quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever.
Maybe he was just trying to say in a round-about way that his political views can be changed by new evidence.
e.g. Romney 2012: My views are subject to an Amending Formula
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Sorry, that's my fault. I will refrain from publicly mentioning what I think about specific people.
There is something to be said though, that if someone says something that is a "crazy" opinion, they might not realize it if people need to coddle them and be PC. I won't mention specifics as I don't want to call anyone out right now.
For the record I think the same thing about people with their 9/11 conspiracies against Bush. Also many other "fringe" beliefs.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Personally I was more shocked that something like 4% of "Liberals" think Romney killed Osama bin Laden.
As a member of the military for 11 years, I know where the arguments come from about people claiming "He didn't do it, the Seals did." and that's fine. If they want to have that position, whatever. I know it's wrong, but possibly they really don't.
The "Leaders" (Of which regardless of your beliefs or politics, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the Military) always get the short-end of the stick when an operation is successful. No credit, or little credit. Granted we all know they (including CO's etc.) weren't on the ground, but we ALSO know if the operation goes horribly wrong, the right would be screaming to high heaven about how Obama is a bad leader, and it's all his fault since he is overall in charge.
Now on that note: How could anyone who has followed any news release or hasn't been living under a rock for the last year think that ROMNEY would get credit for Osama? That's the part I just couldn't understand from that article.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
"um...well..."
Yeah, those were pretty much my thoughts on it as well. I've read up on 2016 a little bit, and I've yet to read a single thing that convinces me it's worth watching as anything but outrageous comedy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen a few of D'Souza's debates, and he strikes me as exactly the sort of intellectual who would, well, win acclaim from extreme right conservatives, though not quite as shamefully sleazy as Moore who I haven't been convinced actually believes what he puts out since I first encountered his stuff.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. D'Souza's recollection of the ACA debate is drastically different than my own.
And that's probably the biggest assemblage of cherry picking I've seen in a long, long time. He drops logical fallacies with every other breath.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney was actually the SEAL on the ground who punked Osama, presumably styling his chrome deagle with the side-grip fire and eating an 'iced cream' with the other. An invisible, generically genial killer. Know him from how he moves in the shadow, visible only by the soft glow of two strips of white side hair and the glint of a flag pin. There one second, gone the next, vanished like a picture on an etch-a-sketch.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sounds like a fantastic headline, right - after all, who cares about what the rest of the world - (especially the French!) think about the POTUS.
Except the same poll found that Romney would make the US much more popular in Pakistan, The Middle East and North Africa. Gee, I wonder why that could be? It's probably that whole secret Muslim thing.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard not like Philadelphia mayor Micheal Nutter. Here's a clip of him trying to figure out what one of the higher ups in the Tea Party Express means when she says that President Obama doesn't love America.
---
edit: Honest question, are there representatives of the Tea Party, especially those elected to office, who people on Hatrack who support the Tea Party are proud of and consider exemplars of their movement? I've been to a couple of local Tea Party group meetings and was very unimpressed and the same is true from what I've seen of the more national Tea Party presence, but it is entirely possible that I'm not seeing the shining stars in the movement and I'd like to be fair to them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
I know some fairly intelligent people who honestly believe some wackadoodle things.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could be completely right, Matt. I'm really more just speaking to the impression I get of him as a person-in situations designed to the people appearing to put their face on. If I had first encountered him in print, I suspect my first impression would be quite different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I really don't like Bill Maher, but even I had to *nod* during this exchange with D'Souza.
*Warning language.
That was satisfying. D'Souza is a terrible, terrible person. I mean, how can someone use "anti-colonial" as a criticism?Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Lots of back and forth today between Romney and Obama over the attacks in north Africa. Hard to say how the public will respond. I suspect Romney's "he's apologizing for America" line will go over well, despite the fact that Obama himself said nothing of the sort, and has been solidly angry in his responses.
I suspect Obama's outrage at Romney playing politics will also score points with his base.
Personally, I'm rather blah about the whole exchange. I knew from the moment the attack on the embassy happened exactly what both sides would say, and it's rather tiring having to actually listen to it.
