|
|
On September 18 2012 11:25 Zaqwert wrote:
1. Pay maybe 2K-3K a year total in taxes
2. Use maybe ~10K in government services
3. Complain that others aren't paying their "fair share"
4. Get upset when called a dead beat
and you wonder why this country is doomed.
Anyone voting for Obama soley because they think he's going to give them some money is a deadbeat and a loser, that's just the painful truth.
But you don't win elections telling the voters they are leeches.
Would you like to continue pulling numbers out of your ass, or would you like to actually provide a source for your claims?
|
So David Corn plans to release more comments from Romney tomorrow.
|
On September 18 2012 11:25 Zaqwert wrote:
But you don't win elections telling the voters they are leeches.
That all depends on if a particular voter considers himself one of the referred-to leeches, or one of the suckers supporting the leeches.
edit: Obama seems to have been making the successful case that the rich are leeches, is he not ?
|
On September 18 2012 11:27 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 10:57 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 10:45 rogzardo wrote:On September 18 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 09:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 18 2012 09:36 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 09:29 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 09:11 darthfoley wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=po_c1"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people." But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. Here you go (0:43) I'm not sure what the issue is. His job, as a campaigner, is to win the election. Why waste time, resources, energy trying to convince a sector that will vote against you no matter what ? That's all he's saying and I don't see much controversy with that campaign strategy. This. Basically, CNN article tries to twist it into some context like he doesn't care about those people in regards to their well being as opposed to the obvious context of he isn't worried about getting their VOTE. This is the exact same situation as Obama's 'didn't build that' line, except with roles reversed. Joy. Somewhat, Obama really meant that as a literal phrase of "you didn't build that" physically by themselves (no shit) but it still implies that all successful people were carried to their success as opposed to making good decisions and getting to that point with their own perseverance. Tell me what he REALLY meant by that to you and how it is the exact same situation? Obama's 'didn't build that' line: Democrats - He was referring to bridges, roads, infrastructure Republicans - He was referring to small businesses Romney's 'i don't care about them' Line: Democrats - He was referring to the poor. Republicans - He was referring to the poor's vote.
It is obvious that he was referring to the bridges, roads and infrastructure. I still think the meme's are pretty funny, even if they are a little outlandish:
http://didntbuildthat.com/
I have a friend who does flooring and he LITERALLY built his entire business with just his dad. Like literally constructed their storage shed for all of their tools themselves, his dad is a master craftsman and it is beautiful. I think they would be pretty insulted by the comment.
|
On September 18 2012 11:25 Zaqwert wrote:
1. Pay maybe 2K-3K a year total in taxes
2. Use maybe ~10K in government services
3. Complain that others aren't paying their "fair share"
4. Get upset when called a dead beat
and you wonder why this country is doomed.
Anyone voting for Obama soley because they think he's going to give them some money is a deadbeat and a loser, that's just the painful truth.
But you don't win elections telling the voters they are leeches.
Yes. Because the reason everybody is poor is because they're lazy. There are no outside circumstances to their situation besides their extreme lack of a work ethic.
|
On September 18 2012 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:awesome: Show nested quote +David Corn just said on TV that the now infamous Romney fundraiser was held in Boca Raton, Florida at the estate of hedge fund manager Marc Leder.
According to the New York Post, Leder throws a pretty mean party.
His “wild end-of-summer bash was the talk of the Hamptons this year,” the Post reported last December. “At the Bridgehampton home that Leder rented for a whopping $500,000 a month, guests cavorted nude in a pool and performed sex acts, while scantily clad Russian women danced on platforms. Dancers at the party also twirled flaming torches to booming beats.” Source
Lmao
|
On September 18 2012 10:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 08:03 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post. I'm not discussing perception. If you want to discuss perception, do so with someone else. Your post contained something else than your statement about perception, I explained what, and I'm discussing that. If I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively. Yes, and I gave examples of where Obama called bankers "fat cats". That was an attack on certain bankers. If you want more examples to give a broader picture then too bad - I'm not spending hours compiling an exhaustive list - nor should I have to. Indeed, that was an attack on certain bankers - those bankers who, according to Obama, don't accept their share of responsibility for the financial crisis and get big bonuses while the economy is still recovering. If your initial statement had been that Obama had attacked certain bankers for practices he was condemning, that example would have been spot-on. Unfortunately, your initial statement was that he had made attacks on "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", and your example therefore is hardly helpful in supporting that claim. Of course, you can choose not to support your claim - I didn't think you could anyway. Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
My statement was the sentiment behind "you didn't build that" comes from attacks Obama has made on certain groups. I have since demonstrated that Obama has, in fact, levied attacks on those groups. Your arguments that they are not attacks are weak - either that they are only attacks on a segment of that group (just some bankers) or a thing that the group possesses (money). You have absolutely not demonstrated that Obama has levied "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". Like I said, there's a clear and fundamental difference between wanting to reform the tax system because of a belief it will help with the budget and wanting to punish people for being rich (see below for an answer regarding your "segment of that group" argument). I find it funny that you try to pass off my arguments as "weak" when you did not even try to address the part of my post you just replied to that actually contains the said arguments. Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Whatever. Attacking a segment of a group or an aspect of a group is the same thing as attacking that group. Granted, it is much more forgivable on its own, but over time a multitude of small attacks will add up to something significant. No, attacking a segment of a group is very clearly not the same thing as attacking that group. If, among the group "human beings", I single out mass murderers and call them "bloodthirsty bastards", I'm obviously not calling every human being a bloodthirsty bastard. Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I think I'm done discussing this with you. I'm trying to explain why people have a certain opinion and you seem to want to argue that your opinion is the 'correct' one. I announced from the start, and in pretty much every single one of my posts, that I was not discussing your explanation of "why people have a certain opinion". I was discussing a specific assertion that has an existence independent of the causal relation you inserted it in. To repeat my example, "if I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively".
