The Real Mitt Romney

[Lamplighter]

His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis.
As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah,
it's something that should have remained in the room.

It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.

How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?

After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.

How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?

After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

Conservatives don't focus on the poor, as much as the Liberals do. Our idea is to first, get a rousing economy working, and let the poor help themselves into the middle class, as much as possible. Those that still need help, try and make programs to give them a way OUT of being poor. We don't want to help the poor with a hand out, we want to help them stop being poor, with a hand up, when needed.
Paying healthy, working age people, a stipend every month for the rest of their lives, and dependent on the dole, is not a function of government.

However, Romney was discussing his demographics of likely voters in his speech. He wasn't talking about his policies.

Clearly, those who are on some form of welfare, are not likely to vote for Romney, no matter what he did in the campaign or debate. That's why "he doesn't worry about them" - he knows he can't get their votes.

Political strategy sessions should be kept secret from your political opponent. (of course) You have to say it, because it's a political strategy session fact, being shared with supporters at a fund raiser. Getting that "inside story", is what big supporters, love to hear.

[DanaC]

What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.

If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.

If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.

You can talk all your want about racism -- there is no need to use racial epithets, in your talk. Are you awake yet, or what?

Yes, using words like "N", incite discrimination, and racial hatred. That's one of the basic tenets of propaganda.

Of course I see the racism aimed at Muslims. Unfortunately, Muslims have famously acted in ways to incite that hatred, by committing hundreds of violent acts (like 9/11 here in the US).

Pretty hard to be seen as a likable religion while we see their incidents of gang rape, murder, and terror, all around the world, against both non Muslims, and other Muslims, don't you think?

Islam does not teach equality with other religions and ethnic groups. As long as it teaches superiority over others, it is, by definition, a fascist organization.

Mind that Muslims have a GOOD REASON to hate the Jews, going back to a famous battle, where the Jewish army was pledged to fight with the Muslims, against a common enemy.

But the enemy captured the Jewish leader and his family, and the Jewish army, then refused to fight with the Muslims, breaking their pledge, and ensuring the defeat of the Muslims.

But the Muslims did, eventually prevail over the enemy army, in the battle. After that breaking of their pledge, (which could have easily resulted in the genocide of the Muslim people), the Muslims have had great disdain and dislike for the Jews, and never had them for allies, in battle (to my knowledge, but there have been tens of thousands of battles in the ancient Middle East, so it probably happened somewhere, sometime. But it's VERY rare).

Have the Muslims been mistreated? Yes. certainly in the case of the Palestinians.

Have the Muslims shot themselves in the foot too many times to be counted by their unwise actions in the Middle East?

Sadly, also yes.

We should STILL set up a state for the Palestinians, however. We may have to drag them kicking and screaming into their own country, but we should set it up. ( OK, no dragging )

Keeping them in a ghetto like Gaza, is wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly.

So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?

You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. Then 'inspired' to perform or permit innovation. Other industries needed no regulation because they were innovative. In all your propaganda, you never once mention the only thing that makes good economic times: innovation. Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt and spending. Strange how they converted a surplus into the worst debt. And then spin myths about free spending Democrats. "Deficits don't matter" is their philosophy. Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.

We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?

Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda. You even misrepresented why Clinton was so successful by using a propaganda paint brush. And forget the obvious. Massive debts are created by extremist conservatives who even lied about tax cuts.

George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat. And then so mismanaged that war (no phase four planning) as to waste 5,000 American lives as well as massively increase the nation's debt. My god. He even surrendered to the Taliban to invent a second war. As a result we are still paying about $1million per soldier per year for that mistake. Did the extremist propaganda machine forget to mention those facts?

You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today. A list of military hardware are more trophies to investments that had little productive return. But then military hardware is good for 'big dic' thinking that extremists so love. 'Big dic' thinking even makes possible 'good' wars against evil Muslims.

It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.

Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.

Another fact extremists forget. Reagan was the only president to ever be reelected when unemployment was high. Many forget that after four years, Reagan's economy was quite bad. A legacy inherited from a president who also believed deficits and money games (fiscal mismanagement) do not matter: Nixon. It took well over ten years to undo his mismanagement. As it will to undo the "deficits don't matter" philosophy of George Jr's administration.

For some reason, many Americans want to bring back the people who created this mess. Because so many actually believe myths and half truths from extremist talk show hosts. So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Extremists will even hype big buck military hardware (ie Nimitz class) as if that makes Americans economically stronger. Some still want to bring those problem extremists back into power. So they can invent more wars? So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.

[Adak]

Conservatives believe in the Constitution, as it was written, and support the more limited role it defines, for government. That includes all the Bill of Rights, not just a few of them.

Conservatives believe in a free market economy, rather than an economy tightly controlled and interfered with, by the government. Taxes, should be low, to allow the free market to expand and create jobs, and support a robust economy.

Conservatives believe in citizens supporting themselves, not citizens being dependent on the government for hand outs.

Conservatives believe a smaller government, dedicated to the roles defined for it by the Constitution, is best. Today, our federal government is too large, and spends far too much of the taxpayers money, far too inefficiently.

There are several values that are associated with conservatives:

Pro Life, Pro Family, Pro Business, Pro Strong Military, Con Gay Rights/Marriage, Pro Guns

Some of these are incorrect, and are NOT part of Conservatism, because they are NOT part of our Constitution.

Pro Life - hard to say you're AGAINST life, but it's not a part of the Constitution. I believe the decision to have an abortion is something the parents should discuss, and the woman should decide, in consultation with her doctor. The government should not be involved, PERIOD.**

Pro Family - it's hard to define EXACTLY what this means.

Pro Business - Without business, we lose our free economy, and cripple our country. The Constitution laid down the basics of commerce, but NOTHING like the intrusive governmental and union controls we have for nearly every business, today. Doesn't it just FEEL wrong that in many states, you can't work, unless you join a union first?

I especially loved it when the FAA Air Traffic Controllers all went out on a Union strike -- and Reagan promptly fired every one of them that refused to work.

It's pretty sad when you hear about the firemen on call at a burning house, but just now starting their strike - so they kick back and watch the house burn to the ground, refusing to fight the fire.

Pro Strong Military - Every country needs an adequate military, as we saw during our first war to get free from England. Still, there is no requirement that we have a military that can "bounce the rubble 10 times over". Strong? Yes. Absolutely overwhelming? No. We may get worried, and feel like we should have an overwhelmingly strong military, but that is NOT part of the Constitution, or of conservatism.

Gay Rights/Marriage - Homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, they have the same rights as everyone else. As a practical matter, I believe in Gay Unions with equal rights to Marriages, but saving the term "Marriage" for heterosexual unions. Clearly, a partnership that is sanctioned by law, is a stronger union, and unions of some type, are the preferred state for most people to live and thrive in.

Gun Laws - The right to bear arms has been deemed to include gun ownership by individuals, by the Supreme Court. Conservatives support it, since it's right in the Constitution.

There are a LOT of people in the Republican party, who pose as conservatives. Maybe they're fanatics about one value - something like the abortion issue, or Gun ownership, etc. But one value in common, does not a true conservative, make.

**Let's be clear, Pro-Lifer's have no standing as conservatives, on this value. The Constitution doesn't mention it, AND abortions have been carried out with natural drugs and implements, since before recorded history. Abortions are horrid things, but to take away a woman's right to choose, is even worse.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?

Overall, Clinton made good policy, for commerce. Better than most of our Presidents, for sure.

You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. ... Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.

Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!

FHA loan buying FAMOUSLY was loosened up to promote home ownership, loan regulations forced banks into accepting applications for loans that NEVER should have been accepted - but now the gov't made it profitable to accept them, and they got sued if they did not.

Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!

When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.

And like most things that the gov't interferes with, it came crashing back down to earth, in a burning heap of shit. Barney Franks, and those other idiots, know next to NOTHING about how to run a business. How can they possibly make good laws for it?

Obama is in the same boat - never ran so much as a lemonade stand. Out of his entire cabinet, only a few had business experience.

...
Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.

This is the third time that you've beaten this dead horse of a sentence by an ex-politician, that you've taken out of context. Get a clue: Every politician lies. They wouldn't be elected without them.

We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?

It started with the attack on 9/11/2001. We followed the same "let's rebuild" philosophy that worked in rebuilding Germany & Japan., in WWII. They didn't work nearly as well, since the locals supported attacks against us, but we tried, and nation building is never cheap.

Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda.

Islam: Read your Koran lately? Read up on Sharia Law?
No, you haven't. If you did, you would know that a Muslim is given privileges which non-Muslims are not allowed - like serving in the Army, for instance. A higher tax bracket (way higher), as well. Access to the courts, etc.

You can call it "Religious Aristocracy" or whatever, but at it's root, it's a form of Fascism. Muslim > Christian > Infidel > pig > Jew is how the Saudi Textbook put it, iirc.

Tax cuts:
True, according to government figures. If you have contrary evidence, I've asked you to post it. Crickets from you on supporting that argument, however.

George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat.

George Jr. may have impressed you as a conservative. He was not, as his wild spending spree's proved. Yes, he was socially conservative, but I saw no reason to go to war with Iraq, and he lied about the reason we should go to war - and unfortunately, got all his administration to lie about it, as well.

