Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

Where has he said that he wants to start a war with Iran? Let's face it, both of these statements are you talking out of your azz which is nothing new.

So surprising that you would try to worm out of your nonsense with an insult, you are so pathetic.

One picture Pointman, the other Sockpuppet

If you believe that Mitt Romney won't attack Iran if he's President then well...

no fu.ck that. You're being naive for the sake of trolling Riot.

That moron bows down to Netanyahu whenever possible.

Don't you people read foreign newspapers on the web? FFS. Netanyahu is not that popular in Israel.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosners..._zone_20120724

It isn't the Republican party any longer, guys. Sorry.

[rpncaine]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If you believe that Mitt Romney won't attack Iran if he's President then well...

no fu.ck that. You're being naive for the sake of trolling Riot.

That moron bows down to Netanyahu whenever possible.

Don't you people read foreign newspapers on the web? FFS. Netanyahu is not that popular in Israel.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosners..._zone_20120724

It isn't the Republican party any longer, guys. Sorry.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

As opposed to conventianl war which DOESN'T kill innocent people?

What does a conventional war have to do with the drone attacks? I don't believe anyone is calling for an invasion of Pakistan.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the first highlight-absolutely ridiculous hyperbole. the patriot act was put in before he took office. and most of the last four years are frighteningly similar to the previous eight.
and which corrupt stimulus? we've had several stimuli, not just obama's.
the healthcare-when you ask people about individual parts of that law, they like it. then when you ask them about obamacare, they don't like it. that is hilarious when you read it. and it's not what's killing job growth.
anyway, as for most of what you said, if not all, i don't know why you think things will change with romney.

he wants to spend more on defense, his tax cuts he talks about-more than one time i've seen experts say 'it will raise taxes on everyone but the rich' (what a surprise! ). and that's on the stuff they can get details on. most of his 'plans', no one has seen. and what i saw on the ryan budget-wow.

so i don't know what makes you think romney will 'be better'. he'll be different, but not better.

We have had stimulus before but not that big and not that corrupt. That was an $800+ billion dollar payout to the Democrats big money donors. It did NOTHING to help the economy.

Do you really think companies want to add workers now with the uncertainty of Obamacare costs?

Obama is a liar, he wants to raise taxes on any individual making $200,000 or more, which is not rich if you are living in New York.

Danzig, after Federal, state, city, local, and other taxes almost half of my paycheck goes to a corrupt government who helps themselves and their big money donor and they do not help the poor. Sorry I disagree with you, I don't want to send more money to these incompetent, corrupt morons. Do you really think they will pay down the debt with more revenue? I don't, they will just give more money to their corrupt pals who will stuff their campaign coffers in return.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

What does a conventional war have to do with the drone attacks? I don't believe anyone is calling for an invasion of Pakistan.

You stated that you were against drone attacks because they kill innocent people and I countered with a statement that any style of warfare innocent people are killed. Not too complicated a point to grasp there Point. So I guess you don't care about putting our soldiers lives in danger rather then simply use drones. Both cases innocents are going to be killed. However in your world of discrediting EVERYTHING about Obama I can see how you made the point. He should be lauded for using drone attacks as it saves American lives which you seem to have no interest in doing since you are against drone attacks. Why would you take this position just to discredit Obama?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

We have had stimulus before but not that big and not that corrupt. That was an $800+ billion dollar payout to the Democrats big money donors. It did NOTHING to help the economy.

Do you really think companies want to add workers now with the uncertainty of Obamacare costs?

Obama is a liar, he wants to raise taxes on any individual making $200,000 or more, which is not rich if you are living in New York.

Danzig, after Federal, state, city, local, and other taxes almost half of my paycheck goes to a corrupt government who helps themselves and their big money donor and they do not help the poor. Sorry I disagree with you, I don't want to send more money to these incompetent, corrupt morons. Do you really think they will pay down the debt with more revenue? I don't, they will just give more money to their corrupt pals who will stuff their campaign coffers in return.

yeah, i don't really want to send them more either. so, why would you want romney, who wants to raise your taxes?
and yes, obama wants to return the richest folks to their tax rate from before bushes 'temporary' tax cut-you know, the one that was going to induce the rich to create more jobs...but it didn't. that one.
yeah, i pay a lot of taxes too. but i'd rather we all return to the pre-bush cut then have it continuously extended for everyone.
and new york is a red herring. most of the country-200k for an individual is a lot of money. of course to romney, 200k is 'middle class'.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

You stated that you were against drone attacks because they kill innocent people and I countered with a statement that any style of warfare innocent people are killed. Not too complicated a point to grasp there Point. So I guess you don't care about putting our soldiers lives in danger rather then simply use drones. Both cases innocents are going to be killed. However in your world of discrediting EVERYTHING about Obama I can see how you made the point. He should be lauded for using drone attacks as it saves American lives which you seem to have no interest in doing since you are against drone attacks. Why would you take this position just to discredit Obama?

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i don't really want to send them more either. so, why would you want romney, who wants to raise your taxes?
and yes, obama wants to return the richest folks to their tax rate from before bushes 'temporary' tax cut-you know, the one that was going to induce the rich to create more jobs...but it didn't. that one.
yeah, i pay a lot of taxes too. but i'd rather we all return to the pre-bush cut then have it continuously extended for everyone.
and new york is a red herring. most of the country-200k for an individual is a lot of money. of course to romney, 200k is 'middle class'.

You really are comfortable sending more money to a bunch of corrupt scumbags (and yes I am talking about both parties) who enrich themselves and their big money donors??? I want to pay more taxes to support people like my uncle who retired as a teacher at 55-years of age with full medical benefits and a comfortable pension? I have no prayer of retiring at that age and he never had to worry about job security. Why did he get that deal?? Because his union stuffed the coffers of corrupt politicians who were supposed to be representing us hardworking taxpayers at the table.

[Thepaindispenser]

Yeah people who don't care about the poor donate $4 million to charity a year all the time. Again it just shows how stupid the liberal media and Democrats spin were on Romney simple statement that those who want freebies from the government without contributing would vote for Obama so doesn't worry about going for their vote.

By the way Romney not only donated much more than Obama but he also donated a much higher % of his income than Obama.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

"Conservatives who hate Obama constantly threaten to leave the country if Obama is re-elected. Unfortunately, they cannot find another rich first-world country that doesn't have both a higher income tax rate and mandatory government-sponsored health care for everyone"

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

By the way you never stated where the base would have for your special elite unit going into a country that was the strictest theocracy in the world.

Little hint for you, other people should declare a winner in a debate, you crowning yourself just shows you ran out of intelligent things to say.

[Thepaindispenser]

Gallup has them tied at 47% (very appropriate number), so it obvious that the video has had zero effect on the election.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Gallup has them tied at 47% (very appropriate number), so it obvious that the video has had zero effect on the election.

From Gallup Polls today:

Voters' Reaction to Romney's "47%" Comments Tilts Negative Independent voters, by 29% to 15%, also more negative than positive
September 19, 2012

ELECTION 2012 TRACKING
Sep 16-22, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama 48% +1
Romney 46% -1

Polls change, of course: next big "event" will be first debate

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

WTF asinine question...

[hi_im_god]

i stole the title from a new yorker story but it was too good to pass up.

it turns out that mitt didn't misspeak when he talked about the 47%. he really does believe it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1719033.story

and from the new yorker article in response:

Conservatives have constructed a myth that says certain groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, young people—vote Democratic because they’re stupid, because they’re lazy, and because they can be purchased with trinkets and baubles. It’d be one thing if they kept that myth a secret, but instead they shout it from the rooftops. Then, when it’s over, they wonder why those people voted Democratic again.

Romney was never the worst offender on this score; he never delighted in it, as people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. But he certainly participated. Indeed, part of his problem throughout this campaign, and the one before it, is that he’s never been good at disguising his lack of respect for the American electorate. His changing positions, his evasions about them, his misrepresentations—they all, ultimately, came off as a challenge: I think you’re too stupid not to fall for this. And there are very few people who appreciate being told they’re dumb, or the person who said it.

There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/romney-blames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJyqeRmE

[bigrun]

But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i stole the title from a new yorker story but it was too good to pass up.

it turns out that mitt didn't misspeak when he talked about the 47%. he really does believe it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1719033.story

and from the new yorker article in response:

Conservatives have constructed a myth that says certain groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, young people—vote Democratic because they’re stupid, because they’re lazy, and because they can be purchased with trinkets and baubles. It’d be one thing if they kept that myth a secret, but instead they shout it from the rooftops. Then, when it’s over, they wonder why those people voted Democratic again.

Romney was never the worst offender on this score; he never delighted in it, as people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. But he certainly participated. Indeed, part of his problem throughout this campaign, and the one before it, is that he’s never been good at disguising his lack of respect for the American electorate. His changing positions, his evasions about them, his misrepresentations—they all, ultimately, came off as a challenge: I think you’re too stupid not to fall for this. And there are very few people who appreciate being told they’re dumb, or the person who said it.

There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/romney-blames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJyqeRmE

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

rupert-

i don't doubt that people will often (not always) vote their pocketbook. however, the example of 8 of the 10 wealthies counties in the nation voting for a candidate that made increasing their taxes a part of his platform would be a counter example to your point.

i think anyone that focuses on a single issue (whether it's republicans on "free stuff" or democrats on "racism") as the motivating factor for their opponents voters has just used the filter of their own pre-existing beliefs to color reality. and they aren't going to learn anything from the loss.

the difference is i don't see any serious discussions in democratic circles about how romney was only close because of all the racist white votes he got. while the equally ridiculous "we only lost because the nation is now all freeloaders" proposition is getting serious traction.

i'm perfectly okay if republican's want to believe that is what just happened. the same way i'm happy to let a poker opponent think he's just unlucky when he keeps losing money missing draws to an inside straight. it's their money. it's your electorate.

democrats ran candidates that were out of touch with the electorate and appealed primarily to their leftist base and lost 5 of 6 presidential elections from 1968-1988. they kept telling themselves that they were smarter than the voters who voted against them and so kept running the same campaigns. the voters would figure it out.

bill clinton changed the dynamics by running and governing as a moderate. it's now the republicans that have lost 5 of 6 popular votes (including bush's 2000 electoral college victory) while appealing to their most right wing base.

if republican's want to continue this as a serious discussion, i guess i won't complain. but if they actually want to win the presidency again they better figure out how they're going to get their message out in a way that doesn't write off the fastest growing part of the electorate as too stupid to vote for them.