Are you saying that you are never guilty of this? What makes you so smart and so special? How did you earn this right to be so damn patronizing?
Check the ego, my friend.
Who said I didn't think I was ever guilty of this? When you become self aware is when you see clarity in others' actions. Of course, there are times I do that. I'm sure you could dig a couple of my posts here out that would show me doing as such.
And even if I didn't know that, does that make my commentary any less true?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Not sure if someone else said this already b/c I only skimmed, but this is another example (as I have seen others say) that folks that have their mind made up, have it made up. Which is exactly what he was saying.
You're either being obtuse or stupid if you don't think what he meant was - when campaigning, I can't worry about the 47% that already have their mind made up against me. It doesn't refer to folks that don't pay taxes or whatever. That's the common % (or thereabouts) on BOTHS sides that have their minds made up. So, I guess he could have said, I don't have to worry about 94% of the electorate (which is basically true). Except he does have to motivate HIS 47% to get out and vote (and the tiny minority that are TRULY undecided and not the majority of us who like to pretend). Because, that's where this election will most likely lie. Whose voters are most motivated and how the TRUE independents vote. If you don't like honesty, well, not sure what to tell you.
But, if you're trying to interpret this as whatever his plans are he doesn't CARE about 47% of the population, you're either being willfully ignorant or are stupid.
Yes, he could have said it better. But, have a conversation with your friend and parse every syllabel you say, and I bet by the end, I could make you out as a racist, homo/hetero-phobic, child hating, old person hating, middle aged hating, misogynist you are(n't).
you see...you're talking in a bubble when talking on this forum...yes, many here have made up their minds...however, and I hope you know this, not everyone who votes is privy to this forum...
there are some folks in this country who are actually undecided....I don't think he's helping himself with them....do you...?
Ummm. Ok. Yeah. It's the Conservative folks on AMT that need to be aware this isn't the world.
Anyhoo - I don't think it effects anything either way. As I (and he) said - most of the electorate does have their minds made up. And the independents that don't are probably looking at their pocket book more than the media's parsing of words. And if I'm giving them too much credit, my guess is much like the rest of the population, as many will find the honesty refreshing as those that find it "deplorable."
So, no. I don't think this sound bite effects the election one way or the other.
I do find it ironic that Jimmy Carter's grandson might have had a hand in getting this out. That is hysterical. The guy just won't let us be. He has to keep trying to ruin our lives....
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I heard that whole video clip this morning and I didn't see anything wrong with it.
He was asked what it would take to win and he's saying that it will be difficult because he believes there are 47% of people who will vote Obama/Democrat and nothing will change their minds.
He then went on to list the reasons he thinks that nothing will change their minds.
If someone isn't paying income tax - and I do believe the 47% number if we're only talking about INCOME tax - then it seems to me that they'd want to try and ensure that their status remains the same. The Democrats plans typically are aligned to ensure that it will.
Here is the problem jiving his 47% number and his statements together though. He is saying that he can't worry about 47% who will vote democratic... fair enough. But then saying that 47% is basically lazy, need the government to care for them, etc. is at best just inaccurate, and at worst, being an asshole. So everyone who votes for democrats fall in this group?
And the larger issue to me, is that he's basically saying that the 47% that don't pay any income tax, are the same 47% who will vote Democrat. This can't be further from the truth. There are a majority of retirees that don't pay income tax (and rely on gov't programs), and just based on demographics, they lean republican. There are a lot of rural voters who don't pay taxes (and are on some sort of gov't assistance) who lean towards republican.
To me, he comes off as completely uninformed, and as a big "We're" are better than "them" elitist.
Post edited by blackredyellow on
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Are you saying that you are never guilty of this? What makes you so smart and so special? How did you earn this right to be so damn patronizing?
Check the ego, my friend.
Who said I didn't think I was ever guilty of this? When you become self aware is when you see clarity in others' actions. Of course, there are times I do that. I'm sure you could dig a couple of my posts here out that would show me doing as such.
And even if I didn't know that, does that make my commentary any less true?
True. We all do it, but to dismiss everyone's feelings about this particular topic is rather rash.. (Just look at some of my posts on religion).
Self-awareness is the key to clarity, I agree. And, it is a difficult state of mind to attain. (These seem to be rather narcissistic days we are living in).
