The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

"we should have, as a society, a prohibition on abortion."

Mitt Romney, presidential candidate. (3:24, but watch the whole thing really)

[Adak]

Obama has started calling terrorists associated with Al Qaeda - "folks"!

He's says he's going to hunt down the "folks" who attacked the consulate in Benghazi. Twice, he refers to the most violent terrorists who killed our Ambassador and killed a few other Americans, as "folks". Like the folks you meet at school or in your neighborhood.

They're surely not "folks" to me!

If you want to hear the speeches (two of them) involved, you'll have to d/l the first hour of the Nov. 5th audio program, from here:

http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/category/228485/podcasts
(and you want h1 for the first hour).

The program is still on-air, so it won't be posted up for awhile.

Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.

After tomorrow, this thread will become obsolete , no matter who wins the election. To that end, this will be my last post in this thread.

Obama asks his black supporters at a rally to vote because "voting is the best revenge".

Romney asks his supporters to vote, because "you love your country".

That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates character, imo.

Romney served as a missionary for two years, overseas. Obama hung out with radicals and practiced Chicago style politics.

Romney has been a success in business, and in special projects like the Winter Olympics in 2000, which was WAY behind schedule when he took over the project.

Obama has never run a business - not even a lemonade stand.

And most damning of all, Obama left Ambassador Stevens to be killed by terrorists (which he calls "folks"), after a 6+ hour attack, despite calls for help to Washington, to the CIA (from their men who joined in Ambassador Stevens defense, and were also killed), and despite having a large Air Base, just 1 hour away. (The same air base that defended Benghazi against the slaughter that Ghaddafi had planned for them, Aviano, Italy).

There was even a recon drone overhead watching the last 2 hours of the attack, streaming live video to Washington.

And Obama watched them get taken out - and did NOTHING!

We impeached Nixon for supporting a burglary where there was very little damage done, and no one got hurt. We tried to impeach Clinton over some hanky panky in the White House.

But Obama watches a US Ambassador and three CIA agents, under attack by terrorists, urgently requesting help by phone, email, and dedicated alarm, and does NOTHING TO HELP them.

And barely a peep of Obama having done anything wrong.

And that's VERY WRONG.

This is my last post in this thread. The campaigning by both sides is over, and it's up to us who we want for President, and MANY other political positions.

Good luck to All!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama has started calling terrorists associated with Al Qaeda - "folks"!

He's says he's going to hunt down the "folks" who attacked the consulate in Benghazi. Twice, he refers to the most violent terrorists who killed our Ambassador and killed a few other Americans, as "folks". Like the folks you meet at school or in your neighborhood.

They're surely not "folks" to me!

Really? That's bothering you? Because you didn't get scared enough? You must be desensitized by all the fearmongering you're used to hearing. Are they not people? What if he'd referred to them as people? Still a problem? I'll give you this, Adak, you're consistent. You *LOVE* your labels.

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.

point of order, your protest is noted, but you don't get to enforce what people discuss in the threads. We have an extremely high tolerance for thread drift around here. Though, I can see how that might chafe someone who likes their stuff in the right box, and only the right box.

Originally Posted by Adak

After tomorrow, this thread will become obsolete , no matter who wins the election. To that end, this will be my last post in this thread.

This thread will not become obsolete tomorrow, your words and their wisdom will be around for a long time, but I take your point that Mitt Romney's fifteen minutes will have long since expired.

Whether or not you make further posts in this thread remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama asks his black supporters at a rally to vote because "voting is the best revenge".

Romney asks his supporters to vote, because "you love your country".

That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates character, imo.

I voted for Obama because I love my country. What does that say about my character? Which candidate's advice have I followed?

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney served as a missionary for two years, overseas. Obama hung out with radicals and practiced Chicago style politics.

Romney was out of the country stumping for God. Proselytizing foreigners

Obama was here, in our country, helping his fellow citizens. Helping his neighbors.

That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates' characters, imo.

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney has been a success in business, and in special projects like the Winter Olympics in 2000, which was WAY behind schedule when he took over the project.

Using oceans of taxpayer money from the federal government, taking credit for the result for himself, coyly omitting his largesse with Other People's Money.

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama has never run a business - not even a lemonade stand.

But, he has "run" the nation, as President of the United States of America, something his worthy opponent can't say.

Originally Posted by Adak

And most damning of all, Obama left Ambassador Stevens to be killed by terrorists (which he calls "folks"), after a 6+ hour attack, despite calls for help to Washington, to the CIA (from their men who joined in Ambassador Stevens defense, and were also killed), and despite having a large Air Base, just 1 hour away. (The same air base that defended Benghazi against the slaughter that Ghaddafi had planned for them, Aviano, Italy).

There was even a recon drone overhead watching the last 2 hours of the attack, streaming live video to Washington.

And Obama watched them get taken out - and did NOTHING!

You are an invidious liar. I hope this *IS* your last post and libel and calumny like this is your legacy. I will not miss the constant bombardment of panicked bleatings like this by uninformed sheep who only know enough to be afraid. Not even your candidate will touch this shit, but you clearly have more conservative standards than he does.

Originally Posted by Adak

We impeached Nixon for supporting a burglary where there was very little damage done, and no one got hurt. We tried to impeach Clinton over some hanky panky in the White House.

But Obama watches a US Ambassador and three CIA agents, under attack by terrorists, urgently requesting help by phone, email, and dedicated alarm, and does NOTHING TO HELP them.

And barely a peep of Obama having done anything wrong.

And that's VERY WRONG.

Oh yeah. It's wrong. Everything you've said about the topic is wrong. Have fun being frightened.

Originally Posted by Adak

This is my last post in this thread. The campaigning by both sides is over, and it's up to us who we want for President, and MANY other political positions.

Good luck to All!

You might be over and out, but your boy, he's still campaigning even tomorrow, election day. I thought all that adrenaline was supposed to energize you through the end, but I can see you're exhausted.

See ya, liar.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Exhausted? Or doesn't get paid after today?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow

“The Right and the Left in this country used to fight about what to do; now the Right fights with the rest of the country about what is true.”

Case in point: Adak.

[BigV]

Really? Maybe?

I can't believe somebody could draw an assignment like, go to the cellar, stir up some shit, I'll pay you one million dollars for every scalp you collect, or whatever. His stuff never added up, and, respectfully, the getting paid theory doesn't either. Show me the merits of your ideals. Show me the math. Persuade me. Teach me. I just didn't get any of that from him, consequently, I am not persuaded.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They have plenty of campaign workers on internet duty, which doesn't prove a thing. However, his party line arguments he adhered to, despite being conclusively proven wrong by numerous links, made suspect he was a party or Mormon campaign worker. We certainly have no way to prove it, either way, and it doesn't really matter. What matters is what he posted.

[BigV]

That is a very interesting hypothesis. I hadn't considered such an idea. He certainly was ON POINT, all the time.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.

To expand a little further on Big V's "point of order," Adak himself poured the fuel on this particular flame with a his comment he wrote about a million posts back:

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

Adak can't remember things he's posted here just a few hours past, but he has complete recall of some TV story shown "years ago" and probably narrated by Rod Sterling.

BTW, I don't see why any reasonable person would take comfort from the fact that Romney was a Mormon missionary once upon a time. Since in theory at least, we still have freedom of religion, the Mormons can believe anything they want, but you have to wonder about an outfit that teaches that the "chosen" will be rewarded by being sent off to become the rulers ("gods" in other words) of the various other planets throughout the universe.

Beam me up, Scotty.

[SamIam]

Oh, and just for the hell of it, I googled "Adak" and came up with a "Linked-In" hit to Tata Consulting, a huge (apparently) East Indian company which describes itself as a "customer experience measurement platform." (I need to get a life - I know) Here's their link: http://www.tcs.com/offerings/connect...s/default.aspx

Wonder if Adak got paid by the word or the post? Imagine a presidential campaign paying an Indian national to be their apologist for the candidate just for members of the Celler. Guess this place has arrived, huh?

[xoxoxoBruce]

But he didn't sound Indian.

