Not good for Romney

blackredyellow

pandora wrote:

dignin wrote:

pandora wrote:

I can't believe people won't understand the point of Romney's message,
this happens so often, twist words, take out of context,
quote part and leave the real message to be lost, all out of pure bias.
Out of let's just bitch, people do that so well.

He was pointing out that those not interested in lowering taxes,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.
Those who have bought votes, that are in entitlement programs
and those in earned benefits programs,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.

That those few percentage of votes that are Independent,
that do not vote down party lines,
that are not on government programs,
is where he plans on putting his energy to take the election.

He was speaking to his constituents about strategy.
It is not how he plans on running the country, turning his back on half.
He believes that his plan will help everyone because it will help the economy.
Is he right? we won't know unless he is elected so we may never know.

Seeing Obama from the past and his redistribution beliefs,
I see why he has moved the country to where it is.
Personally I don't believe in that but mainly we see that does not work.
How? ... an estimated 20 Trillion debt by 2016 :wtf:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... histo5.htm
how it's grown since 2000

Obama promised to lower the debt, that's a fact. He promised a lot,
that's what politicians do,
ideally they would believe in their own promises but do they just have to want to win?
unfortunately with empty promises the people don't win.

From here it kinda looks like you might be twisting his words.

No those who aren't voting for him, minds made up for whatever reason,
aren't listening to him Is that you too?

I'm still undecided so I listen to the entire quote and put myself there
in the moment.
I'm not alone, if one also listens to media and people on the street,
some of the Independents.

It comes down to listening unbiasedly, too bad not everyone can do that,
but there is no point when one belongs to a team already.

Once again, only Pandora can listen to things unbiasedly... :roll:

inlet13

ComeToTX wrote:

Eddie Vedder rejected Mitt Romney's recent characterization of 47 percent of Americans as people who see themselves as victims who don't pay income taxes. "It's very upsetting to hear a presidential candidate be so easily dismissive of such a ginormous amount of the population," Vedder said yesterday at a fundraiser for President Obama in Tampa, Florida, according to a pool report passed along by The Hollywood Reporter.

Vedder, who played a short set for Obama at the home of singer-songwriter Don Miggs and Lisa DeBartolo (daughter of former San Francisco 49ers owenr Eddie DeBartolo Jr.), shared his own story of how government programs helped him.

"I'm an example of someone who never made it to university," Vedder told the small crowd. "I did have this dream to be a musician. I felt that this dream had an expiration date."

Vedder went on to recall signing up for a government security guard training program, which led to a midnight shift and position as security supervisor at a petroleum company.

"It was that job which allowed me to keep affording to guitars and microphones," the Pearl Jam frontman said. "For me, it all began with that ability to get the proper training for a decent job."

Vedder then introduced President Obama, who thanked the musician. "For you to share that story with us, Eddie, speaks volumes not only about you but about this country," Obama said. "That story captures better than anything what this campaign is about and what this country is about."

Vedder's four-song set on mandolin comprised "Rise," "Without You," a cover of James Taylor's "Millworker" and Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World."

"I can't say I've ever played that many songs in a suit before," Vedder said to the 85 guests, who paid $20,000 each for the dinner event.

Wait - Ed worked for an oil company? :?

hedonist

He did NOT say "ginormous"?! Yikes :P

To be fair, both the president and Romney have been somewhat divisive.

(just like us reg'lar folks!)

Cliffy6745

inlet13 wrote:

I think she's probably right, personally. I would never ever want to involve myself or my family in a Presidential race. You have to be certifiable to do something like that. So, yeh - I bet it is hard.

I don't really have a problem with her. Not sure why anyone would ever call her a "horrible monster". That's just confusing and odd.

I'm sure it's very hard and not a job I would have any interest in. But that's what she and her husband signed up for though. You didn't hear Michelle complaining when people were calling Obama a Muslim Socialist Marxist American Hating Terrorist Not Born In America. Um, lady, people are criticizing your husband for calling 47% of the country moochers because of what HE said. Deal with it.

I didn't say I agreed with that statement.

josevolution

pandora wrote:

josevolution wrote:

pandora wrote:

I can't believe people won't understand the point of Romney's message,
this happens so often, twist words, take out of context,
quote part and leave the real message to be lost, all out of pure bias.
Out of let's just bitch, people do that so well.

