Sheik
All-Pro
- Messages
- 24,809
- Reaction score
- 5
Thanks david.
No prob, SuperWassermanSchultz.
Thanks david.
lolSuperWassermanSchultz.
There's this weird thing where some people support the best possible candidate, rather than just simply checking the R or D box. It's obvious that you have no interest in anything but partisan talking points, so this may come as a surprise, but some people do actually educate themselves on the candidates' positions and THEN decide which party would better serve America.
Shocking, I know.
If he was supporting the best candidate, that'd be fine. if he were a lifelong democrat, it'd be fine. If he had just up and changed his tune one day and decided he didnt like the Republicans and wanted to be seen as a Dem, that'd be fine.
But EVERYONE knows that isnt why he did what he did, and thats why I have a problem with it. He supports Obama because he is black, period, end of story. If Obama were white, Powell would have never given him the time of day.
Dems and Libs screan racism every chance they get, but its their own party thats far more racist than any other.
Ginny Lewis, a Democrat and 72-year-old retired district attorney from Princeton, Ky., says she'll vote for Romney because "I'm tired of the Republicans blaming all the debt on Democrats, so let them take over and see what they do."
lol lol lol
That was taken from an article on Romney closing the gap with women.
Ginny Lewis, a Democrat and 72-year-old retired district attorney from Princeton, Ky., says she'll vote for Romney because "I'm tired of the Republicans blaming all the debt on Democrats, so let them take over and see what they do."
lol lol lol
That was taken from an article on Romney closing the gap with women.
That seems to be about as deep as most republican voters are thinking about this election.
You know, the guy who didn't make his millions being a failure and sucking on America's tit.
The reality is that toward the middle of his career at Bain, Romney made a fateful strategic decision: He moved away from creating companies like Staples through venture capital schemes, and toward a business model that involved borrowing huge sums of money to take over existing firms, then extracting value from them by force. He decided, as he later put it, that "there's a lot greater risk in a startup than there is in acquiring an existing company." In the Eighties, when Romney made this move, this form of financial piracy became known as a leveraged buyout, and it achieved iconic status thanks to Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. Gekko's business strategy was essentially identical to the Romney–Bain model, only Gekko called himself a "liberator" of companies instead of a "helper."
If you think that's true then you don't know anything about how Romney made his money. Feel free to start here
ly.
Whatever is due.It's cute that you just decided to attack me rather than try to get into an actual argument with facts again - it was a smart move because good lord have you been fucking those up late
Truthfully, in my house speaking of becoming a millionaire through politics would be considered shameful. Corporate raider, not so much
What news was broke today?
It's too traumatic to even speak of.
lol
The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.
In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really happening.
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ormation-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/
idk my bff jill?
Maybe david has access to something else.