The "I hate Mitt Romney" thread :)

Hargood · Oct 21, 2012

shadowqueenMedea said:
I'm not a screaming, crying Obama fan. I just think he's the better choice right NOW. I don't think the government should have "absolute power", but it's a better alternative to being ruled by the Koch brothers.

And... sorry Hargood... but the Patriot Act is just a big step into taking away our fourth amendment rights! Republicans should have been the ones to stop that from ever happening at all costs. It's Big Government to it's extreme!

I didn't defend the Patriot Act btw...

I said "Anit-Patriot Act".. Not "Pro-Patriot Act"..

Maybe you are not a "Screaming, Crying Obama Fan", but his first Term is still showing one to be feared. I'd like to know the "Why I shouldn't Fear It" reason I should vote for him.

I really hate that the only change Obama has stated ...in ALL of these Debates and Character Smear Tactics to his rival... is that he has only said" I'll have more flexibility in my second term'

and that wasn't a promise to the American People...

....it was to Putin.

Medea · Oct 21, 2012

Hargood said:
I didn't defend the Patriot Act btw...

I said "Anit-Patriot Act".. Not "Pro-Patriot Act"..

Maybe you are not a "Screaming, Crying Obama Fan", but his first Term is still showing one to be feared. I'd like to know the "Why I shouldn't Fear It" reason I should vote for him.

I really hate that the only change Obama has stated ...in ALL of these Debates and Character Smear Tactics to his rival... is that he has only said" I'll have more flexibility in my second term'

and that wasn't a promise to the American People...

....it was to Putin.

So, Romney and the right wing media hasn't smeared Obama?

Why is Obama's first term one to be feared? I think if more of his policies weren't blocked by republicans we would be better off. This all comes down to opinion Hargood. I've expressed many reasons why I think Obama would be better than Romney in these these political threads, and that, in and of itself, is the reason to vote for him. I'm not smart enough to convince you to change your mind.... I know it, and you know it. What if I asked you to convince me to vote for Romney? It's not going to happen. btw, Russia is not our enemy anymore... and that's another reason to vote for Obama... he's good for international diplomacy. Sorry, but all Republicans have ever done since the cold war is taunt our enemies, made bad foreign policy decisions, and made us even more enemies worldwide.

Hargood · Oct 21, 2012

shadowqueenMedea said:
So, Romney and the right wing media hasn't smeared Obama?

Why is Obama's first term one to be feared? I think if more of his policies weren't blocked by republicans we would be better off. This all comes down to opinion Hargood. I've expressed many reasons why I think Obama would be better than Romney in these these political threads, and that, in and of itself, is the reason to vote for him. I'm not smart enough to convince you to change your mind.... I know it, and you know it. What if I asked you to convince me to vote for Romney? It's not going to happen. btw, Russia is not our enemy anymore... and that's another reason to vote for Obama... he's good for international diplomacy. Sorry, but all Republicans have ever done since the cold war is taunt our enemies, made bad foreign policy decisions, and made us even more enemies worldwide.

OK, you started one problem that "ticked ME OFF" if you believe it:

Don't you EVER!!! EVER!! SAY YOUR AREN"T SMART ENOUGH!

I'm STILL your Running Mate for 2016!!!! and you are BRILLIANT!!!
HOW Are we To Succeed with that Attidude!!!

Omega Dragon · Oct 21, 2012

Solus said:
If Obama gets four more years, I fear for our country.

I'd fear for this country regardless of who gets elected.

His plan is just not enough to push China away.

"Just not enough"? If only Obama didn't want to push China away, that'd make him somewhat desirable. But he's a union-supporter, a nationalist.

Romney's idea in small-businesses is the way to go.

No, it's not. He wants to regulate business just like Obama.

And in the bible it says that marriage is between a man and a women, anything else is just fake, and besides, America was built on Christianity.

Whatever marriage may or may not be, you're arguing over the wrong issue.

Like I've posted elsewhere:

"U.S. Dollar inflates... but let's keep printing.
"Countries hate us... so let's keep invading.
"Banks keep stealing... so let's bail them out.

"But it's okay, so long as marriage remains 'protected'."

Ain't that right? But be honest with yourself, Mitt Romney is just another statist like Obama. He even admits to supporting the same policies Obama does.

And whether this country was built on one man's version of "Christianity" or not on Christianity at all is a big fallacy. The fact is the U.S. has since the foundation of the constitution been an authoritarian regime with little to no actual change except for more government. The experiment, it didn't just fail - it was a lie all along.

Solus said:
Well, who owns big businesses? People with big money. So cutting taxes on them makes a bigger company, and a bigger company means more jobs. And have you even seen the Romney ads? It's all about small businesses.

1. Just cutting taxes isn't good enough. Romney will still continue the same damn policies as Obama.

2. "Big business" is just like big government in many ways, and they can only exist through authoritarian means. Big business has to use government to bail it out, to subsidize it while penalizing any competition. Wall Street is itself the biggest facade of them all.

3. Believing something just because it's in an ad... is foolish.

Omega Dragon · Oct 21, 2012

Hargood said:
OK, you started one problem that "ticked ME OFF" if you believe it:

Don't you EVER!!! EVER!! SAY YOUR AREN"T SMART ENOUGH!

I'm STILL your Running Mate for 2016!!!! and you are BRILLIANT!!!
HOW Are we To Succeed with that Attitude!!!

Wait a moment... this doesn't sit well with me. You two are runningmates... in 2016? The hell, what am I supposed to do in 2020 if you two get elected in '16? Screw this. I'm moving to another country and running for leader, then I'll invade your arses just because.

shadowqueenMedea said:
So, Romney and the right wing media hasn't smeared Obama?

Why is Obama's first term one to be feared? I think if more of his policies weren't blocked by republicans we would be better off. This all comes down to opinion Hargood. I've expressed many reasons why I think Obama would be better than Romney in these these political threads, and that, in and of itself, is the reason to vote for him. I'm not smart enough to convince you to change your mind.... I know it, and you know it. What if I asked you to convince me to vote for Romney? It's not going to happen. btw, Russia is not our enemy anymore... and that's another reason to vote for Obama... he's good for international diplomacy. Sorry, but all Republicans have ever done since the cold war is taunt our enemies, made bad foreign policy decisions, and made us even more enemies worldwide.

I'll give you something convincing for Obama.

With a Republican congress, Obama is almost assuredly not going to get much done in his 2nd term. While on the other hand, Romney will be getting a lot done that "Republicans"/"Conservatives"/etc. won't like, just like Bush in his 1st term.

Not to mention, that Obama winning could potentially force the GOP's hand into becoming more... libertarian.

Medea · Oct 22, 2012

Omega Dragon said:
I'll give you something convincing for Obama.

With a Republican congress, Obama is almost assuredly not going to get much done in his 2nd term. While on the other hand, Romney will be getting a lot done that "Republicans"/"Conservatives"/etc. won't like, just like Bush in his 1st term.

Not to mention, that Obama winning could potentially force the GOP's hand into becoming more... libertarian.

Unless people wake up and two years after he's elected put the dems back in power. haha!

That's right boys. Come at me. Don't be afraid to pick on the poor, widdy woman!

I don't care what any of you say. We can't let the "free market" take over! The government is losing control to our corporate over-lords as it is.

No one has still answered my question I posted here long ago: Would it be better to be ruled by a regulated government with elected officials, or an unregulated free market, with CEOs that aren't elected, and are not beholden to anyone, and don't have to do ANYTHING but make a fluffing profit?!
Anti-government=Pro-corporate, because that's EXACTLY how the country would be ruled without government.

Omega Dragon · Oct 22, 2012

shadowqueenMedea said:
Unless people wake up and two years after he's elected put the dems back in power. haha!

That's right boys. Come at me. Don't be afraid to pick on the poor, widdy woman!

I don't care what any of you say. We can't let the "free market" take over! The government is losing control to our corporate over-lords as it is.

No one has still answered my question I posted here long ago: Would it be better to be ruled by a regulated government with elected officials, or an unregulated free market, with CEOs that aren't elected, and are not beholden to anyone, and don't have to do ANYTHING but make a f***ing profit?!
Anti-government=Pro-corporate, because that's EXACTLY how the country would be ruled without government.

Lol, why do I get the feeling you just baited us? Well, whatever.

I like many other anarchists have said it before it'd be better to let the Mafia run the world than government. I even said as much in this very thread.

http://freestateproject.org/files/top-10-reasons-the-mafia-is-better-than-government.pdf

Though it seems to have been made in jest, much of it's true. Did you know the Yakuza, the Japanese version of the Mafia, actually went out of their way to protect, shelter, & feed people during the Japanese tsunami? That's just like the tip of the iceberg, too. (Of course, we're talking about Mafia-level syndicates/organizations, not your normal street-level gangs like the Bloods & Crypts whom are full of weak-ass cowards.)

