It seems to me that some very real questions about the far reaching political and cultural implications of Romney being a Mormon need to very widely known. A good place to start would by the essay by Frank Schaeffer titled : Neoconservative Jingoism Plus Mormon Delusion Equals Perpetual War.

Speaking of neo-"conservative" jingoism Tony Abbott made a speech in the belly of the beast, namely at the Heritage Foundation when he was recently in America.

Another essay by Frank Schaeffer is also relevant : How Christian Fundamentalism Helped Empower the Top 1% To Exploit the 99%.

Both essays are available on Alternet.

I doubt Romney can win the Presidency. While the national polls measuring the popular vote are very close and might have Romney slightly in front, the state by state polls, particularly in the battleground states show Obama between 25 and 40 electorate college votes ahead.

It's worth remembering that the electoral college system favours states with small populations. This was one of the compromises reached in framing the American constitution as the price of bringing all states into the Federation. It's somewhat similar to the Australian Senate arrangements which favour Tasmania, for example, in order to ensure the Senate is a States Rights house. Without this arrangement, it's possible Western Australia would not have joined the Commonwealth.

Romney will have got an uptick in his performance in the third debate (yet to be factored in by the polls). His pitch was to swinging voters to damp down fears that he is another Bomber McCain. He IS another Bomber McCain, and it's all over the public record, but Obama failed to call him out on it despite dozens of recent published Romney quotes. George W Bush also played Mr Peacenik before the Supreme Court appointed him in 2000.

It is a lot like Oz really.

The drovers dog would be better than Obama, who is a real catastrophe, just like our lot. If they don't get rid of him this time, it is move over Greece, here comes the US.

I wonder if there would be any room left for us.

Hopefully Obama will win once again, he deserves to, after picking up the total mess left by Bush.

Romney is no full and a great improvement on Sarah Palin, but he comes with a lot of baggage, such as the Neocons and the tea party etc. Even his deputy is a fanatical Catholic, keen to stop all abortions,so things would go back 100 years in the US.

Then we have the tea party, like this guy, who thinks that if women
are raped, the child is a gift from god. Scary times indeed when
the Christian Taliban have their influence on the most powerful Govt
on the planet.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/republican-candidate-says-pregnancy-from-rape-intended-by-god-20121024-2863o.html

So Hasbeen, if your daughter was raped, would that be a gift from
God? Your judgement skills are clearly failing as you age.

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.

A popular saying, and a very true one, variously attributed to Robert Storm Petersen, Neils Bohr, Mark Twain, Yogi Berra and Samuel Goldwyn, to name but a few.

Here's a prediction I found earlier, from the last US election cycle.

"...despite almost universal disdain for George W., the issue of national security could trump all others and keep the White House in Republican hands".

I trust the author of this piece won't mind if I remind him of the words he published here on 9th May 2008.

Apart from that, I suspect his takeaway from the final debate is a touch premature. But it is almost certain to be a very close race.

Almost.

Almost certain.

I say Yabby, have you looked at their deficit, or more importantly the rate of growth of that deficit? It really does look like oz, although with more cronyism, payola & corruption.

I don't know where your reference to god or my daughter came from, you should stay off the turps until a little later perhaps.

This article was a poor analysis of the US race. The author does not even follow the line of his own arguments. If the debates are important (and that is debatable) then Obama clearly one the 2nd and 3rd. Romney was clearly out of his depth on foreign affairs and even his geography was an F grade: Syria was Iran's route to the sea for goodness sake.

It is actually almost impossible to predict what sort of president Romney would make based on his pronouncements on different issues because at various times over the past year he has barely maintained a consistent line on any issue. Not that it really matters because presidents are not the ones who make the real decisions.

The author also quotes one opinion poll that gives Romney a comfortable lead. He fails to mention that there are many polls and they mostly show results that are within the margin of error; i.e. impossible to predict accurately. The result will likely come down to the result in a few key states and that will depend on not who votes, but who counts the votes as Stalin famously observed. There is huge and well documented fraud in US elections, including but not limited to voter machine manipulation. Fraud was what decided both the 2000 and 2004 elections, a reality the author also fails to notice.

The Zionists have poured a lot of money into Romney since Obama has balked at attacking Iran.Romney is another religious nutter of the Morman variety who thinks god has sent him on a special errand.

Romney will herald WW3.