ETA: This article clears up the timeline of what happened and how the political statements match up with it. It would appear that Romney is rather grossly misrepresenting what was said and when it was said, and what it means.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Romney camp should learn a lesson from journalists: wait until you have the facts. It’s better to be second and right than first and wrong. Knee-jerk reactions can make you look like a jerk. But after offending the British on his Olympics trip and labeling Russia our “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Mitt was already well on his way to proving that he is a diplomatic disaster. This week the Russian president, Vladimir Putin thanked Romney for the label, saying that it had helped Russia because it had “proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems.”
Yeah, thanks Mitt.
Dana Milbank:
quote:NBC News reported on Tuesday morning that Mitt Romney’s campaign was “throwing the kitchen sink” at President Obama: With prospects fading, the Republican challenger was trying any and all lines of attack to see what might stick. But the problem with throwing the kitchen sink is you might break a pipe — and then you’ve got a real mess.
His latest comments are something which go a little bit beyond what I would just go ahead and laugh at him for. He is showing the depths of concern that the country needs to have for a strategy of essentially lying, misleading, or otherwise jumping on any expedient political point to fire up conservatives — no matter the cost to concerns exterior to his bid to the presidency.
And, in this case, if it turns out to have been a hotly inexcusable comment that will only fly with the Ron Lambert level conservative apologia, work on the strategy of doubling down and never letting it go, until it right-out screws your horseshit campaign. On top of everything else his party (Akin and the War on Women, etc) could do to him.
Ah! he even gave the Smirk again too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Walter Jones is only moderate in the way that Ron Paul is moderate; he has crossover appeal for social liberals because of his libertarianism. But his libertarianism also puts him at odds with things like the Civil Rights Act, and creates a natural constituency for him of white supremecists (see also: Ron Paul's newsletter scandal).
To be clear, I'm not familiar with the radio show in Samp's link, and generally I've found that things posted to somethingawful have a strong anti-GOP bias, so I'm not satisfied that the presentation of facts accurately reflects reality. Rather, I'm just saying that libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Walter Jones) and organizations promoting 'white power' have some natural affinities.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The mainstream media is not reality.
That's right. It so often says things that are proven to be false, and it's easy to point to why. So it can't be said to accurately represent reality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's post-convention bounce is beginning to fade, allowing us to judge how big the bounce was (not that bounce-size is predictive of anything).
Based on the Pollster national chart, if we act under the assumption that Romney got no bounce at all from his convention or the Paul Ryan pick, the poll average went from an Obama advantage of +0.7 to an advantage of +3.6, meaning about a 3 point bounce (it's now decreased to an Obama +2.1 and I anticipate it will continue to fade to an Obama +1.5 or so, which is about where things were prior to the conventions). Personally, I think Romney received a small (~1 point) bounce between his VP pick and the convention, making Obama's convention bounce more like four points.
That's not a large bounce by historic standards, but it's fairly similar to what recent incumbents (e.g. Bush and Clinton) got out of their conventions. On the whole, convention bounces seem to have been decreasing in size over the past 50 years, with Clinton's mammoth bounce out of the '92 convention the exception to the rule. I attribute this to a voting populace that's more politically engaged earlier in the process, as well as structural changes in the purpose and timing of the conventions.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we really think that this election is a contest? It's pretty much a foregone conclusion. Huntsman was the only decent candidate the GOP had, and they failed to realize it at the time.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Do we really think that this election is a contest?
I do (others may disagree). I think Obama's had and continues to have an advantage, but his relatively small (by historic standards) lead is in no way insurmountable, even with less than two months until the election.
