suspect he was a party or Mormon campaign worker. We certainly have no way to prove it, either way, and it doesn't really matter. What matters is what he posted.

That is a very interesting hypothesis. I hadn't considered such an idea. He certainly was ON POINT, all the time.

Hundreds of pastors across the country defy the law by endorsing political candidates (you guess which candidate).

Quote:

About 1,600 pastors across the country violated a 58-year-old ban on political endorsements by churches in October by explicitly backing political candidates in their Sunday sermons, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Ariz., a conservative Christian legal organization behind a campaign called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

The 1954 law they are challenging prohibits charitable groups, including most churches, from making candidate endorsements, but doesn't bar ministers, priests, rabbis and imams from speaking out on other ballot issues, like voter initiatives, or organizing get-out-the-vote drives and education efforts around elections themselves.

The alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.

So far, the IRS has done the latter.

The Alliance Defending Freedom asserts that it's working to further the rights of all religious groups, but it's an explicitly Christian organization, with a heavy representation of evangelical members and leaders. One clue to its philosophy is that it made it Pulpit Freedom "Sunday" — choosing the Christian Sabbath, instead of more broadly embracing the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) and the Muslim day of worship (Friday).

So it's no surprise that an unscientific survey of the posted endorsements indicates that they skewed overwhelmingly in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as in these representative samples:

In a guest sermon at Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., Wayne Gruden, a professor and theologian at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, recommended that "all citizens" vote for Romney "and Republicans in general" (the endorsement begins at 59:58):

Pastor Ken Redmond of Abundant Life Worship Center in Midland, Texas, told his congregation they shouldn't vote for President Barack Obama, saying, "Here is your choice: a Mormon or a Muslim" (the remarks begin at 33:17):

And Bishop Samuel A.L Pope Sr. told his congregation at Solid Rock Missionary Baptist Church in California City, Calif., not to vote for Obama (the statement begins at 26:54):

These pastors are breaking the law Adak. What do you say about that? Is that the conservative thing to do, thumb your nose at the IRS, in the name of God?

From a Supreme Court that gave us Kelo vs New London, and Citizens United, they stand a good chance

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak

Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.

To expand a little further on Big V's "point of order," Adak himself poured the fuel on this particular flame with a his comment he wrote about a million posts back:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

Adak can't remember things he's posted here just a few hours past, but he has complete recall of some TV story shown "years ago" and probably narrated by Rod Sterling.

BTW, I don't see why any reasonable person would take comfort from the fact that Romney was a Mormon missionary once upon a time. Since in theory at least, we still have freedom of religion, the Mormons can believe anything they want, but you have to wonder about an outfit that teaches that the "chosen" will be rewarded by being sent off to become the rulers ("gods" in other words) of the various other planets throughout the universe.

Beam me up, Scotty. :tinfoil:

Oh, and just for the hell of it, I googled "Adak" and came up with a "Linked-In" hit to Tata Consulting, a huge (apparently) East Indian company which describes itself as a "customer experience measurement platform." (I need to get a life - I know) Here's their link: http://www.tcs.com/offerings/connect...s/default.aspx

Wonder if Adak got paid by the word or the post? Imagine a presidential campaign paying an Indian national to be their apologist for the candidate just for members of the Celler. Guess this place has arrived, huh?

But he didn't sound Indian. :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 837606)

You really have shown no common sense at all in your arguments.

Insulting people by even denying second grade science demonstrates Tea Party rhetoric. When a car passes, moving air is felt. It leaves a smell. It makes noise. It measures and records the movement. Does many things that confirm the observation and that are quantified. A definition of knowledge that escapes you.

But you only see a car. Ignore everything else. And are then an expert. Subjective reasoning based only in observation to deny the car really moved. Because the party told you so? Stop being insultingly dumb.

If intelligent or only informed, then answer the question. Why does the man you praise because he is conservative, instead, say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? You could answer that question only if you acknowledge reality. Reality is too hard to admit. If honest, then you must be critical of Romney for flip-flopping. Wacko extremists fear honesty. And that is the point. You ignore facts you do not like - as any good extremist educated by Fox News.

Stop posting insults and nonsense to avoid the question. Why did Romney say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Little hint. The Economist said why. Their answer undermines your reality. So you avoid the answer? Why did Romney say he was more liberal than Kennedy? Any honest Romney supporter already knew that answer. Is reality too diffilcult to swallow? Is second grade science also too difficult? No wonder you resort to insults to avoid that question. Get out of cloud-cuckoo-land. Be an adult. Answer the question.

If not a wacko extremist, then how to obtain Party support? Even Rush Limbaugh labeled Romney a flaming liberal. Only a spectaculor politician can reframe a moderate into an extremist conservative. This above discussion demonstrates that Romney did just that. He completely reversed himself on most issues (ie woman's rights, Romneycare, military spending, immigration). And got extremists to believe him.

Are extremists that gullible? What did Romney do to get extremists (ie Adak) to believe Romney was a conservative? What did he do to get Adak ignore the Romney statement that he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Either that requires amazing political skills. Or extremists are that easily manipulated by hearsay, myth, and propaganda. Both may apply.

The real Mitt Romney?

Heh.

Quote:

If you just lost the Presidential election, and had to scramble to write a concession speech because you were so cocksure that you’d win that you didn’t bother to write one in advance, you might have a lot on your mind. Maybe you’d take a minute to thank your tireless campaign workers. Maybe you’d say, “What the heck, let’s eat that Victory Cake; it’ll just go to waste if we don’t!”

Maybe you’d call Karl Rove at FOX News and bawl him out for not winning the election for you. Perhaps you’d call your webmaster and tell him or her to take down your pre-prepared “President-Elect Romney” website, which you’d been proudly showing off to the world even before Election Day. Maybe you’d console your wife, telling her that moving into the White House would only have been downgrading, and that public housing was really not good enough for you, anyway. Maybe, after calling the President to congratulate him on his win through gritted teeth, you’d take a minute to phone your sons and break the bad news to them personally. Maybe you’d loosen your tie, announce that those grapes were probably sour anyway, and go take a nap.

There are any number of things a losing candidate can do to wind down a long and exhausting campaign, and Mitt Romney probably did some of the things above.

Mitt Romney also made sure to cancel all Romney campaign staff business credit cards–in the middle of the night–which meant that some staffers, newly unemployed and straggling home after an emotionally devastating loss, discovered that their taxicab drivers were really pissed off because their Romney campaign credit cards were being declined.

Addictinginfo

Forbes

Esquire

At least if you're an illegal alien working for Romney or doing 'black bag' work you're fronted your expenses in cash because they can't have you on the books.;)

Let's see now... coincidence or cause and effect ?

Nov 7th (2012)
The election, and Mitt Romney lost

Nov 9th (2012)
Clear Channel radio station KBOJ in Portland (progressive radio talk shows) announces
cancellation of all talk shows, and will be broadcasting Fox Sports.

FYI: On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private,
being bought out by two private-equity firms, Thomas H. Lee Partners
and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, ...<snip>

Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore.
He is a "retired partner", but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital.