ROMNEY: "My job is is not to worry about those 47 percent of people who will vote for Obama. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

At a hastily called news conference late in the day, Romney offered no apologies for his remarks, and when he was asked if he was concerned he had offended anyone, he conceded the comments weren't "elegantly stated" and they were spoken "off the cuff."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57514678/romney-offers-no-apologies-for-victims-remarks/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

Its just like Benjamin Franklin said.

When the people can vote themselves money, you can mark the end of the republic.

People are being bribed for thier votes. And anyone who can not see that is a fool.

At what point will it ever be as big of a deal to talk about all the secret little things obama has said or done in private meetings with people such as rev wright, bill aires or even all his close ties with known communist anti american, some of which he has apointed to high offices.

it wont be. because you like the rest are only concerned whats in it for you. and who ever will give you yours so you dont have to struggle for it is who you will promote.

and so you see, he has a point. Those on welfare most of them were already going to vote for obama. Just like your vote is for whoever you think is going to give you healthcare.

He's after the middle class vote. He will get it too.

So people thought I was ramped up about Romney being evil........does any American have any doubts about this man? Did anybody listen to this tape and see how easy and comfortable he was? This has always been the true Mitt Romney. You know.....get up at Stanford and encourage those who were blue collar kids....so they could die in Southeast Asia while he had daddy paying for his French vacation.......but you know......half of America does not matter. I have never been more correct about anything on this or the PNJ forums when talking about Mitt Romney. Conservatives care about America. Conservatives believe that less government long term will improve the lives of 50% of the people that Mitt Romney has just written off. The man simply bought the primary and he is the worse presidential candidate in history......nobody......and I mean nobody should vote for this man. Your vote for Mr. Johnson will not be wasted, but the man is going to lose in a landslide and if you vote for Romney you have wasted your vote. We must take the Republican Party back. The party must care about every American. We must have balanced budgets. We need more revenues, expenses cut, and a real focus on job creation and tax credits for the same. Evil will be defeated.

Seaoat,



Facts are facts. Romney knows that there is a segment of America that will not vote for him based upon the concept that many don't even have to work to get a check and this is what the Democrats and the Great Society programs since LBJ have envisioned would happen. What is wrong with admitted that? You have three, four generations of people that have not hit a lick for a check ever. Mom and dad or (great grandma and great grandpa) learned that in the 1960s. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth or that is what you purport to be what your great candidate Newt would have done had he been the nominee. You're still in butthurt mode over America dissing the most unethical Congressman this side of the color barrier that doesn't have the name Charlie Rangel.

Bob wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

What's the problem with that statement?...When yet another poll comes out and says 63% of Dems say the government should provide/do more in the area of entitlements...This really shouldn't be that shocking to anyone..look at the huge increases in disability claims...food stamps...and the unemployment figures that include those that have stopped looking...Of course the COWH wants MORE government in order to provide for his base of voters with their hands out....

Did Ike give up on poor America.....did Barry give up on poor America.....Did Reagan give up on poor America? No, because they were Americans. Wealth that can leave this country and has no patriotism or loyalty looks at Americans exactly the same way Mitt looks at you and I. If you do not think he looks at you exactly the same way.....well you served your country, and in his smug arrogance.....you are nothing more than an air breather because you got a government check and are looking to get some more money from the wealthy. Sorry, there are real conservatives who care about America, and you could catch their candid comments and they would deeply want all Americans to succeed, not writing off half the country. This man has 100 million in a qualified plan where this can only happen if you cheat, and he has the unmitigated gall to talk about personal responsibility......where was his personal responsibility when he beat the war drums and ran to France, and now puts down a veteran getting a government check, or a senior on social security.....so Americans think they are victims.....you bet we are.....we are victims of having our country stolen by this arrogant bastard and his ilk.....and you still think this man represents your interests, or cares about our country........I just got an email from somebody who has been giving me a ton of crap about my disdain of Romney.....he just apologized.

It's amazing how much interest an off the cuff remark can generate. The mideast is burning, our economy is one enormous train wreck, unemployment is sky high, the housing market is still in the toilet, the country has not had a budget for three years, and there is no plan from the current administration to do anything about it. But in spite of all these large problems the headline news is a comment with no context. Dumb? Sure when you are in presidential campaign you have to watch every word or a legion of slimy paparazzi will leap on every quote and spin it into a supposed policy statement. Important? Only to those who will use anything remotely derogatory to win. The politics of this country are so far in outerspace you would need a wormhole to figure out the motivations of the many radicals and hypocrites on both sides.

