The Mitt Romney Thread

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

I only point it out when it is implied (and it is) when one party is impugned, that the other is goody two-shoes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

I only point it out when it is implied (and it is) when one party is impugned, that the other is goody two-shoes.

Where, specifically, was it implied?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

I only point it out when it is implied (and it is) when one party is impugned, that the other is goody two-shoes.

Where, specifically, was it implied?

It was implicit rather than explicit when someone says, for example "the GOP is divided". It would imply that there is a major party which is not divided, but united. Therefore the proper phrase would be, "both parties are internally divided"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

I only point it out when it is implied (and it is) when one party is impugned, that the other is goody two-shoes.

Where, specifically, was it implied?

It was implicit rather than explicit when someone says, for example "the GOP is divided". It would imply that there is a major party which is not divided, but united. Therefore the proper phrase would be, "both parties are internally divided"

Fox News has you trained really well if you believe that.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If you believe that then you've had too much exposure to the mass media.

I only point it out when it is implied (and it is) when one party is impugned, that the other is goody two-shoes.

Where, specifically, was it implied?

It was implicit rather than explicit when someone says, for example "the GOP is divided". It would imply that there is a major party which is not divided, but united. Therefore the proper phrase would be, "both parties are internally divided"

Fox News has you trained really well if you believe that.

You probably won't believe this, but I don't own a TV and rarely watch it. I don't have patience for commercials and I am too cheap to pay for satellite or DVR.

If you don't think the Dems are divided, why aren't they in agreement over their sacramental healthcare?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now you're just trying to change the argument.

Whether the Democrats are or are not divided, a statement to that effect is not required merely to make a comment about the GOP (in a thread about the GOP).

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Now you're just trying to change the argument.

Whether the Democrats are or are not divided, a statement to that effect is not required merely to make a comment about the GOP (in a thread about the GOP).

I wasn't arguing. I don't know why we always have to argue. I'm just saying, the dems are just as divided, so either party is in a #@%^ position come 2010, but moreso the dems because they are at the helm.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now you're just trying to change the argument.

Whether the Democrats are or are not divided, a statement to that effect is not required merely to make a comment about the GOP (in a thread about the GOP).

I wasn't arguing. I don't know why we always have to argue. I'm just saying, the dems are just as divided, so either party is in a #@%^ position come 2010, but moreso the dems because they are at the helm.

But the issues faced by the two parties are not the same.

[The_Dude 1,142]

OK, maybe I skimmed the last 2 pages that I missed while on my lunch break a bit too quickly, but what is with the indignation now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

OK, maybe I skimmed the last 2 pages that I missed while on my lunch break a bit too quickly, but what is with the indignation now?

Apparently to make a comment that specifically relates to one political party, you must also include a similar comment about the opposing party (for the sake of "balance").

[The_Dude 1,142]

OK, maybe I skimmed the last 2 pages that I missed while on my lunch break a bit too quickly, but what is with the indignation now?

Apparently to make a comment that specifically relates to one political party, you must also include a similar comment about the opposing party (for the sake of "balance").

[Peikko 1,575]

Good point. I like it

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't know why we always have to argue.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know why we always have to argue.

Sounds like a man crush to you too huh?