Hasbeen, you would have had to click on and read the URL which
I linked to, to understand about god and your daughter. Nutjobs like
that are part of the Romney team. Romney himself is no fool, that
can't be said for those around him.

Yes the US deficit is a problem, so who created it? Bush/Cheney
fought two wars on the US credit card and when Obama wanted to
cancel tax cuts for the richest Americans, the Republicans blocked
it. As Warren Buffett points out, he pays a lower rate of tax then
his cleaner.

But then Cheney as vice prez made it clear that the US $ was not
their problem but everybody elses problem. Now you seem amazed that
Obama has not turned it all around with a magic wand in a short time.
It doesen't work like that.

Given the disaster that was America when he took office, he's done
pretty well, all things considered.

Spell ageism Yabby.

It's all over for Obama.

Once the Yanks realised Obama was just another leftie bloiwhard without values it was only a matter of time.

When was thatyou ask? Well it was in the 1st year of his term when the Democrats controlled the Senate and he sat on his bum, his mates led by that ineffective shelia Pelosi fought each other and everyone who could have done something did nothing.

Since then the unemployment rate has stayed up, repossisions haven't reduced and house prices have fallen further, (eg.$25,000 to buy a house in Detroit despite Obama saving the auto industry), the cost of living has soared and the government restrictions increased on exploration and development of US sources of energy... and Afghanistan became a mire.

Apart from imajulianutter's little list Abby he's pretty good.

Pretty good that is at giving taxpayer money in chunks of up to half a billion here & there to all his campaign funders, in the alternate energy industries.

The fact the companies all went broke not long after must have been bad luck, couldn't have been a rip off in there now could there. Not with that nice Mr Obama.

Yes I'm sure their deficit is still growing exponentially after 4 years of his tender spending, because Bushy is still writing the cheques.

I'll more likely appreciate the wisdom of Pericles, Keith, rather
then your wild guesses, which seldom prove accurate. Sheer luck
could prove you right or wrong, it would hardly be due to any skills.

So we'll see what the election brings, its a close race.

Obama spent his first year trying to turn around a global economy
and American banking industry that was in freefall, an auto industry
on the verge of collapse and everything in a tailspin, so he hardly
sat on his bum. Fact is that today America is doing far better
than Europe, with energy production at a record high. House building
is resuming, its only lack of confidence in the political stand off
that stops many investing more.

Don't blame Obama for that, more like an obstinate republican
controlled congress full of tea party and other fruitloops.
The power of the US president is far less than many think, he can
seek to coerce but he cannot force. That is just how the US political
system works.

*Pretty good that is at giving taxpayer money in chunks of up to half a billion*

Half a billion heh, Hasbeen? Nope, those companies have not all
gone broke btw. Let me see, Australia, 14 times smaller, is looking
at increasing foreign aid by 3 billion a year. That gives you some
perspective.

Meantime the wars started by Bush are estimated to have cost well
over 2 trillion $.

Oops Hasbeen, you must be penny wise and pound foolish.

Hi Ciaran,

Are you reading these responses and able to respond?

Would be interested to know if you noticed that in the third debate, Governor Romney reversed several of his passionately-held previous positions?

Why do you think he did this?

Does E.J. Dionne have a point, in this from yesterday's Washington Post?

"The right wing has lost the election of 2012.

"The evidence for this is overwhelming, yet it is the year’s best-kept secret. Mitt Romney would not be throwing virtually all of his past positions overboard if he thought the nation were ready to endorse the full-throated conservatism he embraced to win the Republican nomination.

"The right is going along because its partisans know Romney has no other option. This, too, is an acknowledgment of defeat, a recognition that the grand ideological experiment heralded by the rise of the tea party has gained no traction. It also means that conservatives don’t believe that Romney really believes the moderate mush he’s putting forward now. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the conservatives are forgiving Romney because they think he is lying, what should the rest of us think?"

Interested in your response to this, Ciaran.

Thanks, AA

When will people realise that both Obama and Romney are controlled by the same interest groups in Wall St,Us Federal Reserve, Europe and Israel.

These days US Presidents are told what to say and what policies to implement.The US elections are a stage managed farce to keep the people divided and confused.Romney will most likely invade Iran and to further encircle Russia and China.

