127 replies to this topic

[ghdi]

I guess you just proved Romney's point. The people who are going to get all jazzed up about this stuff aren't going to vote for him anyway.

That's not the point. It's the fact that he says that he doesn't care about them that people are in an uproar about. Hey, I'll give the guy credit for being honest about how he feels, but isn't it the job of the President to "care" about the entire country and not just those who his ideology speaks to and who vote for him? "And so my job is not to worry about those people." So, he only worries about people who are living better? As Linda McMahon said in her response to the video (and I get that she's running in a very blue state) that the majority of people on the take from the gov't don't want to be in that position, but are forced to because of the hand they've been dealt.

That's what's so interesting as to how the right is reiterating the Obama quote about a segment of the right "clinging to guns and religion". They don't play the full quote, where he goes on to say that he still cares about them despite the differences in that respect. The entire Romney video is out now and nothing is taken out of context or made into a soundbite (which both sides of the media hammered Obama for in 2008).

[Daniel]

That's not the point. It's the fact that he says that he doesn't care about them that people are in an uproar about. Hey, I'll give the guy credit for being honest about how he feels, but isn't it the job of the President to "care" about the entire country and not just those who his ideology speaks to and who vote for him? "And so my job is not to worry about those people." So, he only worries about people who are living better? As Linda McMahon said in her response to the video (and I get that she's running in a very blue state) that the majority of people on the take from the gov't don't want to be in that position, but are forced to because of the hand they've been dealt.

That's what's so interesting as to how the right is reiterating the Obama quote about a segment of the right "clinging to guns and religion". They don't play the full quote, where he goes on to say that he still cares about them despite the differences in that respect. The entire Romney video is out now and nothing is taken out of context or made into a soundbite (which both sides of the media hammered Obama for in 2008).

Really? Would it change your point of view at all if he said he was going to take away all the stuff you want, but then says he cares about them?

Frankly, I'll take that over Obama castigating those rubes who don't know what's best for themselves because they cling to their guns even with the obligatory "I care about their welfare nevertheless".

[devilsfan26]

Let's be real here, the only people Romney or Obama actually care about are the ones who fund their campaigns. Neither one actually gives a crap about me or you regardless of what they say.

[squishyx]

That's not the point. It's the fact that he says that he doesn't care about them that people are in an uproar about. Hey, I'll give the guy credit for being honest about how he feels, but isn't it the job of the President to "care" about the entire country and not just those who his ideology speaks to and who vote for him? "And so my job is not to worry about those people." So, he only worries about people who are living better? As Linda McMahon said in her response to the video (and I get that she's running in a very blue state) that the majority of people on the take from the gov't don't want to be in that position, but are forced to because of the hand they've been dealt.

That's what's so interesting as to how the right is reiterating the Obama quote about a segment of the right "clinging to guns and religion". They don't play the full quote, where he goes on to say that he still cares about them despite the differences in that respect. The entire Romney video is out now and nothing is taken out of context or made into a soundbite (which both sides of the media hammered Obama for in 2008).

In Romney's defense, I believe he was talking about their vote, not the people as a whole. As in "it's not worthwhile to spend time trying to win over the 47%". That's obviously a bullsh!t statement in it's own right, Romney needs a large portion of that base to vote for him or this election will be a landslide.

What I find pretty objectionable is his description of the 47%, basically saying they are moochers off society when it's patently untrue. Half of the 47% are seniors who have paid SS and medicare taxes their entire lives. Of the other half of the 47% most still pay FICA, unemployment, state, local, city, property taxes. I pay federal income tax, but I don't feel superior to those who don't. I'm sad that they aren't making enough money to meet the level to pay. When the average Salary is $26,000 dollars, and the Average family is making $45,000 the problem is not who isn't paying taxes, it's why aren't they getting paid enough to pay taxes.

[ghdi]

Really? Would it change your point of view at all if he said he was going to take away all the stuff you want, but then says he cares about them?

Frankly, I'll take that over Obama castigating those rubes who don't know what's best for themselves because they cling to their guns even with the obligatory "I care about their welfare nevertheless".

No, it wouldnt change my view. However, he comes across as extremely cold in this video. I also don't think its entirely fair to cast off Obama's statement as obligatory. At the very least, he tried to show that he cares about those people, whether or not its true is another argument entirely. If this is what Romney believes, he needs to say it in public and not just in front of a group of millionaire donors who (like the ones Romney paints as not being for him) who'd never vote for Obama. I may not like it or agree with it, but I can respect the candor.

I realize that politics this day in age are largely disgusting on both sides of the ball, but I'd like to hold out some shred of hope that there are people in positions of power that care about the majority of the country and not just a segmented few.

[Daniel]

If this is what Romney believes, he needs to say it in public and not just in front of a group of millionaire donors who (like the ones Romney paints as not being for him) who'd never vote for Obama. and not just a segmented few.

You probably wouldn't vote for anyone who really say what they believe to the general public.

[ghdi]

You probably wouldn't vote for anyone who really say what they believe to the general public.

It comes down to what politics have become over the past 30 years: The lesser of two evils. It's a sad state.

[Daniel]

It comes down to what politics have become over the past 30 years: The lesser of two evils. It's a sad state.

It's always been that way. It's not really a knock on the people running, just that there are 300 million people with just as many interests. Despite what they say, everyone wants to be pandered to.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Republicans should take a cue from Obama because despite the rhetoric he has been a pretty center-left president.

You are kidding, right?

[ghdi]

[/b]
[/i]You are kidding, right?

No, he's not. My link He's absolutely right, and this article

"....We are not going to make any progress on our biggest problems without a compromise between the center-right and center-left. But, for that, we need the center-right conservatives, not the radicals, to be running the G.O.P., as well as the center-left in the Democratic Party. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has proposed center-left solutions to all four of these challenges. I wish he had pushed some in a bigger, consistent, more daring and more forceful manner — and made them the centerpiece of his campaign. Nevertheless, if the G.O.P. were in a different place, either a second-term Obama or a first-term Romney would have a real chance at making progress on all four. As things stand now, though, there is little hope this campaign will give the winner any basis for governing. Too bad — a presidential campaign is a terrible thing to waste."

Why do you think so many far left liberals are disillusioned with Obama?

Edited by ghdi, 18 September 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Devils Pride 26]

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

[ghdi]

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

You mean the hatchet job by Dinesh D'Souza, and admitted right wing ideologue who has spoken to Obama exactly 0 times in his life? Its the right wing's version of Michael Moore. Why should anyone take that seriously and not Fahrenheit 9/11 or any of the drivel Moore has put out?

D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:

_ D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.

_ D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.

_D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.

_D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

_ D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.

No.

No.

No.

Next?

Edited by ghdi, 18 September 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[oofrostonoo]

[/b]
[/i]You are kidding, right?

Umm Obama has been very center-left. Of course the smart thing for Conservatives to say is that he's the most socialist left wing nut of all time, but this isn't the case if you look at what he's done.

[oofrostonoo]

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

Romney's religion is being shoved down your throat? What do you mean?

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

Who cares if Romney is Mormon. They seem to be moral people with good families for the most part. I mean when you look at the specifics of Mormonism it's insane (although all religions are kind of crazy when you look at the details and actually read the books).

I don't believe that in Romney's heart he thinks that he'll rule a planet with his family after he dies. I don't think he believes that god lives in our galaxy on the planet Kolob. Maybeeeeee he believes the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

Edited by oofrostonoo, 19 September 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[devilsadvoc8]

As for the complete video being out.....that is only partially correct. There is a gap in the video so we aren't seeing the whole thing. Link. So before you declare this as a stake in the heart, consider the integrity of the video.

As for the speaking points about Romney being a corporate raider and off shorer. LOLOLOLOL. Please gain some perspective. Off-shoring happens in lots of industries owned by PE or not. A board of directors is responsible to the corporation NOT the employees (wiki & wiki2). So to criticize Romney is to also criticize thousands of other Boards throughout the US and the world, many of whom are economic advisors to BO. I think even Factcheck debunked this whole line of argument, ghdi, so I'd look to other areas to hit romney on (there are plenty). Instead of propogating untruths understand that the US government sends billions to foreign corporations (not unique to Obama) so please try to understand its a global world and apply independent thought and criticism to party "lines".


In the end, the economy has gotten better in some areas (stock market) but worse or the same in others (employment, housing values, debt). Our standing in the world has NOT gotten better despite all the campaign promises and a wishful nobel prize with recent events just highlighting that fact (Trending negative with Russia, China and Israel, no improvement with the Arab world).

So Obama has been less than effective. Will Romney be better? I have many doubts about him as well. Both, frankly, suck. Both are mired in extreme language, half or full untruths, cave in to religion and i think lack ideas as to how to improve this country beyond an election cycle.

[squishyx]

As for the complete video being out.....that is only partially correct. There is a gap in the video so we aren't seeing the whole thing. Link. So before you declare this as a stake in the heart, consider the integrity of the video.

Do I think it's game over? No, I think it's been game over and people will look back on this moment and try to claim this was what did him in. Certainly I think everyone would agree it's going to hurt him in the final results.

As for authenticity, I've listened to the both parts, unless during that 1-2 minute interlude Romney said "Just kiidding! I don't mean anything I said for the previous 30 min and nothing I'm about to say for the next 10" there's nothing that would have mitigated what he said. He wasn't taken out of context, and it's not twisted to show one thing when he was trying to say another. The source is fine, all though I understand why conservatives are desperate to change to conversation to anything else (invalid source, Obama said this, Obama said that).

I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt that when he said it wasn't his job to care about the 47%, that he was referring to their votes not their lives; but his accusations that the 47% are just looking for handouts stands.

More food for thought on the irony:
http://blogs-images....er.taxfound.jpg

[Jimmy Leeds]

Romney's religion is being shoved down your throat? What do you mean?

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

I agree with the first point. I have not seen at all where Romney being a Mormon is being used against him while there was a notion Obama was a practicing Muslim. He is not a church going Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor do I believe that 30% of Republicans now believe he is a practicing Muslim.

[Daniel]

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

Not to belabor the point, but I know quite a few people who voted for Obama who felt the same thing. You could make the argument that it's technically true since his father was a Muslim, and, evidently, Muslim doctrine says that if you have a parent that's a Muslim, then you're one too. (People make a similar argument that Elvis was Jewish since his grandmother on his mother's side was and the religion is supposed to follow the mother). And frankly, I would rather Obama be a Muslim and not apologize to fanatics who get all worked up about a movie than him being an agnostic, like I am.

The idea of pointing to the whacky beliefs of certain voting blocs is really a distraction.

Edited by Daniel, 19 September 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[oofrostonoo]

I agree with the first point. I have not seen at all where Romney being a Mormon is being used against him while there was a notion Obama was a practicing Muslim. He is not a church going Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor do I believe that 30% of Republicans now believe he is a practicing Muslim.

http://www.pewforum....s-religion.aspx

30% of "Republicans"
34% of "Conservative Republicans"

edit: Not specifically "practicing"

Edited by oofrostonoo, 19 September 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[ghdi]

I dont give a crap about any of their religions. I certainly don't care if Obama practices or not. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, as its been pointed out many Mormons are good people and the ones that I know personally fit that bill. Heck, one of my lifelong best friends is a Mormon who has always been a great friend who I'd go to battle for without question.

What I don't want is policy and religion intermingling. I don't even think religion should be a question of the candidates. IMO its a private matter, just as sexual orientation is.

You could make the argument that it's technically true since his father was a Muslim, and, evidently, Muslim doctrine says that if you have a parent that's a Muslim, then you're one too.

Oh c'mon. That's a flimsy argument at best. He's never practiced the religion. He attended a school in Indonesia as a young child (6-8) that was ran by Muslims and then attended Catholic school in the same country. I attended Catholic school and was baptised Catholic as a child, but I certainly dont practice it (I'm an athiest). The argument that the right try to make is that he's a practicing Muslim to this day and seem to believe that all Muslims are radical jihadists. "You could" make that argument, but it is extremely disingenuous.

I would rather Obama be a Muslim and not apologize to fanatics who get all worked up about a movie than him being an agnostic, like I am.

When did he apologize to any of them? What I saw in the aftermath of the Libya/Cairo protests/attacks was the embassy who live and work in those countries try to quell the wackjobs, which IMO makes perfect sense since they're surrounded by these people daily. The embassy statement was not from the White House and was an immediate kneejerk response which was not well thought out or it was another intelligence failure. I don't think it makes much sense to bluster when we're being attacked/protested in a foreign country, so the embassy statement did not bother me as the people that work in that embassy are "the frontline" of that mess. Meanwhile at home, Obama and Hillary both used very strong language towards the idiots who are protesting/Libya gov't/Egypt and the ones who took advantage of a situation and attacked the Benghazi consulate. They did not apologize except to condemn the video and tell people that we do not support said video.

I personally think people like Ron Paul are exactly right in this situation. If they don't want us there, get us the F out. When we were attacked in Beirut in the 80s and we lost all those marines, Reagan got us out of Lebanon. Let those people burn their fvcking countries down over stupid crap and lets stop giving aid.



What I find as troubling as all of this BS in the Middle East right now (and its barely being paid attention to) are the anti-Japanese protests going on in China. War rhetoric is ramping up because of the South China Sea. If China decides to show some might, we're in serious trouble in that region. We will be drawn into the conflict espc if the Phillipines get involved since we have a defense treaty with them, not to mention how key the trading lanes in that body of water are to this country. IMO that's going to be the flashpoint to a world wide conflict, and less so the Middle East/Syria/Iran. The Iranians will not be the first to launch as they know they will get their asses kicked, but they will take the opportunity to damage Israel and create a widespread regional conflict. If it kicks up in the Middle East, it will be us and Israel that start it, or Turkey will because of the border issues they have with Syria. In the Pacific, it will be China.

Edited by ghdi, 19 September 2012 - 05:01 PM.