A Romney Scandal the Libs missed

Romney ate coffee ice cream!

The shame of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57495974/for-romney-no-coffee-but-coffee-ice-cream/

stormwatch89 wrote:Romney ate coffee ice cream!

The shame of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57495974/for-romney-no-coffee-but-coffee-ice-cream/

Dammit!

Joanimaroni wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Romney ate coffee ice cream!

The shame of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57495974/for-romney-no-coffee-but-coffee-ice-cream/

Dammit!

THERE you are!

Thanks, for the giggle.

What were his handlers thinking!!!! Now the libbernuts will start screeching that he is dissing green tea drinkers....

the nerve of him....Now, when he wins the election, I have to consider moving to another country like Floridatexan is going to do.

Joanimaroni wrote:thave to consider moving to another country like Floridatexan is going to do.

I'll buy her bus ticket, one way...

"Mormons traditionally avoid alcohol and caffeine."

They however have no problem going to war for their country.....that is unless you are a Romney man.......they will stand up and encourage other people that we should go to war and send young Americans to die.....and then they run off and live off daddy's trust......and sneak a bite of ice cream. It is the ice cream which is important, and Orwellian double think is alive and well.

2seaoat wrote:"Mormons traditionally avoid alcohol and caffeine."

They however have no problem going to war for their country.....that is unless you are a Romney man.......they will stand up and encourage other people that we should go to war and send young Americans to die.....and then they run off and live off daddy's trust......and sneak a bite of ice cream. It is the ice cream which is important, and Orwellian double think is alive and well.

Misinformation, what's the point? Bias and subjectivity with more than a little hypocrisy and class envy thrown in. What a toxic soup.

What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

Floridatexan wrote:
What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

WHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Floridatexan wrote:
What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

OK, I really have to laugh at this one, FT.

"offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts"

Are you saying you don't believe politicians have blind trusts? Even your hero has blind trusts and they are.............blind. They also include offshore investments.

"clear violation of the law" Link? Which laws are being violated?

"sources of capital" Such as?

Floridatexan wrote:
Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

Coming from the most willfully ignorant poster stalking this forum I guess you should know.

stormwatch89 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

OK, I really have to laugh at this one, FT.

"offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts"

Are you saying you don't believe politicians have blind trusts? Even your hero has blind trusts and they are.............blind. They also include offshore investments.

"clear violation of the law" Link? Which laws are being violated?

"sources of capital" Such as?

Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence.

Joanimaroni wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

OK, I really have to laugh at this one, FT.

"offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts"

Are you saying you don't believe politicians have blind trusts? Even your hero has blind trusts and they are.............blind. They also include offshore investments.

"clear violation of the law" Link? Which laws are being violated?

"sources of capital" Such as?

Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence.

Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence. [/quote]

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone.

Romney is a sociopath. Obama is a weak basketball player unwilling to throw elbows or fight for a rebound, and has been learning on the job the last three years. However, for America to jump from the frying pan into the fire, and trust Romney is the worst choice America has made in our History. Romney is pure evil. Evil does not come with a pitchfork, tail, and horns......it comes in a pretty package.

I disagree with Obama's domestic policy, but think he has been A+ on foreign policy. I also personally like the man. I voted for Johnson, because I have never voted for a Democrat for President. Some have accused me of being a sore loser because Newt got buried by Romney with 9-1 spending, but I was basically neutral on Romney until I found out this man had a 100 million in a qualified plan.....this is impossible, and this is exactly the type of sociopath personality which I have a lifetime of experience......this type of person is dangerous to America....far more dangerous than a man learning on the job. America is not stupid. As much huffing and puffing.....most people on this forum know I am right....and so do the average Americans who know Romney is a very bad person.

2seaoat wrote:R but I was basically neutral on Romney until I found out this man had a 100 million in a qualified plan.....this is impossible, .

So money envy is your real problem? If the 20-100 Million (it's a spread but you choose the high end) is so illegal or impossible why hasn't the BHO campaign made hay with it or the IRS chasing it down?

stormwatch89 wrote:


Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence.