He was pointing out that those not interested in lowering taxes,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.
Those who have bought votes, that are in entitlement programs
and those in earned benefits programs,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.

That those few percentage of votes that are Independent,
that do not vote down party lines,
that are not on government programs,
is where he plans on putting his energy to take the election.

He was speaking to his constituents about strategy.
It is not how he plans on running the country, turning his back on half.
He believes that his plan will help everyone because it will help the economy.
Is he right? we won't know unless he is elected so we may never know.

Seeing Obama from the past and his redistribution beliefs,
I see why he has moved the country to where it is.
Personally I don't believe in that but mainly we see that does not work.
How? ... an estimated 20 Trillion debt by 2016 :wtf:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... histo5.htm
how it's grown since 2000

Obama promised to lower the debt, that's a fact. He promised a lot,
that's what politicians do,
ideally they would believe in their own promises but do they just have to want to win?
unfortunately with empty promises the people don't win.

You watched the same video as me and this is what you interpret as whao just whao ....

I had to look up whao

I know that's my spinglish

ComeToTX

EV introducing BO last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxyRzswxVCE

pandora

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Of fucking course you would twist this into what he was "really" saying. Look, we all get he was talking about the campaign, voting and politics, but he also said this....

"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…[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."

Don't give me that fucking bullshit that this is taken out of context. How can this be taken out of context'? Please explain what he meant? And keep in mind he is talking about 47% of the American people.

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives

There is a movement taking place in our country to depend on the government.
For retirement, healthcare, food, housing, education ...
I see it in my own children and others in their age group, they are saying
" some are getting whats entitled to them, I am not"

my answer ... 'the government owes you nothing you must earn what you get.'
I was raised not to live off the government.

This is what Romney is speaking of, this movement, one where people
feel entitled, one where the government solves all problems.
One where those working are taxed to a breaking point providing for others.
And yes it includes everyone on some sort of government aid because
they are all part of the problem. The problem is ...
we can not afford entitlement.
We need an economy where people work pure and simple.
Everyone works are not taxed and the money goes
back into the country through healthy spending, home buying
etc... not to the government.

I find it ironic that food stamps are at a sky high level and the country is obese.
What does this say about the this system of entitlement. Take take take...
name of the game everyone's doing it :fp:

pandora

josevolution wrote:

pandora wrote:

josevolution wrote:

[e]

You watched the same video as me and this is what you interpret as whao just whao ....

I had to look up whao

I know that's my spinglish

uh oh another google on my way ...

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

He did NOT say "ginormous"?! Yikes :P

To be fair, both the president and Romney have been somewhat divisive.

(just like us reg'lar folks!)

Divisive? Us, here?

No, you're wrong WRONG WRONG!! :evil:

blackredyellow

pandora wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Of fucking course you would twist this into what he was "really" saying. Look, we all get he was talking about the campaign, voting and politics, but he also said this....

"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…[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."

Don't give me that fucking bullshit that this is taken out of context. How can this be taken out of context'? Please explain what he meant? And keep in mind he is talking about 47% of the American people.

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives

There is a movement taking place in our country to depend on the government.
For retirement, healthcare, food, housing, education ...
I see it in my own children and others in their age group, they are saying
" some are getting whats entitled to them, I am not"

my answer ... 'the government owes you nothing you must earn what you get.'
I was raised not to live off the government.

This is what Romney is speaking of, this movement, one where people
feel entitled, one where the government solves all problems.
One where those working are taxed to a breaking point providing for others.
And yes it includes everyone on some sort of government aid because
they are all part of the problem. The problem is ...
we can not afford entitlement.
We need an economy where people work pure and simple.
Everyone works are not taxed and the money goes
back into the country through healthy spending, home buying
etc... not to the government.

I find it ironic that food stamps are at a sky high level and the country is obese.
What does this say about the this system of entitlement. Take take take...
name of the game everyone's doing it :fp:

You seem to be drastically simplifying society. According to what you write, you see two groups... people who don't want or need anything from the government, and people who are solely dependent on the government. In reality, the vast majority of the population don't fall in that group at all.

