PDA

View Full Version : Obama Campaign Shifts Strategy



IMPress Polly
10-05-2012, 06:33 AM
I thought this report was easily one of the best from yesterday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49296865) The day after the first presidential debate, the Obama campaign appears to be shifting from an earlier focus on casting Romney as a right wing extremist to instead focus on casting Romney as perpetually dishonest. As Chris Hayes aptly points out, it appears to be a strategic shift that matches with one of Romney's own that was on display the other day in the first debate. Romney therein pivoted to a range of positions more centrist than those that appear in his own platform (which yes I have read) and on which he has been running up to this point. This renders it more difficult to continue casting him as an ideological extremist in the same way as before. However, it makes it much easier to instead cast him as dishonest. I think this is a good and timely strategic shift of necessity on the part of the Obama camp. Not only do I believe that we will likely see it on display in the presidential debates to come, but we are already seeing it on display on the campaign trail, as you'll see in the linked video.

Just giving you something to watch for.

Larry Dickman
10-05-2012, 06:50 AM
Nothing will plug the holes of SS OhBama. It hit an iceberg in Colorado named Cool Romney and is sinking to the bottom of the sea of Democrat history.

Your vote fell on deaf ears, Polly. Get used to saying President Romney as of next month.

Mainecoons
10-05-2012, 07:10 AM
Anything but having to face the gross failure of his policies and ideas, eh Polly?

Captain Obvious
10-05-2012, 08:33 AM
He started hinting that this shift during the debate when he stated that Romney "used to take the position of... but now" or something like that, and furthered that statement immediately after the debate.

Agravan
10-05-2012, 08:37 AM
I thought this report was easily one of the best from yesterday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49296865) The day after the first presidential debate, the Obama campaign appears to be shifting from an earlier focus on casting Romney as a right wing extremist to instead focus on casting Romney as perpetually dishonest. As Chris Hayes aptly points out, it appears to be a strategic shift that matches with one of Romney's own that was on display the other day in the first debate. Romney therein pivoted to a range of positions more centrist than those that appear in his own platform (which yes I have read) and on which he has been running up to this point. This renders it more difficult to continue casting him as an ideological extremist in the same way as before. However, it makes it much easier to instead cast him as dishonest. I think this is a good and timely strategic shift of necessity on the part of the Obama camp. Not only do I believe that we will likely see it on display in the presidential debates to come, but we are already seeing it on display on the campaign trail, as you'll see in the linked video.

Just giving you something to watch for.

On the other hand, obama will continue with his own campaign of dishonesty, right Polly?

Cigar
10-05-2012, 08:49 AM
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/528545_471774019523206_446451509_n.jpg

coolwalker
10-05-2012, 09:04 AM
He started hinting that this shift during the debate when he stated that Romney "used to take the position of... but now" or something like that, and furthered that statement immediately after the debate.

What you are saying is that he doesn't think well on his feet. Maybe that chair is empty after all!

Cigar
10-05-2012, 09:10 AM
What you are saying is that he doesn't think well on his feet. Maybe that chair is empty after all!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/8055427618_b55b97e633.jpg

coolwalker
10-05-2012, 09:26 AM
Cartoons are for children. Grow up Cigar or go play with your GI Joe doll.

GrassrootsConservative
10-05-2012, 09:28 AM
Cigar, Obama didn't kill Osama, he just took the turban off and changed the 's' in his name to a 'b'.

Deadwood
10-05-2012, 09:48 AM
I thought this report was easily one of the best from yesterday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49296865) The day after the first presidential debate, the Obama campaign appears to be shifting from an earlier focus on casting Romney as a right wing extremist to instead focus on casting Romney as perpetually dishonest. As Chris Hayes aptly points out, it appears to be a strategic shift that matches with one of Romney's own that was on display the other day in the first debate. Romney therein pivoted to a range of positions more centrist than those that appear in his own platform (which yes I have read) and on which he has been running up to this point. This renders it more difficult to continue casting him as an ideological extremist in the same way as before. However, it makes it much easier to instead cast him as dishonest. I think this is a good and timely strategic shift of necessity on the part of the Obama camp. Not only do I believe that we will likely see it on display in the presidential debates to come, but we are already seeing it on display on the campaign trail, as you'll see in the linked video.

Just giving you something to watch for.



That is in no way surprising. They have been languishing in a statistical dead heat since Romney's nomination, despite his gaffes and their attack ads.

Now they have had their heads handed to them. Desperate before, they are against the wall...expect things to get nasty, nasty, nasty.

I suspect though, they have fired their best payload with the 47%b which barely made a dent.

They were desperate, IMO, before, that means they are dangerous now.

Deadwood
10-05-2012, 09:54 AM
Nothing will plug the holes of SS OhBama. It hit an iceberg in Colorado named Cool Romney and is sinking to the bottom of the sea of Democrat history.

Your vote fell on deaf ears, Polly. Get used to saying President Romney as of next month.