RE: Incorporation & Corporate World

To put it simple: corporations themselves only exist currently within the legal framework of our system. While businesses will be more easily able to strive without, a corporate entity would be risky without the support of the government. Why? Firstly, a corporation only gains power by those that give any to it; secondly, as corporations get bigger, just like government they become ineffective, costly, & slow to change; thirdly, a corporation's product lineup itself becomes overbloated with issues the consumer never wanted while someone somewhere is eventually going to jump in to replace (just like now on two fronts: Facebook is becoming so overbloated with bugs, and has nothing else to offer, that it has been quickly losing value with Google Plus & Diaspora slowly but assuredly replacing it; Apple without Steve Jobs has been attempting to sue everything that moves with their products continuing to become trashier that in a few years there won't be any Apple anymore and I'd even go so far as to bet on it if I had enough money, and slowly being replaced by Droid, W8P, DIY IBM-based desktops; etc.).

Look at Wal-mart, one of the biggest and most influential corporations in the world, yet they're getting subsdized by government. Then there are the zero-interest rates by the Federal Reserve, claimed to be economic fuel, all it's going to do is inflate investment and loans, further devaluing the dollar. This'll even allow corporations to make more money and they will of course just pass it on when those interest rates increase.

(Just an interesting note, and I'm not one to make such a case often myself, but several people I know make the case that (voluntary) unions would be the rule, not the exception in anarchist society.)

Then there's also the currency monopoly held by the Federal Reserve banking cartel. If the government had not established a currency monopoly to prevent bartering, it's likely only those depending on the U.S. Dollar would've been punished by the corporate bailouts with the USD itself being neatly printed out of thin-air while a variety of small, or locally-owned currencies, would be looking more desirable even by the average consumer due to the lack of continual arbitrary printing (non-volatility), while it seems to me those corporations largely would still go out of business because the employees would realize how much of a "toy-money" their pay was.

Hannah · Oct 22, 2012

I hate it all, people lying to in a large old mansion for four years and tick away a few pawns. As the chef is Solitude said: The president is a puppet, a figure head. He has no real power, he can only influence and his influence is little. President had many ideas and all his ideas flubbed because they little kids couldn't play nice.

Pingu · Oct 23, 2012

I watched the debate and what struck me as odd is that it was supposed to be about foreign policy, yet not a single word was spoken about Europe. Everything was about the middle east, and Romney trying to steer the conversation towards the economy. Had a laugh at the bayonets and horses thing though..

stagnant94 · Oct 23, 2012

before we start throwing insults around let's remember that both of these candidates have worked extremely hard to be where they are right now and even if you don't support them or their views you've got to appreciate the work they've put in to this.

Edit: why would someone disagree with this? jeez way to be a one candidate kiss arse. i was just trying to lighten up this whole thread in the midst of this chaos. i'm not suggesting that they worked hard for this. they worked hard for this full stop. you can disagree with them all you want and you can hate them as much as you want but they worked hard to be where they are, and its something we should be grateful for, at least they are trying to help the economy. all of you people hating on them for being bad people are just wrong. show some respect for these people. they've put in the hard work, they deserve some recognition for that at the very least

Justin Mitchell · Oct 23, 2012

Raijin said:
I hope you realize that the so called death photo of Osama bin laden that's scattering out there on the internet world is a fake. The Government refuse to release the real ones to the American people. My family and I pay taxes that involuntary goes to financially support this war. I don't care what others think I am entitled to see these photos. Will it stoop to their level? Absolutely not. Obama is a coward.

Osama bin Laden DNA confirms death, but photos are fake - BlogPost - The Washington Post

Osama Bin Laden dead: Gruesome photo is hoax, but White House debates release of real ones - New York Daily News

Someone had a camera to take death photos of the man that's responsible for the mass murdering of many Americans, yet our president didn't want to release the photos to the public. What is he afraid of? It is his job to prove to the world that the man is truly dead. He failed at it.

Are you serious? Are you about to compare these gruesome beheading videos over a couple of marines pissing on Taliban soldiers dead bodies? You know had I been there I too would take out my junk and pee on the face of these asses that don't give a crap about life, and wish to see that all Americans, Christians and everybody else that don't share their thinking die. It's my way of saying "I hope your god gives you your 72 virgins like you prayed so much". Throwing puppies off cliffs and tormenting children is wrong, but please don't compare them with the beheading videos. Have you even took watch one of them? If not go look at one of them.

What the fu** did you just say? "Technically, Bush didn't do anything wrong" HE INVADED IRAQ AND SLAUGHTERED a bunch of innocent Iraqis. Hes a war criminal and is purely guilty of War Crimes, Mass Murder and Genocide. We were suppose to be on Osama Bin Ladens ass because during Bush time in office he committed a heinous act against the USA By murdering massive amount of people on 9-11. What does Saddam have to do with anything?

