Romney Only Comfortable Around ‘White Folks’

othershoe1030 wrote:There is a huge difference between someone who is "only comfortable around white folks" and someone who is a racist. It is not the same thing. I think he would be uncomfortable around some white people too. Ya gotta remember that within black and white there are many different types. He was comfortable with the owners of nascar but likely not so much with the fans in the general admission seating.
That's his problem, he hasn't had much experience with people who are not upper class. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I don't think he's a racist. I just think he hasn't had any experiences over time with many people who are not a lot like him.

ButtMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:There is a huge difference between someone who is "only comfortable around white folks" and someone who is a racist. It is not the same thing. I think he would be uncomfortable around some white people too. Ya gotta remember that within black and white there are many different types. He was comfortable with the owners of nascar but likely not so much with the fans in the general admission seating.
That's his problem, he hasn't had much experience with people who are not upper class. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I don't think he's a racist. I just think he hasn't had any experiences over time with many people who are not a lot like him.

I think that's a really good observation.

othershoe1030 wrote:

ButtMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:There is a huge difference between someone who is "only comfortable around white folks" and someone who is a racist. It is not the same thing. I think he would be uncomfortable around some white people too. Ya gotta remember that within black and white there are many different types. He was comfortable with the owners of nascar but likely not so much with the fans in the general admission seating.
That's his problem, he hasn't had much experience with people who are not upper class. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I don't think he's a racist. I just think he hasn't had any experiences over time with many people who are not a lot like him.

I think that's a really good observation.

Thanks. No telling what sorts of reasonable discussions we could have here if we could get rid of the flame throwers or at least talk them down off the ledge.
As for Romney, it is painfully obvious that he's not at ease in most of the situations I've seen him in. How is it that he wants to be in politics? He wants to run the country like a business? That never works. I guess "running the country like a business" would have to be defined. Does it mean kicking off two wars, not paying for them and still lowering taxes? Could you run a business like that? I don't think so. What the hell are the R's talking about then when they say that? Maybe they only want to run it like a business after they've run it into the ground?

othershoe1030 wrote:So you think it worked well to start two wars at the same time he lowered taxes? What do they mean when they say he paid for the wars "off the books"?
I don't get it. I don't think running a business and running the government is comparable in many ways. In the first place the idea behind government is to provide services. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. I don't think that is an apples to apples thing.
Would a business owner incur some huge expense and at the same time drop a lot of his/her customers? Isn't that like spending for a war while reducing the money flow to pay for it? I'm just asking...Maybe you can explain it?.

othershoe1030 wrote:I'm asking a sincere question. Could you suspend your usual condescending and sarcastic tone long enough to just focus on my question?

Without considering the wisdom of the wars could you please relate how the economy or our overall national financial situation was effected/improved by two wars and reduced tax rates?
Setting aside the real estate/banking bubbles (which I didn't even address) I am still not convinced that those were good moves. It is the mark of a good teacher (if that is your role) to be able to explain difficult concepts to inquiring minds. We want to know. Help us out here.

PrettyWoman wrote:with this sort of thinking then we can assume obaba is very comfortable with crooks and american haters and terrorist

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

ButtMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:There is a huge difference between someone who is "only comfortable around white folks" and someone who is a racist. It is not the same thing. I think he would be uncomfortable around some white people too. Ya gotta remember that within black and white there are many different types. He was comfortable with the owners of nascar but likely not so much with the fans in the general admission seating.
That's his problem, he hasn't had much experience with people who are not upper class. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I don't think he's a racist. I just think he hasn't had any experiences over time with many people who are not a lot like him.

I think that's a really good observation.

Thanks. No telling what sorts of reasonable discussions we could have here if we could get rid of the flame throwers or at least talk them down off the ledge.
As for Romney, it is painfully obvious that he's not at ease in most of the situations I've seen him in. How is it that he wants to be in politics? He wants to run the country like a business? That never works. I guess "running the country like a business" would have to be defined. Does it mean kicking off two wars, not paying for them and still lowering taxes? Could you run a business like that? I don't think so. What the hell are the R's talking about then when they say that? Maybe they only want to run it like a business after they've run it into the ground?

Probably a good reason why you don't run a business. As you know, the cut in taxes not only resulted in far lower unemployment but also RECORD REVENUES. How is that bad?

Do you think government should be run by borrowing forty cents of every dollar spent? Using that money to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior? Demanding more and more from those who are producing?

Interesting....

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I'm asking a sincere question. Could you suspend your usual condescending and sarcastic tone long enough to just focus on my question?

Without considering the wisdom of the wars could you please relate how the economy or our overall national financial situation was effected/improved by two wars and reduced tax rates?
Setting aside the real estate/banking bubbles (which I didn't even address) I am still not convinced that those were good moves. It is the mark of a good teacher (if that is your role) to be able to explain difficult concepts to inquiring minds. We want to know. Help us out here.

PLEASE explain how you do NOT consider the wisdom of the wars? That's like saying your household budget is fine...just so long as you don't consider the wisdom of paying your mortgage and the consequences.

The Act of War on September 11, 2001 cost the lives of 3,000 innocent men, women and children PLUS $2 TRILLION; PLUS untold costs World Wide. The War on Terror, SINCE IT BEGAN in 2001 has cost us $1.3 Trillion PLUS the lives of 4,500 of our finest heroes. That is less treasure than what President Barack Hussein Obama has plunged us deeper in debt, EACH YEAR. The frequency and intensity of fatal Islamic terrorist attacks had been increasing since the administration of President Jimmy Carter culminating with the attack on 9/11.

Since the War on Terror began, until six months into the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama. We had NO fatal Islamic Terrorist Attacks on our soil. We then had two fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil before he changed his doctrine and accepted that of President George Walker Bush. Since then we have not had any fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.

How many more 9/11 attacks should we have absorbed before we fought back? One more? Three? Five? Should we have endured them patiently while believing that eventually they would stop? How many?

Keep in mind that one of the few enumerated duties of the President in our Constitution is to protect our citizens. You can hate President George Walker Bush as much as you like but he fulfilled that responsibility after the 9/11 attack. President Obama had two fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil before he changed his doctrine and accepted that of President George Walker Bush. Since then we have not had any fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.

So tell us, how many more attacks?

As for the tax cuts of President George Walker Bush. They drastically cut unemployment and resulted in RECORD REVENUES. How is that bad?

Teaching, public speaking and seminars are my avocation. Being a Realtor is my vocation.

I can clearly explain something for you, I cannot understand it for you.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I'm asking a sincere question. Could you suspend your usual condescending and sarcastic tone long enough to just focus on my question?

Without considering the wisdom of the wars could you please relate how the economy or our overall national financial situation was effected/improved by two wars and reduced tax rates?
Setting aside the real estate/banking bubbles (which I didn't even address) I am still not convinced that those were good moves. It is the mark of a good teacher (if that is your role) to be able to explain difficult concepts to inquiring minds. We want to know. Help us out here.

PLEASE explain how you do NOT consider the wisdom of the wars? That's like saying your household budget is fine...just so long as you don't consider the wisdom of paying your mortgage and the consequences.

The Act of War on September 11, 2001 cost the lives of 3,000 innocent men, women and children PLUS $2 TRILLION; PLUS untold costs World Wide. The War on Terror, SINCE IT BEGAN in 2001 has cost us $1.3 Trillion PLUS the lives of 4,500 of our finest heroes. That is less treasure than what President Barack Hussein Obama has plunged us deeper in debt, EACH YEAR. The frequency and intensity of fatal Islamic terrorist attacks had been increasing since the administration of President Jimmy Carter culminating with the attack on 9/11.

Since the War on Terror began, until six months into the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama. We had NO fatal Islamic Terrorist Attacks on our soil. We then had two fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil before he changed his doctrine and accepted that of President George Walker Bush. Since then we have not had any fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.

How many more 9/11 attacks should we have absorbed before we fought back? One more? Three? Five? Should we have endured them patiently while believing that eventually they would stop? How many?

Keep in mind that one of the few enumerated duties of the President in our Constitution is to protect our citizens. You can hate President George Walker Bush as much as you like but he fulfilled that responsibility after the 9/11 attack. President Obama had two fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil before he changed his doctrine and accepted that of President George Walker Bush. Since then we have not had any fatal Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.

So tell us, how many more attacks?

As for the tax cuts of President George Walker Bush. They drastically cut unemployment and resulted in RECORD REVENUES. How is that bad?

Teaching, public speaking and seminars are my avocation. Being a Realtor is my vocation.

I can clearly explain something for you, I cannot understand it for you.

Your last sentence should be posted in the dictionary as a clear example of condescension.
Again, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE WISDOM OF THE TWO WARS BUSH CHOSE TO WAGE explain how not paying for them at the time they were launched resulted in a positive economic/fiscal situation for this country. Just the economic side of it, how does this fit with the "conservative" idea of not spending money we don't have? If this is your idea of fiscal responsibility it is a poor one.