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone. [/quote]


Her faith and beliefs are determined by the political party.

Joanimaroni wrote:Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence.

Can you elaborate on this?

So money envy is your real problem?

Yes, it is. America lost almost 23 million of tax revenue from this illegal act if these investments were in America. Revenue loss to America as the Oligarchy as consolidated wealth in fewer and fewer hands by people who need no loyalty to this nation, as they control our Military Industrial Complex. This is not much different than Colonial America where the British monied class was exploiting the colonist and the British Crown and Military provided the cover for the raping of Colonial America. We need to fight to stop the exploitation, and if you want to diminish the role of money in this exploitation then go for it, but the truth is not the total amount of money, rather the manner the game was rigged to avoid having any loyalty to this country.

2seaoat wrote:So money envy is your real problem?

Yes, it is. America lost almost 23 million of tax revenue from this illegal act if these investments were in America. Revenue loss to America as the Oligarchy as consolidated wealth in fewer and fewer hands by people who need no loyalty to this nation, as they control our Military Industrial Complex. This is not much different than Colonial America where the British monied class was exploiting the colonist and the British Crown and Military provided the cover for the raping of Colonial America. We need to fight to stop the exploitation, and if you want to diminish the role of money in this exploitation then go for it, but the truth is not the total amount of money, rather the manner the game was rigged to avoid having any loyalty to this country.

So your argument really should be about changing the tax code (which I am all for) not a citizen taking advantage of current tax law like everyone of us does, just on a smaller scale for a little fish like me.

nochain wrote:So your argument really should be about changing the tax code (which I am all for) not a citizen taking advantage of current tax law like everyone of us does, just on a smaller scale for a little fish like me.

Do you think Romney's tax plan (20% cut in income tax rates across the board + unknown elimination of tax deductions) is better for us right now than Obama's (top tax bracket rolls back to Clinton-era tax rates)?

2005 GDP - 12623.0
2011 GDP - 13299.1

2005 tax revenue - 2153.6
2011 tax revenue - 1998.7

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:So your argument really should be about changing the tax code (which I am all for) not a citizen taking advantage of current tax law like everyone of us does, just on a smaller scale for a little fish like me.

Do you think Romney's tax plan (20% cut in income tax rates across the board + unknown elimination of tax deductiosn) is better for us right now than Obama's (top tax bracket rolls back to Clinton-era tax rates)?

I think both plans suck. Romneys plan would have to go through many iterations before it would be invoked so right now it is all speculation. BHO is in office, one would have to assume he has fronted support for his program already. Since he has summarily threatened to veto any "fiscal cliff avoidance" measure that doesn't contain his specifics it is apparent he is still very much a partisan president unwilling to communicate across the aisle.

So let's review this for a second:

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans will only cut spending and refuse to raise taxes.

From this, you conclude that Obama and the democrats are playing partisan politics? OK. If conceding what the other side wants in order to get what you want - or, compromising as it is also known - is what you call partisan politics, what do you call it when a party refuses to concede anything and only demands that they get their way?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:BHO is in office, one would have to assume he has fronted support for his program already. Since he has summarily threatened to veto any "fiscal cliff avoidance" measure that doesn't contain his specifics it is apparent he is still very much a partisan president unwilling to communicate across the aisle.

So let's review this for a second:

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans will only cut spending and refuse to raise taxes.

From this, you conclude that Obama and the democrats are playing partisan politics? OK. If conceding what the other side wants in order to get what you want - or, compromising as it is also known - is what you call partisan politics, what do you call it when a party refuses to concede anything and only demands that they get their way?

I feel anyone currently holding office needs to be kicked to the curb. And enough of the the sad argument "there won't be any experienced politicians". Repubs need to go for stonewalling, Dems for shamelessly refusing any concession when they had a majority and Reid in particular for his "that bill is DOA" message. BHO needs to go because he has failed in his job as President to LEAD the boneheads in Congress to a consensus that results in a viable fiscal recovery effort. Of course it may have helped if BHO hadn't sidestepped Congress on so many occasions but there you go.