Agree with Alan and Arjay.
The article and the author demonstrate that the conformation bias is alive and well.
Romney lost ground with both the second and third debate; and indeed, with his total turnaround on so many of his so-called core beliefs?
The Republican controlled lower house have bent over backwards to stymie every one of Obama's policies, and then like the author, have the hide to blame Obama for the result!
As others have noted, there seems to be a level of fraud in American politic?
Is it a chard or not a chard?
And stories of failure to register voters, or difficulties placed in the way of those, who'se racial profiles might indicate a democratic preference?
We also know that this election will cost trillions, or be the most expensive election result in history!
Very sad, when you consider that America's Mid West is in the throes of A, very real for them, Great Depression, replete with tent cities full of unemployed homeless thousands.
Listening to some, one would conclude, a them and us debate is alive and well, or that if they have more, we will have less?
It's typical of a very simplistic me/me mindset, or poverty consciousness?
The truth is very different.
If the worst off have more, they will spend more!
They have no choice given the sheer level of unmet need!
This in turn will translate to more inventory leaving overstocked warehouses, which in turn will react, by once again placing orders with stalled manufacturers, who will react by taking on more staff, which will increase both the level of discretionary spending and tax receipts!
The greater levels of discretionary spending resulting in even greater levels of inventory leaving warehouses, who in turn will increase the orders they place with manufacturers, who in turn will take on more workers, followed by even more demand and sales!
That's how you engineer a recovery!
Austerity programs do exactly the opposite!
We can save the economy or a shrinking cohort of unearned privilege, just not both!
Obama by a nose?
Rhrosty.

Well, the major international betting sites are still showing Obama as the favourite at around 1.4 to 1, and Romney an outsider at 2.8 to 1. Given that these come from people who are prepared to risk their money, I'm inclined to think they know what they are on about. But we will see.

yabby

why do you lefties, when threatened by alternative ideas that challenge your current spruiked holy orthodoxy, always sink to the lowest level of personal attacks?

Don't you see how that tactic does more damage to you and your reputation than anything you say damages those with obviously reasoned opinions?

Now state a half dozen predictions I have made.

*It will resonate with the vast majority of the electorate, will leave Obama a figure of ridicule, and deliver rather decisively the Presidential election to McCain.*

That was your prediction about the last US election Keith. That was
on the 26th September 2008. Hardly amazing stuff, as things turned
out.

Next people were fools for investing in shares, only gold was the
answer.

Your record is not the best.

Neither Obama nore myself are "lefties". Perhaps you fit in with
extreme right wing groups such as the tea party, the necons and
other fruitloops. But that is more about your extreme position,
rather then anyone else. Speak for yourself if you want to support
people who claim that children from rape victims are "gifts from
god" For those are the kinds of loony tunes, coming from the tea
party and their representantives.

Two predictions Yabby ... in 4 years?

One wrong and the other entirely dependant on the dividends from BHP shares. If I'd invested in gold at $650 per ounce in July 2007 (now $1750) and you in BHP shares at $23.86, May 2005( now $32) well for your opinion to be a better prediction than mine you'd have needed annual dividends of ... well you work it out.

If you'd bought BHP shares in July 2007 ... well suffice to say you'd be deep in poo, while I'd be enjoying a great increase in wealth.

Consider factoring in the value of the Aus $ over the same period Yabby and you really start looking pretty silly.

http://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html

Is that the best you can do?

I reckon one incorrect and one correct opinion in 4 years is pretty good. Why don't you become a little more balanced and logical in forming your opinions and errr ...forgiving of the odd error ... you'd enjoy your life much better if you did. You'd certainly become a more rounded individual and probably wealthier.

And you'd stop with your venomous personal attacks.

Do you really want to be regarded as a piece of work?

Keith, pointing out that your predictions are simply wild speculation, as
distinct from other posters who show a bit of wisdom, is hardly a
"venemous personal attack" just mere factual observation.

Even some of the wisest political observers in the US concede that
its a close race, as its not just about polls, but about which voters
actually get out of bed and go and vote, given that voting is not
compulsory.

On the share market you were also wrong. The secret to long term
investing, as distinct from speculating, is to spread risk, for none
of us have been shown to be able to accurately predict the future.

Holding blue chip shares, especially if they were bought whilst
people like yourself were predicting gloom and doom, has indeed been
very profitable over the last few years, contrary to your predictions.
So wild speculation from you is all that we have, Keith, that is just
your record on OLO.Pointing that out is quite reasonable.