Your commentary is as true as you want it to be. Is it true of everyone who is "displeased" (to put it nicely) with this video? No, not at all.
Anyway, there is a trend on this board to immediately dismiss other people's views, and to sometimes insult. We are all guilty of it at some point. So, when I see comments that accuse people of being obtuse and stupid, I get a little upset (even though I may do it as well).
Cheers. I'll buy you a Knob Creek in the Lounge Car.
Not sure if someone else said this already b/c I only skimmed, but this is another example (as I have seen others say) that folks that have their mind made up, have it made up. Which is exactly what he was saying.
You're either being obtuse or stupid if you don't think what he meant was - when campaigning, I can't worry about the 47% that already have their mind made up against me. It doesn't refer to folks that don't pay taxes or whatever. That's the common % (or thereabouts) on BOTHS sides that have their minds made up. So, I guess he could have said, I don't have to worry about 94% of the electorate (which is basically true). Except he does have to motivate HIS 47% to get out and vote (and the tiny minority that are TRULY undecided and not the majority of us who like to pretend). Because, that's where this election will most likely lie. Whose voters are most motivated and how the TRUE independents vote. If you don't like honesty, well, not sure what to tell you.
But, if you're trying to interpret this as whatever his plans are he doesn't CARE about 47% of the population, you're either being willfully ignorant or are stupid.
Yes, he could have said it better. But, have a conversation with your friend and parse every syllabel you say, and I bet by the end, I could make you out as a racist, homo/hetero-phobic, child hating, old person hating, middle aged hating, misogynist you are(n't).
I certainly understand what you are saying and I agree to an extent. I mean, I am 100% sure there are times I say something that could come across to some as racist, but my track record suggests otherwise and everyone who knows me knows that I don't harbor any feelings like that.
And I understand that the entire point was that it has to do with campaigning, BUT, I would say the latter comments about not being personally responsible and dependent on the government are how he really does feel, and that is wrong to say that about almost half the country. While my track record suggests that I am far from racist even if I make a comment that can be taken that way, I think his track record suggests this is how he really feels. To me, he basically summarized what he has been saying all along but very bluntly, anyone who receives governement assistance is a leeche and moocher and will vote for democrats regardless so they can stay dependent on the government while doing nothing.
True. We all do it, but to dismiss everyone's feelings about this particular topic is rather rash.. (Just look at some of my posts on religion).
Self-awareness is the key to clarity, I agree. And, it is a difficult state of mind to attain. (These seem to be rather narcissistic days we are living in).
Your commentary is as true as you want it to be. Is it true of everyone who is "displeased" (to put it nicely) with this video? No, not at all.
Anyway, there is a trend on this board to immediately dismiss other people's views, and to sometimes insult. We are all guilty of it at some point. So, when I see comments that accuse people of being obtuse and stupid, I get a little upset (even though I may do it as well).
Cheers. I'll buy you a Knob Creek in the Lounge Car.
Sounds good. See you Friday afternoon.
But, I still don't see how anyone believes that a quote taken out of context on either side is going to impact the election more than the economy or the world being on fire (or preconceived notions).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I heard that whole video clip this morning and I didn't see anything wrong with it.
He was asked what it would take to win and he's saying that it will be difficult because he believes there are 47% of people who will vote Obama/Democrat and nothing will change their minds.
He then went on to list the reasons he thinks that nothing will change their minds.
If someone isn't paying income tax - and I do believe the 47% number if we're only talking about INCOME tax - then it seems to me that they'd want to try and ensure that their status remains the same. The Democrats plans typically are aligned to ensure that it will.
Here is the problem jiving his 47% number and his statements together though. He is saying that he can't worry about 47% who will vote democratic... fair enough. But then saying that 47% is basically lazy, need the government to care for them, etc. is at best just inaccurate, and at worst, being an asshole. So everyone who votes for democrats fall in this group?
And the larger issue to me, is that he's basically saying that the 47% that don't pay any income tax, are the same 47% who will vote Democrat. This can't be further from the truth. There are a lot of retirees that don't pay income tax (and rely on gov't programs), and just based on demographics, they lean republican. There are a lot of rural voters who don't pay taxes (and are on some sort of gov't assistance) who lean towards republican.