Even people who aren't in the "47%" were in there at one time (whether they know it or not), or will be at some point. Almost no one is fortunate enough to make it through life without at some point needing the help of some government program.

dignin

pandora wrote:

dignin wrote:

pandora wrote:

I can't believe people won't understand the point of Romney's message,
this happens so often, twist words, take out of context,
quote part and leave the real message to be lost, all out of pure bias.
Out of let's just bitch, people do that so well.

He was pointing out that those not interested in lowering taxes,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.
Those who have bought votes, that are in entitlement programs
and those in earned benefits programs,
he can not influence, he will not get their votes.

That those few percentage of votes that are Independent,
that do not vote down party lines,
that are not on government programs,
is where he plans on putting his energy to take the election.

He was speaking to his constituents about strategy.
It is not how he plans on running the country, turning his back on half.
He believes that his plan will help everyone because it will help the economy.
Is he right? we won't know unless he is elected so we may never know.

Seeing Obama from the past and his redistribution beliefs,
I see why he has moved the country to where it is.
Personally I don't believe in that but mainly we see that does not work.
How? ... an estimated 20 Trillion debt by 2016 :wtf:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... histo5.htm
how it's grown since 2000

Obama promised to lower the debt, that's a fact. He promised a lot,
that's what politicians do,
ideally they would believe in their own promises but do they just have to want to win?
unfortunately with empty promises the people don't win.

From here it kinda looks like you might be twisting his words.

No those who aren't voting for him, minds made up for whatever reason,
aren't listening to him Is that you too?

I'm still undecided so I listen to the entire quote and put myself there
in the moment.
I'm not alone, if one also listens to media and people on the street,
some of the Independents.

It comes down to listening unbiasedly, too bad not everyone can do that,
but there is no point when one belongs to a team already.

Hey, no team here. I won't be voting for either, I have no horse in the race. Just calling it like I see it.

Johnny Abruzzo

Always fun to read pandora's "unbiased" view of the state of the race.

pandora

ComeToTX wrote:

EV introducing BO last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxyRzswxVCE

Thank you! awesome...

I love him

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Always fun to read pandora's "unbiased" view of the state of the race.

hmmm...did I say anything about the state of the race :? only my interpretation of what Romney
really meant by his words and yes that opinion is unbiased
because our President may very well get my vote
can you say that if you vote, your vote may very well go to Romney ... thought not
so who's biased

pandora

dignin wrote:

pandora wrote:

dignin wrote:

From here it kinda looks like you might be twisting his words.

No those who aren't voting for him, minds made up for whatever reason,
aren't listening to him Is that you too?

I'm still undecided so I listen to the entire quote and put myself there
in the moment.
I'm not alone, if one also listens to media and people on the street,
some of the Independents.

It comes down to listening unbiasedly, too bad not everyone can do that,
but there is no point when one belongs to a team already.

Hey, no team here. I won't be voting for either, I have no horse in the race. Just calling it like I see it.

oh perhaps no vote then? not in the country perhaps? then maybe no need or desire to listen
or try to understand either. I have all this and then some.

pandora

blackredyellow wrote:

pandora wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Of fucking course you would twist this into what he was "really" saying. Look, we all get he was talking about the campaign, voting and politics, but he also said this....

"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…[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."

Don't give me that fucking bullshit that this is taken out of context. How can this be taken out of context'? Please explain what he meant? And keep in mind he is talking about 47% of the American people.

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives

There is a movement taking place in our country to depend on the government.
For retirement, healthcare, food, housing, education ...
I see it in my own children and others in their age group, they are saying
" some are getting whats entitled to them, I am not"

my answer ... 'the government owes you nothing you must earn what you get.'
I was raised not to live off the government.

This is what Romney is speaking of, this movement, one where people
feel entitled, one where the government solves all problems.
One where those working are taxed to a breaking point providing for others.
And yes it includes everyone on some sort of government aid because
they are all part of the problem. The problem is ...
we can not afford entitlement.
We need an economy where people work pure and simple.
Everyone works are not taxed and the money goes
back into the country through healthy spending, home buying
etc... not to the government.

I find it ironic that food stamps are at a sky high level and the country is obese.
What does this say about the this system of entitlement. Take take take...
name of the game everyone's doing it :fp:

You seem to be drastically simplifying society. According to what you write, you see two groups... people who don't want or need anything from the government, and people who are solely dependent on the government. In reality, the vast majority of the population don't fall in that group at all.