And they were blown away. Even the cheer leaders, the view, CNN, MSNBC are still in shock. They under estimated how prepared Romney would be and figured Obama's 'rock star' status would carry the day.

If the no eye contact business was a strategy, then Obama failed to execute effectively and came out looking like a two bit grifter shill.

Frankly, I think Obama hates Romney, as he would hate anyone who challenges his authority and he can't help himself.

However, it ain't over till its over. Romney is gaffe prone and he has a lot of miles to cover before the finish line....trust that the Obama camp is waiting like hyenas in the jungle. And if they can't find anything on which to pounce, they will invent it like the 47% fiasco.

It's going to get really ugly folks. Get the rain suits out because shit splatters and the Obama camp has a lot of it.

patrickt
10-05-2012, 10:00 AM
The Obama Campaign has been lying enough that they should have some expertise in pretending someone perpetually lies. President Obama has a tutor as a child to teach him to be black and to be a communist. Perhaps it's not to late for him to hire a tutor to teach him to be an American and how to work in a capitalist system and a democratic republic. All three of those seem to elude the man.

Cigar
10-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Cigar, Obama didn't kill Osama, he just took the turban off and changed the 's' in his name to a 'b'.

I understand your anger :)

You'll get over it.

Larry Dickman
10-05-2012, 10:21 AM
And they were blown away. Even the cheer leaders, the view, CNN, MSNBC are still in shock. They under estimated how prepared Romney would be and figured Obama's 'rock star' status would carry the day.

If the no eye contact business was a strategy, then Obama failed to execute effectively and came out looking like a two bit grifter shill.

Frankly, I think Obama hates Romney, as he would hate anyone who challenges his authority and he can't help himself.

However, it ain't over till its over. Romney is gaffe prone and he has a lot of miles to cover before the finish line....trust that the Obama camp is waiting like hyenas in the jungle. And if they can't find anything on which to pounce, they will invent it like the 47% fiasco.

It's going to get really ugly folks. Get the rain suits out because shit splatters and the Obama camp has a lot of it.

I agree, but there has been a clear and powerful shift in momentum. That is huge because it doesn't mean a bump up, it means a change in voter attitude about Romney. THAT creates a massive uphill climb for the incumbent and it's awfully late in the game for Team Oh to try and put the breaks on Locomotive Mitt. Since the abysmal showing by Oh at the party, the common theme is that he will bring his A Game to the next duel. I don't think he has an A Game, just a thin skin that makes him incapable of being tough without presenting petulance. The only element that leans Oh in the next debate is the reatrded "Town Hall" format that favors populist nonsensical bullshit set-up questions. That's when the pro abortion, free birth control, and anti capitalist kidz come out to play.

Cigar
10-05-2012, 10:43 AM
ohio ! :)

coolwalker
10-05-2012, 11:58 AM
ohio ! :)

Ha...new news from the absentee ballots from Ohio show Romney moving ahead of Obama...so try another state, like maybe the state of confusion!

Peter1469
10-05-2012, 05:50 PM
I thought this report was easily one of the best from yesterday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/49297086#49296865) The day after the first presidential debate, the Obama campaign appears to be shifting from an earlier focus on casting Romney as a right wing extremist to instead focus on casting Romney as perpetually dishonest. As Chris Hayes aptly points out, it appears to be a strategic shift that matches with one of Romney's own that was on display the other day in the first debate. Romney therein pivoted to a range of positions more centrist than those that appear in his own platform (which yes I have read) and on which he has been running up to this point. This renders it more difficult to continue casting him as an ideological extremist in the same way as before. However, it makes it much easier to instead cast him as dishonest. I think this is a good and timely strategic shift of necessity on the part of the Obama camp. Not only do I believe that we will likely see it on display in the presidential debates to come, but we are already seeing it on display on the campaign trail, as you'll see in the linked video.

Just giving you something to watch for.

The linked "news" cast starts by mischaracterizing Mitt's 47% remark. It states that Mitt was talking down to the 47%. No he wasn't. He stated that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes are likely not going to vote for someone who wants to lower federal income tax rates. On Hannity, Mitt said that he could have been more articulate.

Right, and right.

URF8
10-05-2012, 07:32 PM
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/528545_471774019523206_446451509_n.jpg

Thug..............

URF8
10-05-2012, 07:33 PM
Cigar, Obama didn't kill Osama, he just took the turban off and changed the 's' in his name to a 'b'.

Cigar is trying to provoke Muslims just like that piece of shit Obama.



INFRACTION ISSUED FOR REPEATED HARASSMENT OF MEMBER

URF8
10-05-2012, 07:36 PM
What does Obama believe in? Social justice as reparations for grievances. The problem is that Obama wants to take a piece of my hide and give it to a different tribe.

Akula
10-05-2012, 07:56 PM
Polly voted early.... she didn't need to see any debates, her mind was already made up, she said.

Peter1469
10-05-2012, 08:06 PM
Polly voted early.... she didn't need to see any debates, her mind was already made up, she said.

She is a communist- what are the debates going to do for her?

Akula
10-05-2012, 08:14 PM
She is a communist- what are the debates going to do for her?

Well, you're right, I know.

Youngsters are always idealists and communism seems like such a great idea...in theory. Everyone is happy and no one goes without anything and everyone is "equal" and they all get free lollipops and unicorn rides....
Ask anyone who lived behind the iron curtain how great an idea it is, though.

Deadwood
10-05-2012, 08:20 PM
Well, you're right, I know.

Youngsters are always idealists and communism seems like such a great idea...in theory. Everyone is happy and no one goes without anything and everyone is "equal" and they all get free lollipops and unicorn rides....
Ask anyone who lived behind the iron curtain how great an idea it is, though.

Yeah, ask the Poles who escaped the reign of the USSR and now live in Canada.

From those accounts, the were two kinds of people - the insiders in the Communist Party who had good jobs, nice apartments, fine cloths and reliable cars. Then there were the peasants who worked the soil and practically starved. I know one woman whose husband was "disappeared" because he complained they could not get tractor parts and had to work the soil by hand for seven years.

She was declared a widow at 38 nine years after he disappeared.

Peter1469
10-05-2012, 08:25 PM
My soon to be ex wife grew up in the Soviet Union. She knows what communism does to a society. Unfortunately she votes D only because of womyn's issues. A shallow reason that will result in something similar to the USSR, IMO.

IMPress Polly
10-06-2012, 06:59 AM
Peter wrote:
The linked "news" cast starts by mischaracterizing Mitt's 47% remark. It states that Mitt was talking down to the 47%. No he wasn't. He stated that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes are likely not going to vote for someone who wants to lower federal income tax rates. On Hannity, Mitt said that he could have been more articulate.

Right, and right.

To point out the obvious, even Mitt Romney himself, as plainly shown in the OP's linked video, has now totally backed away from his 47% remarks, characterizing them as having been quote "completely wrong". It is interesting then that you still defend the remarks in question, though the person who offered them in the first place does not.

Yes he WAS talking down to roughly half the population. He plainly stated that those too poor to pay income taxes* are people who don't take responsibility for their lives. (Quote: "I'll never convince them to take responsibility for their lives.") How is that NOT demeaning?

* Duly note that while Mr. Romney was describing Americans too poor to pay income taxes as Obama supporters, in truth, as I have shown in another thread, most of them are likely Romney voters in reality. This is probably precisely the reason why the candidate has now finally (and very wisely) decided to back away from them: he figured that out the hard way.


She is a communist- what are the debates going to do for her?

As I have gone to great lengths (practically a whole paper's worth of effort) to detail in a recent thread why that is not necessarily the case anymore. I still consider myself a Marxist and a (democratic) socialist, but have of late come to a place of being undecided on the specific subject of communism. I know what you meant in essence, but just thought I'd clarify on that point.


Akula wrote:
Polly voted early.... she didn't need to see any debates, her mind was already made up, she said.

Of course it was! My decision on who to vote for was easier than Super Mario 64. (In other words, it was very easy.) I'm not an enormous fan of everything President Obama has done and disagree with him on a lot of issues (especially foreign policy), but when I dare to compare him to Romney, my preference isn't even a contested matter. Mitt Romney is the human embodiment of Wall Street; pretty much the antithesis of everything I stand for. I'm a socialist. I'm NOT voting to elect Wall Street president!

Mitt Romney is a pampered, cradle-to-grave zillionaire aristocrat who somehow has the audacity to complain of the evils of entitlement mentality amongst...the poor! He's probably never done an honest day's work in his life. Whatever of his fortune he didn't inherit he acquired by stealing from American workers (perhaps by outsourcing their jobs to other countries) and by exploiting and bankrupting even many other capitalists! (I despise private equity.) His campaign is financed almost exclusively by the wealthy, and especially by Wall Street.

Obama isn't exactly radical, but his policies have made major strides toward restructuring this country as a net exporting nation, he supports and has enacted a significant measure of health care reform, he has at least somewhat challenged Wall Street legislatively, and he's not interested in privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Plus he's not a habitual liar. And all of that is to say nothing of cultural issues, on which I also broadly agree with the president's positions and disagree with Romney's. In my mind, there's no contest as to which candidate is better for the masses.

Granted that most of my friends (who are almost invariably fellow Marxists) will not be voting in this election and that those who are are generally voting for third party candidates...but I consider myself more serious and results-oriented than that. Let's face it: as things presently stand, only the Democratic and Republican Party candidates have any chance at all of winning the presidency. Unlike my friends generally, I'd rather cast a vote that counts than a protest vote.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 07:04 AM
She is a communist- what are the debates going to do for her?

and your mind has not already made up?

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 08:01 AM
and your mind has not already made up?

No, not really. I am on the fence. I may vote 3rd party. Or for Mitt. I think he is too liberal.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:06 AM
why cant you make up your mind?


why is Obama not on your list?

Akula
10-06-2012, 08:14 AM
To point out the obvious, even Mitt Romney himself, as plainly shown in the OP's linked video, has now totally backed away from his 47% remarks, characterizing them as having been quote "completely wrong". It is interesting then that you still defend the remarks in question, though the person who offered them in the first place does not.

Yes he WAS talking down to roughly half the population. He plainly stated that those too poor to pay income taxes* are people who don't take responsibility for their lives. (Quote: "I'll never convince them to take responsibility for their lives.") How is that NOT demeaning?

* Duly note that while Mr. Romney was describing Americans too poor to pay income taxes as Obama supporters, in truth, as I have shown in another thread, most of them are likely Romney voters in reality. This is probably precisely the reason why the candidate has now finally (and very wisely) decided to back away from them: he figured that out the hard way.



As I have gone to great lengths (practically a whole paper's worth of effort) to detail in a recent thread why that is not necessarily the case anymore. I still consider myself a Marxist and a (democratic) socialist, but have of late come to a place of being undecided on the specific subject of communism. I know what you meant in essence, but just thought I'd clarify on that point.



Of course it was! My decision on who to vote for was easier than Super Mario 64. (In other words, it was very easy.) I'm not an enormous fan of everything President Obama has done and disagree with him on a lot of issues (especially foreign policy), but when I dare to compare him to Romney, my preference isn't even a contested matter. Mitt Romney is the human embodiment of Wall Street; pretty much the antithesis of everything I stand for. I'm a socialist. I'm NOT voting to elect Wall Street president!

Mitt Romney is a pampered, cradle-to-grave zillionaire aristocrat who somehow has the audacity to complain of the evils of entitlement mentality amongst...the poor! He's probably never done an honest day's work in his life. Whatever of his fortune he didn't inherit he acquired by stealing from American workers (perhaps by outsourcing their jobs to other countries) and by exploiting and bankrupting even many other capitalists! (I despise private equity.) His campaign is financed almost exclusively by the wealthy, and especially by Wall Street.

Obama isn't exactly radical, but his policies have made major strides toward restructuring this country as a net exporting nation, he supports and has enacted a significant measure of health care reform, he has at least somewhat challenged Wall Street legislatively, and he's not interested in privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Plus he's not a habitual liar. And all of that is to say nothing of cultural issues, on which I also broadly agree with the president's positions and disagree with Romney's. In my mind, there's no contest as to which candidate is better for the masses.

Granted that most of my friends (who are almost invariably fellow Marxists) will not be voting in this election and that those who are are generally voting for third party candidates...but I consider myself more serious and results-oriented than that. Let's face it: as things presently stand, only the Democratic and Republican Party candidates have any chance at all of winning the presidency. Unlike my friends generally, I'd rather cast a vote that counts than a protest vote.

You purposely "misunderstand".He was talking about those who choose to remain on entitlements rather than work. You try to mischaracterize him as saying people too poor to pay taxes don't count.

The rest of it appears to be overly verbose marxist indoctrinated doubletalk.
Let's talk about taxes, though.
The government takes money from people who work (at gunpoint under threat of prison) and GIVES it away..FREE to a class of people who don't/won't work. That's where the 47% comment originated...You know good and well the man wasn't talking about senior citizens..Who have paid into the system all their lives for medicaid/medicare/retirement anyway. That's THEIR OWN MONEY they're receiving back...and it's a Ponzi scheme...You start work at say 18..you work until you're 65..or 67 now...paying into the system for social security, medicare, etc..etc..approximately 50 years of payments to the government...then you retire and live another 9 maybe 10 years..some more, some less..Some people die before they retire..regardless the government pays you YOUR OWN MONEY BACK for 10 years...The government has a net gain of 40 years worth of your money they took.
Romney wasn't talking about soldiers..They pay into the system also...
He was talking about generational welfare recipients and those that "work" the system for "free" money. They will NEVER vote for ANYONE who would threaten to reduce their "free" money.

It's typical propaganda tactic to take parts of a comment and purposely misconstrue and distort them to smear someone.

EDIT..I got sidetracked.

So..to make taxes more fair and prevent certain segments of society from taking advantage of the good nature of others, the best system would be to abolish the IRS and implement a national sales tax.
That way EVERYONE has "skin in the game" as they say...So, when the millionaire buys a yacht, he pays 15%..when the poor man buys a bicycle, he pays 15%. That along with SEVERE welfare and entitlement reform will HELP correct some of these problems...

Remember, though, the government spends 10 billion dollars per day...
If you people taxed the "hated 1%ers" 99% of THEIR money it STILL wouldn't run the government for a month.
At least if EVERYONE is paying taxes more people would be interested in the overall well being of the country rather than the 47% that say "gimme more free stuff"



Mitt Romney is a pampered, cradle-to-grave zillionaire aristocrat who somehow has the audacity to complain of the evils of entitlement mentality amongst...the poor! He's probably never done an honest day's work in his life. Whatever of his fortune he didn't inherit he acquired by stealing from American workers (perhaps by outsourcing their jobs to other countries) and by exploiting and bankrupting even many other capitalists! (I despise private equity.) His campaign is financed almost exclusively by the wealthy, and especially by Wall Street.
Distortion and uninformed bias. The man earned his money, ran companies, was Chairman of the Olympic Committee and was a state gov... He knows what he's doing. You hate wealthy people and are eaten up with class envy and jealousy to the point that you will chant the talking points without even bothering to make sure they're true or not.
Geez...second edit;

"Romney is the human embodiment of wall street"
Every advanced nation has a stock market and they always will. That's how real life works. People who think your business is sound and good will buy stock and obtain profit if they are right..It's how the real world works..and like everything humans do..Yes..including communism, socialism, marxism..etc..it becomes corrupted..some more than others...That's why there are laws and supervision in place.


Explain why your guy obama and the fed bailed out wall street and the banks? As a commie, you certainly must HATE that fact, right?

Here..check out some reality;
Romney dismisses Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing as ‘bailout’

September 14, 2012 at 4:10 AM by AHN (http://gantdaily.com/author/ahn/) · Leave a Comment (http://gantdaily.com/2012/09/14/romney-dismisses-federal-reserves-quantitative-easing-as-bailout/#respond)

Nathan Andrada – Fourth Estate Cooperative Contributor
Washington, DC, United States (4E) – The Romney campaign on Thursday called the latest move by the Federal Reserve of quantitative easing as “bailout” while other Republicans suggested that the action to boost the economy will politically advance President Barack this election season.
At a news conference in Iowa, Romney said that the American peopIe are looking for a kind of commitment from Washington that actually addresses the structural problems that make it difficult for the economic recovery to take off, some, he says, were placed by the Obama administration.
A top Romney adviser also criticized the decision by the Fed to launch a third round of quantitative easing also known as QE3.
Romney campaign policy adviser Lanhee Chen blasted the White House after the Fed announced it was purchasing mortgage-backed assets worth $40bn a month, saying that the Fed’s move is a confirmation that the president’s policies have failed.
Chen also said that the Fed’s approach to spur the economy by purchasing bonds are artificial and ineffective measures that only print dollars but do not create wealth

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:21 AM
your thin defense of Robmoneys distain for half of America will not work

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 08:22 AM
To point out the obvious, even Mitt Romney himself, as plainly shown in the OP's linked video, has now totally backed away from his 47% remarks, characterizing them as having been quote "completely wrong". It is interesting then that you still defend the remarks in question, though the person who offered them in the first place does not.

Yes he WAS talking down to roughly half the population. He plainly stated that those too poor to pay income taxes* are people who don't take responsibility for their lives. (Quote: "I'll never convince them to take responsibility for their lives.") How is that NOT demeaning?

* Duly note that while Mr. Romney was describing Americans too poor to pay income taxes as Obama supporters, in truth, as I have shown in another thread, most of them are likely Romney voters in reality. This is probably precisely the reason why the candidate has now finally (and very wisely) decided to back away from them: he figured that out the hard way.



As I have gone to great lengths (practically a whole paper's worth of effort) to detail in a recent thread why that is not necessarily the case anymore. I still consider myself a Marxist and a (democratic) socialist, but have of late come to a place of being undecided on the specific subject of communism. I know what you meant in essence, but just thought I'd clarify on that point.



Of course it was! My decision on who to vote for was easier than Super Mario 64. (In other words, it was very easy.) I'm not an enormous fan of everything President Obama has done and disagree with him on a lot of issues (especially foreign policy), but when I dare to compare him to Romney, my preference isn't even a contested matter. Mitt Romney is the human embodiment of Wall Street; pretty much the antithesis of everything I stand for. I'm a socialist. I'm NOT voting to elect Wall Street president!

Mitt Romney is a pampered, cradle-to-grave zillionaire aristocrat who somehow has the audacity to complain of the evils of entitlement mentality amongst...the poor! He's probably never done an honest day's work in his life. Whatever of his fortune he didn't inherit he acquired by stealing from American workers (perhaps by outsourcing their jobs to other countries) and by exploiting and bankrupting even many other capitalists! (I despise private equity.) His campaign is financed almost exclusively by the wealthy, and especially by Wall Street.

Obama isn't exactly radical, but his policies have made major strides toward restructuring this country as a net exporting nation, he supports and has enacted a significant measure of health care reform, he has at least somewhat challenged Wall Street legislatively, and he's not interested in privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Plus he's not a habitual liar. And all of that is to say nothing of cultural issues, on which I also broadly agree with the president's positions and disagree with Romney's. In my mind, there's no contest as to which candidate is better for the masses.

Granted that most of my friends (who are almost invariably fellow Marxists) will not be voting in this election and that those who are are generally voting for third party candidates...but I consider myself more serious and results-oriented than that. Let's face it: as things presently stand, only the Democratic and Republican Party candidates have any chance at all of winning the presidency. Unlike my friends generally, I'd rather cast a vote that counts than a protest vote.

Regarding Mitt's backtrack on his 47% remark: Mitt the man made the 47% comment. He was correct. He simply said that those who are not paying federal income taxes (really 46.2%) aren't going to get any immediate benefit from federal income tax cuts, so they aren't his audience. Mitt the politician is trying to walk that true statement back in order to not ruffle feathers of potential voters. I would chalk your explanation up to this difference between Mitt the man and Mitt the politician. But, as I have said in other contexts, the real story here is how the media attacked and spun Mitt the man's comments to make them much more offensive than they were. In fact that is why Obama did not dare bring the topic up in a debate were close to 70M Americans were watching. Mitt would have knocked that one out of the box.

Sorry for calling you a commie. I was careless. But in my defense, you should know that I lump all statists together into the "bad" category (politically, not personally). No offense intended.


but when I dare to compare him to Romney, my preference isn't even a contested matter. Mitt Romney is the human embodiment of Wall Street; pretty much the antithesis of everything I stand for. I'm a socialist. I'm NOT voting to elect Wall Street president!

This is my problem with Mitt as well. But, Obama deep down is also a creature of Wall Street. Sure his rhetoric is anti-Wall Street, but his actions are very pro-Wall Street. His federal reserve has propped up Wall Street for the last 4 years with QE 2 and now 3.


Mitt Romney is a pampered, cradle-to-grave zillionaire aristocrat who somehow has the audacity to complain of the evils of entitlement mentality amongst...the poor!

I have to call you out here, Polly. This is an untruth. Mitt got his money the hard way, he earned it. When his father died, he donated his inheritance. Both Fact Check dot org and the Washington Post fact checker have debunked the Obama meme that Bain Capital was a "vulture capitalist" outfit. Even democrat saints such as Bill Clinton have called Mitt's work at Bain great. Were it not for Mitt and Bain a lot more companies would have went bankrupt and a lot more workers would have gotten onto the government dole. Bain's success rate was around 80%.

If you had not already voted, I would have reminded you that I could offer you my services: I could call you first thing in the morning of Wednesday, November 7 and tell you that you need to get up and go vote! Aren't I great? :wink:

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 08:23 AM
why cant you make up your mind?


why is Obama not on your list?

Because he is a Statist.

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 08:25 AM
your thin defense of Robmoneys distain for half of America will not work

Romney doesn't "disdain" the lower 47%. The MSM says he does. He wants to help them get off the dole.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:28 AM
NO robmoney said he thinks they claim they are victims and want everyone else to pay for their food, housing, healthcare and such.


He said he can NEVER convince them to take responsibility.


That is distain no matter how much you lie about it

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:29 AM
Because he is a Statist.


define what you think that word means and why it applies to Obama in your mind

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 08:43 AM
define what you think that word means and why it applies to Obama in your mind

A Statist is a person who tends to answer any societal question with a government solution. The term includes communists, fascists, socialists, totalitarians, social democrats, green parties, etc. If you tend to think that your problem can be solved with another law, you are a Statist.

And it applies to Obama because he thinks that government is the solution, not the problem.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:46 AM
So you think our founders were statists?

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 08:50 AM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism



stat·ism noun \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\




Definition of STATISM : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Akula
10-06-2012, 08:55 AM
So you think our founders were statists?


Don't be ridiculous. You've never read much history, have you? Are you very young or very naive?
Here are just a handful of quotes from a great american..one of the founding fathers regarding big government.
I can get you more if these don't satisfy you.
Stop trying to be "cute" or "clever" and talk sense and maybe you will gain some respect around here...otherwise you'll continue to be treated as an insignificant troll


I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson


Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson


Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.-Thomas Jefferson


I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson


A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.-Thomas Jefferson


Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson

Akula
10-06-2012, 08:57 AM
..and here's one of my favorites from Mr. Jefferson..although apparently he NEVER said anything stupid..This one is particularly succinct;


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:01 AM
Don't be ridiculous. You've never read much history, have you? Are you very young or very naive?
Here are just a handful of quotes from a great american..one of the founding fathers regarding big government.
I can get you more if these don't satisfy you.
Stop trying to be "cute" or "clever" and talk sense and maybe you will gain some respect around here...otherwise you'll continue to be treated as an insignificant troll


I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson


Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson


Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.-Thomas Jefferson


I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson


A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.-Thomas Jefferson


Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson



quotes out of context does not explain what the exact issue is they were in response to.

Jefferson believed in democractic government .

do you deny he thought government was the solution that the people needed when he joined in wrting the constitution?