It was much much much more than some dumb words. It was a classic and fatal "tell". Anybody who votes for Mitt Romney is self delusional, or has a Swiss Bank Account. A vote for Johnson is not a wasted vote. It is a vote for return to sanity. Neither, Romney or Obama are going to be able to balance the budget over the next four years, and to vote for either of them in my mind is a wasted vote. We need to take this country back, and it simply may take until 2016 to get this right.

the context is "federal income tax"... and whether that 47% realize it or not they are being "taxed" at increasing amounts under obama's policies. the dollar is loosing value and the products that are compulsory are rising while wages are stagnant. it's the results folks... forget the intent.

2seaoat wrote:It was much much much more than some dumb words. It was a classic and fatal "tell". Anybody who votes for Mitt Romney is self delusional, or has a Swiss Bank Account. A vote for Johnson is not a wasted vote. It is a vote for return to sanity. Neither, Romney or Obama are going to be able to balance the budget over the next four years, and to vote for either of them in my mind is a wasted vote. We need to take this country back, and it simply may take until 2016 to get this right.

No dark horse can win this election. What is amazing is that you would consider a complete failure like Obama to be a better choice than Romney - it's not known how he would do (much depends on gaining cooperation in Congress) but at least he has some business sense. Regardless of whether you think he is "evil" because he made serious money (far from being uber-rich though) this country needs some mechanical work done to the engine and BHO refuses to get his hands dirty. He is an extraordinarily lazy President who has no real convictions.

I completely disagree that President Obama has been a complete failure. I give him a c-. Most of his big mistakes in my mind were made in the first two years. However, the last year and a half he is trending toward C.

Now Mitt Romney is an F. Is my recognition that Mitt Romney is a big Fail for America, and that Obama at best can only get average performance a reason to vote for Romney. I do not drink anymore......but if I did there is not enough alcohol to kill all my brain cells to reach that conclusion. The choice is clear. Johnson.

This thread is a perfect example of why I have almost completely lost interest in discussing politics with republicans. Mitt Romney could come out and say "I believe the path to economic prosperity is pineapples and circus peanuts! From now on, we're going to put all our efforts behind pineapples and circus peanuts!" I could then come here and see people saying things such as "Well, he does have a point. Pineapples are a fruit and are nutritious." And "But we haven't tried this yet! Obama has failed. I have no idea why but I'm told that so it must be true, and since he must have failed that means that pineapples and circus peanuts may be a viable solution."

what romney said isn't even accurate... it's closer to the rambling stereotypes obama used to label people as "clinging". there was a tell when obama whispered a plea to the russian envoy... but that was largely ignored.

boards of FL wrote:This thread is a perfect example of why I have almost completely lost interest in discussion politics with republicans. Mitt Romney could come out and say "I believe the path to economic prosperity is pineapples and circus peanuts! From now on, we're going to put all our efforts behind pineapples and circus peanuts!" I could then come here and see people saying things such as "Well, he does have a point. Pineapples are a fruit and are nutritious." And "But we haven't tried this yet! Obama has failed. I have no idea why but I'm told that so it must be true, and since he must have failed that means that pineapples and circus peanuts may be a viable solution."

It works for the ABO crowd..
romney doesn't even have to tell his plan.. as long as he's not obama it's ok to raise taxes on the working people while giving his Ilk tax cuts...

boards of FL wrote:This thread is a perfect example of why I have almost completely lost interest in discussion politics with republicans. Mitt Romney could come out and say "I believe the path to economic prosperity is pineapples and circus peanuts! From now on, we're going to put all our efforts behind pineapples and circus peanuts!" I could then come here and see people saying things such as "Well, he does have a point. Pineapples are a fruit and are nutritious." And "But we haven't tried this yet! Obama has failed. I have no idea why but I'm told that so it must be true, and since he must have failed that means that pineapples and circus peanuts may be a viable solution."

And this is a perfect example of the liberal argument against any change and for sticking with an abject failure like BHO. Ignoring the current status of the country and lobbing hand grenades and calling the opposition a "failure' when he is not even in the WH is a shining example of hypocrisy. How can someone be a failure if they haven't even started a job? I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud) and balance that against the potential of the other candidate and although I see Romney as a poor choice, it is better than continuing down the same road with BHO - that is beyond ridiculous. People who are willing to let BHO remain in office another four years had better have a grand plan for rescuing the country in 2016 – if that will even be possible.

[quote="Lurch"]

boards of FL wrote:as long as he's not obama it's ok to raise taxes on the working people while giving his Ilk tax cuts...

Is there such a plan? Or just more of the same from inaccurate PAC ads?

nochain wrote: I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud)

Let's start with this fact then. Has government spending increased or decreased since the last Bush budget?