So you think it's a fallacy? That Irans nuclear program is none existence? Oh my. Yes Obama has bush pl*** to clean up, and one of the things that he should be doing is charging the former president with war crimes to which he hasn't.

Why is Obama allowing these young men and women to go on several deployments? Is it because people are getting a lot more smarter than before, and that recruitment are down? Is it because people now realize that once they sign that paper from the recruiter that they now are the rightful property of the United states government? The Government and the president are all at fault for the suicides of these fine soldiers. They cry out for help, and was ignored. They're pushed far beyond their mental capacity to handle such violence. Theirs so much that a human mind can handle before they break.

Do you honestly believe that we can change Afghanistan? Do you think these people want democracy? Do you think for a moment that these people truly like our presence in their country? No they do not.

Afghanistan police officer kills 2 U.S. troops in latest "green-on-blue" attack - CBS News

Iraqi soldier kills 2 U.S. soldiers in training exercise - USATODAY.com

The very same people that our fine troops are training to defend their country are turning around killing them. Yes I can tell the deceased soldiers family and friends that they died for no reason. I don't blow smoke up peoples asses. I tell it like it is. The Government nor the media truly cares for the soldiers.

Photo taken off of Whitney Houston vs Fallen Soldiers

One last thing whats your opinion regarding to all of the videos that I've submitted on this thread? I would like to hear about your thoughts on it

Are you saying that all Muslims are bad?

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

Omega Dragon · Oct 23, 2012

stagnant94 said:
before we start throwing insults around let's remember that both of these candidates have worked extremely hard to be where they are right now and even if you don't support them or their views you've got to appreciate the work they've put in to this.

Edit: why would someone disagree with this? jeez way to be a one candidate kiss arse. i was just trying to lighten up this whole thread in the midst of this chaos. i'm not suggesting that they worked hard for this. they worked hard for this full stop. you can disagree with them all you want and you can hate them as much as you want but they worked hard to be where they are, and its something we should be grateful for, at least they are trying to help the economy. all of you people hating on them for being bad people are just wrong. show some respect for these people. they've put in the hard work, they deserve some recognition for that at the very least

I'll say why I don't agree: I've no need to respect or appreciate anyone that I perceive as using peaceful tactics for authoritarian goals.

Chowder138 · Oct 23, 2012

Omega Dragon said:
No one should really "like" politics, and I'd have to call someone out a liar that claims they even remotely enjoy politics. I'll take this moment and suggest looking into Voluntaryism, Agorism, Panarchism, and even Mutualism: each of which may have one economical stripe or another, but the means & goal are really the same: to work inside the current framework without giving it legitimacy to bring it down peacefully.

Go ahead and call me a liar, but I seriously do like politics. I enjoy it, and actually understand what they're talking about in the debates unlike some people.

stagnant94 · Oct 23, 2012

Omega Dragon said:
I'll say why I don't agree: I've no need to respect or appreciate anyone that I perceive as using peaceful tactics for authoritarian goals.

i never said you had to appreciate everything about them, but you have to appreciate them for trying, for putting in some hard work, even if it is towards something you perceive to be wrong. i don't like some artists because i think their work is controversial. but i can still appreciate the effort

Omega Dragon · Oct 23, 2012

stagnant94 said:
i never said you had to appreciate everything about them, but you have to appreciate them for trying, for putting in some hard work, even if it is towards something you perceive to be wrong. i don't like some artists because i think their work is controversial. but i can still appreciate the effort

I appreciate Ron Paul for trying. I appreciate Gary Johnson for trying. I appreciate Dennis Kucinich for trying. I can even appreciate Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, etc. for trying. But do not sit there and tell me I should at all appreciate the effort put in by the likes of Rombamabush. I do not appreciate people working peaceful to further authoritarian (RE: Violent) goals.

stagnant94 · Oct 23, 2012

Omega Dragon said:
I appreciate Ron Paul for trying. I appreciate Gary Johnson for trying. I appreciate Dennis Kucinich for trying. I can even appreciate Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, etc. for trying. But do not sit there and tell me I should at all appreciate the effort put in by the likes of Rombamabush. I do not appreciate people working peaceful to further authoritarian (RE: Violent) goals.

thats what i am saying. you don't have to appreciate them for that. appreciate them for working hard to be where they are. not for their opinions. i don't like mitt romney or many of his views. i think nick clegg has the spine of a tadpole and i think david cameron is an embarrassment. but i can still appreciate the work they've put in to try and help. even if their method of helping is wrong

T1d3 · Oct 23, 2012

I'll just leave this here.