As for Huntsman's chances, I'm less sanguine about his abilities than you. I think people (including him) overreacted to his poor showing in the NH primary, but his campaign provided very little evidence that they had the stamina or the innovativeness to run a real national campaign. Generally moderates perform better (although it's not clear how much more moderate Huntsman was than Romney), but I think there are a lot of unknowns about how a national GOP audience would have reacted to Huntsman as a real contender. I do hope he comes back strong for 2016 (or 2020 if Mitt wins), with a more attuned message, more vigor and a better organization.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama supporters who think this election is a "foregone conclusion" are nearly as delusional (read: roughly 2% less) as their Republican counterparts like Ron Lambert. Based on current polling, Obama is ahead, but his leads in critical battleground states are slim enough that a nation-wide shift towards Romney by just 1-2 points could be enough to return the race to a dead heat. Add another point towards Romney and the electoral map suddenly favors the Republican.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't treat this as foregone. Just worth sitting on. Good luck to all involved, of course, but most of the speculative period is over. We can only sit and see if anything shows up to give back Romney his shot. Given a static election environment with no shakeups in Romney's favor, obama wins at about 300 or so.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Some takeaways from this:
- While I suspect it may be closer to what he really thinks than his feel-good public persona, he changes directions so often this could just be him playing to the crowd. Only this time the crowd is millionaires. - That 47% includes all the people who filed tax returns but paid no liability, and those who didn't file. That includes people who didn't make enough to be taxed further, and it includes people who paid enough in payroll and state taxes to come out even or get a refund. It also includes the roughly 10% of Americans who are retired. - It also includes the hedge fund managers, real estate investors, or other wealthy financiers who combine capital gains with the tax-loss carryforward and other legal dodges to avoid paying taxes. - The growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely due to Republican tax policies. The earned-income tax credit was started by Ford and expanded by Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. G.W. Bush added the child credit and that bumped the number higher. This party has campaigned and pushed for decades for lower taxes, but they still enjoy mocking those who don't pay any. I thought that was the goal? - Best of all, nine of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers are Republican-leaning states.
None of this is surprising. What angers me, what honestly angers me, was this:
quote:"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if Mitt knows that what Mitt says to rich guys behind closed doors is quite relevant to my decision this election. What I've heard from these leaks isn't good for him.
I want a president who believes in a system built on ensuring that people have basic human necessities like food and health care, and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Despite his assumption, I don't think people mean that requires the government hand these things out directly to all those 47%. I am concerned about someone who wants to be president who wants to protect rich people's money so hard that he doesn't think it's his job to make sure America is a place where people don't starve in poverty.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
posted
Why for all that is good and holy, does this nonsense about people not paying taxes come up with republicans. Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes. Those who don't *can't*. Honestly, who in hell does Mitt Romney think these people are? What, they have jobs and money and just don't pay? What's the message? I don't care about these people because they don't make any money?
What do you do, take 10% from somebody making the bare minimum? Jut to terrorize that class of people a little bit more?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I'd love to join the bandwagon on how this is the 1% admitting they don't care about 47%, a more real deficiency in the Governor Romney campaign was demonstrated.
These were comments directed to a specific audience. Comments he knew they would believe because they are comments that make the millionaires in the audience feel morally superior.
1) He changes his stated beliefs for each audience and refuses to be pinned down to specifics because those specifics will be used against him. This means we have no idea what his true beliefs are. We just have his word on what they are, and that word changes...often. What can we believe?
2) His comments have little to do with facts. His press people have stated that they will not let their campaign be run by fact checkers. We can read that to believe that it won't be run by facts. If his campaign won't be run by facts what evidence do we have that his work in office will be guided by them.
We already had 8 years of a President who let loyalty and beliefs be more important than facts. When he ignored the facts we invaded Iraq. When he ignored the facts we get phrases like "Good Job Brownie". Do we risk another president who will not be guided by facts?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A college professor has been placed on leave after she allegedly forced her class to sign a pledge to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections.
Early last week Professor Sharon Sweet at Brevard Community College (BCC) allegedly told students to sign a pledge that reads: “I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.”
The pledge was printed off of GottaVote.org, a website funded by the Obama campaign.
posted
I have had Sharon Sweets in college before and they drive me nuts. I have no sympathy for the teachers who are taking time I am supposed to be using to learn important things and having them get turned into Advanced Mindnumbing Partisanship
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was watching the news of the leaked romney video for most of my flight yesterday. This was my summary experience of flipping through the channels:
- CNBC: Romney seems to really be in trouble now - CNN: Will this be the worst trouble of the Romney campaign - MSNBC: Romney probably on fire IRL now - Fox News: Uh, ... muslims are .. doing something, over there
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that Romney's response is to double down. He didn't even try to parry or explain it away. I guess this is one of those issues that's too close to the talking points to try and disavow as far as the base goes, but, still, that's really something.
You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.
The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.
"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.
Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
