"Mitt" on Netflix

[Bailey Guns]

A Netflix original documentary on the 2012 Romney campaign. Very well done. After seeing this man and his family behind the scenes I'm even more disappointed than I was that he didn't win the election. America missed a great opportunity in my opinion.

[sniper7]

Just saw that, would have been great to see himw in instead of our current POS

[ben4372]

That explains him popping up on Fallen last night. I was wondering why. I'm gonna have to look into getting Netflix. I'm sure it will make my teeth hurt. As if my opinion of Barry was not low enough.

[BPTactical]

Romney won the election.

Obama stole it.

When Romney was leading Nevada 73% and then a commercial break and after that Floppy Ears leads it by 65%, you knew the fix was in.

[rockhound]

A Netflix original documentary on the 2012 Romney campaign. Very well done. After seeing this man and his family behind the scenes I'm even more disappointed than I was that he didn't win the election. America missed a great opportunity in my opinion.

you are just racist

[Bailey Guns]

you are just racist

Am not.

[sniper7]

Am not.

Half racist?

[Post Toastie]

Am not.

Ask anyone on pMSNBC and they'll tell you...

[Bailey Guns]

I dislike people of all races equally. I don't discriminate.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I dislike people of all races equally. I don't discriminate.



Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: L-----, M----, H----, F-- D----, N--, Honkies, C------, you name it.

Don't want to get the board in any trouble so I only left the one epithet that can still be used in public ...

[ZERO THEORY]

Eh...MA has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and he tried his own hand at social medicine. Looked to be another big government, pseudo-Con a la McCain to me. Not a fan of his, but I did appreciate that he at least put Obama on blast for Benghazi before that shill of a 'moderator' shut him down.

EDIT:


http://whale.to/b/267511_433630843341089_2140809543_n.jpg

[RMAC757]

How quicky we forget about his stance on firearms. If he would just of been himself instead of trying to reinvent who he was every week he probably would have won. He's not a "common man", but he kept trying to reinvent himself as one. He's a savy business guy. He needed to go with that. Hell, we're in the midst of a financial catastrophe. We need someone who understands that. I agree that his stance on firearms is no different than Obamas though.

Eh...MA has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and he tried his own hand at social medicine. Looked to be another big government, pseudo-Con a la McCain to me. Not a fan of his, but I did appreciate that he at least put Obama on blast for Benghazi before that shill of a 'moderator' shut him down.

EDIT:


http://whale.to/b/267511_433630843341089_2140809543_n.jpg

[Aloha_Shooter]

Funny, I figured the support for gun control measures popular in MA was pandering to his liberal MA constituents.

Look, he certainly wasn't my ideal candidate but neither were George W. Bush nor even Ronald Reagan. The fact of the matter is that all three were better than the alternatives offered. Letting Obama get a second (or even first) term because someone in the GOP hasn't been a diligent conservative was ... well, words fail me but if you can think of something that describes the intelligence level of the mythical progeny of Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden in one package, you'd be pretty close ...

[Zundfolge]

How quicky we forget about his stance on firearms...I agree that his stance on firearms is no different than Obamas though.

I agree Mitt wasn't ideal on firearms ... but on pretty much every other aspect of governance he would have been better than Obama.
Obama = gun control advocate who is also a Marxist
Mitt = gun control sympathizer who is NOT a Marxist.

Obamacare is going to destroy this country (assuming it hasn't already). With Mitt we wouldn't have Obamacare (yes, I know he supported an Obamacare like program in Massholeland, but he flatly said he wouldn't support Obamacare).

That said, I'd have still been happier with a real conservative.


And even after all that I will not support Chris Christie if he's the GOP candidate ... if he is the candidate, at that point I will continue forward under the assumption that America is good and truly dead and I'll prepare myself for the coming war/police state/whatever-shit-storm that is coming.

[Ronin13]

I've grown quite tied of the "Romney was not the perfect candidate" and his gun control stance arguments. If you're abstaining from casting your vote because the candidate you would normally be voting for isn't perfect, them you're going to keep having to endure Obamas, Clintons and Carters until the end of time, because that perfect candidate will never come. That's the reason Obama won again. Mitt was far from perfect, even as a conservative... But, he would have been 10x better than what we have now. "He was no friend to the Second Amendment," ooh and Barry O is!?

I plan on watching that doc this week... Looks pretty insightful.

Sent from my evil, black smartphone.

[Bailey Guns]

I agree with Aloha, Ronin and Z. What Romney did as governor of one of the most liberal east coast states in terms of gun control is far different from what he would've done as president on gun control. Especially with a republican controlled house. Frankly, with the financial crisis this country is facing and the problems caused by O-care, I doubt gun control would've been on the Romney radar...at all.

It's all moot at this point... But ask yourself who you'd rather see in the WH now: Obama or Romney? I'll take Romney any day.

For any of you who like to point to Reagan as the great conservative president, don't forget he was a hard-core gun control advocate as governor of CA. Reagan also signed the FOPA of 1986. You can thank him for prohibiting you from buying a newly manufactured machine gun and for defining certain parts of a gun as a machine gun. You can thank Bush 1 for the 89 import ban. Bush 2 said he sign the AWB renewal "if" it got to his desk.


