drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
The loonies who bash Obama for dog-eating are idiots who should be ignored.
The loonies who bash Romney for a potential insult he gave 50 years are idiots who should be ignored. However the problem is I don't see many democrats saying "I don't care what Romney did as a kid." And not many republicans give a damn about the dog eating, they give a damn about the economy, the thing you guys pretended to give a damn about in 2008.
The right has made the entirety of obama's past part of the discussion and only now when the past has the potential to harm their candidate for president are they arguing that such matters are merely a distracction.
If more people on the right argued that "they didn't care what obama did in his past" and chose to discuss the economy, which most of them don't, then your argument would make more sense.
However, the right has and will use any means necessary to try and tear obama down so why is it that you want the left to fight back with their hands tied behind their backs?
Obama is and has done a great job of tearing himself down without anyone's help from the right.
really? how? PLease explain.
Love the part about wanting "the left to fight back with their hands tied behind their back" you can't be serious, and who controls the press?![]()
your delusions about the press are not a valid part of the debate but thanks for sharing. lol The fact is that republicans had drudged up anything and everything from obama's past and tried to use it to gain ground and yet now that the past of their candidate is being discussed the right is now arguingn that there are more important issues to deal with.
We have often pondered why the best and most capable refuse to run for political office, it should be self evident and for that look at the press with their hidden political agenda's.
so it's the press' fault that the right has nothing better than romney?? LOL wow you really need to seek professional help.
BTW how does your "the press is evil" rant address the fact that republicans have argued that everything in obama's past is pertinent but romney's past is not?