The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: miskie on July 16, 2012, 06:35:18 PM

Title: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: miskie on July 16, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
Delicious war brewing here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002958785

PJM has a point, why don't they ? If Romney has broken several laws, and "everyone knows it", then they need to address it. Some primitives agree, yet far more don't, and they have many varied reasons for not prosecuting the lawbreaker Romney..

Quote from: ProdigalJunkMail (9,238 posts)

 
why don't they indict Romney?

I mean, they have all the docs needed. His tax returns are held by the IRS. The FEC and SEC have the other docs needed...don't they? It would seem a sure-fire way to submarine the campaign...and it would show the American people that he IS the cheat and dodge that he seems to be...

sP

And now a few reasons not to..

Quote from: Ruby the Liberal (19,739 posts)

1. Because it would submarine the campaign.

They can't do this in the runup to an election. There would be incredible blowback. Especially since this has been known since he filed to run in 2011.

Now, after the election..

OKay, Don't prosecute now, wait to Chimpeach later..

Quote from: JoePhilly (12,529 posts)

6. Let him twist in the wind.

Hitchcock found that one's imagination was far more powerful than anything he could show.

In Jaws, having the shark remain as an unseen terror engaged one's imagination, and fear.

Let people think about what Mitt's up to, let their imaginations conjure up what he's hiding.

Any indictment would take YEARS to complete ...

Let Mitt twist in the wind.

Don't back up any of the claims, let peoples imagination fill in the blanks. Why not? It certainly worked for 'hope & change'..

Quote from: KharmaTrain (29,045 posts)

51. And Twist And Twist...Put More ? Out There...

Bain is part one. We're about to see a similar demolition about Willard's role in the Olympics...pushing his business contacts for his personal profit.

It's building a narrative that by this fall will stick like glue to most Americans of Willard being a sleezy liar and tax cheat. Richie Rich/Thurston Howell on a jet ski with a dog on the roof.

It's classic political framing that will be studied by political campaigns for generations. Firstly, for the genius of Team Obama to pile it on and, more importantly, the ineptness of Rmoney who kept sticking glass jaws out there to get knocked around.

Warning, 11th dimensional Vulcan Hyperchess master at work. Do not disturb.

Quote from: Bok_Tukalo (3,790 posts)

8. Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

... unless there is at least one dead body, half a pound of blow, and two sodomized goats involved.


Seriously, indict Romney? Good Lord. This is America, for Christ's sake; not Russia or some other shit hole that pretends to be a democracy.

This primitive almost gets it - there is no crime. Man your alert buttons !

Quote from: DrDan (13,877 posts)
22. have you given any thought to how this would play out in the media?

geez louise . . .

Because it looks 'icky' - that explains Holder's non-response to going after illegal aliens.

Quote from: oldhippydude (1,070 posts)

50. i don't suspect anybody here remembers Watergate....

Nixon had an enemies list that he persecuted, and prosecuted through the Justice Department. his attorney General John Mitchell, resigned in disgrace as the investigation unfolded...

one has to very careful investigating political rivals..

This primitive also seems to get it.

Quote from: Marcia Brady (35 posts)

25. It's probably not as clear as you think

I know nothing about the law, and it appears to me that RMoney broke the law and should be frogmarched ASAP; however, people who DO know the law seem to think it may not be a crime, or even unusual in the business world. Are you aware that the Washington Post gave the whole flap 3 Pinocchios? In other words, much ado about nothing.

So, who knows??

Lots and lots of fun in this thread, and PJM keeps the primitives dancing to his tune. Excellent fun.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Happy Fun Ball on July 16, 2012, 06:51:02 PM
I give him 24 business hours.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: obumazombie on July 16, 2012, 06:52:07 PM
I give him 24 business hours.
Or 2 full tide cycles.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 16, 2012, 06:56:55 PM
They will indict Romney when they indict Holder, and release obama's (he doesn't deserve to have his name capitalized) college transcripts. In fact, I was listening to Mitt Romney today and he was saying that he is going to push for Holder to release the Fast and Furious transcripts.  :lmao:
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: NHSparky on July 16, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
Oh, gee, I dunno, cause maybe he hasn't done anything illegal?

You DUmmies sound stupider than the DUAC mental deficients with LIHOP/MIHOP or Orly Taitz with her "birther" nonsense.  Regardless of the side of the political spectrum from which you hail, you ALL sound like raving loons when you spout shit like this.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: jukin on July 16, 2012, 07:01:39 PM
I can't wait for President Romney's acceptance speech.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 16, 2012, 07:06:24 PM
The thing that is so funny about all of this is that they all insist that Romney is a felon, but yet the real felons are Holder and Obama.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Freeper on July 16, 2012, 08:38:18 PM
Maybe after he is sworn in as President they will indict him.  :rotf:

Stupid DUmmies.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: NHSparky on July 16, 2012, 08:45:23 PM
They do realize there's this thing called "Statute of Limitations"?

I know DUmmies aren't that smart, but even they can look up Sarbanes-Oxley.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: obumazombie on July 16, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
They do realize there's this thing called "Statute of Limitations"?

I know DUmmies aren't that smart, but even they can look up Sarbanes-Oxley.
They think it's a statue.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Mr Mannn on July 16, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Liberals are totalitarian wannabees. They want to criminalize all opposition.
they WANT to be the oppressors. You can see they are so close they can almost taste the purge.

Liberals so want to be the elite, lording over us as masters.

