Romney would veto immigration "dream" act

pspr · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Just let me know whether or not you are long/short, and the market will most likely do the opposite 5 minutes later.

No one knows the future, but if i was to bet whether or not a politician is bullshitting me, id bet my life on bullshit, odds are heavily skewed in my favour based on the past, and even more so when it comes to the likes of Romney/Obama.

You really think that Romney is going to bring about a new era of honesty in Washington, fucking guy probably couldn't even tell you who tied his shoes up in the morning with a straight face???

Since you seem so adamant in your post I'm surprised I don't see you post a scathing review on everything else any of the candidates say.

Come on Max, lets see you provide a rebuke for everything any of them say since we know it is all just a lie.

Oh, wait. You didn't have a run in with the police last night, did you? If so, I can understand why you're starting off the new year with both barrels blazing.

Max E. · Jan 1, 2012

Really??? You want me to go there???

Come on man, i cheer for Republicans, but i also deal in reality, and the line between the 2 parties is just becoming thinner and thinner, bottom line is they are all degenerate lying politicians who will say whatever they need in order to be elected.

Cain.... "I did not have sex with that woman!!" Too many lies to count
Gingrich...."I have never done any lobbying for Fannie and Freddie" too many lies to count
Santorum..... "Muslims attacked us on 9/11 because we are free".... "I know how to win elections" too many lies to count
Bachmann.... Too many gaffs to count, but i think she is the most honest out of the bunch, because she actually believes her own bullshit, and doesnt intentionally lie, she is just grossly misinformed.

Romney.... Rock solid, has never changed his opinion on anything, actually has a song based on his strong unchanging morals written by Bob Seger.

Quote from pspr:

Since you seem so adamant in your post I'm surprised I don't see you post a scathing review on everything else any of the candidates say.

pspr · Jan 1, 2012

Ok, at least you are spreading the "it's just politics" around somewhat.

So, since they are all lying, are you hinting that Ron Paul is your guy? And, if so, you believe him that he knew nothing about what was in his newsletter he published for years? And, that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon?

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Really??? You want me to go there???

Come on man, i cheer for Republicans, but i also deal in reality, and the line between the 2 parties is just becoming thinner and thinner, bottom line is they are all degenerate lying politicians who will say whatever they need in order to be elected.

Cain.... "I did not have sex with that woman!!" Too many lies to count
Gingrich...."I have never done any lobbying for Fannie and Freddie" too many lies to count
Santorum..... "Muslims attacked us on 9/11 because we are free".... "I know how to win elections" too many lies to count
Bachmann.... Too many gaffs to count, but i think she is the most honest out of the bunch, because she actually believes her own bullshit, and doesnt intentionally lie, she is just grossly misinformed.

Lucrum · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from pspr:

... And, that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon?

That reminds me. I was in Mexico just before Bush II invaded Iraq. The South American born hotel clerk and I were talking and the then current political situation came up. She asked me: "how is it OK for the US to have WMD and not Iraq, or anyone else for that matter?"

I was speechless for probably 1/2 a minute while trying to come up with a response.

For the record, I don't personally want Iran or any other radical Muslim country having nuclear weapons.

BUT I have slowly come to the conclusion over the last few years that maybe it's not our place to dictate what other sovereign nations can and cannot do. So long as they're not hurting/invading any other sovereign nation in the process.

Helping the former Soviet Union account for and shore up weapons grade material for example, I'm certainly OK with that. But we have their cooperation there.

I'm wondering if we should just inform Iran that if they nuke ANYONE, even an enemy of ours. It will be considered an act of war by us on the US and we WILL initiate a full scale retaliatory strike that will render the entire state of Iran a radioactive glass slab for the next few thousand years. And make sure they know we mean it. While there are certainly plenty of low level Muslim extremists that don't mind committing suicide. I'm thinking the upper level guys, like Ahmadinejad and the like, aren't as in a big a hurry to die for their religion. Not unlike our politicians here.

Mercor · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from Lucrum:

That reminds me. I was in Mexico just before Bush II invaded Iraq. The South American born hotel clerk and I were talking and the then current political situation came up. She asked me: "how is it OK for the US to have WMD and not Iraq, or anyone else for that matter?"

