Election '12

Typical El Presidente Random Thoughts type stuff

Re: Election '12

Postby lugnutz » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:36 am

UconnBuckeye wrote:Who are these people so set against legal assisted suicide? Yesterday I saw a van go down West Broadway blasting some nonsense about voting no to question 2.

Like confused why a person would care so much about someone who wants to end their pain and suffering.



Image
2011 Canning Bowl Beer Pong Champion!
lugnutz
I post a lot
 
Posts: 25540
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Laconia Smithsonian Museum

Re: Election '12

Postby rearadmiral » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:50 pm

mcm wrote:disgruntled Republicans saying Massachusetts/USA should be ashamed of itself is the best. You really get to see who the crazies are on FB today. There's one guy I'm friends with who posts non-stop negative stuff about Obama and it looks as though a 3rd grader wrote it. If you're going to make an ass out of yourself, atleast use correct grammar/punctuation.

I voted Obama-Brown and YES on all the questions. I don't have strong feelings either way. Would have laughed equally as hard at the Obama wackos posting on FB today if Romney had won. I have a feeling whoever ended up winning will have very little affect on my life.


Correctamundo.
“You’ve been waiting for it for a long time, but you got it. You wanted it, you got it. We’re bringing it home.’’
User avatar
rearadmiral
I post a lot
 
Posts: 11539
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Loving cup

Re: Election '12

Postby Section 40 » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:17 pm

Warren gave short, clipped answers or ducked questions during the State House presser with Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday. One of the commitments she might have been worried about came up first thing — she was asked how she’d protect defense spending.
Warren was silent as she turned to Patrick.
“Defense spending is you,” Patrick prodded Warren.
“Oh, that’s mine,” Warren replied
.
After Warren fielded the question, Patrick stepped in to answer the follow-up.
Warren spoke for less than four minutes during the 11-minute press conference. A Warren campaign staffer declined comment on why the once-verbose Harvard Law professor was mum on many subjects.
And when she did respond, the answers were often brief.
How does she feel about the high turnout of female voters and the election of women in New Hampshire?
“I’m glad,” she said.
Is it surprising?
“I’m glad that the women turned out to vote, it meant a lot,” Warren said.
Asked what impact more women in the Senate would have, Warren punted.
“You want to try answering that?” she said to Patrick, who stepped in again


Warren is pathetic and couldn't even answer a direct question about women voted to the Senate, of which she is one, without hiding behind Deval's skirt. She never answered any questions while on the campaign trail and the only thing she did was to bash Brown and Rublicans by using terms like "hammered" without explaining how they pertained to Brown.
Her first press conference and she was hiding behind Patrick. Great. And she is the one Massachusetts D lemmings voted in.
God help us.
Section 40
Alt-Tab Master
 
Posts: 4524
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 pm
Location: Patriots Bandwagon

Re: Election '12

Postby B Luc » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:55 pm

She'll be out in 6 years. No need to worry.
Whores til proven otherwise. And they so rarely do.
User avatar
B Luc
I post a lot
 
Posts: 15372
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: In a hole with a shovel

Re: Election '12

Postby lugnutz » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:43 am

Kerry gets SOS and Brown wins the special election right?
2011 Canning Bowl Beer Pong Champion!
lugnutz
I post a lot
 
Posts: 25540
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Laconia Smithsonian Museum

Re: Election '12

Postby B Luc » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:36 am

I think she's in over her head, honestly. And I think someone will challenge her, maybe a woman, and will unseat her.

I'm still surprised she won.
Whores til proven otherwise. And they so rarely do.
User avatar
B Luc
I post a lot
 
Posts: 15372
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: In a hole with a shovel

Re: Election '12

Postby Section 40 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:16 pm

If I was Scott Brown I'd give a big FU to the people of Massachusetts after that travesty last week... but he'll surely take the high road.

As for the general election, The unfolding fiasco involving the head of the CIA certainly raises some huge questions. Did President Obama know about the Petraeus debacle before the election and ensure that it was kept hush-hush until after? This kind of thing poses credibilty questions for the administration and I'd
have to think that he did know and it makes me wonder what kind of affect it could have had an affect on the election.

These two career officers at the top of their professions are being dragged down and out by essentially groupies...
WTF were they thinking? I know the Broadwell chick obviously fucked the shit out of Petraeus but now the other ho (you know, the one being threatened by Ho #1) is being investigated for fucking another General, only the one in charge of all troops in Afghanistan... these broads are wreaking havoc, and the Kelly gal looks like John fucking Elway to boot. It's like Tiger pissing it all away over that whore last year.... madness. It does make for compelling reading though.
Section 40
Alt-Tab Master
 
Posts: 4524
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 pm
Location: Patriots Bandwagon

Re: Election '12

Postby B Luc » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:33 pm

How does it impose credibility on the President? You realize 98% of men power cheat, right? Or attempt to cheat. Petraeus having a side bitch just was what it was.

