Mitt Romney

[xXConmanXx 9]

Mitt Romney is 73, so i think its about time to make a thread for him.

In other news, the sky is blue

[Leon Brittan 297]

4 minutes ago, xXConmanXx said:

Mitt Romney is 73, so i think its about time to make a thread for him.

In other news, the sky is blue

Here we go again 

[xXConmanXx 9]

4 minutes ago, Leon Brittan said:

Here we go again 

wdym

[Toast 16,246]

It pains me to say it, but I do agree with Sir Cunt on this point.  Forum members should serve a lengthy term of probation before being able to start a thread.

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,891]

Needless thread. He's a very fit looking 73. Unless the Trumpers get to him Mitt probably has another 20 years in him

[xXConmanXx 9]

5 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Needless thread. He's a very fit looking 73. Unless the Trumpers get to him Mitt probably has another 20 years in him

Well, the deathlist isn't shutting down in 20 years so....

[Perhaps 1,440]

Your only contribution to this site is unnecessary threads. Why are you so desperate to own one? It’s literally the only thing you log in to do. 

 

Moron. 

[Charles De Gaulle 487]

To play Devil's advocate here I think its good to start a thread on him now. He is in fine health now but that mighn't be the case in the future. He'll get a lot of press in the future when he does get ill. Personally I think this forum would benefit from a more liberal attitude towards threads. That being said, @xXConmanXx don't go ham and spam create mutiple threads.

[Bibliogryphon 9,653]

I am actually of the opinion that the only individuals who have threads are people who are actually included in the official Deathlist. Everyone else can fit into some descriptors. We didn't even manage to get a separate Doctor Who thread.

[Deathrace 1,176]

He did have Prostate cancer in 2017 but appears to have recovered fairly well. His parents lived to 89 and 88 so decent genes. I don't expect him to go for a while and hopefully he'll easily see off Trump. 

[Leon Brittan 297]

Suspension for stupid or unnecessary threads simple as that 

[En Passant 3,758]

4 hours ago, xXConmanXx said:

Well, the deathlist isn't shutting down in 20 years so....

 

Nor possibly in 40 or 60 or 80, should we start putting threads up for 20 year olds in case they pop their clogs at 85?

 

4 hours ago, Charles De Gaulle said:

To play Devil's advocate here I think its good to start a thread on him now. He is in fine health now but that mighn't be the case in the future. He'll get a lot of press in the future when he does get ill. Personally I think this forum would benefit from a more liberal attitude towards threads. That being said, @xXConmanXx don't go ham and spam create mutiple threads.

 

Mind you random 20 year olds didn't stop this Cork based Frenchman with an obsession for one particular internet goth come emo by the name of Eugenia Cooney from starting a thread for her.

And despite his pleas to the contrary when opening it (he knew it was risky) that also got stomped.

[CaptainChorizo 1,998]

He will probably live another 20 years or so,but his career in Us politics is at the level of Mondale and Dole who are on the Dlist proper so I wouldn't call this thread entirely inappropriate.

[DeathClock 379]

Here is my solution to this ongoing crisis:

 

Only administrators/committee can create threads for people. We then can create a “Thread ideas” post where normal people can recommend ideas for new threads. If one of the administrators like the idea then they can create a thread for that specific person.

[Joey Russ 7,270]

5 minutes ago, DeathClock said:

Here is my solution to this ongoing crisis:

 

Only administrators/committee can create threads for people. We then can create a “Thread ideas” post where normal people can recommend ideas for new threads. If one of the administrators like the idea then they can create a thread for that specific person.

Even though all the new threads are annoying I don’t think the above is the solution at all

[Perhaps 1,440]

7 minutes ago, DeathClock said:

Here is my solution to this ongoing crisis:

 

Only administrators/committee can create threads for people. We then can create a “Thread ideas” post where normal people can recommend ideas for new threads. If one of the administrators like the idea then they can create a thread for that specific person.

 

That is way too much restriction. I’ve been on this forum for almost 2 years and I’ve never felt this apparent unignorable itch to make threads. 

