- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 29170
Seriously, this guy is a joke. He has all the campaign instincts of Thomas Dewey. Never mind the fact that it should be abundantly clear to anyone with even half a brain that he has no principles and will literally say or do anything to get elected, he is a weak and ineffectual candidate. I am convinced now that the only reason he is leading is because the rest of the field was a laughable clown college. His only chance is 24-7 advertising and avoiding any debate but that in itself will doom him. Bring this drooling idiot into the Obama campaign's targeting sites! I love the smell of exploded brains in the morning.
He basically bought Florida. He's been campaigning there for 6 years and outspent the competition by an order of magnitude. And still he couldn't get even half the votes and a sizable fraction of those who voted for him say they want someone else. He's like a toothy-grinned hydra, each head talking out of both sides of its mouth about its own duel set of promises and positions, every neck connected to a torso with a giant dollar-sign on it. I want to see Newt bloody him up good, knock his top hat off and smash his monocle.
Originally posted by SoothfastI'm thinking that debates have devolved into this mentality. After all, in political debates at least one candidate up there is "hated". What we want to then see is what we want to see at Nascar races. We want to see the big "crash" and blood and guts. I suppose it is a substitute for watching gladiators go at it or Christians thrown to the lions.......all in good fun, of course.
He basically bought Florida. He's been campaigning there for 6 years and outspent the competition by an order of magnitude. And still he couldn't get even half the votes and a sizable fraction of those who voted for him say they want someone else. He's like a toothy-grinned hydra, each head talking out of both sides of its mouth about its own duel set o ...[text shortened]... n on it. I want to see Newt bloody him up good, knock his top hat off and smash his monocle.
The spin of the haters is always amusing.
"They spent lots of money"
"They should have won by more for all of his advantages"
"They're going to get crushed when they face a real opponent."
etc.
In the fields of politics and sports, these are classic and consistent refrains coming from the losers.
Originally posted by sh76Are you suggesting money does not play a role in success?
The spin of the haters is always amusing.
"They spent lots of money"
"They should have won by more for all of his advantages"
"They're going to get crushed when they face a real opponent."
etc.
In the fields of politics and sports, these are classic and consistent refrains coming from the losers.
It's just like sports really. No doubt, the mighty spending Yankees will be in the playoffs AGAIN and probably win the World Series AGAIN.
Originally posted by whodeyYou mean like they did the past 2 years?
Are you suggesting money does not play a role in success?
It's just like sports really. No doubt, the mighty spending Yankees will be in the playoffs AGAIN and probably win the World Series AGAIN.
How did the mighty spending Mets and Red Sox do last year?
Whining about money is what losers do.
Originally posted by quackquackEvery politician whines about money in the broader sense. I'm specifically referring to people who whine that their candidate/team lost because of money.
Actually whinning about money (and how those who pay millions in taxes don't pay enough) is the central theme of Obama.
Originally posted by sh76I think the money issue is a valid one, and I even say that knowing Obama is well ahead of Romney for funding (though that might change once he's officially the nominee).
Every politician whines about money in the broader sense. I'm specifically referring to people who whine that their candidate/team lost because of money.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe change the system. As long as the system is the way it is, you can't fault candidates for raising and using as much money as they can.
I think the money issue is a valid one, and I even say that knowing Obama is well ahead of Romney for funding (though that might change once he's officially the nominee).
Originally posted by sh76Why are you soooo defensive sh76? All we are doing is pointing out that money gives you an advantage. Who said anything about it being right or wrong? It seems you have already come to an answer by acting like something is right or wrong with it, but that is for you to decide. We are only telling it like it is. So getting back to the issue at hand, the Red Sox may not have made the playoffs last year, but on average they do. It is akin to the elections in 2010. Usually the candidate who spends the most wins. The Dems outspent many of their GOP rivals, however, they lost anyway due to negative sentiment in regards to the Democrats at that time.
The change the system. As long as the system is the way it is, you can't fault candidates for raising and using as much money as they can.
From what it looks like, Obama will far outspend any of the GOP nominations. If so, it gives him an advantage. At this point all that could be hoped for is enough negative sentiment out there to knock him off his corporate pirch.
Originally posted by sh76Change the system? Sure, while I'm at it I'll part the Red Sea.
The change the system. As long as the system is the way it is, you can't fault candidates for raising and using as much money as they can.
I don't falt the candidates. I don't hate the playa, I hate da game.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe game is satisfactory enough to the participants and the spectators, and will be changed only as needed to maximize revenue for the owners.
Change the system? Sure, while I'm at it I'll part the Red Sea.
I don't falt the candidates. I don't hate the playa, I hate da game.
We are talking about MLB, right? It applies to politics, too.