They would have made their move years ago if it weren't for that pesky 2nd amendment. Those words and a few brave men are the only thing standing between us and tyranny.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Big Don on July 17, 2012, 12:03:57 AM
Quote
Hitchcock found that one's imagination was far more powerful than anything he could show.

In Jaws, having the shark remain as an unseen terror engaged one's imagination, and fear.
? Hitchcock wrote jaws?!
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
? Hitchcock wrote jaws?!

I am sure that most of those retards believe he did.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Airwolf on July 17, 2012, 01:58:29 AM
Even more reasons to own as many guns as you can after that OP.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: diesel driver on July 17, 2012, 03:07:54 AM
Quote

Bok_Tukalo (3,790 posts)
8. Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

... unless there is at least one dead body, half a pound of blow, and two sodomized goats involved.


Seriously, indict Romney? Good Lord. This is America, for Christ's sake; not Russia or some other shit hole that pretends to be a democracy.


...like Chicago?   :lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:  :lol:  :lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: formerlurker on July 17, 2012, 04:58:14 AM
The entire island is Romney 24/7.   They are obsessed.   It is most delicious.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: rustybayonet on July 17, 2012, 06:56:25 AM
They will indict Romney when they indict Holder, and release obama's (he doesn't deserve to have his name capitalized) college transcripts. In fact, I was listening to Mitt Romney today and he was saying that he is going to push for Holder to release the Fast and Furious transcripts.  :lmao:

Why stop with the two of them - the entire current administration of fools needs indicting for dereliction of duty, unlawful practices, creating massive debt, ignoring the Constitution, being amateurs, and above all stupidity.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
Why stop with the two of them - the entire current administration of fools needs indicting for dereliction of duty, unlawful practices, creating massive debt, ignoring the Constitution, being amateurs, and above all stupidity.

I agree. I would love to see indictment hammer fall on all of them.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 17, 2012, 11:03:26 AM
I agree. I would love to see indictment hammer fall on all of them.

Better yet, I'd love to see Holder and a whole bunch of others get "new Federal housing"--in Florence CO. :fuelfire: :evillaugh:
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: NHSparky on July 17, 2012, 11:31:25 AM
Quote
Bok_Tukalo (3,790 posts)
8. Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

... unless there is at least one dead body, half a pound of blow, and two sodomized goats involved.


Seriously, indict Romney? Good Lord. This is America, for Christ's sake; not Russia or some other shit hole that pretends to be a democracy.

Well, let's see here...dead body (Brian Terry), check.  Half pound of blow?  Well, we know Obama has done blow, just a question of how much.  And while we might not have two sodomized goats, how about a few half-eaten dogs?

Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 11:36:23 AM
Better yet, I'd love to see Holder and a whole bunch of others get "new Federal housing"--in Florence CO. :fuelfire: :evillaugh:

That would be great also. Or put him in Gitmo.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 17, 2012, 11:39:33 AM
That would be great also. Or put him in Gitmo.

Naaah--"Supermax" (in Florence CO).  Very limited human contact.  2 TV channels, in black-and-white.  23-hour-a-day lockdown.

(Couldn't send him to Gitmo--he is an American citizen, after all.)
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 11:46:13 AM
Naaah--"Supermax" (in Florence CO).  Very limited human contact.  2 TV channels, in black-and-white.  23-hour-a-day lockdown.

(Couldn't send him to Gitmo--he is an American citizen, after all.)

But they would feel at home in Gitmo and be around their people. You want to be humane after all.  
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 17, 2012, 11:48:40 AM
But they would feel at home in Gitmo and be around their people. You want to be humane after all.  

Okay--he'd have 22 hours and 30 minutes of lockdown, per day, at Supermax. :tongue: :fuelfire:
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 12:10:39 PM
Okay--he'd have 22 hours and 30 minutes of lockdown, per day, at Supermax. :tongue: :fuelfire:

Yeah, I can see that. You wouldn't want him to try and plot another attack on us. Although it wouldn't surprise me if that is what they wanted.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: thundley4 on July 17, 2012, 12:27:45 PM
Yeah, I can see that. You wouldn't want him to try and plot another attack on us. Although it wouldn't surprise me if that is what they wanted.

Wasn't Holder connected to the OKC bombing?  Terry Nichols is at the Florence SuperMax prison.  Do we really want them together?
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 01:30:41 PM
Wasn't Holder connected to the OKC bombing?  Terry Nichols is at the Florence SuperMax prison.  Do we really want them together?

Holder was? I never heard that. If that is the case, then Florence would be a bad place to send him as well.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 17, 2012, 02:26:22 PM
Holder was? I never heard that. If that is the case, then Florence would be a bad place to send him as well.

They could be in neighboring cells and not know it for years.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 02:41:46 PM
They could be in neighboring cells and not know it for years.

Is that possible? I have to look that prison up.
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: thundley4 on July 17, 2012, 03:48:46 PM
Holder was? I never heard that. If that is the case, then Florence would be a bad place to send him as well.

http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2012/06/13/fast-and-furious-ghost-of-timothy-mcveigh/
Title: Re: why don't they indict Romney?
Post by: Kyle Ricky on July 17, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2012/06/13/fast-and-furious-ghost-of-timothy-mcveigh/

Why wasn't the brought out earlier? He can face jail time for it. And should! I wonder if the Fast and Furious papers have that in it? If that is the case, then we all know what he is trying to cover up.