Quantcast

FOX News Admits Romney Sucks.

WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB 2012/06/05 09:40:28
Related Topics: Fox News, Fox, Romney, News
Argue with Fox News... they said it.

Read More: http://youtu.be/f0eE6DwnmPE

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • CrazyDeen0 2012/06/05 13:04:59
    CrazyDeen0
    +4
    Its funny listening to them trying to analyze something like they are surprised about what is happening. Why don't they just admit that the Paul people are smarter, better informed and ready for a fight, all the while Romney people are just like Obama people, lost , hopeless, and helplessly lost in the lesser of two evils game with no light at the end of their miserable tunnel and sadly no real purpose.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • rdmatheny 2012/06/05 14:29:38
    rdmatheny
    +3
    All I can say is, the anti-constitutionalists supporting Romney are not going to take this video too kindly.
  • WannaBe... rdmatheny 2012/06/06 09:34:36
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +3
    They've made their bed, imho.
  • rdmatheny WannaBe... 2012/06/06 12:04:21
    rdmatheny
    +2
    I agree.
  • LarryFine 2012/06/05 14:11:32
    LarryFine
    Nice spoof. Try a FOX news link instead.
  • WannaBe... LarryFine 2012/06/06 09:36:46
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    Why? Don't you have your tv on? Do you have a search engine installed on your 'puter?
  • LarryFine WannaBe... 2012/06/06 10:43:31
    LarryFine
    Nice spoof. Try a FOX news link instead.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/05 13:58:41 (edited)
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Pat points out that Paul is stealing delegates and thwarting the will of the voters - so much for Paul's honesty and ethics.

    I am convinced that the various GOP groups who wrote the rules never envisioned any candidate so dishonest and unethical as to subvert the vote of the people via loop holes in the rules. They, the writers, will have to re-write the rules now to preserve the voting from those without integrity.
  • WannaBe... Jackie ... 2012/06/06 09:21:49
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +3
    So that's the new mantra, eh Jackie? Nice.

    So, we can look back at the last hundred years of "republicans" and "democrats" subverting and suborning the constitution, and think; "If we continue to do the same thing over and over, maybe in a 1000 years everything will be perfect."

    Dishonest... like a Mormon who thinks he can make himself God by his works? (I used to live in Ogden)

    Dishonest... RomneyCare/ObamaCare? Why is it you can hate the one and love the other? Forcing a free man/woman to buy a product/service at the point of a gun is socialist collectivism, wither done by an "R" or a "D".
  • Jackie ... WannaBe... 2012/06/06 14:09:01
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    No mantra - it is what it is and it is disgusting
  • 9th of 9 Jackie ... 2012/06/06 12:37:36
    9th of 9
    +1
    Do you believe that if 35 out of 40 people say a man should hang for a crime he has commited, then he should hang???

    Yes or No please.
  • Jackie ... 9th of 9 2012/06/06 14:09:15
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    ?????
  • 9th of 9 Jackie ... 2012/06/06 21:15:23
    9th of 9
    +1
    Yes or No
  • Jackie ... 9th of 9 2012/06/06 21:21:56
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    Yes or no what - I am reasonable sure that this made sense to you when you wrote it but it makes no sense to me at all - Has nothing to do with the topic or anything else I can think of at all
  • 9th of 9 Jackie ... 2012/06/06 21:33:03
    9th of 9
    +1
    We will get to that in a minute.

    Yes or No. Do you think the man should hang for his crime if 35 out of 40 people say he should?
  • Jackie ... 9th of 9 2012/06/06 21:35:06 (edited)
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    I will not answer idiot questions - have a nice day

    We do not hang people any longer, and we do not execute people without a trial
  • 9th of 9 Jackie ... 2012/06/06 21:51:57
    9th of 9
    +1
    So you would exercise the rule of law under that instance then?
  • CrazyDeen0 2012/06/05 13:04:59
    CrazyDeen0
    +4
    Its funny listening to them trying to analyze something like they are surprised about what is happening. Why don't they just admit that the Paul people are smarter, better informed and ready for a fight, all the while Romney people are just like Obama people, lost , hopeless, and helplessly lost in the lesser of two evils game with no light at the end of their miserable tunnel and sadly no real purpose.
  • WannaBe... CrazyDeen0 2012/06/06 09:40:08
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +3
    After the patriot act and ndaa 2012, the "r's" have no morale or ethical capital to draw upon, and have proven themselves bankrupt of ideas.
  • CrazyDeen0 WannaBe... 2012/06/06 12:14:38 (edited)
    CrazyDeen0
    +3
    Indeed, and have gauranteed themselves as being no different than the very party they whine about when it comes to massive deficit spending and expansion of government. The Dems and the Neocons wear the same hat as far as I am concerned.
  • WannaBe... CrazyDeen0 2012/06/07 05:29:57
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +2
    I concur.
  • Waldorf 2012/06/05 12:06:46
    Waldorf
    Characterizing it as "Romney Sucks" is dishonest. That is not what they said. They did say the Romney campaign was shallow, my inference being that if the Romney candidacy was stronger, Paul would not be an issue.
  • WannaBe... Waldorf 2012/06/06 09:40:39
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    Shallow... interesting.
  • Matt 2012/06/05 11:41:51
    Matt
    +4
    I'm not totally fond of Ron Paul, but I believe him to be an honest man. He is also not a "waffler". He is the only conservative in the race and the man that he would be running against is definitely not a liberal. A vote, cast for anybody but Ron Paul is a vote for more of the same crap that we have been getting for about 50 years now.
    more of the same
  • WannaBe... Matt 2012/06/05 11:45:25
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +3
    That is so perfect a reply... why can't I rave more than once?
  • Revolut... Matt 2012/06/05 12:54:33
    Revolution 2012
    +4
    I admire your honesty, and you make a decent point.
  • Jackie ... Matt 2012/06/05 14:00:36
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    I would disagree - thwarting the will of the voters is inherently dishonest and unethical at its core. Which means that Paul stands for nothing
  • Matt Jackie ... 2012/06/05 15:12:15
    Matt
    +4
    The only politicians that are "thwarting the will of the voters" are the ones that we do elect. That is why nothing has gotten better.
  • Jackie ... Matt 2012/06/05 15:22:28
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    And nothing will be by electing professional politicians willing and by plan working to subvert the vote of the people. It is just becomes more disgusting than ever before.

    The people may elect the people you or I may disagree with but willfully planning to subvert the vote of the people should never ever be tolerated by anyone who believes in this country - that kind of plan is right out of dictatorship "free voting for all"
  • rdmatheny Jackie ... 2012/06/06 12:16:01
    rdmatheny
    +3
    Spoken like a "true Anti-Constitutionalist".
    -----------------------------...
    Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.

    If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.

    In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.

    That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and ...













    Spoken like a "true Anti-Constitutionalist".
    -----------------------------...
    Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.

    If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.

    In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.

    That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

    Republicanism is the logical form of government for conservatives. Conservatism at its best protects property rights from an unchecked majority plundering the individual. Liberalism at its best protects property rights from the wealthy conspiring with the government to plunder the masses. At their worst, both conservatism and liberalism legitimize plunder; the former for the few, the latter for the many.

    Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.

    Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.

    Yet, conservatives today sound just like liberals when they decry Paul’s supporters using the republican nature of the caucuses to overturn the decisions of uninformed majorities. Their opposition to both Paul’s platform and his political strategy begs the question: Does the Republican Party still believe in a republican form of government? Do they still believe that the power of the majority has limits? Or are they just Democrats with a different supporter base?

    George W. Bush never once referred to the United States of America as “a republic.” He consistently referred to it as “a democracy” and like Woodrow Wilson claimed to be defending democracy all over the world. If he was representative of what the Republican Party now stands for, then how is it substantively different from the Democratic Party?

    These same questions apply to the issues. If the Republican Party truly favors the big government alternatives to Ron Paul, candidates who all supported the expansion of the federal government in the past and who refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts now, then what is the debate about?

    The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy. http://communities.washington...
    (more)
  • 9th of 9 rdmatheny 2012/06/06 12:33:04
    9th of 9
    +1
    Liberals don't understand.
  • WannaBe... rdmatheny 2012/06/07 07:04:04 (edited)
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Well done, and thank you.
    *edit to include;
    Without permission, I have shared this response with others. I hope you don't mind.
  • rdmatheny WannaBe... 2012/06/07 10:38:16
    rdmatheny
    +1
    Educate away.
  • MichaelJ 2012/06/05 10:25:35
    MichaelJ
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
  • WannaBe... MichaelJ 2012/06/05 11:04:46 (edited)
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +3
    "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

    Admitting one is still asleep is never considered a "plus", when one is pretending to add something, anything of value to the conversation.

    Time to wake up, little buddy;


    *edit for stupid typo... pisses me off
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/06/05 09:53:16
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    At least Fox News got THAT one right....
  • WannaBe... Lady Wh... 2012/06/05 11:05:40
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Every once in a while, they mistakenly get something "right". By accident, I suppose.
  • Rusty Bubbles 2012/06/05 09:50:47
    Rusty Bubbles
    +3
    What's to argue, Romney is like a bad cold, but Obama is a cancer
  • OneOfTh... Rusty B... 2012/06/05 10:23:09
    OneOfTheAmericanPeople
    +2
    Amen, a cancer that kills quickly but there's the gentle cold that dosent bother you

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/21 20:20:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals