Poor voters won't vote for Romney....according to him

[cleller]

I'm less interested in who buys their own groceries, and more interested in which man is more likely to head us toward a huge, socialized, bankrupt country that tends to increase one's dependence on the government. He's the one I'd rather not have.

Maybe Obama bought his own groceries, maybe he also grew up being mentored by a communist bisexual pornographer. He's just as different from me as Romney is. At least Romney has experience with money, debt, and actually paying bills.

[Midtowner]

I'm less interested in who buys their own groceries, and more interested in which man is more likely to head us toward a huge, socialized, bankrupt country that tends to increase one's dependence on the government. He's the one I'd rather not have.

Maybe Obama bought his own groceries, maybe he also grew up being mentored by a communist bisexual pornographer. He's just as different from me as Romney is. At least Romney has experience with money, debt, and actually paying bills.

--if paying bills means paying someone to pay your bills for you.

[FaninAma]

Not always. Venture capital firms buy companies which are undervalued for whatever reason. They can acquire them a number of ways, most ways involve screwing someone. Often, these firms buy companies only to sell off the most valuable assets, leaving lots of folks out of work. It's creative destruction and if you look at a lot of the deals someone like Boone Pickens did, they were very much taking everything for himself and screwing everyone else to the maximum extent possible. That's what capitalism is though.



It's a very legitimate issue. He has no connection whatsoever to the middle class. It's not class envy. As far as class warfare, taking Romney's own remarks, he very much has a class warfare mentality and his side's winning. He strikes me very much as that iron mining heiress in Australia who said she was probably going to shut down her Aussie operations because African iron miners would work for $2.00/day and didn't need all of that safety mumbo jumbo and also that if you stop smoking and drinking, you too can be a billionaire.

Bottom line is you trust government to make smart financial decisions and you distrust private businesses to do the same. You need to vote for Obama....he agrees with you.

[Midtowner]

Bottom line is you trust government to make smart financial decisions and you distrust private businesses to do the same. You need to vote for Obama....he agrees with you.

Except that Romney won't be up there dictating policy like a businessman. He'll have a Democratic Senate (or at least not enough to break a filibuster) and a friendly, but mostly irrelevant House. The government is not run like a business because it's not a business.

[pphilfran]

Timely

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/bain-capital-lawsuit-complaint_n_1897234.html

Bain Capital Complaint Should Be Made Public, Court Rules

A judge has ruled that certain information involved in a lawsuit against Bain Capital, the private equity firm where Mitt Romney made his fortune, should be released to the public.

U.S. District Judge Edward Harrington said in a decision on Friday that the public has the right to see a new complaint filed as part of a class-action antitrust lawsuit that claims Bain Capital and 10 other private equity firms colluded with one another to keep the costs of leveraged buyouts low. The plaintiffs recently filed another complaint with new information, but that complaint has not yet been made public because of opposition from Bain Capital lawyers, who say doing so could hurt the company's business because of increased scrutiny during the election news cycle.

Harrington disagreed. "The Defendants have failed to explain how the particular information that they have redacted causes specific and severe harm," he wrote in the decision. "It is further unclear to the Court whether the redactions are narrowly tailored to addressing that harm."

More at link

[8timechamps]

Except that Romney won't be up there dictating policy like a businessman. He'll have a Democratic Senate (or at least not enough to break a filibuster) and a friendly, but mostly irrelevant House. The government is not run like a business because it's not a business.

Back to the state of our current government...terrible.

If Romney gets put in the WH, then (as you pointed out) he'll be facing a democratic senate and filibusters. If Obama gets re-elected, nothing changes (and things probably get worse). Yay for America!

[8timechamps]

Midtowner, venture capitalists do not try to screw everybody else. They take failing companies and try to get them back on their feet thus saving a lot of jobs in the process. Another function of venture capital is to fund a new business with a great idea which, if successful, also provides for a lot of jobs. There is a lot of risk but also a lot of reward if they succeed. You need to do a little research on the subject.

And as far as the notion of being born on 3rd base being a legitimate criticism of Romney all I can say is it is trite and lazy. I am working very hard to to be successful but the most important reason i want to be successful is so my kids have a better chance of being successful and can go on to accomplish even more success than I. That is one of the founding principles of this country and what drew millions of immigrants here....a chance to provide a better future for themselves and their kids.

Romney's father worked very hard and was successful and as a result his kids had a leg up on being successful themselves. Holding that against somebody is the epitomy of class envy and symptomatic of the class warfare mentality that is crippling this country. Success is something to be admired, not something to be dinigrated and criticized.

Great post Fan.

I've seen so many attacks on Romney's wealth. When did it become bad to be wealthy in America? Oh, that's right he "didn't build it" himself.

[FaninAma]

The choice is anything but clear...
'
We have one candidate that has no problem with escalating energy costs...flooding the job market with low cost labor that hurts citizens with low skills...failed to achieve his economic goals...and wants to raise taxes in an economy that is on fumes...but is a terrific speaker and seems more personable...

The other candidate wants to pander to the rich...had enough money his entire life that even if his ventures failed he would still be rich...hasn't really stated his economic plan in full...discusses eliminating tax loopholes but hasn't clarified which loopholes...and says a bunch of stupid chit, as if his mouth is faster than his brain...not nearly the speaker and seems aloft...

Can you provide an example of "pandering to the rich"? There is a choice between the philosophic approaches to the economy. I understand your concern that Romney may institute policies that favor the Wall Street bankasinos . If he does he will find himself in a similiar position as Obama does now.....a frustrated and angry main street electorate. And if that happens I am very hopeful a 3rd party is there to scoop up the disenchanted conservatives and independents.

I do think Romney understand we are broke and what the ramifications of that are if things don't change. He has, after all, dealt with dozens of bankrupt corporations as head of Bain Capital. I am pretty sure he understand the process of how an entity arrives in the positipon of being bankrupt. I am not sure Obama does which is a very scarey thought.

I will be watching Romney like a hawk should he win the election but at this point he is the best chance this country has of really reversing the destructive course laying ahead of increasing debt, increasing entitlement spending and increasing dependency. At this point I will choose to take a chance rather than vote for a person who has shown what he will do.

[Midtowner]

Great post Fan.

I've seen so many attacks on Romney's wealth. When did it become bad to be wealthy in America? Oh, that's right he "didn't build it" himself.

When you go around making stupid comments showing how clueless you are about the middle class and stating that you don't give a damn about the bottom 53%, yeah, that's bad if you're running for office. It not only shows that he is aloof and clueless, it also shows that he's incompetent at controlling his message which is a pretty important skill if you're going to be POTUS. It's apparent that he's just not cut out for the national stage.

[olevetonahill]

When you go around making stupid comments showing how clueless you are about the middle class and stating that you don't give a damn about the bottom 53%, yeah, that's bad if you're running for office. It not only shows that he is aloof and clueless, it also shows that he's incompetent at controlling his message which is a pretty important skill if you're going to be POTUS. It's apparent that he's just not cut out for the national stage.

And your post here shows Just How much you twist and spin shat to say what you want it to say
You sir are about as sharp as marfa dude

[cleller]

And your post here shows Just How much you twist and spin shat to say what you want it to say
You sir are about as sharp as marfa dude

Yep, he was only talking about which voting demographics would be the most strategic to concentrate on. Tackling a problem head on, and telling the truth. Very un-political.


--if paying bills means paying someone to pay your bills for you.

Heck yeah! If you've got enough money to employ other people, you probably have a much better understanding of operating within your means that Obama does. Like others mentioned, the whole "Romney's too rich" thing is just ridiculous.

Look at the candidates. Candidate A has a family history of hard work and success. Candidate B has a family history of moaning the USA is not enough like Russia, and blowing off responsibilities.

Now we've got this chorus saying Candidate A is the one who's not fit to be president.

To use Obama-speak. If you didn't pay taxes, brother, you really didn't build it.

[okie52]

When you go around making stupid comments showing how clueless you are about the middle class and stating that you don't give a damn about the bottom 53%, yeah, that's bad if you're running for office. It not only shows that he is aloof and clueless, it also shows that he's incompetent at controlling his message which is a pretty important skill if you're going to be POTUS. It's apparent that he's just not cut out for the national stage.

We'll just cling to our guns and religion...

[olevetonahill]

We'll just cling to our guns and religion...

http://omgdroid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/thumbs_up_bciy.jpg

[Midtowner]

We'll just cling to our guns and religion...

He was right.

[Midtowner]

And your post here shows Just How much you twist and spin shat to say what you want it to say
You sir are about as sharp as marfa dude

Kinda like y'all twist the "you didn't build that" line?

[8timechamps]

When you go around making stupid comments showing how clueless you are about the middle class and stating that you don't give a damn about the bottom 53%, yeah, that's bad if you're running for office. It not only shows that he is aloof and clueless, it also shows that he's incompetent at controlling his message which is a pretty important skill if you're going to be POTUS. It's apparent that he's just not cut out for the national stage.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what does that have to do with his wealth?

As for being unable to control his message, it was a fundraising speech. I put as much in to what he said as I do into Obama's "You didn't build that" (which is why I included it in my post). I'd say very few (if any) presidents and nominees have avoided saying something incredulous.

I think it's really only apparent to anti-Romney folks that he's not cut out for the national stage. W was elected twice, and he certainly had his fair share of gaffes.

[Skysooner]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what does that have to do with his wealth?