[BigV]

Hundreds of pastors across the country defy the law by endorsing political candidates (you guess which candidate).

About 1,600 pastors across the country violated a 58-year-old ban on political endorsements by churches in October by explicitly backing political candidates in their Sunday sermons, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Ariz., a conservative Christian legal organization behind a campaign called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

The 1954 law they are challenging prohibits charitable groups, including most churches, from making candidate endorsements, but doesn't bar ministers, priests, rabbis and imams from speaking out on other ballot issues, like voter initiatives, or organizing get-out-the-vote drives and education efforts around elections themselves.

The alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.

So far, the IRS has done the latter.

The Alliance Defending Freedom asserts that it's working to further the rights of all religious groups, but it's an explicitly Christian organization, with a heavy representation of evangelical members and leaders. One clue to its philosophy is that it made it Pulpit Freedom "Sunday" — choosing the Christian Sabbath, instead of more broadly embracing the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) and the Muslim day of worship (Friday).

So it's no surprise that an unscientific survey of the posted endorsements indicates that they skewed overwhelmingly in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as in these representative samples:

In a guest sermon at Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., Wayne Gruden, a professor and theologian at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, recommended that "all citizens" vote for Romney "and Republicans in general" (the endorsement begins at 59:58):



Pastor Ken Redmond of Abundant Life Worship Center in Midland, Texas, told his congregation they shouldn't vote for President Barack Obama, saying, "Here is your choice: a Mormon or a Muslim" (the remarks begin at 33:17):



And Bishop Samuel A.L Pope Sr. told his congregation at Solid Rock Missionary Baptist Church in California City, Calif., not to vote for Obama (the statement begins at 26:54):

These pastors are breaking the law Adak. What do you say about that? Is that the conservative thing to do, thumb your nose at the IRS, in the name of God?

[xoxoxoBruce]

From a Supreme Court that gave us Kelo vs New London, and Citizens United, they stand a good chance

[BigV]

Here's some more Real Mitt Romney for you. Are familiar with the idea of "transference"? Seeing people as you are? Projecting? I think this is what Romney's doing here in his analysis of why he lost, no, how Obama bought the election. He's saying valuable gifts to people in exchange for their votes is how elections work. Romney: “The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift"

Blacks, Women, Hispanics, all their votes bought with gifts

Originally Posted by The Real Mitt Romney

"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift," Mr. Romney said. "Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."

"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity - I mean, this is huge," Mr. Romney said. "Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group."

This is how the Real Mitt Romney sees the world. To him, this is how people operate. I think he'd reckon that had he won, he'd be reaping the rewards of all the gifts he pledged to give, like an elimination of taxes on capital gains, like a 20% reduction on income taxes, like a giant expansion of the defense industry, etc etc. The Real Mitt Romney sees elections as quid pro quo exchanges, votes for gifts, and he was out-matched in the giving of gifts. No mention of ideals, or facts, or stuff like that. Sour fucking grapes. What a loser.

[tw]

The Republican Party must decide what it wants to be. That discussed in another thread. Romney must also redefine himself. Will he become a moderate again? Or will he do what Sarah Palin was doing?

Review McCain's position. After losing to Obama, McCain (a moderate) found even his Senate seat at risk by wacko (future tea party) extremists. So McCain reframed himself as conservative. Eventually disappearing into irrelevance because he stopped being a party leader. But then, can you blame him? Some of the Party's best leaders were being driven from office by tea party extremists. They even replaced Delaware's popular Republican Senator with a witch. That witch then lost the election by one of the largest margins possible.

Many in the party know the public is misguided. Therefore the party must be more extremist. What does Romney do? Does he become a party leader? Or does he disappear into obscurity because he even had to lie about being so conservative?

Apparently Obama would like to work with Romney to solve this nation's problem. Only one of 15 some Republicans (ie Perry, Bachman, Gingrich, etc) on that stage last year, that had any grasp of reality, was Romney. Which means he will probably be deposed by the party's extremists as being too liberal. Maybe more liberal than Ted Kennedy?

Romney must now answer questions similar to what McCain answered four years ago.