 

A cap on new accounts / people with fewer than X amount of posts sounds good, as other people have been suggesting. Although this is probably one of OP’s most ‘acceptable’ threads he is a thread whore and contributes nothing but desperation to own a long-term thread on the forum. The exact breed of forum user that shouldn’t be allowed to make them. 

[Toast 16,246]

It would be a mistake to base it on number of posts, because that will lead to spamming the board to clock up the requisite number.

Make new members prove that they can stay the course before granting thread creation rights.  Set it at a minimum of six months.

[Ulitzer95 12,911]

Not the worst offending thread it has to be stressed.

 

Cancer survivor and entering his mid-70s this year. 
 

In saying that, Mormons live bloody long lives, likely because everything is prohibited in that religion – alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, tea and coffee and sex before wedlock, plus they advocate thorough exercise, healthy diets, and don’t eat much meat.
 

I do remember chuckling upon reading that one of their former leaders okied anal sex between married couples at one point to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The head of their church is considered a living prophet so his word is final. A very curious religion indeed.

[Youth in Asia 1,088]

Don't forget they have magic underpants, and I'm sure that provides some protection too.

[Windsor 2,235]

He's only a couple years younger than Trump (and older than Trump when his thread was started).

 

Even though he is healthier than Trump, he is likely going to face quite a bit of stress over the next few years if it is his intention to salvage his political career as a 'traitor' against Trump.

I say this thread is not that outlandish. 

[En Passant 3,758]

13 minutes ago, Windsor said:

He's only a couple years younger than Trump (and older than Trump when his thread was started).

 

The thing is, would you put him on any team for this year? (or next, or the one after?)

If there were a thread (auto-generated to take the politics of who starts them out of it) for every single 73 year old person who was A: as notable as Romney and B: a cancer survivor with no particular ongoing ailment how many threads would be created? Thousands (of 'em, coming over the hill).

Trump is #1 or #2 pick in most peoples inverse death teams.....

 

I've got no particular axe to grind about the number of individual threads, but there has to be some consistency.

[Windsor 2,235]

Just now, En Passant said:

 

The thing is, would you put him on any team for this year? (or next, or the one after?)

If there were a thread (auto-generated to take the politics of who starts them out of it) for every single person who was A: as notable as Romney and B: a cancer survivor with no particular ongoing ailment how many threads would be created? Thousands (of 'em, coming over the hill).

Trump is #1 or #2 pick in most peoples inverse death teams.....

 

I've got no particular axe to grind about the number of individual threads, but there has to be some consistency.

 

I don't consider 99% of eligible candidates who actually die for my team, so thats hardly a relevant argument.  

[En Passant 3,758]

4 minutes ago, Windsor said:

 

I don't consider 99% of eligible candidates who actually die for my team, so thats hardly a relevant argument.  

 

Substitute "Windsor" for somebody trying to win then. And not me either, I just muck about at it 

 

Point is, there are certainly hundreds and probably thousands or even tens of thousands of people of this type of fame in the UK (eta: by this I mean fame in the UK not necessarily in the UK) who would qualify for a thread. Accept them all, reject them all, IDC really.

Mind you, the squabbles are amusing and after a year staring at 4 fucking walls almost anything is entertainment.

[Windsor 2,235]

6 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Substitute "Windsor" for somebody trying to win then. And not me either, I just muck about at it 

 

Point is, there are certainly hundreds and probably thousands or even tens of thousands of people of this type of fame in the UK (eta: by this I mean fame in the UK not necessarily in the UK) who would qualify for a thread. Accept them all, reject them all, IDC really.

Mind you, the squabbles are amusing and after a year staring at 4 fucking walls almost anything is entertainment.

 

I do try to win. Its just that my idea of what a celebrity is and what others' idea of a celebrity is are two entirely different things. 

 

Mitt Romney is more of a classic pick than half of the no-marks put forward on this forum. 

 

PS. Don't look at my shadow list...

[Slackhurst Broadcasting 377]

If he ever gets into the year's death list his description should be "stuffed shirt."