To me, he comes off as completely uninformed, and as a big of an "We're" better than "them" elitist.
Well put. Of course these individuals who were in the room with him always have the best interests of the serfs, I mean people, in mind. The bankers who engaged in damaging actions in the derivatives markets, who manipulated credit-default swaps and CDOs, the Wall St. types who have no problem driving up the costs of gas for the rest of the country.**** These individuals can do no wrong. It's always the "wretched of the country" who mooch and mooch and mooch as corporations send their jobs to China and India because of the big, bad, oppressive government. The same government that serves as the foundation of this capitalist country, and gives these individuals the freedom and opportunity to make the money that they make.
The serfs better get in line.
*****[Source: I have learned about the commodities markets for years, and I was on Wall St. all summer. My best friend has been on Wall St. for 10 years, and focuses on the oil markets. I have many friends and family members in theindustry]
I certainly understand what you are saying and I agree to an extent. I mean, I am 100% sure there are times I say something that could come across to some as racist, but my track record suggests otherwise and everyone who knows me knows that I don't harbor any feelings like that.
And I understand that the entire point was that it has to do with campaigning, BUT, I would say the latter comments about not being personally responsible and dependent on the government are how he really does feel, and that is wrong to say that about almost half the country. While my track record suggests that I am far from racist even if I make a comment that can be taken that way, I think his track record suggests this is how he really feels. To me, he basically summarized what he has been saying all along but very bluntly, anyone who receives governement assistance is a leeche and moocher and will vote for democrats regardless so they can stay dependent on the government while doing nothing.
His economic policy is to get everyone back to work. What's the problem with that?
I don't remember his platform being - if elected, I will leave 47% of people on welfare and not try to get them jobs. Funny thing is, that IS Obama's plan (or at least the RESULT of his plan so far). So, by what you're saying, you should actually be supporting Romney. And therein lies the problem.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.
In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.
Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.
COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.
In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.
Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.
.....
He should stand by these comments all the way to the election. He should double down. You know that this is exactly how Paul Ryan feels/thinks. And, if Romney sticks to his guns on these views, then he will have started a serious discussion that I would be interested in.
Stick to your guns, Mitt, and let's see what happens.
I did a little digging to back up my second paragraph above.
Romney basically lumped the 47% who don't pay taxes as the same 47% who will automatically vote for Obama, and basically called these 47% lazy people looking for handouts.
Check out this map... States with the highest number of the non-income tax paying 47%'ers are red states.
Calling them all worthless and lazy should really help his voter turnout in November.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I did a little digging to back up my second paragraph above.
Romney basically lumped the 47% who don't pay taxes as the same 47% who will automatically vote for Obama, and basically called these 47% lazy people looking for handouts.
Check out this map... States with the highest number of the non-income tax paying 47%'ers are red states.
Calling them all worthless and lazy should really help his voter turnout in November.
And I understand that argument to an extent. I certainly think there are efficiencies that need to made to unemployment and welfare, but to classify 47% of the country as not being self responsible is pretty sickening..
But there's no real quantifiable definition of "self-responsible". I actually think the number is probably higher, myself considering the average amount of debt figures I've seen for Americans. But....that's my own definition of not self-responsible.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
it's funny to hear everyone rationalize this guy's words and to give him the continuous benefit of the doubt ... and to always say he was misquoted or his words were taken out of context when the obvious reality is that he is a moron ...
he is running a campaign here and how many times per day is he allowed to say stupid things ... the fact of the matter is that he described democrats as people who feel they are are entitled to gov't assistance; that they are victims and that they are dependent on gov't ...
there really is no out of context here ... and even if there was - he's in a campaign now to be POTUS ... and he's doing a speech ... this wasn't some conversation recorded in a bathroom stall ... there is every reason to believe that whatever he said here would be conveyed to the public at large ...
look at all his gaffes ... the obvious reality is that he is a moron ... but hey - don't let your partisan beliefs get in the way of that ...
I did a little digging to back up my second paragraph above.
Romney basically lumped the 47% who don't pay taxes as the same 47% who will automatically vote for Obama, and basically called these 47% lazy people looking for handouts.
Check out this map... States with the highest number of the non-income tax paying 47%'ers are red states.
Calling them all worthless and lazy should really help his voter turnout in November.
p.s. I was fortunate enough to hear Blackredyellow at MSG in 2010! I hope you were there as well.