Pingu · Oct 23, 2012

T1d3 said:
I'll just leave this here.

If you had listened more carefully you would've noticed he said ''fewer bayonets'' instead of ''no bayonets''. This is the 3rd post you've made in this thread that makes you look like an uninformed and totally biased ignoramus. Congratulations.

On topic; I'd like to add that after watching the debates and following their statements more closely, I'd vote democrat just because of the foreign policy. It is way more likely that the Republican candidate would interfere a lot more abroad, which in essence means more dollars thrown across the borders than spent on the economic crisis within them. Aside from that, the last time the U.S. interfered abroad it severely deepened (if not for the most part caused) the current state of the economy. I'd say the U.S. can't take the chance of something like that happening again any time soon.

Hargood · Oct 23, 2012

Pingu said:
If you had listened more carefully you would've noticed he said ''fewer bayonets'' instead of ''no bayonets''. This is the 3rd post you've made in this thread that makes you look like an uninformed and totally biased ignoramus. Congratulations..

Sorry, but.....Um..... When Obama said "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets", He wasn't saying "I think our military Supply of Horses and Bayonets has been efficient in funding since 1216".. He was trying to make a "ZINGER!!!" on Romney. LOL (yet kind of failed)

It's kind of funny to me because the whole argument is one that is "Beside the Point of being besides the point". (I have no other way to classifiy it, it's all dumb) The quote Romney had made that Obama was talking about was the amount of ships the Navy needed to Operate. That number isn't something Romney Made up, it's something the NAVY said that they need to operate efficiently.

AND On the Topic of telling people to "Shut it I don't like your Posts" I could point out many things that you have offered here that are not contributing nor are they Correct! If you desprerately dislike someones opinions on this thread, than you shouldn't come back to it. Obviously Not everyone Agree's with My Views I've put up.... But I don't sit here and try to be a censor to what people have to say about their views or my own. Perhaps you should follow that example.

Pingu said:
On topic; I'd like to add that after watching the debates and following their statements more closely, I'd vote democrat just because of the foreign policy. It is way more likely that the Republican candidate would interfere a lot more abroad, which in essence means more dollars thrown across the borders than spent on the economic crisis within them. Aside from that, the last time the U.S. interfered abroad it severely deepened (if not for the most part caused) the current state of the economy. I'd say the U.S. can't take the chance of something like that happening again any time soon.

Ok, please tell me because I really want to know this question. You are not the Only one that has said this. Infact, I even heard John Stewart say this in his debate which O'Rielly just wanted to change the subject to something he rehearsed and totally failed to get into the subject.

How Did the War in Iraq Ruin our Economy?

I understand How it created a greater national debt, (Hince Joe Biden's comment that "Hey these guys talk about the debt but they put two wars on our credit card........although in the convenince of the Moment, Joe failed to mention how he "VOTED" to do it both TIMES!)

but how did it hurt the Economy? Please. There is obviously something I'm not hearing.

Omega Dragon · Oct 24, 2012

Hargood said:
Ok, please tell me because I really want to know this question. You are not the Only one that has said this. Infact, I even heard John Stewart say this in his debate which O'Rielly just wanted to change the subject to something he rehearsed and totally failed to get into the subject.

How Did the War in Iraq Ruin our Economy?

I understand How it created a greater national debt, (Hince Joe Biden's comment that "Hey these guys talk about the debt but they put two wars on our credit card........although in the convenince of the Moment, Joe failed to mention how he "VOTED" to do it both TIMES!)

but how did it hurt the Economy? Please. There is obviously something I'm not hearing.

Obviously he won't argue what I will.

In order to pay for wars just like anything else it does, government must remove (RE: steal) the resources from somewhere as it is incapable of doing without. Just some of these resources include soldiers, whom might otherwise could've been working boosting the economy doing their favorite thing while one of the bigger resources includes payment, which comes two ways: firstly, via taxes; secondly, by printing more dollars - which creates inflation.

Aside from that, war also tends to destroy supplies of a global resource, which as is the case in the middle east happens to be oil, causing prices of said resource, especially oil, to increase significantly.

The "I hate Mitt Romney" thread :)

Latest Videos

Defender of Helpless Kittens

The Shadow Queen

Defender of Helpless Kittens

Active Member

Active Member

The Shadow Queen

Active Member

Member

a.k.a Charlie Goodvibes

Active Member

Light Armoured Photographer

Active Member

Proud member of PAHAAA.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Article Writer

a.k.a Charlie Goodvibes

Defender of Helpless Kittens

Active Member

Share this page

Recent chat visitors