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 09:06 AM
So you think our founders were statists?

No. The Founders were not anarchists. There is a role for government. A small role.

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 09:07 AM
quotes out of context does not explain what the exact issue is they were in response to.

Jefferson believed in democractic government .

do you deny he thought government was the solution that the people needed when he joined in wrting the constitution?

Yes, but not to the extent that you do. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Realize that the States only gave the federal government the power to spend money over the stuff listed in Art. 1, sec. 8, U.S. Const.

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:12 AM
quotes out of context does not explain what the exact issue is they were in response to.

Jefferson believed in democractic government .

do you deny he thought government was the solution that the people needed when he joined in wrting the constitution?

The constitution was written to form a new government after winning the revolutionary war. The only other option is anarchy and no one wants to live that way. It's how the real world works. The man ( and every other founding father) obviously were trying to prevent the thing they just overthrew (big government) from happening again in their new country.

That's just ridiculous and offensive to try to smear and distort Thomas Jefferson. You reveal more about yourself when you make such outrageous statements.

LMAO..so the man didn't mean what he said and only YOU really understand his TRUE, HIDDEN meaning?

You are most definitely an insignificant troll.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:12 AM
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html)

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157223.html)
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#bR2CkZMKqIHPIPBJ.99

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:14 AM
The constitution was written to form a new government after winning the revolutionary war. The only other option is anarchy and no one wants to live that way. It's how the real world works. The man ( and every other founding father) obviously were trying to prevent the thing they just overthrew (big government) from happening again in their new country.

That's just ridiculous and offensive to try to smear and distort Thomas Jefferson. You reveal more about yourself when you make such outrageous statements.

LMAO..so the man didn't mean what he said and only YOU really understand his TRUE, HIDDEN meaning?

You are most definitely an insignificant troll.

It is YOU who selectively swallow frim right wing sources without investigating YOURSELF the man and his thoughts who are quilty of what you claim I am

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:16 AM
Yes, but not to the extent that you do. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Realize that the States only gave the federal government the power to spend money over the stuff listed in Art. 1, sec. 8, U.S. Const.



why do you pretend the founders did Not leave us the ability to make the government fit our needs and times?

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:17 AM
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html)

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157223.html)
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#bR2CkZMKqIHPIPBJ.99

Yes?
Relevance?
You have some point you're struggling to make here?

Now if I were immature or trying to deflect and take attention away from the fact that I said something stupid and needed a way to hide, I could turn around and say exactly what you just did "
quotes out of context does not explain what the exact issue is they were in response to.

...but I don't. Mr. Jefferson knew what he was talking about and had great vision and understanding of human nature.

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:19 AM
why do you pretend the founders did Not leave us the ability to make the government fit our needs and times?

Meaningless garble and doubletalk.
If you have a point, make it. We aren't going to run in circles all day chasing you just because you need the attention.

KC
10-06-2012, 09:20 AM
why do you pretend the founders did Not leave us the ability to make the government fit our needs and times?

They did allow us this ability, by amendments to the constitution or by making the government fit our needs at the state level. It's not too complicated.

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:23 AM
It is YOU who selectively swallow frim right wing sources without investigating YOURSELF the man and his thoughts who are quilty of what you claim I am

Thomas Jefferson said what he said. It was witnessed, recorded and there are copies from his own writings. Whether or not it's inconvenient for you is irrelevant.
All you're doing is circling around and around with no point other than seeking attention.

LMAO..I have to say, to try to disparage Thomas Jefferson is the lowest of lows I've ever seen any troll stoop to.
That borders on mental illness..seriously...Smearing Thomas Jefferson?..wow...That's bad....

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:25 AM
then why do you claim he did not harbor a great distrust of the wealthy and corporate world?

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:25 AM
They did allow us this ability, by amendments to the constitution or by making the government fit our needs at the state level. It's not too complicated.



Oh they only left that ability to the individual states?

REALLY?

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:33 AM
then why do you claim he did not harbor a great distrust of the wealthy and corporate world?

Who are you addressing?

IMPress Polly
10-06-2012, 09:36 AM
Akula wrote:
You hate wealthy people and are eaten up with class envy and jealousy to the point that you will chant the talking points without even bothering to make sure they're true or not.

Not even close. I have no desire to be rich. I don't think there should be a 'rich class' at all. I am of the conviction that poverty should not exist and that its continued existence is mainly the result of economic exploitation and inequality (two generally related things).

I hate exploitation and suffering and have little regard for those who survive by causing those things. That much is true.

KC
10-06-2012, 09:36 AM
Oh they only left that ability to the individual states?

REALLY?

No, they also left it to the nation through the amendment process. It's been pretty useful, I've heard they used it something like 27 times already ;)

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:40 AM
yes my friend that was my point.

People on the right pretend it is frozen in time.

its not

KC
10-06-2012, 09:42 AM
yes my friend that was my point.