News reported that POTUS received the letter of resignation on Thursday, but FBI knew about the affair in the summer. That's a long time for something not to leak out. Not even a suspicion.

The power of pussy is only as strong as the value assigned to it. I love pussy but will never over value it. That's where these men fucked up.
Whores til proven otherwise. And they so rarely do.
User avatar
B Luc
I post a lot
 
Posts: 15372
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: In a hole with a shovel

Re: Election '12

Postby Section 40 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:50 pm

If the President knew about this, and I'd have to believe that the President would have to know that the Director of the CIA was being investigated by another agency, wouldn't he have to sign off on this? If Obama knew about this investigation/affair/fiasco and kept it quiet until after the election because it could be seen as embarassing and damaging to his administration for this information to come out before the election, well then, yeah, this would call his credibility in to question. Obama is all about being "transparent", and if this was kept under the rug, well, he'd be a hypocrite. I'm just posing the question, if the President knew about it and purposefuly squashed it until after the election.... does it make a difference or would it have made a difference in the way people voted? And if so....
Section 40
Alt-Tab Master
 
Posts: 4524
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 pm
Location: Patriots Bandwagon

Re: Election '12

Postby B Luc » Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:22 pm

Knowing the way the government works, and how non-transparent the entire system is (it's mind boggling, really), I think there's a good chance he didn't know...or at least didn't have confirmation.

I think it came out too soon after the election for it to have been a government conspiracy or cover up.

Romney lost because 1) Even he didn't know what he stands for. 2) The President's campaign was massive and revolutionary. 3) Romney showed a complete lack of respect for the Presidency and the man who holds the office, and at the same time a complete sense of entitlement that he was owed the job based on some mysterious notion.

Of course The President is a hypocrite. Name a politician who isn't in some way.
Whores til proven otherwise. And they so rarely do.
User avatar
B Luc
I post a lot
 
Posts: 15372
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:24 pm
Location: In a hole with a shovel

Re: Election '12

Postby Section 40 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:42 pm

From CNN. I agree completely.

Forget the salacious details of David Petraeus‘s affair with Paula Broadwell for a moment. Focus on the key national security facts: the head of the CIA was having an extramarital affair, and was communicating with his mistress over an unsecure Gmail account for up to eight months. In the world of espionage, those are potentially important—even vital—secrets, and certainly ones that the Commander in Chief should know. The affair could expose the CIA chief or the mistress to blackmail. The use of an unclassified e-mail account to communicate potentially damaging details of his private life could speak to the judgment of the nation’s top spy.

For these reasons, an official who knew those secrets and didn’t tell the President had better have a good reason for keeping them to himself. And yet the Obama Administration has offered little explanation as to why the Justice Department kept the the President in the dark about the Petraeus affair until two days after the election. Prosecutors and FBI agents knew at least as early as last July that the affair was occurring; high-level Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, knew in “late summer.” According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the President “was obviously surprised” when he learned of the affair on Nov. 8
Section 40
Alt-Tab Master
 
Posts: 4524
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 pm
Location: Patriots Bandwagon

Re: Election '12

Postby lugnutz » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:21 pm

Image


I'll take a leader who gathers info and then responds over one who fills the facts in on the run while his gums do the same.


(insert Bush in front of the Victory banner here)
2011 Canning Bowl Beer Pong Champion!
lugnutz
I post a lot
 
Posts: 25540
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Laconia Smithsonian Museum

Re: Election '12

Postby Section 40 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:19 pm

This is not a Romney-Obama debate Lugz.
This question posed is whether the Head of the CIA being investigated by a rival branch of the Govt was information that was known by the President prior to the election and, if it was, why was it not disclosed until the Friday after? A simple question that if true needs to be addressed by the Eagle holder.
Section 40
Alt-Tab Master
 
Posts: 4524
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:13 pm
Location: Patriots Bandwagon

Re: Election '12

Postby lugnutz » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:44 pm

Im just saying it seems tehy went up the chain of command and are doing their due diligence IMO. Fox news hasnt even been that tough on him yet for it from what I have seen.
2011 Canning Bowl Beer Pong Champion!
lugnutz
I post a lot
 
Posts: 25540
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:50 pm
Location: Laconia Smithsonian Museum

Re: Election '12

Postby rearadmiral » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:56 am

Section 40 wrote:This is not a Romney-Obama debate Lugz.
This question posed is whether the Head of the CIA being investigated by a rival branch of the Govt was information that was known by the President prior to the election and, if it was, why was it not disclosed until the Friday after? A simple question that if true needs to be addressed by the Eagle holder.





Some bigwig R acknowledged that they knew well before election.
“You’ve been waiting for it for a long time, but you got it. You wanted it, you got it. We’re bringing it home.’’
User avatar
rearadmiral
I post a lot
 
Posts: 11539
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Loving cup

PreviousNext

Return to Misc

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron