Tell us why Romney will be a great president.

[Ed W]

This thread effectively ended after one and a half pages. Now they're just out ropin' goats.

They can actually be quite dangerous when cornered.  These guys should be wearing some protective gear.

[guido911]

So, you agree with me that SCOTUS is the real issue. You pass the litmus test. Nate is right, this will only increase the odds of more righties on the court. This will not cause Roe v Wade to be over turned.

Who said anything about overturning Roe? I don't think it's necessary. But nice swing and a miss.

[Red Arrow]

Also, why does he think unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income?

If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment. 

Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings.  There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account.  Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government.   Oh, wait, what was I thinking?  People take care of themselves.  Blasphemy.  20 lashes with a wet noodle.

[Teatownclown]

Who said anything about overturning Roe? I don't think it's necessary. But nice swing and a miss.

Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?

[AquaMan]

They can actually be quite dangerous when cornered.  These guys should be wearing some protective gear.

I gotta' learn how to post pics here.

Saw a Coypou while biking past the PSO power plant Thursday. Cute little beggar with a bad reputation. Next time I see him I'll take a pic and use it on my profile.

[guido911]

The smell of pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade PANIC is overwhelming in this thread. I mean, we know the left had a horrible last 10 days with the @ss-kicking it took in Wisconsin, the May unemployment number rising, former pres. Clinton endorsing Romney, and that the private sector is laughably doing fine. So naturally, let's talk about Romney and how he does not have the skill set to be president.

Now, to the heart of this thread--can Romney be a great president. The same question was batted around repeatedly in 2008 when neophyte Obama was running for office against a seasoned/experienced John McCain. When Obama's bona fides were put to the test, who in this forum said this in response:

Once again I notice that none of the critics of Obama (around here) seem interested in touting McCain's legislative prowess, executive skills and judgement preferring instead to concentrate on creating fantasy histories for Obama. Why? It distracts folks from the key questions you don't want to address:

Are you happy with the last eight years of Republican administration?

Are you happy with the way the war was started and prosecuted by the Republican administration?

Are you worried about the loss or curtailment of freedoms and the resulting imbalance of powers in the past Republican administration?

Are you confident that McCain is capable of improving our economy to benefit the middle classes as well as the rich?

Do you think McCain is any different in attitude and outlook than the previous Bush administration?

Isn't McCain MORE OF THE SAME?

Have you had enough!?!?

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=10965.msg93943#msg93943

But if the right says, "have we had enough" or "are we happy with the last [four] years" or "does [Romney] have a different attitude and outlook than the previous [Bush] administration" or "are you confident that [Obama] is capable of improving our economy to benefit the middle classes...", that just ain't good enough. Why? Because it distracts from the key questions the left doesn't want to address, eh waterboy?

As for the OP, well his own words bites his @ss once again. When talking about Obama's qualifications, here's what he wrote:

Obama was not prepared enough for me. He is very untested and unproven. But the democrats in America think that is a strength right now.I understand. We felt the same way when we elected Jimmy Carter after the Nixon/Ford shamble. The passion for change can be powerful.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=10305.msg82432#msg82432

I guess the passion for change from Obama to Romney just isn't powerful enough for ol' RM either. I guess neither is "talk[ing] real purty"

www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=8926.msg65042#msg65042

Guido:  Giving leftest enough rope to hang themselves since 2006.

[guido911]

Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?

Another swing and a miss, this time coupled with a "change of subject" and a straw man for good measure.

[guido911]

If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment. 

Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings.  There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account.  Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government.   Oh, wait, what was I thinking?  People take care of themselves.  Blasphemy.  20 lashes with a wet noodle.

Um, Red, you do realize that saving money is tantamount to hording cash. When you horde money, you are keeping it from reaching those persons who did not earn it. As for the lashing, must you always turn every thread into something perverted? Oh wait...

[AquaMan]

I thought you were leaving this thread two pages ago. That's why you like Romney so much. You both change positions at will. Etcha-Sketch Guido.

This is the simplest thread ever. Just read the question and (if you can understand it) make your case. One guy did it. It wasn't you.

[guido911]

I thought you were leaving this thread two pages ago. That's why you like Romney so much. You both change positions at will. Etcha-Sketch Guido.

And I should have, but I just couldn't resist calling you and RM out for your double speak (okay, gloriously hoisting you on your own petard) on the need for arguing qualifications. Too juicy of an opportunity, which given your vapid response, was successful.

[nathanm]

If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment. 

Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings.  There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account.  Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government.   Oh, wait, what was I thinking?  People take care of themselves.  Blasphemy.  20 lashes with a wet noodle.

Uh, what? Unless you're making a new policy proposal, you're off base here. Interest income has long been taxable at the usual earned income rates. I'm not talking about taking something away from average middle class folks.

[RecycleMichael]

I am surprised by you guido. Your odd obsession with the 2008 RecycleMichael quotes on TulsaNow are quite flattering. Thanks for posting them.

What they show are a liberal who wasn't sold on his party's nomination. I wrote dozens of thoughts, each time reading what others were saying and discussing my evolving views with all those who read them.

It is funny that you selectively post random sentences out of long posts. The last one you posted had a line or two that summed up how I felt the first week of June (exactly four weeks ago). Here it is...

I won't vote for McCain. I think he is wrong on the war, wrong on nuclear energy, wrong on immigration, and wrong for America. He was my favorite republican because of his liberal past and willingness to work with democrats, but the last couple of months he has changed all that to appeal to the republican base.

I will support Obama. But I won't fall in love with him like so many others have. Democrats fall in love with their candidates and republicans fall in line with theirs.

[AquaMan]

And I should have, but I just couldn't resist calling you and RM out for your double speak (okay, gloriously hoisting you on your own petard) on the need for arguing qualifications. Too juicy of an opportunity, which given your vapid response, was successful.

You have a diseased thought process Guido. My juicy petards are no business of yours btw.

[Conan71]

Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?

And you advocate violence against humans who have ZERO say as to whether or not they get sucked out of the womb?  Ever see what those womb vacs do to tiny bones?

Nice straw man.

[Breadburner]

Anyone would seem great after following the doofus we have in office....