Again, I shouldn't have to give an exhaustive account of everything Obama has said to make a point. You wanted examples and I gave them. The end - I'm not wasting my time digging up more and more and more and more and more and more examples just so you can cover your eyes and pretend its all GOP propaganda.
|
So Romey is saying he is mad because 47% of American's don't pay income taxes. While he hides his money in offshore accounts so he doesn't have to pay any either.
The difference is 47% of American's don't make enough to pay income taxes. They may be some of the people he laid off, sent those jobs to China, and used that profit to make himself filthy rich. This guy is a vulture and will pick apart the working class of this country. I am not an Obama fan, but this guy will make Bush look like FDR.
|
On September 18 2012 11:28 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 11:25 Zaqwert wrote:
1. Pay maybe 2K-3K a year total in taxes
2. Use maybe ~10K in government services
3. Complain that others aren't paying their "fair share"
4. Get upset when called a dead beat
and you wonder why this country is doomed.
Anyone voting for Obama soley because they think he's going to give them some money is a deadbeat and a loser, that's just the painful truth.
But you don't win elections telling the voters they are leeches. Would you like to continue pulling numbers out of your ass, or would you like to actually provide a source for your claims?
The numbers are completely made up, but the people are real.
There are people who pay very little in taxes, use way more than they pay in taxes in government services, and then have the disgusting gaul to moan and complain about others "not paying their fair share"
|
God, this is like a movie. It's the preppy rich kids versus the loser frat on the edge of campus.
Oh America. Your dysfunction is my entertainment.
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg)
So about those 47% moochers Romney...
|
I just want to say,
this video leak,
combined with trying to score points while embassies around the world are under siege,
combined with Clint Eastwood and the Chair,
combined with the selection and muzzling of Ryan,
combined with the flip flopping on health care and abortion and immigration,
combined with securing only 30% support during the Republican primaries,
Has to make the Romney campaign the most dysfunctional campaign I've witnessed. I don't even remember Cain/Palin being this bad. Let's put policy and partisanship aside: can anyone think of a more poorly run campaign?
|
On September 18 2012 12:16 Defacer wrote:
I just want to say,
this video leak,
combined with trying to score points while embassies around the world are under siege,
combined with Clint Eastwood and the Chair,
combined with the selection and muzzling of Ryan,
combined with the flip flopping on health care and abortion and immigration,
combined with securing only 30% support during the Republican primaries,
Has to make the Romney campaign the most dysfunctional campaign I've witnessed. I don't even remember Cain/Palin being this bad. Let's put policy and partisanship aside: can anyone think of a more poorly run campaign?
That's only because Palin was VP pick. Imagine if she was the nominee.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 18 2012 12:13 ticklishmusic wrote:So about those 47% moochers Romney...
An infographic never made me LOL before ...
|
On September 18 2012 11:31 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 11:27 rogzardo wrote:On September 18 2012 10:57 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 10:45 rogzardo wrote:On September 18 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 09:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 18 2012 09:36 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 09:29 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 09:11 darthfoley wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=po_c1"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added. "What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."
Funny that the article states: Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people." But no where in the video is Romney heard saying that. I'd say that's quite strange, but it is CNN after all. Here you go (0:43) I'm not sure what the issue is. His job, as a campaigner, is to win the election. Why waste time, resources, energy trying to convince a sector that will vote against you no matter what ? That's all he's saying and I don't see much controversy with that campaign strategy. This. Basically, CNN article tries to twist it into some context like he doesn't care about those people in regards to their well being as opposed to the obvious context of he isn't worried about getting their VOTE. This is the exact same situation as Obama's 'didn't build that' line, except with roles reversed. Joy. Somewhat, Obama really meant that as a literal phrase of "you didn't build that" physically by themselves (no shit) but it still implies that all successful people were carried to their success as opposed to making good decisions and getting to that point with their own perseverance. Tell me what he REALLY meant by that to you and how it is the exact same situation? Obama's 'didn't build that' line: Democrats - He was referring to bridges, roads, infrastructure Republicans - He was referring to small businesses Romney's 'i don't care about them' Line: Democrats - He was referring to the poor. Republicans - He was referring to the poor's vote. It is obvious that he was referring to the bridges, roads and infrastructure. I still think the meme's are pretty funny, even if they are a little outlandish: http://didntbuildthat.com/I have a friend who does flooring and he LITERALLY built his entire business with just his dad. Like literally constructed their storage shed for all of their tools themselves, his dad is a master craftsman and it is beautiful. I think they would be pretty insulted by the comment.
He wasn't referring to small businesses but big corporations. Your friend didn't read the whole quote; only what he saw on Fox News.
|
It's funny you mention that because Mitt Romney agrees!
From the leaked video:
"but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy."
Can't make this stuff up :[
|
On September 18 2012 12:13 ticklishmusic wrote:So about those 47% moochers Romney...
Oh man, that map. That map combined with Romney's audio bit pretty much just tells the whole story.
|
I still don't get that out of hundreds of millions of people, he became the GOP nominee. wtf.
|
On September 18 2012 12:27 rogzardo wrote:
I still don't get that out of hundreds of millions of people, he became the GOP nominee. wtf.
As much as I dislike Santorum's social policies, I can't figure out how he lost to this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