As for being unable to control his message, it was a fundraising speech. I put as much in to what he said as I do into Obama's "You didn't build that" (which is why I included it in my post). I'd say very few (if any) presidents and nominees have avoided saying something incredulous.

I think it's really only apparent to anti-Romney folks that he's not cut out for the national stage. W was elected twice, and he certainly had his fair share of gaffes.

The problem with the "You didn't build that" is that all of you take it out of context and doesn't mean at all what you say it means. Now the "guns and religion" talk does mean that. It is more equivalent.

[okie52]

He was right.

Of course you'd think that...right up there with Jill stein.

[olevetonahill]

The problem with the "You didn't build that" is that all of you take it out of context and doesn't mean at all what you say it means. Now the "guns and religion" talk does mean that. It is more equivalent.

Now Sky, Are you sayin ONLY Conservatives take things outta context?:glee:

[Midtowner]

I think it's really only apparent to anti-Romney folks that he's not cut out for the national stage. W was elected twice, and he certainly had his fair share of gaffes.

W is an example of someone you'd want to elect??

[Skysooner]

The problem with the "You didn't build that" is that all of you take it out of context and doesn't mean at all what you say it means. Now the "guns and religion" talk does mean that. It is more equivalent.

Now Sky, Are you sayin ONLY Conservatives take things outta context?:glee:

We got equal loonies on both sides of the board....although I do find that most tend to post at least reasonable things. I can't wait for this election to be over.

[soonercruiser]

The problem with the "You didn't build that" is that all of you take it out of context and doesn't mean at all what you say it means. Now the "guns and religion" talk does mean that. It is more equivalent.

It's only obvious to anti-leftists what Obama meant by "you didn't build that".
Otherwise you can't admit that his very existence is anti-colonial, anti-capitalistic.
Look at the old video they are pulling up yesterday of Obama saying he believes in redistribution of wealth.
If you really listen to Obama ("words mean something") you know that is what he is about!
Have you read Obama's autobiography, or seen the movie 2016 - Obama's America?

Or, are you waiting on the next Michael Moore documentary?

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/hypocrisy.jpg

I will admit that Romney makes gaffs.
But, he needs to "run" with the 47% of Americans are in the wagon thought!
It shows where we are headed with Obama's leadership.

[8timechamps]

The problem with the "You didn't build that" is that all of you take it out of context and doesn't mean at all what you say it means. Now the "guns and religion" talk does mean that. It is more equivalent.


W is an example of someone you'd want to elect??

I must not have been clear, as you both took some of my post differently than I intended. Sky, I never got worked up over the "you didn't build that". I realized at the time what Obama was trying to say. I don't necessarily agree with his stance on the subject, but I didn't take the words literally. Be careful when you generalize ("all of you take it out of context"), because many folks here do think independent of what the Rep/Dem want us to think.

Mid, my point is that if this country were going to elect/re-elect a president based on stage presence, ability to speak eloquently, there are several former presidents that would never have been elected. I was using Bush as an example. But, I really think you knew that.

[Skysooner]

I must not have been clear, as you both took some of my post differently than I intended. Sky, I never got worked up over the "you didn't build that". I realized at the time what Obama was trying to say. I don't necessarily agree with his stance on the subject, but I didn't take the words literally. Be careful when you generalize ("all of you take it out of context"), because many folks here do think independent of what the Rep/Dem want us to think.

Mid, my point is that if this country were going to elect/re-elect a president based on stage presence, ability to speak eloquently, there are several former presidents that would never have been elected. I was using Bush as an example. But, I really think you knew that.

Sorry my misunderstanding. I'm one of those myself. I don't really identify with either party. There is some good on both sides and lots really bad. I don't really believe in labeling anything absolute as the best ideas (particularly in my business) come from collaboration and working together.

[FaninAma]

When you go around making stupid comments showing how clueless you are about the middle class and stating that you don't give a damn about the bottom 53%, yeah, that's bad if you're running for office. It not only shows that he is aloof and clueless, it also shows that he's incompetent at controlling his message which is a pretty important skill if you're going to be POTUS. It's apparent that he's just not cut out for the national stage.

It has been my experience that most that want to be negative about other people based on their economic status will have first developed the negative attitude/opinion based on emotions like envy and resentment THEN they will look for reasons to justify those emotions and pre-conceived opinions. You do not like rich people. You resent them so you need to find reasons to justify your resentment otherwise you might have to face the fact your are an envious person.

Another motivation for being resentful of really rich people is it helps people feel better about their own underachievemnt. I am not saying this applies to you. I just think you resent rich people....especially those who espouse different opinions than you.

[Skysooner]

It's only obvious to anti-leftists what Obama meant by "you didn't build that".
Otherwise you can't admit that his very existence is anti-colonial, anti-capitalistic.
Look at the old video they are pulling up yesterday of Obama saying he believes in redistribution of wealth.
If you really listen to Obama ("words mean something") you know that is what he is about!
Have you read Obama's autobiography, or seen the movie 2016 - Obama's America?

Or, are you waiting on the next Michael Moore documentary?

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/hypocrisy.jpg

I will admit that Romney makes gaffs.
But, he needs to "run" with the 47% of Americans are in the wagon thought!
It shows where we are headed with Obama's leadership.

The problem with the hardcore right is that anything that is remotely reasonable is considered "leftist" or socialist. I'm one of those 5-10% in the middle that pays taxes, believes in treating people as equally as possible as long as they earn it and want to see this country get back on a great economic footing. I don't like or agree with Michael Moore. I have read both of Obama's books and haven't seen 2016 since I don't like rhetoric. Not that you will agree with it, but Obama was saying that we can't succeed as individuals unless we have the backing of a strong society and infrastructure. Other than that I saw nothing wrong with the statement. I actually thought Romney's statement was correct in one respect. 47% of the country won't vote for him. Now of those 47%, he was very wrong in the makeup of that 47% and their thoughts and feelings. I don't like those that take advantage of government handouts, but there are plenty that do need them. So name one thing that he has done that is anti-colonialistic? He has projected power with the military and used it to stabilize where he needed to without invading anyone that we hadn't already invaded. I won't debate with you on the anti-capitalistic as we will never agree with that. Also that "redistribution of wealth" is how the tax code has been set up for years by both parties. You are taking something that was said years ago in a different situation and completely out of context. If the Republicans weren't for some redistribution of wealth, they would have reformed the tax code when they had both houses of congress. Hypocrisy exists on both sides. I'm just for finding a solution that doesn't leave too many people behind, because our economy is a consumer economy and much of the economic meltdown is simply the inability of people to buy "stuff". The more consumers you have, the better the economy is. This is particularly true in this new world economic reality we are facing.

[LiveLaughLove]

In the end, poor voters are fools. Which is probably why most of them are poor. They have been voting Democrat for half a century or more. What has it gotten them as a group? Poorer.

It goes against the self interest of a Democrat politician to actually get the poor to the middle class. If they make it there, they might, God forbid, make it to the upper class. No more vote for Democrat politician. Boohoo.

It's just like Sharpton and Jackson. They NEVER want racism to actually end. Their careers would end also. Their donations would be gone. No more extortion of companies to not be called racist. It would be over.

So, the poor will keep voting for Democrat slavery, and the Democrats will oblige them by giving them just enough goodies to keep them poor and wanting. And the cycle will continue until we run out of other peoples money.

Then what? Then I guess they try and take stuff by force. Whoops, the government already does that.

[FaninAma]

In the end, poor voters are fools. Which is probably why most of them are poor. They have been voting Democrat for half a century or more. What has it gotten them as a group? Poorer.

It goes against the self interest of a Democrat politician to actually get the poor to the middle class. If they make it there, they might, God forbid, make it to the upper class. No more vote for Democrat politician. Boohoo.

It's just like Sharpton and Jackson. They NEVER want racism to actually end. Their careers would end also. Their donations would be gone. No more extortion of companies to not be called racist. It would be over.

So, the poor will keep voting for Democrat slavery, and the Democrats will oblige them by giving them just enough goodies to keep them poor and wanting. And the cycle will continue until we run out of other peoples money.

Then what? Then I guess they try and take stuff by force. Whoops, the government already does that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

[MamaMia]

did he talk about how lazy people should get jobs and confuse "middle class" with really well off? Romney knows the difference between the mddle class and the rich, and about JFK...he did say "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

[yermom]

somehow JFK told people to get off their asses without insulting them.

[LiveLaughLove]

somehow JFK told people to get off their asses without insulting them.

And Obama said middle class was $250k. How is that different than Romney saying middle class is $250k?

If he insulted you, don't vote for him. You weren't going to anyway. But don't try and act like he said something outrageous. He didn't.

His percentage was off, but his statement was accurate. People that want handouts will never vote for him.

It would be foolish to go after those voters and try and change them.

Once more, I note that Obama isn't spending cash in Oklahoma to try and win our votes. Has he written us off? I think so. Does he say it? You bet, in strategy meetings.

If some punk secretly videoed him, I'd bet we'd hear all kinds of interesting things about us.

I also remember everyone screaming that James O'Keefe illegally taped Acorn and should be prosecuted.

Haven't heard that same outcry about this illegal taping (in Florida it was illegal). Hmm. Hypocrisy? Why sure, sure it is.

[okie52]

somehow JFK told people to get off their asses without insulting them.

Somehow JFK cut the marginal rate on the rich by 21% from 91% to 70%.

[boomermagic]

If you're going to throw a punch, expect to get one back. Quit being such a butt hurt *****.

He knocked you on you're condescending *** ..