No, George Jr. is not well liked among conservatives, for starting the Iraq war, and his out of control spending in general - but he is well liked for the tax cuts he passed. Those were significant.

You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today.

Those were the actual "nominal" figures, from the gov't. If you want adjusted money values, just scroll up or down the page on the url I gave, to find them - for the income tax figures.

For the national debt figures, you'd have to look at the footer to see what dollar year they were representing.

It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.

Yes, politicians give you propaganda - count on it. It's cherry picked, it's misleading, it's distracting, it's "spun" to give it to you so they look to be Good and Wise. Yawn. And the sun rises in the East, what's new about it?

Yes, Clinton was generally well liked by conservatives, on business policies.

Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.
...
So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
...
So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.

1) Reagan did cut taxes, and the economy did have a significant recovery during his two terms. No, it wasn't all sweetness and light, and pennies from heaven. There were set backs, especially in his first term. Still, our unemployment rate fell by the end of his first term.

With Reagan though, you knew it was going to work. You had confidence in his plans, because he spoke plainly about his philosophy of conservative government. Even people who didn't like him, knew his policies would work - damnit!

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim. (And no, I don't believe he is a Muslim.) I would not support a candidate, because of his religion, or because he was an atheist. He's running for President, not to be a preacher, priest, or Iman.

This year, I'd prefer Obama run for Dog Catcher, however. Just because his policies have failed over the last 3 1/2 years.

It's clear that Obama and his Cabinet, don't know enough about business, to develop policies that will help us recover. That's just the plain truth.

And that's the plain reason, I want him out of the White House!

Yeah!!! << Go Mitt and Paul!! >>

[DanaC]

Ha! What about that scares you?

[ZenGum]

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media, don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

Yeah, there's a risk people may come to know The Real Mitt Romney.

[BigV]

Here's a link to a MUCH more informative graphic than the one line graph Adak posted.

It's big, you'll have to side scroll.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43289

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Adak

This is what Barrack has voted in favor of, and of course, it was kept quiet by nearly all the media. His so-called church, by the way, approves of this practice, as a member of the World Council of Churches.

Well that's just dumb. From the World Council of Churches, in a speech delivered to the UN in 2008:

We do not accept the use of abortion as a family planning method.

But here's what I think: you're a troll in reverse. You spew retarded, obviously misinformed statements out there, but in a well-written form and backed by declarations of having moderate beliefs yourself. This encourages others to do the research and post the appropriate rebuttals, thinking you are not lost, you can be converted. And this whole back-and-forth process is out there on the internet for other moderates to read, and consider, and perhaps be swayed by the facts.

I think you do support Obama.

[Adak]

The "World Council Of Churches", says it doesn't support abortions, but it does not forbid it's member churces, from supporting them.

And Obama did vote to support a bill that allowed Partial Birth Abortions. I'm not one to pillory a politician (there's a nice alliteration, eh?), because they voted for a wacko bill once in a while, but voting for Partial Birth Abortion??

The Infant is half-way born, but they suck it's brain out? I'm speechless trying to describe how wrong that is.

Here's a research topic for you: Google the number of abortions in the US. Now compare the number of abortion done on Black mothers, to White and Chicano/Latino/, and other race mothers. Black mothers are having a *large* number of abortions.

And yes, I do support Obama in 2012 - For Dog Catcher! I've had enough of his policies that just don't work worth a damn.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

The Infant is half-way born, but they suck it's brain out? I'm speechless trying to describe how wrong that is.

If "born" just means "removed from the womb", then in all abortions, including IDX, the baby is completely "born" by the end of the procedure.

[Stormieweather]

I don't support any laws that interfere with, control or legislate decisions made between a woman and her doctor about her own body. Period.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of my womb.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If "born" just means "removed from the womb", then in all abortions, including IDX, the baby is completely "born" by the end of the procedure.

Born means that a live infant is out from the womb. A stillborn infant is "delivered", not born.

Partial Birth Abortion means that before the infant's feet are out of the birth canal, it's head is grabbed, and instead of being embraced by caring hands, a tool is used to remove the baby' s brain. This is not being done on a fetus, this is being done to a baby, that is perfectly viable.

IDX is another name for Partial Birth Abortion.

This is SO CLOSE to being murder of an infant, that in fact, it sometimes becomes murder, but it's not charged as such. Babies sometimes come out faster than expected, so the abortion doctor or nurse, has to then either kill the baby, or in some cases, it's just set aside to die from lack of care, by the staff and mother. (The mother may or may not be aware this is happening, since the staff try to shield her from that emotional pain, and their inability to perform the Partial Birth Abortion, correctly.)

I don't support any laws that interfere with, control or legislate decisions made between a woman and her doctor about her own body. Period.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of my womb.

I agree, but late term abortions without good medical cause, are something I'll never support.