Unfortunately, was not there, but I saw it in London, ON during the '05 (I think) tour. I've seen "Why Go" several times :thumbup:
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I certainly understand what you are saying and I agree to an extent. I mean, I am 100% sure there are times I say something that could come across to some as racist, but my track record suggests otherwise and everyone who knows me knows that I don't harbor any feelings like that.
And I understand that the entire point was that it has to do with campaigning, BUT, I would say the latter comments about not being personally responsible and dependent on the government are how he really does feel, and that is wrong to say that about almost half the country. While my track record suggests that I am far from racist even if I make a comment that can be taken that way, I think his track record suggests this is how he really feels. To me, he basically summarized what he has been saying all along but very bluntly, anyone who receives governement assistance is a leeche and moocher and will vote for democrats regardless so they can stay dependent on the government while doing nothing.
His economic policy is to get everyone back to work. What's the problem with that?
I don't remember his platform being - if elected, I will leave 47% of people on welfare and not try to get them jobs. Funny thing is, that IS Obama's plan (or at least the RESULT of his plan so far). So, by what you're saying, you should actually be supporting Romney. And therein lies the problem.
Man, you twisted this in so many ways, and I don't agree at all with this. What exactly is his economic policy? You'd be the first to know it. He even said a campaign of details doesn't win elections.
The big lie that it's the democrats who are the poor, lazy ones who want the government handouts is just more bullshit that republicans tell their lazy handout-loving masses who vote for them.
Like telling the fat chick that she's pretty so she'll vote for you for prom queen.
And while I'm sure republicans will find some way of spinning it (they already have here, of course), the damage is done in the swing states like Ohio and Wisconsin where people have had that same "you're lazy" thing thrown at them before. While that might fire up the uneducated masses in Alabama, four years ago that whole "SOCIALIST!!!" thing didn't play very well in the swing states and it sure isn't playing very well there now.
Will this make a Huge difference? No, but it will certainly help solidify his image of an obnoxious rich blue blood who snobbishly refers to his employees as "the help" and talks about how it's just "the little people" who pay taxes.
For the record... I work my ass off. I work 18-hour days, have numerous projects going on at once and while I think it's tacky to talk about income... Let's say that I'm not in the bottom 47%. Saying that it's just poor people who are liberal is daft and wrong and just a big lie... We all know it. And it's certainly not going to help his chances when he's telling people that they're a bunch of lazy slobs.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,411
"lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and [Romeny] indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. "
Lump me into that definition and I'll laugh my ass off. Really, Mitt? This is just pathetic. And stupid. And fucked up. Jerk.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and [Romeny] indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. "
Lump me into that definition and I'll laugh my ass off. Really, Mitt? This is just pathetic. And stupid. And fucked up. Jerk.
HUGE generalizations there, for sure, on Mitt's part, Brian. I can see how one would be offended.
Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.
I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.
Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.
This has me wondering about all campaigns. It would be interesting to hear what is said behind closed doors.
Do you think the Obama campaign has openly talked about the % of people they believe won't vote for Obama due to race and to write them off? I bet so.
Really, while I honestly don't see the big deal, it certainly won't help his campaign since the majority love soundbites and vote based off of them alone. His campaign is a disaster, just as McCain's was. The repub. really have to gain back their political savvy if they want to win any big elections in the future.
Although I will say, it would be pretty sweet of we got rid of all political savvy and instead of spin running elections we actually focused on the issues and what people really mean to say rather than what a soundbite makes them sound like they are saying.
Mitt was done before this though, so I don't think it really matters.
Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.
I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.
Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.
If that is really his attitude towards half the population, he is a very dangerous man to have as President.... it makes him look kind of evil and sick too, which doesn't help. :?
Still got a shitload left to read here, but...evil and sick? I appreciated his honesty, and his standing by his comments.
(and you, my dear, are typically more level-headed than that!)
Anyway, I recall Obama (on more than one occasion) writing off half the population as well - as in, those who disagree with him.
I don't want divisiveness on either side. It's not needed. It does no good.
Tell me what YOU are going to do. If you've got a solid plan, there's no need to bash someone else in the process.
(I am SO looking forward to the time between now and early November!)
Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.