Good Laugh Yabby.

You tell me an increase from 24 to 32 (Blue chip Shares)and security is a better bet than an increse from 650 to 1759 (Ounce of Gold)(btw over a shorter period)and security. ie a 0.33 increase as opposed to a 2.5 times increase. And then insuinating buying gold is speculation and that gold isn't secure ... well your position that advising to hold gold instead of shares is logically worse advise than buying shares is silly. My grandfathers wisdom and advise of buying sold gold rather than gold miners rang in ears at the time. It was proven once again. Your position was and is illogical and unwise unless you value falling or static wealth. And btw did you factor in inflation? Or commissions?

Ahhhh but then again you've been a tad shifty too. As you find your argument debunked you add the little qualification 'as distinct from speculating' which I imagine you see as another justification for your unjustifable position.
Who ever would maintain buying gold and holding it in times of economic instability or uncertainity is speculation? Only Yabby. As of course you also maintain the times since the GFC have been 'very profitable'. Another straw man argument. I've never maintained times haven't been very profitable. I maintained you'd increase your capital wealth more by buying gold. As I said I have had more than a couple of great big belly laughs at your silliness Yabby and I'll laugh even louder when the Aus $ eventually recedes to it's nomal range against the US $.

It just goes to show in the last 4 years you've learned very little from anyone and you own obstination prevents you learning from your own very limited experience.

But carry on... you'll eventually get abreast of your leftie mates where equality means everyone is the same. The evidence from your speils says that is exactly where you are heading.

*You tell me an increase from 24 to 32 (Blue chip Shares)and security is a better bet than an increse from 650 to 1759*

That is not what I am telling you Keith, so stop imagining things
and arguing with yourself and your imagination. I'm telling you
that your prediction of it all being gloom and doom for the stock
market, was in fact wrong.

I'm telling you that you should have paid more attention to your
grandmother, who no doubt told you not to put all your eggs in one
basket.

I'm telling you that if you bought say Wesfarmers shares in 2008
for 15$, or for around 6$ as I did, some years earlier, only a fool
would rush out and sell them to buy gold. I would in fact have been
far worse off if I had taken your advice, given tax implications
and all the dividend payments since then.

I am telling you that there is absolutaly nothing wrong with buying
some gold, as a way of spreading risk, but to rush out and sell
everything, because grandaddy said so, sounds more like panic to me,
rather then solid investment policy for the longer term.

Like I said, wild guessing by you, be it investments or the outcome
of the US elections. Just a shortage of wisdom

There you go again Yabby. Shifting again. From the period we were discussing 2005- 2007 when my predictions were made to a period not under discussion 2008. A period well after the impact of the GFC when it's quite possible other circumstances, utterly unable to be foreseen during the GFC and unrelated to the GFC, impacted on Wesfarmers Shares.

Now on 8 Oct 2008, my birthday, if I'd sold gold at $900 (250 GP) and then invested in Wesfarmers ... well that's beyond you as you won't buy gold because you see it as naughty and unwise speculation.

Ahhh risk, you mention.

Have you ever faced death Yabby?

It's a game changer Yabby. You soon understand there is no such thing as security. You don't really live untill you face death. You realise all that matters is how you dare to test yourself..

I recommend that.


I should be pleased you adopt my terminologies. Wisdom ... for one.

Some of us are born to lead and others to follow.

ps Both my grandmothers had staff to collect eggs for them. Both were involved in their own businesses.
One was a widow with 4 kids under 10.

Again your assumptions tell us much more about you.

Well no Keith, for in 2008 the GFC was still very much happening.
Things were in a downward spiral, markets crashing etc. So it
is very much part of the discussion.

But you have already admitted your mistake, which you posted on
26th March, 2010. For that you do actually deserve some credit.

You wrote:

*Yabby I was wrong about shares but gold's done well ... but not as well as billiton shares ...

Just shows I'm human, can err and I can accept my mistake.

The matters of little import.

But to suggest an error in financial judgement means I'm wrong on other matters is just plain idiotic!*

So there we have it, Keith.

Perhaps your far biggest mistake has been to think that Bush was
a good president and that simply shows your poor judgement once again.

So what? Yabby.

You wouldn't be being selective again and ignoring facts that debunk your position ... would you?

It seems that in March 2008, when I acknowledege my prediction was wrong, gold was at about 880 up from 650 the previous year. So it's increasing in value was only marginally behind the rise in share values over the same period. So over the year I was not quite correct.

HOWEVER since then gold has risen to over 1750 while there has been no growth in share prices. Which would make my prediction totally correct ... and uncontestable.

You cannot deny that logic Yabby so don't even try.

Time for you to apologise, for asserting I make wild guesses that prove inaccurate(Note your exaggerating use of the plural).

Are you man enough Yabby?

Further are you now telling me Wesfarmers fell to dramatically low levels in 2005 and that their rise since was only because the GFC has abated? Other factors weren't involved in their increasing value.

Careful now in case you contadict yourself again.

I find it odd you see a change from 6 to 15 as 'Things were in a downward spiral, markets crashing etc...' suggests Wesfarmers rising value wasn't affected by factors totally unrelated to the GFC. Don't you see your inconsistancy ... again ... sigh.

This is becoming boring. You seem prepared to say anything without referece to facts ... another lefie trait you share.

*It seems that in March 2008, when I acknowledege my prediction was wrong*

Well here is the problem Keith. You are seemingly unable to read a
single sentence of mine and read it correctly. Now go back and read
what I actually wrote. I clearly stated March 2010, not March 2008.
Are you losing your marbles or just trying to play difficult?

*HOWEVER since then gold has risen to over 1750 while there has been no growth in share prices.*

Again wrong. Wesfarmers shares have gone from 15$ to 35$, plus paid
a great dividend every 6 months. As my original Wesfarmers shares
cost me 6$, I would have been a fool to take your advice.

* Time for you to apologise, for asserting I make wild guesses that prove inaccurate*

Wild guesses is what your record shows, Keith, as distinct from wiser
posters on OLO

You are stubbonly narrowly focused Yabby.

Firstly I admit I looked at 2008 instead of 2010. But that would have only favoured your assertions. Change 880 to 1200 and you will see gold only just doubled in value. Only a very minor less increase than your bundle of wesfarmer share price. So in the shorter term that would only have made me marginally incorrect.

However your justifications are only valid if you'd put all your money in Wesfarmers ... which from your displayed safety first and only attitudes you would not have done.

Simply put you wouldn't have put all your eggs into one basket. (Which is something I've done on more than one occassion. My guidelines are simple. 1. I'll gain substantially. 2. Any losses will be marginal.}

So for your assumption over the mid term to be correct you'd have to have averaged the rise and fall in values of all your shares. You'd have to detail all your dealings and you would be unwise to do that, so your truthful conclusions will forever be unknown and my claims simply proven.

Secondly where is your mention of the GFC and Wesfarmers apparent 'bucking' of the 'downward spiral, markets crashing etc'

Too hard and impossible to justify two dramatically contradictory assertions Yabby? And you reckon I make wild guesses.

I've had another great big belly laugh.

Do try and man up Yabby. That apology is still owing.
.

*That apology is still owing*

Well no Keith, but given the fact that you seem unable to read a
line that I wrote in the last post, your memory of your predictions
some 4 years ago, is clearly missing, so perhaps you are unaware
of how foolish that was. You simply can't remember, so I will
remind you.

You claimed that history would recognise Bush as one of the most
sucessful presidents ever, at a time when he just nearly sent the
global economy into complete collapse.

You predicted that the Dow might drop to 1400, so saw scary times for
shares, so rushed into gold. Meantime of course under Obama, the Dow
has nearly doubled.

You were clearly in a state of panic, Keith. Panic happens when
the mob stampede like a herd of ostriches. If enough stampede, yes
its a stampede.

Luckily for you and for a great many, Obama has proven you wrong and
the US economy has turned around.

That might be bitter to swallow, but its the reality after 4 years
of him as Prez. Suck it up.

Yabby

Do the names Barney Frank and Chris Dodd mean anything to you?
How about the Community Re-investment Act?

You never ever answer the relevant questions that undermine your positions. Just so socialist. Avoid the difficulties you encounter.

Laughable is your assessment of the Socialist Obama on the US Economy.

Gold today is at 1750 in 2007 it was 650.
Apart from your minor investment in Wesfarmers, whose rising share price contradicts both your conflicting assertions, share prices (plus dividends) haven't matched that increase.