People on the right pretend it is frozen in time.

its not

So do you agree that we must either eliminate all programs that are not under the scope of federal power or if not amend the constitution so that they are within the scope of federal power?

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:46 AM
I believe the SCOTUS has already decided that one my friend

Akula
10-06-2012, 09:52 AM
Not even close. I have no desire to be rich. I don't think there should be a 'rich class' at all. I am of the conviction that poverty should not exist and that its continued existence is mainly the result of economic exploitation and inequality (two generally related things).

I hate exploitation and suffering and have little regard for those who survive by causing those things. That much is true.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' "
–Phelps Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelps_Adams)

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:55 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/obituaries/phelps-h-adams-88-writer-and-executive.html


is he your hero?

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:58 AM
There is no such thing as a "self-made" man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us, or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered into the make-up of our character and of our thoughts, as well as our success.

did you know he also said this


http://quotableonline.com/PhelpsAdams.html

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 09:59 AM
I guess he knows he didnt build that

Akula
10-06-2012, 10:01 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/obituaries/phelps-h-adams-88-writer-and-executive.html


is he your hero?

That is a very wise comment he made.
I'm not sure it was "heroic"...just accurate and intelligent.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 10:03 AM
which one?

Akula
10-06-2012, 10:06 AM
I guess he knows he didnt build that

I suppose that's one way to purposely misconstrue his comment.
Don't look at the obvious...look for a way to twist and distort so you can post something inflammatory and further display your need for attention....

Akula
10-06-2012, 10:08 AM
which one?

Short attention span, too?

.....but for now, since obviously you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it.

I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread and make an effort to be sensible before commenting so we can avoid redundant, mundane repetition. If you don't remember what I quoted, I'm not running in circles for your amusement.

I am not going to continue to talk with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
At this point, it's clear you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should probably go elsewhere.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 10:09 AM
why are you pretending Im insulting you when its you who are throwing insults?

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 10:11 AM
"you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it."



where this morning have I said ANYTHING to you reaching this level of personal insult?

Akula
10-06-2012, 10:21 AM
why are you pretending Im insulting you when its you who are throwing insults?

Child, please. You lack the skill and intellect to insult me. ..but..you do somehow manage to turn every conversation into being all about "you" if anyone tries to engage you in coherent discussion.
I'm over it.

Declare victory if you like. I'm above it all. I'm not running in circles with you any more.
You're too dishonest, self absorbed and needy to spend any more of my time letting you choose the direction every conversation takes as you desperately twist, skew, deflect and dodge each time you get exposed as a fool.

Save your response..I'll never see it anyway. You're on ignore.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 10:24 AM
Im not allowed to insult people.

KC
10-06-2012, 11:59 AM
I believe the SCOTUS has already decided that one my friend

Wait. I didn't ask what the supreme court thought. The Supreme Court is fallible. I asked what you thought.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 12:13 PM
I think its perfectly legal

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:30 PM
why do you pretend the founders did Not leave us the ability to make the government fit our needs and times?

Right. You are referring to Article V. :wink: Can't get anything passed you!

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 12:34 PM
what is that supposed to mean.

being a strict constructionist is a bog of right wing pucky

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:35 PM
then why do you claim he did not harbor a great distrust of the wealthy and corporate world?

He was disdainful of the mercantilism- that was really the cause of the American revolt. Today it is similar to what we see with the large multinational corporations. I think on this issue, you me, and Polly agree.

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:36 PM
Not even close. I have no desire to be rich. I don't think there should be a 'rich class' at all. I am of the conviction that poverty should not exist and that its continued existence is mainly the result of economic exploitation and inequality (two generally related things).

I hate exploitation and suffering and have little regard for those who survive by causing those things. That much is true.

How much force from Government is acceptable to achieve this goal?

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:36 PM
I believe the SCOTUS has already decided that one my friend

Help out a dullard..., provide some case citations.

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:38 PM
There is no such thing as a "self-made" man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us, or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered into the make-up of our character and of our thoughts, as well as our success.

did you know he also said this


http://quotableonline.com/PhelpsAdams.html

You didn't make that.....

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:42 PM
what is that supposed to mean.

being a strict constructionist is a bog of right wing pucky

Really, you aren't familiar with Article V, U.S. Constitution. Let me consult Algore's amazing Internets via google so that I can cut and paste the exact quote; hold on:


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Those crafty Founders..., they though of everything. :wink:

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 12:44 PM
Im not allowed to insult people.

Start posting quality posts and your privileges to insult people will be returned to you. :grin:

In the mean time, if you really have the need to insult people fee free to insult me (nobody else yet). I don't mind.

truthmatters
10-06-2012, 12:46 PM
pete I have posted to you many facts today.

why are you pretending we have not discussed decently today?

Peter1469
10-06-2012, 01:22 PM
pete I have posted to you many facts today.

why are you pretending we have not discussed decently today?

I have thanked many of your posts today, have I not?