Childish Democrats to Stalk Romney Bus Tour

Posted by on Aug 09, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Hopefully some intrepid Romney supporters lay out  spike strips. These idiots sure as hell wouldn’t know how to replace a flat.

The Democratic National Committee plans to stalk Mitt Romney around the country on his upcoming bus tour, and are starting Thursday by blocking the view for the Republican National Committee.

A bus that reads “Romney Economics: Outsourcing, Offshoring, Out of Touch” was parked in front of the Republican National Committee building all day on Thursday.

The DNC later announced the bus would hit the road, following the presumptive GOP nominee around the country on a four-day tour starting Friday, according to CNN.

Geez, they’re not even original. After four years of Obama tossing people uinder the bus, this is what they’ve come up with?

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse called the bus “the Romney Economics: Middle Class Under the Bus” in a tweet.

How clever.

19 Responses to “Childish Democrats to Stalk Romney Bus Tour”

  1. RK on 9/09/12 at 11:05 pm

    Whiny, much?

    Although it will be difficult to live up to the Romney team driving around a Dem event honking horns.

  2. Don Michaels on 10/10/12 at 12:27 am

    “Childish Democrats to Stalk Romney Bus Tour”

    Turnaround is fair play. I’m sure you didn’t cheer the Romney camp when they did this a couple of months ago.

  3. RK on 10/10/12 at 1:21 am

    If only the actions were in any way equivalent. Honking horns are a nuisance, and have no particular value when used as they were. Sharing a political perspective near or adjacent to your opponent lets the public consider each message.

  4. spepper on 10/10/12 at 6:20 am

    Just go up to them and start handing out Bible tracts. That’ll make those Dems scatter like cockroaches on a kitchen floor

  5. RK on 10/10/12 at 8:40 am

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not looking to select a religious leader or bible expert; I’m looking to select a President.

    Anyway, why would I care about what some people wrote thousands of years ago when the world was primarily a few square miles and knowledge of our existence was very primitive, compared to that accumulated since.

  6. SteveAR on 10/10/12 at 1:04 pm

    @RK: “I’m looking to select a President.”

    You mean a President who has allowed the AG to give Mexican gangsters automatic weapons, weapons used to murder other Mexicans and Americans, in order to make it look like Americans were doing this, to subvert the 2nd Amendment, and then cover it up in Nixonian fashion (nobody died during Watergate)?

    The world was a few square miles? Did you learn that from one of Obama’s “scientists?” Even people from thousands of years ago knew better than that.

  7. RK on 10/10/12 at 4:06 pm

    @SteveAR – Oops; an auto-correct induced typo – should have been “their” world. Nice over-reaction, though. :-)

    The rest of your “comment” is so far off topic (and non-factually biased), as well as not a response to anything I said, that I choose not to address its silliness. :-(

  8. RK on 10/10/12 at 4:08 pm

    @EdP – in this case, the word is not literal. It is apparently just overly colorful language from a reporter looking for extra hype on their story.

  9. SteveAR on 10/10/12 at 4:15 pm

    @RK: “Oops; an auto-correct induced typo…”

    Just like a liberal. Blame something other than yourself.

    “The rest of your “comment” is so far off topic (and non-factually biased),…”

    You said you were selecting a President. Well, the one we currently have did everything I wrote about. Those are the facts about Fast & Furious. Or is it that you live to deny reality?

  10. RK on 10/10/12 at 5:19 pm

    No evidence, yet you claim you know all about my system and such. Arrogant or simply delusional. Now I know how Faux Noise has such a strong yet uninformed audience.

    BTW, I don’t have to respond to new topics you raise, no matter how you feel they relate to anything. In case you missed the “selecting” meaning: it was about the “type” of roel being selected: Nnot a religious one.

  11. SpideyTerry on 10/10/12 at 5:41 pm

    “Sharing a political perspective near or adjacent to your opponent lets the public consider each message.”

    Like a Tea Party protest outside a Democratic gathering?

    “The rest of your “comment” is so far off topic (and non-factually biased), as well as not a response to anything I said, that I choose not to address its silliness.”

    Gee, there’s a shocker. You’re confronted with facts that you can’t actually refute, so instead you cop an attitude. How very liberal of you, as well as your tolerance (or lack thereof) of anyone that disagrees with you. And you sure didn’t seem to mind talking about “off-topic” matters when spepper invoked the Bible, but when it comes to a scandal that Holder caused and Obama is covering up for? “No, no. Off-topic. And FOX News is bad. Look, a squirrel!”

    Look, I realize your life must be overwhelmingly sad and pathetic, what with you hanging around a website opposed to your ideology and picking fights with people as you claim to be above it all. You wanna cop an attitude? Fine. It’s the Internet. That’s what it’s there for. But for crying out loud, get off your high horse, learn a little thing called typing and cry foul when someone throws something in your face that you can’t deal with.

    Now, I’m sure if you actually bother replying, you’ll come up with some whiny, arrogant “I know you are, but what am I? Look, a squirrel!” response, but then that would just prove my point. So go for it, little man, I could use the extra laugh.

  12. RK on 10/10/12 at 8:33 pm

    “. . . Tea Party protest outside . . .” – makes sense to me.

    “You mean a President who has allowed the AG to give Mexican gangsters automatic weapons, weapons used to murder other Mexicans and Americans, in order to make it look like Americans were doing this, to subvert the 2nd Amendment, and then cover it up in Nixonian fashion (nobody died during Watergate)?”

    First, as I factually said, the topic of “weapons” was introduced on #6, and was unrelated to what I had said. I claim that makes it “off-topic”, and not on my agenda.

    “confronted with Facts”? : Lets examine the prior post.

    “. . . President who has allowed the AG . . .” the last news account I saw had several (5?) ATF agents responsible for the gun walking activities in AZ.
    “Used to murder . . .” – I don’t know the presumed or proven body counts of any nationality, so I’ve nothing to offer here.
    ” . . . to make it look like Americans were doing this . . .” I haven’t a clue what rock this theory crawled out from under. Seems rather silly to me. Does “this” refer to Americans as the murderers?
    “. . . to subvert the 2nd Amendment . . .” we’re in a whole new area of crazy and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory here. I’ve heard of things related to “supposed” plans to take guns away (actually for several years), as to why the gun-walking happened, but despite all the noise, I never heard of anything to support it ever being credible.
    ” . . . Nixon . . . ” heaven only knows how to address this!!

    So, you think I “copped an attitude ” because I couldn’t refute these “facts”. Uh-huh. I’d have to find a few facts somewhere in there to get started on that process. If someone asserts these statements are factual, I’d advise them to offer credible links so we can all enjoy reading more. Actually, I’ll admit it gives me pleasure to poke at Fox from time to time. See there, honest reaction.

    A far as disagreement, as long as we’re talking opinions, I’m OK with that. However, facts have a need for substantiation, and should find a more natural agreement to, as a matter of common understanding based on shared data.

    You have a point on “bible” being off topic from the story. However, that was not a reply to me, but a stand-alone post. I chose to respond to his comment, not pick on him for being off topic. When I pushed back with the “off topic” idea in my comment, it was to explain that I felt no obligation to discuss a new topic during a reply to my comment. Falls under the “you can’t tell me what to say” type of idea.

    As I recall 2 surveys have confirmed that Fox viewers are less well-informed than viewers of other news sources (or no sources at all). I also have relatives that think Fox can do no wrong telling me some tall tales that I already know the scoop on, as well as I’ve seen first-hand evidence of the coverage they have, and have formed my own opinion. YMMV.

    As to your closing paragraphs, they seem to have devolved into personal commentary, and to be blunt; you know nothing about me, despite what you think my comments say. Any opinions offered of this type say more about the author than the subject. I see no value in such discussion, which is, of course; off-topic. ;-)

  13. SteveAR on 11/11/12 at 7:44 am

    @RK: “…the last news account I saw had several (5?) ATF agents responsible for the gun walking activities in AZ.”

    Contrary to the Democrat community-based reality, Democrat talking points are not news. Try reading the news, like CBS’ Sharyl Attkison.

    “I don’t know the presumed or proven body counts of any nationality, so I’ve nothing to offer here.”

    Because you spend too much time reviewing Democrat talking points.

    “I haven’t a clue what rock this theory crawled out from under. Seems rather silly to me.”

    As opposed to what, having a Democrat Senate Majority Leader claiming, without a shred of evidence, Romney not paying taxes, or Romney murdering a steel workers’ wife? Yet, that’s what Democrats, including Obama, are pushing.

    “I’ve heard of things related to “supposed” plans to take guns away (actually for several years), as to why the gun-walking happened, but despite all the noise, I never heard of anything to support it ever being credible.”

    Again, you read Democrat talking points, not the news. Plus, I’m assuming you didn’t bother with Rep. Issa’s Fast & Furious hearings. Instead of making examples of every DoJ political appointee involved with F&F and publicly firing them, Obama and Holder covered it up and seek to implement illegal gun controls while being cheered on by Democrat hacks masquerading as legitimate lawmakers. But again, I’m sure you haven’t even given a cursory look at those hearings, or if you did, cheered on the Democrats’ illegal moves.

    “I’d have to find a few facts somewhere in there to get started on that process.”

    As we’ve seen, Democrats don’t use facts to smear and bear false witness. In fact, they are proud of their lies and are happy to keep them going. I have no doubt you won’t take the time to find any facts and continue to act like a Democrat, act like Obama.

    You said you were looking to select a President. Obama, the President you want to select, has no integrity, no ethics, no character and no competence. You would be selecting a mobster more akin to the incompetent John Gotti and more dangerous than Al Capone (who ran his operation better than Obama runs his administration). If you want to select a President, vote for Romney.

  14. RK on 11/11/12 at 12:28 pm

    #14: “FAST AND FURIOUS: FIVE ATF OFFICIALS NAMED IN REPORT” – http://goo.gl/BvYLL

    “Because you spend too much time reviewing Democrat talking points.” – opinion as response; you have no clue to the facts of what I do.

    “Seems rather silly to me. ” – “As opposed to what . . .” deflection and issue avoidance – never addressing my direct comment.

    ” . . Obama and Holder covered it up . . .” fact-less opinion as assertion; no proof offered.

    ” I’m sure you haven’t even given a cursory look at those hearings, or if you did, cheered on the Democrats’ illegal moves.” – no evidence of what I did or didn’t do exists or can be referred to; this is exaggeration and a personal attack that is fantasy masking as something meaningful.

    quoting me: “I’d have to find a few facts somewhere in there to get started on that process.”; your response is not to try and divulge supposed facts that I (apparently) ignored, but to offer a broad comment on all Democrats. Guilt by association, coupled with deflection and avoidance.

    That’s enough for this comment. Now I can sit back and guess what non-responsive reply you will offer that again provides no facts, and relies on time-honored propaganda techniques to denigrate your subject while avoiding standing behind your own words with actual evidence.

    At least I’ll get a laugh out of this, if not any actual information.

  15. SteveAR on 12/12/12 at 8:51 am

    @RK: “fact-less opinion as assertion; no proof offered.”

    Again, when do Democrats care about proof? And if you think this is just an opinion-based tirade, think again. I read the whole piece you linked to. Issa’s report is not just about 5 ATF officials:

    “When whistles were blown and Congress got involved, the cover-ups came fast and furious. Acting ATF Director Melson says he “wanted to be very proactive in responding to the congressional inquiry into Fast and Furious,” but the Justice Department sent an attorney to Senator Grassley’s office instead. Melson claims he was out of the loop until after Agent Terry’s murder, but then he got up to speed and wanted to cooperate with Congress… but the Justice Department stopped him. He says Deputy Attorney General James Cole even prohibited him from talking to his own ATF personnel about Fast and Furious.”

    Holder hasn’t fired, and I mean fired, anyone for F&F. He allowed other DoJ political appointees that report to him release statements that were proven lies. He went into cover-up mode, along with Obama. And, all Holder has done since is push for more illegal gun controls using F&F as the basis for doing so (Holder has done this in every F&F hearing; cheered on by approving Democrats). These are facts, not assertions or merely an opinion.

    “your response is not to try and divulge supposed facts that I (apparently) ignored, but to offer a broad comment on all Democrats. Guilt by association, coupled with deflection and avoidance.”

    Because you and other Democrats would still vote for Obama despite these facts, and despite the fact, shown in the monthly unemployment reports, that just about everything Obama has done as President was a miserable failure.

  16. RK on 12/12/12 at 12:52 pm

    As I said: “At least I’ll get a laugh out of this, if not any actual information.”

    Well, I was half right; the information content of the reply was minimal and insignificant, but all I could do is sigh at the lack of honest and meaningful discourse.

    The initial response sums it up pretty well: “Again, when do Democrats care about proof?”

    Striving for accuracy in reports and comments is now seen as inferring one’s party affiliation. I guess that each party may have a different standard of accuracy if one believes such ideas. More puzzling, perhaps, is that my noting that facts were basically non-existent time and time again is a sign I’m not interested in them. Go figure.

    I see no value in continuing that kind of exchange.

  17. SteveAR on 12/12/12 at 3:22 pm

    @RK: “Well, I was half right; the information content of the reply was minimal and insignificant, but all I could do is sigh at the lack of honest and meaningful discourse.”

    You were, of course, directing that to the person you were looking at in the mirror, since from the beginning here you haven’t brought any honest or meaningful discourse. Kinda like the woman in this video (link: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/12/video-dnc-chair-doesnt-know-party-affiliation-of-obama-super-pac/ ) who continues the Democrat lie that Romney committed murder.

    It is up to you to help yourself out of your delusion. Here’s hoping it happens.

  18. wt-f-u-all on 12/12/12 at 6:19 pm

    Hey this is some nasty BS being flung here. Lordy, such talk cant really be any-good, can it?