2005 Chained Outlays

2009 - 3,173.4
2010 - 3,081.0
2011 - 3,126.3

2005 Chained Deficit

2009 - (1,274.4)
2010 - (1,153.0)
2011 - (1,127.6)

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote: I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud)

Let's start with this fact then. Has government spending increased or decreased since the last Bush budget?

2005 Chained Outlays

2009 - 3,173.4
2010 - 3,081.0
2011 - 3,126.3

2005 Chained Deficit

2009 - (1,274.4)
2010 - (1,153.0)
2011 - (1,127.6)

Depends on who you talk to, clever manipulation of starting dates etc affect final numbers and both parties have manipulated numbers. It is even hard to say if the CBO knows for sure. Besides, spending was not part of the thread post I made. "Nutting" to see here.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote: I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud)

Let's start with this fact then. Has government spending increased or decreased since the last Bush budget?

2005 Chained Outlays

2009 - 3,173.4
2010 - 3,081.0
2011 - 3,126.3

2005 Chained Deficit

2009 - (1,274.4)
2010 - (1,153.0)
2011 - (1,127.6)

Depends on who you talk to, clever manipulation of starting dates etc affect final numbers and both parties have manipulated numbers. It is even hard to say if the CBO knows for sure. Besides, spending was not part of the thread post I made. "Nutting" to see here.

2009 was the last Bush budget. How is that a clever manipulation of starting dates? Would you prefer I simply made numbers and dates up?

Also, the only thing of substance to be found in your post was a mention of spending, so that is what I responded to ("I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud"). The rest of your post was "Obama is a failure" rephrased many different ways but with no real substance behind it.

[quote="boards of FL"][quote="nochain"][quote="boards of FL"]

nochain wrote: I Also, the only thing of substance to be found in your post was a mention of spending, so that is what I responded to ("I look at known facts (BHOs failure to deliver anything of substance including basic things like a budget for crying out loud"). The rest of your post was "Obama is a failure" rephrased many different ways but with no real substance behind it.

Wrong again Buckwheat. A mention of "no budget" is just a very long way off from talking about spending. A budget is a plan and there has been no plan - an unfortunate truth your type chooses to ignore. And about your spin on "failure rephrased" - it is just that, spin. BHO is a failure and those who don't see the many problems are wishful nonthinkers. I hope you don't go to the horse races because you would obviously bet on the same crippled losing horse over and over just hoping for a different result.

How can there be a budget when the reality is it cannot possibly be balanced in the next four years. This is exactly what Mitt Romney has stated. He has stated that we cannot seek to balance the budget because our economy is too fragile. How did we get to this point? Some want to blame Bush, but it has been a forty year process where in my opinion we have spent far too much on Defense, and we have not targeted American Job creation and American manufacturing. In football, the defensive end stumbles, the linebacker stumbles, and as the running back is crossing the goal line somebody says the free safety allowed the touchdown.

It really is that simple. Are we going to blame the person closest to the ball carrier when he crosses the goal line are we going to have an intelligent conversation about the breakdowns on the line, and by the linebackers. We also have to recognize something which is not mentioned too often......the talent of the running back. It was easy after WWII to kick the snot out of the other teams, and we really did have balanced budgets, but the world has grown up in the last 40 years, and the talent of this new running back is contributing to structural reasons folks are scoring touchdowns and we are pointing fingers. Winners do not point fingers.....they fix the tangible problems. Romney is not the answer......he is the problem.

nochain wrote:A budget is a plan...

To do what?

nochain wrote:And about your spin on "failure rephrased" - it is just that, spin. BHO is a failure and those who don't see the many problems are wishful nonthinkers.

Why? Because you say so? The only way I could possibly refute this is to say "Nope. You're wrong." because there is no substance in your post. "Obama is a failure. The last four years have been a failure. When gauging the success or failure of Obama, failure is the result. Failure failure failure." That is what you sound like 90% of the time. Let me know when you would like to discuss anything substantive.

[quote="boards of FL"]

nochain wrote:A Let me know when you would like to discuss anything substantive.

Obviously you don't read the news so you are unable to understand what I am talking about. There is no point in "discussing" anything "of substance" with you because all you do is attempt to push back instead of using rational thought to comprehend there may be truth in what is said about your soiled hero BHO. So it goes.

nochain wrote:Obviously you don't read the news so you are unable to understand what I am talking about. There is no point in "discussing" anything "of substance" with you because all you do is attempt to push back instead of using rational thought to comprehend there may be truth in what is said about your soiled hero BHO. So it goes.

How can I possibly push back when you're not giving me anything to push back against? I get it. You think Obama is a failure. It's just that you never articulate why. Fair enough. When this is pointed out to you, rather than articulate why, you say that it is a waste of time, as if your opinion should be self evident to everyone else without explanation. OK. I guess we are done here then.