Mitt Romney just slapped back hard at Newt Gingrich over his pitch for a
moon colony and a bid to have private enterprise compete to build it,
saying if he was running a corporation and an executive came to him and
talked about having the firm build a lunar colony, "I'd say, 'You're
He goes on to slap Newt for going state to state making promises for votes.
Right on Mitt!
Mitt did a great job in that debate in coming on strong. He was a
little too mild in the previous one in not confronting Newt head on.
Newt's stock is rightfully sinking. He's not a bad guy but has too much
baggage to be our nominee.
Mitt is too hawkish for me to vote for. FWIW: I'm voting for Paul in the
primaries. After that I donno.
Paul is saying what I've been thinking since I was in the 4th grade in
the early 60s. And I was brought up in a house full of democrats!
You know to be a true independent I have to zing you and Heybub both for
omitting OT from political posts.
Have pity on the Republicans and their "anyone but Romney" nominations. The
eventually nominee will have been bludgeoned to near death by his close
In the meantime, you can't buy this kind of entertainment from the best
scriptwriters in the world. Moonbases, Tiffany credit lines, and the
nominee of the month. I suspect in just a few short years we'll be able to
vote for a real genetic Reagan clone. Maybe our founding fathers were
really prescient in demanding a natural born citizen - they knew clones were
Well thanks for the pity. You don't think the title says it all? Maybe I
was having a problem with my cat Mitt and my frog Newt?
The moon line is going to be remembered for awhile and it probably
should be focused more on things like Mitt's willingness to take us back
Go ahead, abuse those who think differently from you with untruths and
I have NEVER started an off-topic thread without warning (I think I used the
tag "HUMOR" once).
Further, I'm pretty sure I've never started a political post, period! If I
have, I apologize, but I don't think I did.
Now a recent post I started DID deal with a politician decrying government
involvement in light-bulbs, but that was just meant merely to illustrate
that all rational people oppose the government's insistence on CFLs. The
speaker could just have easily been a Nobel Prize winner, a holy man from
the Far East, or an honest auto mechanic.
Quoting from Obama's SOTU address apparently doesn't count with you but to
me it seems like garden-variety political flamebait. Faintly tying it into
previous politically-based discussions about the CFL law may count in your
mind as non-political but it's perilously close to the old saw of a
parent-killer asking the court for mercy because he's an orphan.
Now *that's* certainly political opinion unsubstantiated by the fact that
both parties voted for it and Bush signed it. The saddest part of the CFL
bulb business is that there are certainly far more important things on the
table than the alleged tyranny of lights bulbs. Like the sudden interest
R's developed for deficit reduction, it's just political theater. What's
even more amusing is that if you're right that "all rational people" oppose
the rule, then, by definition, Bush was irrational for signing it into law.
Sigh: I NEVER quoted from Obama's SOTU address. You just cannot get your
shit straight. Show me:
1. Where I quoted the SOTU, or
2. Where I started a political thread, with or without, the "OT"
If it seems I'm rising up in righteous indignation, I am. For purposes
defying understanding, you have determined to cast me in some mold you find
unacceptable. I will gladly accept corrections or criticism, but NOT for
something I didn't do.
Of course the old saw may obtain: "It is difficult to tell the difference
between malevolence and incompetence." If you admit to ignorance, sloth, or
incompetence, then I'll withdraw my accusation of evil.
* My comments were not meant as a partisan POLITICAL statement, only that
some politicians (also cab drivers, dog groomrs, pediatricians, et al) view
the CFL debacle as abusive government meddling.
* I agree there are many things - other than light bulbs - that need
attention, but deficit reduction, to pick one example, is not tied directly
to home repair.
* You're right. The Republicans do have a sudden interest in deficit
reduction. Now if we could convince the other party...
* I agree Bush was irrational in approving the law.
Sorry, my error. You quoted from Mitch Daniel's rebuttal to Obama's SOTU
address by starting the OT thread "Best Line of the Night" - here it is:
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"
> If it seems I'm rising up in righteous indignation, I am. For purposes
OK, so I got the side wrong. It was a RESPONSE to Obama's SOTU - a
connection so tenuous to Alt.Home.Repair (except through OTHER OT threads on
the subject) that to try to declare it somehow On Topic seems somewhat
incredulous to me.
IMHO, it was improperly marked political flamebait. I'm sorry I got the
side you quoted wrong, but that has little real impact on its off-topic
nature. Worse, still, there's a strong implication this lightbulb business
is all Obama's doing when in reality it was passed long before he got here
by Bush and large numbers of both parties. See where MY righteous
indignation comes from? Off-topic, meant to provoke flames and inaccurate.
What's to like about that? (-"
As my cop friends used to say before administering a beat down on a suspect.
"We know him - if he didn't do this, he certainly did something else worth a
When you quoted "the President and his allies tell us that . . . unless they
stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!" it seems a somewhat self-evident dig at
Obama and the D's alone, not acknowledging the CFL law had broad bi-partisan
support, was signed by Bush and that Obama really had about as little to do
with it as possible. Your righteous indignation at my accusations serves to
illustrate that people don't like being blamed for things they didn't do and
don't like to see people they respect being so blamed. The irony! (-: If I
were writing a TV drama script, I'd be proud of the construct.
If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead. (-: I obviously didn't
read it that way. As posted, it seems pretty obvious a political statement
to me. As a famous Supreme Court Justice once said "Even a dog knows the
difference between being stumbled over and being kicked. Obama's done a lot
of dumb things that he deserves to be called out on. The lightbulb
business, at least in my opinion, is something we can't pin on him honestly.
Regrettably, the politcal threads set up animosities that carry into
on-topic threads with people looking to score points, often in compensation
or retalliation for some previous exchange. Very few middle of the roaders
participate so instead of discussion we get choir-preaching, back-slapping
posts that shed very little light on anything important.
Even worse, the political threads often descend into name-calling, fact-free
bullshi+ that's of little use to anyone except the damaged egos of those
hurling the epithets. Many people (you for example) can argue the facts
without, as they used to say on the jousting fields, "striking horse."
Unfortunately plenty of people cannot and commit fouls and low blows almost
as easily as they draw breath.
The "sudden interest" coincides with "a desire to score political points."
They R's were not very worried about it *before* they lost the Whitehouse
and ran up a significant portion of the deficit that they are gnashing teeth
over these days. Once again it's "have mercy on us, we're orphans!"
OK - let's stop where we agree and I'll admit to riding you harder than you
deserve. I've run an analysis and ironically, like me, we both have started
very few OT political posts but we certainly aren't shy about responding to
them which contributes to the erroneous assumption I and others have made.
On the other hand I've identified the three posters here who post more OT
stuff than all the other OT posters combined. I should have done that
before beating up on you. I apologize. I'm sure you deserved the beating
for something you've done in the past, though. (-:
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.