Obama = gun control advocate who is also a Marxist
Mitt = gun control sympathizer who is NOT a Marxist.

^^That is a HUGE distinction that many of you don't seem to understand.

For you guys waiting for the "perfect" candidate...you'd better pack a lunch. You're gonna be waiting for a while.

[cofi]

I think the country would have been in a worse off (for second amendment stuff) had Romney won that's the stuff that doesn't get repealed when the next president comes in

[n8tive97]

What are Wisconsin gun laws like? I like that Governor. So far he shows a back bone and appears to be turning his states economy around.

Sent from my ultra conservative tracking device.....

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think the country would have been in a worse off (for second amendment stuff) had Romney won that's the stuff that doesn't get repealed when the next president comes in

[fail] [Bang]

My sympathies for your recent medical procedure, whatever it was, because they've got you on some really NASTY psychoactive drugs. How the heck do you figure this? In the first place, what do you think Romney would have passed in the last 12 months that Obama hasn't tried to pass? You really think Romney would have continued to push a Bloomberg-driven anti-gun agenda like Obama has? or corrupted the IRS the way Obama has? Wow. Just wow.

[cofi]

You really think Romney would have continued to push a Bloomberg-driven anti-gun agenda like Obama has? .

"The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban as Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality."



Yea no thanks Romney was a turd

[SamuraiCO]

[Pop]

[Sharpienads]

Here we go again...

[ZERO THEORY]

If you're abstaining from casting your vote because the candidate you would normally be voting for isn't perfect, them you're going to keep having to endure Obamas, Clintons and Carters until the end of time.

I voted...

...for Gary Johnson. Lest we forget, we have a say in the candidate come the primaries. We also decides what electors cast our votes. That's where the election is actually decided by the public. Once that fails and we get shills like McCain and Romney, I cast my ceremonial vote for the candidate I actually support, since the popular vote has zero effect on the outcome of the election. If more people stopped wasting their vote supporting the GOP on "principle" and actually showing the RINOs that we're sick of being fed phony conservatives and actually want liberty-minded candidates, we could actually get somewhere.

Let the popular vote show what we're actually looking for, but register R and try your damndest to get serious candidates in there during the actual contested portion of election season.

[Aloha_Shooter]

You're half-right Zero. Go ahead and try to take over the infrastructure through the primary system -- that's what Theodore Roosevelt did. However, when it comes to the general election, this "voting my conscience" crap is what gives us Obamas and Clintons and Carters. Yeah, both Bushes and Romney had their issues and I detest McCain with a passion but even McCain would have been a vast improvement over Obama. That "ceremonial vote" is the one that hurts.

[ZERO THEORY]

You're half-right Zero. Go ahead and try to take over the infrastructure through the primary system -- that's what Theodore Roosevelt did. However, when it comes to the general election, this "voting my conscience" crap is what gives us Obamas and Clintons and Carters. Yeah, both Bushes and Romney had their issues and I detest McCain with a passion but even McCain would have been a vast improvement over Obama. That "ceremonial vote" is the one that hurts.

So we continue to vote for candidates who deep-dick us just because we think they might deep-dick us less than the other guys? Sorry, but that's like saying we should be glad we got Bush because the Patriot Act and big government was better than what Gore would've proposed.

Since every single civilian vote could've been for Romney and he still would've lost the election due to the Electoral College structure, I think I'll at least voice my disapproval with the GOP's insistence on glad-handing with liberals and not adhering to liberty-minded ideals.

[Bailey Guns]

Since every single civilian vote could've been for Romney and he still would've lost the election due to the Electoral College structure, I think I'll at least voice my disapproval with the GOP's insistence on glad-handing with liberals and not adhering to liberty-minded ideals.

I don't think that's true. Electors in most states cast their votes based on the winner of the popular vote. It's not that way everywhere, but it's highly unlikely that a candidate could get 100% of the popular vote and not be elected.

It's easy for a candidate to get more popular votes and still lose simply because they can get a higher number of electoral votes in the high-population states.

[Aloha_Shooter]

So we continue to vote for candidates who deep-dick us just because we think they might deep-dick us less than the other guys? Sorry, but that's like saying we should be glad we got Bush because the Patriot Act and big government was better than what Gore would've proposed.

Since every single civilian vote could've been for Romney and he still would've lost the election due to the Electoral College structure, I think I'll at least voice my disapproval with the GOP's insistence on glad-handing with liberals and not adhering to liberty-minded ideals.

No, you should glad you didn't get Gore or Kerry who we KNOW would have not only deep-dicked you but made you like it and you should help take over the Republican Party by thowing out establishment types in the primaries.

You have a technically correct but deeply flawed understanding of the electoral process but it's one the Dems want you to have because they want to get rid of the Electoral College. The fact of the matter is that electors get in based on the popular vote in their respective states or districts. 500 votes in Florida separated us from the abysmal Carter 1.5 that would have been President Gore. It should have been more but the media and Florida Supreme Court let Gore manufacture non-existent BS votes from "dimpled" chads and the like all the while letting Gore get away with trying to deny real legitimate military absentee votes.

Without the Electoral College, all the Dems have to worry about is taking over California, New York, Florida and Texas and the rest of the country can (and will) go screw themselves -- and they're working on those states right now. There's a reason the Dems want to impose a popular vote-only process.

Go ahead and register your disapproval of the establishment GOP but do it in the primary process. Do it by helping with the Tea Party, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and other processes, rejecting Christie and other Dem-lites, but people that KNOW Obama/Clinton-style Marxism is wrong but still enable it by uselessly voting "third party" are almost worse than the Obamabots that just vote on the way they feel because they don't know any better.

[Bailey Guns]

^^ LIKE

[Bailey Guns]

The notion that we should do away with the electoral college, especially when it's voiced by people who claim to be informed on the political process, is terrifying. That is a progressive's wet dream. The majority of the country would have zero voice in the election of presidents.

Thank God the process is enshrined in the Constitution and will be very difficult to change by those ignorant enough to want that.

[ZERO THEORY]

Didn't say we should do away with the electoral college. And I understand the structure just fine. Hence my saying the same thing you did which is vote for competent Republicans in the primaries and try to avoid getting agent provocateurs in the running.

Where I disagree is on trying to sway electoral votes with my popular vote.

[ZERO THEORY]

A pure popular vote would spell the end, I'm well aware. Hence the founding fathers being pragmatic and realizing the hard truth of not letting uneducated, impressionable plebs run roughshod over the legislative and electoral processes. Unfortunately the left has exploited that, and is trying to manufacture a Catch 22, and to no failed effect thus far.

[davsel]

"...the founding fathers being pragmatic," only allowed for property owners to vote, because they were the only ones paying taxes.
I believe we should return to this idea and only allow for tax payers to vote.

Oh, and Romney sucks.

[Bailey Guns]

Oh, and Romney sucks.

Well, gee. After that compelling argument, I'm convinced.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Oh, and Romney sucks.

I'm not so concerned about him sucking as the fact that Obama-Pelosi-Reid want the rest of us to suck ...

[ZERO THEORY]

"...the founding fathers being pragmatic," only allowed for property owners to vote, because they were the only ones paying taxes.
I believe we should return to this idea and only allow for tax payers to vote.


That's definitely a step in the right direction. Tax-paying, legal citizens being the ONLY eligible voters would certainly get the ball rolling.

[Zundfolge]

That's definitely a step in the right direction. Tax-paying, legal citizens being the ONLY eligible voters would certainly get the ball rolling.
If I had my way, acceptance of government assistance (EBT, Welfare, Obamaphone, etc) should disqualify one from being able to vote.

[mcjhr]

If I had my way, acceptance of government assistance (EBT, Welfare, Obamaphone, etc) should disqualify one from being able to vote.

I disagree. where would the line stop? People too old to vote? People with terminal diseases can't vote since they won't be around.

Also how will you implement this. Anyone who has ever in their life used govt assistance can't vote? Or you just can't be on come election season? Just seems like it would be another window to chip away at peoples rights.

Besides I doubt they(welfare kings and queens) even vote. (no facts to back this claim).

But I do honestly feel your frustration.

Eta: clarity and added more of my drivel.

[davsel]

If I had my way, acceptance of government assistance (EBT, Welfare, Obamaphone, etc) should disqualify one from being able to vote.

I would consider those who "pay taxes," as those who pay more money into the government than they receive from the government.
After all, aside from passing laws and common defense, the modern government just spends tax money. You don't contribute, you don't get a say on who is elected to spend it.

Show your tax return to Voter Registration, and off you go.

[davsel]

Oh, and Romney sucks.


Well, gee. After that compelling argument, I'm convinced.

"Remember Barnhardt Axiom #1: seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office."
http://www.barnhardt.biz/

[Aloha_Shooter]

I rather like Heinlein's premise Starship Troopers: only those who have given their service to the country have earned the right to vote in it. However, that sort of premise is most definitely at odds with the Founding Fathers' intents and unconstitutional. I would settle for using the civics test used to gain American citizenship as a requirement for voting rights but am sure the ACLU would object.

[Zundfolge]

I disagree. where would the line stop? People too old to vote? People with terminal diseases can't vote since they won't be around.
No, the idea is to stop people live off government largess from voting to take more from the productive.


Also how will you implement this. Anyone who has ever in their life used govt assistance can't vote? Or you just can't be on come election season? Just seems like it would be another window to chip away at peoples rights.
Simple, if you are on any form of government assistance at any time after the deadline for registration you are not allowed to vote. If you get off the government teat before then you can vote.


Besides I doubt they(welfare kings and queens) even vote. (no facts to back this claim).
I believe they vote by the busload ... buses driven by "community organizers" and often given "cheat sheets" so they don't accidentally vote for the "wrong" people (but like you, no facts to back this claim).