I was speechless for probably 1/2 a minute while trying to come up with a response.

BUT I have slowly come to the conclusion over the last few years that maybe it's not our place to dictate what other sovereign nations can and cannot do. So long as they're not hurting/invading any other sovereign nation in the process.

Lucrum, my man, you need to be prepared.

Don't ever let these Liberals act as helplessâ victims" and blame big bad America for their troubles.

It is OK for the USA to have WMD and not for Mexico because Mexico has signed a treaty agreeing not to ever develop WMD.
All countries have signed the treaty except India, Israel, and Pakistan. North Korea had signed but withdrew later.

Any country has the right to develop WMD as long as they withdraw from the treaty and can bear the isolationism from the world reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

pspr · Jan 1, 2012

Wait a minute. How does politics come up at the front desk? OK, so you were in the bar having a drink with the hotel clerk and after a couple drinks the discussion turned to politics and nuclear weapons. Nope, nope, that still doesn't sound right.

OK, so you were in Mexico on business and invited the hotel clerk up to your room for a little hanki-panki. That sounds better. I just hope you were able to get the job done before letting the conversation turn to politics and nuclear weapons - and when it did you should have just shown her the door and said you would call her.

Quote from Lucrum:

That reminds me. I was in Mexico just before Bush II invaded Iraq. The South American born hotel clerk and I were talking and the then current political situation came up. She asked me: "how is it OK for the US to have WMD and not Iraq, or anyone else for that matter?"

I was speechless for probably 1/2 a minute while trying to come up with a response.

For the record, I don't personally want Iran or any other radical Muslim country having nuclear weapons.

BUT I have slowly come to the conclusion over the last few years that maybe it's not our place to dictate what other sovereign nations can and cannot do. So long as they're not hurting/invading any other sovereign nation in the process.

Helping the former Soviet Union account for and shore up weapons grade material for example, I'm certainly OK with that. But we have their cooperation there.

I'm wondering if we should just inform Iran that if they nuke ANYONE, even an enemy of ours. It will be considered an act of war by us on the US and we WILL initiate a full scale retaliatory strike that will render the entire state of Iran a radioactive glass slab for the next few thousand years. And make sure they know we mean it. While there are certainly plenty of low level Muslim extremists that don't mind committing suicide. I'm thinking the upper level guys, like Ahmadinejad and the like, aren't as in a big a hurry to die for their religion. Not unlike our politicians here.

nutmeg · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from Lucrum:

She asked me: "how is it OK for the US to have WMD and not Iraq, or anyone else for that matter?"

.

Well for starters, WMD cost money. If your country is spending money on WMD while the citizens are living in squalor I think the money could be bettr spent.

Lucrum · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from Mercor:

Lucrum, my man, you need to be prepared.

I agree

It is OK for the USA to have WMD and not for Mexico because Mexico has signed a treaty agreeing not to ever develop WMD.
All countries have signed the treaty except India, Israel, and Pakistan. North Korea had signed but withdrew later.

Any country has the right to develop WMD as long as they withdraw from the treaty and can bear the isolationism from the world reaction...

More...

Although she was primarily asking about Iraq; good point!

Lucrum · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from pspr:

Wait a minute. How does politics come up at the front desk? OK, so you were in the bar having a drink with the hotel clerk and after a couple drinks the discussion turned to politics and nuclear weapons. Nope, nope, that still doesn't sound right.

OK, so you were in Mexico on business and invited the hotel clerk up to your room for a little hanki-panki. That sounds better. I just hope you were able to get the job done before letting the conversation turn to politics and nuclear weapons - and when it did you should have just shown her the door and said you would call her.

Although she was fairly attractive, I was actually at the desk borrowing a phone line.
I couldn't get a internet connection in the room.

pspr · Jan 1, 2012

Quote from Lucrum:

Although she was fairly attractive, I was actually at the desk borrowing a phone line.
I couldn't get a internet connection in the room.

OK OK, if that's your story and you're sticking with it who am I to say it went down another way. Although my cover story for you is much more appealing to the readers here.