I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.
Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.
It won't be a tight election night.
Maybe, but the American electorate has surprised me more than once. Nothing is certain.
Comments
Who said I didn't think I was ever guilty of this? When you become self aware is when you see clarity in others' actions. Of course, there are times I do that. I'm sure you could dig a couple of my posts here out that would show me doing as such.
And even if I didn't know that, does that make my commentary any less true?
Anyhoo - I don't think it effects anything either way. As I (and he) said - most of the electorate does have their minds made up. And the independents that don't are probably looking at their pocket book more than the media's parsing of words. And if I'm giving them too much credit, my guess is much like the rest of the population, as many will find the honesty refreshing as those that find it "deplorable."
So, no. I don't think this sound bite effects the election one way or the other.
I do find it ironic that Jimmy Carter's grandson might have had a hand in getting this out. That is hysterical. The guy just won't let us be. He has to keep trying to ruin our lives....
Here is the problem jiving his 47% number and his statements together though. He is saying that he can't worry about 47% who will vote democratic... fair enough. But then saying that 47% is basically lazy, need the government to care for them, etc. is at best just inaccurate, and at worst, being an asshole. So everyone who votes for democrats fall in this group?
And the larger issue to me, is that he's basically saying that the 47% that don't pay any income tax, are the same 47% who will vote Democrat. This can't be further from the truth. There are a majority of retirees that don't pay income tax (and rely on gov't programs), and just based on demographics, they lean republican. There are a lot of rural voters who don't pay taxes (and are on some sort of gov't assistance) who lean towards republican.
To me, he comes off as completely uninformed, and as a big "We're" are better than "them" elitist.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
True. We all do it, but to dismiss everyone's feelings about this particular topic is rather rash.. (Just look at some of my posts on religion).
Self-awareness is the key to clarity, I agree. And, it is a difficult state of mind to attain. (These seem to be rather narcissistic days we are living in).
Your commentary is as true as you want it to be. Is it true of everyone who is "displeased" (to put it nicely) with this video? No, not at all.
Anyway, there is a trend on this board to immediately dismiss other people's views, and to sometimes insult. We are all guilty of it at some point. So, when I see comments that accuse people of being obtuse and stupid, I get a little upset (even though I may do it as well).
Cheers. I'll buy you a Knob Creek in the Lounge Car.
I certainly understand what you are saying and I agree to an extent. I mean, I am 100% sure there are times I say something that could come across to some as racist, but my track record suggests otherwise and everyone who knows me knows that I don't harbor any feelings like that.
And I understand that the entire point was that it has to do with campaigning, BUT, I would say the latter comments about not being personally responsible and dependent on the government are how he really does feel, and that is wrong to say that about almost half the country. While my track record suggests that I am far from racist even if I make a comment that can be taken that way, I think his track record suggests this is how he really feels. To me, he basically summarized what he has been saying all along but very bluntly, anyone who receives governement assistance is a leeche and moocher and will vote for democrats regardless so they can stay dependent on the government while doing nothing.
Sounds good. See you Friday afternoon.
But, I still don't see how anyone believes that a quote taken out of context on either side is going to impact the election more than the economy or the world being on fire (or preconceived notions).
Well put. Of course these individuals who were in the room with him always have the best interests of the serfs, I mean people, in mind. The bankers who engaged in damaging actions in the derivatives markets, who manipulated credit-default swaps and CDOs, the Wall St. types who have no problem driving up the costs of gas for the rest of the country.**** These individuals can do no wrong. It's always the "wretched of the country" who mooch and mooch and mooch as corporations send their jobs to China and India because of the big, bad, oppressive government. The same government that serves as the foundation of this capitalist country, and gives these individuals the freedom and opportunity to make the money that they make.
The serfs better get in line.
*****[Source: I have learned about the commodities markets for years, and I was on Wall St. all summer. My best friend has been on Wall St. for 10 years, and focuses on the oil markets. I have many friends and family members in theindustry]
His economic policy is to get everyone back to work. What's the problem with that?
I don't remember his platform being - if elected, I will leave 47% of people on welfare and not try to get them jobs. Funny thing is, that IS Obama's plan (or at least the RESULT of his plan so far). So, by what you're saying, you should actually be supporting Romney. And therein lies the problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-stands-comments-video-says-were-not-elegantly-032830339--election.html
COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.
