Edgetho
Platinum Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 15,986
- 7,216
- 390
- Thread starter
- #21
We on the right have learned nothing from 2012, have we?
Yes, we have.
1) Romney was a terrible candidate. He would tear into Republicans like a Pitbull in a Butcher Shop but would cower like a cur in front of obama and the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM
2) obama is one lucky individual.... osama bin floatin', inflated jobs reports, Hurricane Sandy and the traitor Chris Christie, Romney's secretly filmed "47%" fiasco, the SCOTUS upholding the ACA, Romney's inability put away a "B-List" of opponents until late in the season (he couldn't spend RNC money until he was actually the nominee) and the coup de gras.... Candy Fatass Crowley in the 2nd debate....
Yeah, a couple of those were planned instead of good fortune, but they could have back-fired if we'd had a candidate that didn't have a deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes every time he faced the cameras with the lying cocksucker in chief in tow.
In front of the Press against Republicans, he was like Genghis Khan on the Russian Steppes, against the Liar in Chief, he was more like the French Army.
But I guess it's easier to be 'tough' when you know that the power of the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM is backing you up. That no matter what you say, no matter what you do, they'll have your back.
What we need is a Man, or even better -- A Woman, who will tear into the DISGSUTING FILTH of the LSM and call them what they are -- The scum of the fucking Earth, and lay it on hard. I mean, TEAR into them and let them have it with both barrels. And don't let up.
He or she might lose the election but, IMO, it would spell the end of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM as a political force, as King-Makers. It would forever cripple their less-than-well-hidden attempts to manipulate the people of this Country. Worth it
It would be a long overdue and welcome improvement ot our political process
We learned nothing. We love to count our chickens before they hatch.
Romney didn't lose, Obama won.
Napoleon used to choose his Generals based, in no small regard, on their luck.
He considered luck in Battle to be a decisive factor in who he put in charge of his Divisions and Corps.
Whimsy or foundational?
![dunno :dunno: :dunno:](/styles/smilies/dunno.gif)
Who knows. And, BTW, Napoleon won more Battles than Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan did in their entire lives......Combined!!!
Before he was 30!!