Did you do your averaging on your portfolio? If you did you'd see I was perfectly correct.

Time to stop playing the girly man games.
Time to man up lad.
Still not man enough?

*Laughable is your assessment of the Socialist Obama on the US Economy.*

Well I'm in great company on that one, Keith. I note that the Economist is
backing Obama over Romney, so is Mike Bloomberg and
so are a host of other business leaders. Not everyone stays glued
to Fox tv.

But the record is for all to see. After 8 years of your hero Bush,
where republicans controlled both houses for most of the time, the
global economy was a train wreck, jobs were being lost at the rate
of 800'000 a month, the Dow had crashed and even Keith had panicked
into gold, fearing a complete collapse.

4 years later, with only one year where Obama could do so without
republican obstinance, jobs are being created at 150'000 a month,
the dow has doubled, the housing industry has started building again
and consumer confidence is returning.

There are just none so blind as you tea party followers.

Still not man enough?

Never mind, Yabby.

imajulianutter tends to bellow "man up" to anyone with whom he disagrees.

He once requested that I "man up" during a debate - (not exactly sure how to go about that : )

Poirot, he probably wanted you to stand at the pissoir and beat him
at a peeing competition, which with your talents, you probably would
have done :)

Yabby,

".....he probably wanted you to stand at the pissoir and beat him at a peeing competition..."

There's no doubt about it, you guys/males/men have all the fun : )

To 'man up',

To accept responsibility, to accept ones errors and to change oneself and to gain self respect. ie to better oneself.

From your own statements that is something neither of you two can possibly understand or practise. You'll always suffer the ignomany of others disdain.

You are both suffering Gillard's socialist complaint.

Oops Keith, perhaps its time for you to girl up. Another total
failure at predicting the US elections, that makes it two out of
two failed, 100% failure!

I am just thrilled that Karl Rove would be really pissed off and
despite all the Koch Bros money invested, they still failed!

Yep now 4 years of a lame duck US Pres.

Man up yabby or if as you seem to prefer, Girl Up Yabby.

Your post merely confirms the obvious. You suffer Gillard's socialist complaint.

Hehe Keith, for once I tuned in to Fox News, to hear all their lame
excuses as to why they lost. Gloating can be fun, especially when
it comes to tea party nut jobs who still don't understand the world.

That will teach them to try and interfere with womens reproductive
rights, for it was women who swung the vote to Obama! Good on them.

As I say Gillard's Socialist complaint.

Yabby, US politics only affects us financially. Other than that I really don't give a damn.

I've been fortified from the US economy for the past few years ... and it's been profitable.

Tell me what is coming in Feb? I've an inkling. Have you?

Valentine's Day?

You old romantic you........ : )

The Internet, the gift that keeps on giving:

http://girlfriendology.com/3876/february-international-friendship-month-30-ways-to-be-a-better-friend/

Gentlemen, this is all very entertaining, in a slightly masochistic way, but haven't you rather strayed from the topic. Particularly as we now know the result.

*US politics only affects us financially. Other than that I really don't give a damn.*

Well of course, Keith. That is the typical thinking of you conservative, tea party old farts. That and dancing around your
little pile of gold, so that you can sing "its all mine".

I have news for you, Keith. Not everybody shares your values and
you will fall off the old perch, just like everybody else.
If that was the purpose of your life, well so be it, it is not the
purpose of mine.

Poirot, I loved it :)

Yabby

Both you and poirot are typical little guttersnipes.

Both of you only ever sit back and critcise those who have stated, substantial, well thought out and researched ideas and supporting actions.

You both have only ever been capable of very limited one or two liners. I've never seen either of you propose and argue any substantial position.

Until you undertake that exercise the evidence shows your limited intellectual abilities... and life choices.

Now there's a challenge for you both.

Write something substantial. When you've done that, then you will both have improved yourselves and will have earned the respect of others who have contributed ... positively.

*critcise those who have stated, substantial, well thought out and researched ideas and supporting actions.*

Ah Keith, you mean like your well thought out and researched
predictions about US elections. hehe :)

"Both you and poirot are typical little guttersnipes."

Does this mean our Valentine's celebration is a non-goer?

Just your usual intellect lacking oneliners.

Why would anyone ever imagine either of you are capable of rising aboVe that?