Even people who aren't in the "47%" were in there at one time (whether they know it or not), or will be at some point. Almost no one is fortunate enough to make it through life without at some point needing the help of some government program.

Well lets change that! :fp:

Who says this is how it needs to be....
and incredibly excessively I might add.
With just the example of food stamps and an obese population, in what world does that
make sense? Should any help be only to save a life? Or should it be to grow people
to unhealthy weights?

You seem to be understating the excessive nature of where we are headed ...
towards this growing entitlement the masses feel is due to them.
This is only to grow worse until it breaks....
and break it will...

Just how far can a deficit go before it can't grow anymore? Before we break?
Which candidate has a chance of lessening the growth?
So far our President and his administration of redistribution
has not been able to curb any growth of the deficit, in fact,
it has gained speed with this strategy.

I am not on either side, no team for me, just trying to figure out who can
fix this problem and get people back to work and remove the idea
anyone is entitled to anything ... they must work for what the get.

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Always fun to read pandora's "unbiased" view of the state of the race.

hmmm...did I say anything about the state of the race :? only my interpretation of what Romney
really meant by his words and yes that opinion is unbiased
because our President may very well get my vote
can you say that if you vote, your vote may very well go to Romney ... thought not
so who's biased

I'm not the one who claims to be unbiased, but supports whatever one side says over the other side about, oh, 99% of the time.

I'm an Obama supporter but I don't agree with everything he does & says. And I find Romney to be a dreadful presidential candidate, easily the worst of my lifetime, who is a comical caricature of the typical rich businessman who decides to partake in politics, like this guy.

Zoso

pandora wrote:

Who says this is how it needs to be....
and incredibly excessively I might add.
With just the example of food stamps and an obese population, in what world does that
make sense? Should any help be only to save a life? Or should it be to grow people
to unhealthy weights?

You seem to be understating the excessive nature of where we are headed ...
towards this growing entitlement the masses feel is due to them.
This is only to grow worse until it breaks....
and break it will...

Just how far can a deficit go before it can't grow anymore? Before we break?
Which candidate has a chance of lessening the growth?
So far our President and his administration of redistribution
has not been able to curb any growth of the deficit, in fact,
it has gained speed with this strategy.

I am not on either side, no team for me, just trying to figure out who can
fix this problem and get people back to work and remove the idea
anyone is entitled to anything ... they must work for what the get.

[/quote]

there needs to be a healthy balance between government intervention (i.e health care, food stanps) and individuality.. otherwise the poor have got no resources to even begin to change their lives but they need that push that the GOP argue is essential (and so does most people)..that push they have is the pressure to be more then they are and the pain of being fighting for every meal.

don't you need to to somewhat assist the very poor otherwise how can anyway change their situation? a moderate look at this issue is the best way otherwise nothing will ever change. socialism doesn't work but either would the ignorant view that the GOP hold about the rich and poor gap and helping the down trodden.

whygohome

Yeah, let's change that:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/18/ ... -000-lost/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/879271- ... rica-et-tu

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/20/343 ... arly-1100/

And on and on and on and on..................

dignin

pandora wrote:

dignin wrote:

pandora wrote:

No those who aren't voting for him, minds made up for whatever reason,
aren't listening to him Is that you too?

I'm still undecided so I listen to the entire quote and put myself there
in the moment.
I'm not alone, if one also listens to media and people on the street,
some of the Independents.

It comes down to listening unbiasedly, too bad not everyone can do that,
but there is no point when one belongs to a team already.

Hey, no team here. I won't be voting for either, I have no horse in the race. Just calling it like I see it.

oh perhaps no vote then? not in the country perhaps? then maybe no need or desire to listen
or try to understand either. I have all this and then some.

You're right, I'm your neighbor from the north. Obviously this election doesn't affect me as much as you. I have a great need and desire to understand what happens politically with my neighbors to the south, it still greatly affects us up here. I also think that my separation from the rat race that seems to be the race for The White House gives me an outside (and maybe more unbiased) view of it. I'm not railroaded like I'm sure you are by CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other media. Not to mention the political ads. Maybe I'm wrong but I think it gives me a lot of perspective.