Good Old New Jersey Corruption
|
Good Old New Jersey Corruption
Yeah, I'm also very curious what things were said about Romney that did more damage than Romney's own words. I doubt Amandarius can think of a single thing, but chances are he will do a great job deflecting.
Garuda.Chanti said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You act like it matter who the Republicans actually nominate. The left will demonize whoever it is as extreme right, hates the poor, hates women, etc etc. Look at what you liars all did to Mitt Romney. You can't be more moderate than Mitt Romney and the Democrats made it sound like women will be wearing burqas if he was elected..... Of course the left will but the right is better at demonizing Democrats. And most Republicans DO hate the poor and despise women. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You better hope she runs though. The bench on the Democrats' side is awfully thin. Not nearly as thin as the Republicans even with Christie. Therefore my statement about Quote: The Democrats and the troglodytes of the tea party actually agree on something. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Obama was elected twice in America. There no longer are skin color qualifications to be President. And there we have the radical left bomb throwing and character assassination, just a small sampling. You made that easy. In one breath you conveniently referred to the opponent of one political party, the Democrats, as racist and sexist. You play your role well. Good doggie. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You aren't curious and you just referred to Obama as the lesser of two evils, so tell me what do you think was evil about Mitt Romney. You ignore Mitt Romney's entire professional and political resumes and put them on par with a rookie that never had a job in his life let alone managed anything. You take a man that made everything better that he was ever involved in or led and you choose a loser over him that never did a thing in his life except gave a good speech. How was Bill Clinton more qualified than Mitt Romney? Romney had more qualifications and successes than any President you can name. But this coming from someone that said JFK was not qualified does not surprise me. Romney's resume included gutting American companies for profit and he publicly opposed nearly the same laws he supported in his own state for exactly the same reasons. He also took credit for school initiatives that were enacted before his tenure and tried to hide offshore savings. I didn't say anything about the qualifications of either Clinton or JFK, I commented on someone else's statement about charisma being all it takes to win an election. Both of those president's had very little over their competitor and, in JFK's case, at least one thing that WOULD have been an issue if their opponent had any voter appeal. Please do attack me then cry about how other people antagonize you. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Yeah, I'm also very curious what things were said about Romney that did more damage than Romney's own words. I doubt Amandarius can think of a single thing, but chances are he will do a great job deflecting. 1) war on women 2) outsourcing 3) tax cheat 4) corporate raider came up with those in about 5 seconds. Stop acting dumb. Deflect, dodge, make things up, call people names, fail. You play your role well Amandarius.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Yeah, I'm also very curious what things were said about Romney that did more damage than Romney's own words. I doubt Amandarius can think of a single thing, but chances are he will do a great job deflecting. 1) war on women 2) outsourcing 3) tax cheat 4) corporate raider came up with those in about 5 seconds. Stop acting dumb. You came up with them, and you failed. None of those things did hardly any damage to his campaign compared to the things that he said on his own. Two of them didn't even come up until he brought them up. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Yeah, I'm also very curious what things were said about Romney that did more damage than Romney's own words. I doubt Amandarius can think of a single thing, but chances are he will do a great job deflecting. 1) war on women 2) outsourcing 3) tax cheat 4) corporate raider came up with those in about 5 seconds. Stop acting dumb. How exactly did the left demonize him for things he actually did? If the tables were turned, you'd be praising anyone who brought those things to the front page. Odin.Jassik said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You aren't curious and you just referred to Obama as the lesser of two evils, so tell me what do you think was evil about Mitt Romney. You ignore Mitt Romney's entire professional and political resumes and put them on par with a rookie that never had a job in his life let alone managed anything. You take a man that made everything better that he was ever involved in or led and you choose a loser over him that never did a thing in his life except gave a good speech. How was Bill Clinton more qualified than Mitt Romney? Romney had more qualifications and successes than any President you can name. But this coming from someone that said JFK was not qualified does not surprise me. Romney's resume included gutting American companies for profit and he publicly opposed nearly the same laws he supported in his own state for exactly the same reasons. He also took credit for school initiatives that were enacted before his tenure and tried to hide offshore savings. I didn't say anything about the qualifications of either Clinton or JFK, I commented on someone else's statement about charisma being all it takes to win an election. Both of those president's had very little over their competitor and, in JFK's case, at least one thing that WOULD have been an issue if their opponent had any voter appeal. Please do attack me then cry about how other people antagonize you. Look at how you twist the professional career of Mitt Romney and try to distort it into something it was not. You said that all JFK had was charisma. I mention Clinton because you said Romney was not qualified, but if he was not qualified than how was Bill Clinton, the savior of the short-term memory left, more qualified than Romney? I don't attack you. I don't care enough about you to do that. You are just the dude that 100% of the time will post after me.  Quid pro quo, Clarice. You gotta tell me a single qualification President Obama had. Tel me one thing in his professional career, one success before he was a Senator, then two years later a President. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » You aren't curious and you just referred to Obama as the lesser of two evils, so tell me what do you think was evil about Mitt Romney. You ignore Mitt Romney's entire professional and political resumes and put them on par with a rookie that never had a job in his life let alone managed anything. You take a man that made everything better that he was ever involved in or led and you choose a loser over him that never did a thing in his life except gave a good speech. How was Bill Clinton more qualified than Mitt Romney? Romney had more qualifications and successes than any President you can name. But this coming from someone that said JFK was not qualified does not surprise me. Romney's resume included gutting American companies for profit and he publicly opposed nearly the same laws he supported in his own state for exactly the same reasons. He also took credit for school initiatives that were enacted before his tenure and tried to hide offshore savings. I didn't say anything about the qualifications of either Clinton or JFK, I commented on someone else's statement about charisma being all it takes to win an election. Both of those president's had very little over their competitor and, in JFK's case, at least one thing that WOULD have been an issue if their opponent had any voter appeal. Please do attack me then cry about how other people antagonize you. Look at how you twist the professional career of Mitt Romney and try to distort it into something it was not. You said that all JFK had was charisma. I mention Clinton because you said Romney was not qualified, but if he was not qualified than how was Bill Clinton, the savior of the short-term memory left, more qualified than Romney? I don't attack you. I don't care enough about you to do that. You are just the dude that 100% of the time will post after me. I fail to see how I twisted his career into anything. Venture capitalism is by nature a greedy and corrupt enterprise. Anyone who nets hundreds of millions of dollars by Americans are losing their jobs is a bad guy. There is no way you or anyone else can justify gutting entire companies and shipping them overseas to rake in money. I still don't see how Clinton's qualifications have any correlation to the 2008 and 2012 races, but I assume you're inferring that I supported him or that I think he was more qualified that Romney. I still don't understand what the left did to Romney that he didn't do to himself. See that's a glass half empty view and it is distorting. A company is going out of business and everyone is losing their job, investors come in and save the company and many jobs. If they don't invest then everyone is out on the street. It is not a difficult concept to understand unless you are a communist.
Edit: Do you think Bill Clinton was qualified to be President? That is what I am asking. If you do then what did he do in his life differently from Mitt Romney that made him qualified because you claimed Mitt Romney was not qualified. Odin.Jassik said: » There is no way you or anyone else can justify gutting entire companies and shipping them overseas to rake in money. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » See that's a glass half empty view and it is distorting. A company is going out of business and everyone is losing their job, investors come in and save the company and many jobs. If they don't invest then everyone is out on the street. Did that just happen? Yeah it just did. Jassik says the investors come in and ship part and parcel the company overseas, Amandarius says the investors come in and save the company. Yet the companies and said jobs are no longer present. For instance I miss KB Toys and that went under after Romney and his crew took over. So to say it's a distortion of the truth is in of itself a distortion of the truth.
[+]
So now you want to deflect and discuss the demise of a toy store chain whose financials and economics you know nothing about? You just blame Romney like a tard. At least be honest and say you don't know ***about the situation and just randomly googled something.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6 Odin.Jassik said: » A lecturer is not a professor. He gave up his law license when it was discovered he lied to pass the bar. DIRECT FROM THE GOD DAMN UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL
Quote: From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
[+]
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Odin.Jassik said: » A lecturer is not a professor. He gave up his law license when it was discovered he lied to pass the bar. Lecturers are Professors, according to standard of accreditation. Or are we changing the definitions of words again? puhleeze
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » puhleeze Typical Amand response when cornered on something. Cornered? He wasn't a professor. It isn't even a disputable fact.
He wasn't a lawyer. He gave up his law license to avoid being disbarred and humiliated when it was revealed he lied to pass the bar. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » A lecturer is not a professor. He gave up his law license when it was discovered he lied to pass the bar. Back to making ***up huh? Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Cornered? He wasn't a professor. It isn't even a disputable fact. He wasn't a lawyer. He gave up his law license to avoid being disbarred and humiliated when it was revealed he lied to pass the bar. Lecturers are considered professors by accreditation standards, accreditation is what gives any educational institution it's merit. If the standards of academia are incorrect in your eyes, it means you need glasses. I see we just use the word professor as loosely as we can possibly imagine even if it is just to describe a guy that comes and gives Saul Alinsky lectures. We shall redefine professor to anyone that gives a lecture. Got it.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Cornered? He wasn't a professor. It isn't even a disputable fact. He wasn't a lawyer. He gave up his law license to avoid being disbarred and humiliated when it was revealed he lied to pass the bar. Snopes results I got the same chain e-mail you did, and I investigated it instead of taking it as gospel because it supported my views. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » I see we just use the word professor as loosely as we can possibly imagine even if it is just to describe a guy that comes and gives Saul Alinsky lectures. We shall redefine professor to anyone that gives a lecture. Got it. No, he was a representative of the University of Chicago as an adjuct professor. The definition is clear, you are the one trying to change it. Odin.Jassik said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Cornered? He wasn't a professor. It isn't even a disputable fact. He wasn't a lawyer. He gave up his law license to avoid being disbarred and humiliated when it was revealed he lied to pass the bar. Snopes results I got the same chain e-mail you did, and I investigated it instead of taking it as gospel because it supported my views. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » I see we just use the word professor as loosely as we can possibly imagine even if it is just to describe a guy that comes and gives Saul Alinsky lectures. We shall redefine professor to anyone that gives a lecture. Got it. No, he was a representative of the University of Chicago as an adjuct professor. The definition is clear, you are the one trying to change it. You investigated nothing. I just googled "Obama not a lawyer" and Viola! your link was the first result. Stop pretending Google Boy. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2026 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.