In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.
Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.
.....
He should stand by these comments all the way to the election. He should double down. You know that this is exactly how Paul Ryan feels/thinks. And, if Romney sticks to his guns on these views, then he will have started a serious discussion that I would be interested in.
Stick to your guns, Mitt, and let's see what happens.
:corn:
Romney basically lumped the 47% who don't pay taxes as the same 47% who will automatically vote for Obama, and basically called these 47% lazy people looking for handouts.
Check out this map... States with the highest number of the non-income tax paying 47%'ers are red states.
Calling them all worthless and lazy should really help his voter turnout in November.
Source: http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/sta ... -liability
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Brooks doesn't let up. I love the title of this article: "Thurston Howell Romney."
Nice find, blackredyellow.
p.s. I was fortunate enough to hear Blackredyellow at MSG in 2010! I hope you were there as well.
Obama was right.
But there's no real quantifiable definition of "self-responsible". I actually think the number is probably higher, myself considering the average amount of debt figures I've seen for Americans. But....that's my own definition of not self-responsible.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
he is running a campaign here and how many times per day is he allowed to say stupid things ... the fact of the matter is that he described democrats as people who feel they are are entitled to gov't assistance; that they are victims and that they are dependent on gov't ...
there really is no out of context here ... and even if there was - he's in a campaign now to be POTUS ... and he's doing a speech ... this wasn't some conversation recorded in a bathroom stall ... there is every reason to believe that whatever he said here would be conveyed to the public at large ...
look at all his gaffes ... the obvious reality is that he is a moron ... but hey - don't let your partisan beliefs get in the way of that ...
“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism.
A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden.
Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.”
- Jason Read
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Man, you twisted this in so many ways, and I don't agree at all with this. What exactly is his economic policy? You'd be the first to know it. He even said a campaign of details doesn't win elections.
Like telling the fat chick that she's pretty so she'll vote for you for prom queen.
And while I'm sure republicans will find some way of spinning it (they already have here, of course), the damage is done in the swing states like Ohio and Wisconsin where people have had that same "you're lazy" thing thrown at them before. While that might fire up the uneducated masses in Alabama, four years ago that whole "SOCIALIST!!!" thing didn't play very well in the swing states and it sure isn't playing very well there now.
Will this make a Huge difference? No, but it will certainly help solidify his image of an obnoxious rich blue blood who snobbishly refers to his employees as "the help" and talks about how it's just "the little people" who pay taxes.
For the record... I work my ass off. I work 18-hour days, have numerous projects going on at once and while I think it's tacky to talk about income... Let's say that I'm not in the bottom 47%. Saying that it's just poor people who are liberal is daft and wrong and just a big lie... We all know it. And it's certainly not going to help his chances when he's telling people that they're a bunch of lazy slobs.
Lump me into that definition and I'll laugh my ass off. Really, Mitt? This is just pathetic. And stupid. And fucked up. Jerk.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
HUGE generalizations there, for sure, on Mitt's part, Brian. I can see how one would be offended.
Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.
I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.
Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.
Do you think the Obama campaign has openly talked about the % of people they believe won't vote for Obama due to race and to write them off? I bet so.
Really, while I honestly don't see the big deal, it certainly won't help his campaign since the majority love soundbites and vote based off of them alone. His campaign is a disaster, just as McCain's was. The repub. really have to gain back their political savvy if they want to win any big elections in the future.
Although I will say, it would be pretty sweet of we got rid of all political savvy and instead of spin running elections we actually focused on the issues and what people really mean to say rather than what a soundbite makes them sound like they are saying.
Mitt was done before this though, so I don't think it really matters.
It won't be a tight election night.
(and you, my dear, are typically more level-headed than that!)
Anyway, I recall Obama (on more than one occasion) writing off half the population as well - as in, those who disagree with him.
I don't want divisiveness on either side. It's not needed. It does no good.
Tell me what YOU are going to do. If you've got a solid plan, there's no need to bash someone else in the process.
(I am SO looking forward to the time between now and early November!)
Maybe, but the American electorate has surprised me more than once. Nothing is certain.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rticles%29
hey ... this guy must be obtuse and stupid ... i mean it's pretty clear mitt's words were taken out of context!