If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Romney: I am only two generations removed from a non-millionaire. I feel your pain, common people   (boston.com) divider line 292
    More: Fail, Mitt Romney, Governors of Michigan, Ann Romney, field Hills, pain  
•       •       •

3536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 3:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 09:06:43 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.


You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)
 
2012-04-23 09:07:54 AM

Satanic_Hamster: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

I'm not saying your graph is full of shiat, but I have doubts that the US government gave half a million to Obama's campaign.


The graphs probably total the contributions of people who work for those companies (or the government), rather than donations from the organizations themselves.
 
2012-04-23 09:07:57 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I'm not saying your graph is full of shiat, but I have doubts that the US government gave half a million to Obama's campaign.


It means government employees, not the government itself, though that would definitely make the race interesting, what with the indictments and all.
 
2012-04-23 09:09:35 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)


Which guy is promising to lower taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor while dramatically cutting the safety net? Which guy wants us to feel pity for the big banks since they are people just like him?
 
2012-04-23 09:09:53 AM

TFerWannaBe: Satanic_Hamster: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

I'm not saying your graph is full of shiat, but I have doubts that the US government gave half a million to Obama's campaign.

The graphs probably total the contributions of people who work for those companies (or the government), rather than donations from the organizations themselves.


That would mean the graph doesn't mean shiat if it's going to lump people by employer instead of the employer itself.
 
2012-04-23 09:10:25 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)


Wall Street will throw money at whoever they think is going to win
 
2012-04-23 09:11:13 AM
I'm just two paychecks away from poverty.
 
2012-04-23 09:12:16 AM

imontheinternet: Satanic_Hamster: I'm not saying your graph is full of shiat, but I have doubts that the US government gave half a million to Obama's campaign.

It means government employees, not the government itself, though that would definitely make the race interesting, what with the indictments and all.


Graph needs better labeling.

imontheinternet: I just get annoyed when things get so hyperpartisan Obama. I don't see how people can still be so enthusiastic about him. I do think he's better than Romney, but not be a wide margin.


And that's a fair and debatable criticism. One response, though, the affects on the country of a Republican President with a Republican controlled House (and possibly Senate too). Ignoring the "both parties are the same" mantra, do you really think that would be a good thing? Or even a bad thing by a wide margin?
 
2012-04-23 09:13:17 AM

imontheinternet: I do think he's better than Romney, but not be a wide margin.


By an inch or a mile, in an election all that matters is who's in front
 
2012-04-23 09:13:54 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: You know how I Romney doesn't know the American people?
Because he would talk UP his rich status if he did. Americans love power and money, and have created a correlation between intelligence and money/power.


*cues theme for Dallas*
 
2012-04-23 09:13:56 AM

Masso: TFerWannaBe: Satanic_Hamster: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

I'm not saying your graph is full of shiat, but I have doubts that the US government gave half a million to Obama's campaign.

The graphs probably total the contributions of people who work for those companies (or the government), rather than donations from the organizations themselves.

That would mean the graph doesn't mean shiat if it's going to lump people by employer instead of the employer itself.


Correct - it is intentionally designed to imply that both are receiving massive donations from enormous corporations. A viewer would assume this means they would both be beholden to those interests, therefore both sides are bad.

If the graph includes donations by individuals, however, and does not show the percentage of donations between individuals and the companies themselves, it is useless at best and misleading at worst.
 
2012-04-23 09:14:09 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)


You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession.
 
2012-04-23 09:14:25 AM

theteacher: I'm just two paychecks away from poverty.


Mitt Romney knows your pain. If Mitt Romney missed two paychecks in a row, he might notice.
 
2012-04-23 09:17:38 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: He wants to live like common people? He wants to do whatever common people do?


Sing along with the common people,
sing along and it might just get you through,
laugh along with the common people,
laugh along even though they're laughing at you,
and the stupid things that you do.
Because you think that poor is cool.
 
2012-04-23 09:22:49 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com

When you donate to both sides, you're not making sure your guy wins, you're making sure that the guy who wins is your guy. There's a difference. Democracy is dead, and these people killed it.
 
2012-04-23 09:22:52 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Republicans are relying on people hating Obama rather than anyone liking Romney.


That's because he looks whiter.
And they don't care about the country, they just want a whiter prez.
 
2012-04-23 09:26:27 AM

ghare: Alphax: (reads article) So what 'lasting values' did he learn from his father? How to destroy the livelyhoods of others for profit without letting it bother you?

Actually, George Romney was a decent guy. Rich people frequently have inferior spawn for some reason; see: Bush, G.W.


It's because the Right Wing is actually very right about one thing. It takes a very special combination of things to make one a success. The builders are actually special people, who we should learn from. Their children can be tremendously gifted as well, or not... but either way they reap the rewards of the previous generation's genius and hard work.

And HW wasn't really self made either. There was also G.P.
 
2012-04-23 09:27:19 AM

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.


ftfy.
 
2012-04-23 09:28:26 AM
My father was born in to war-torn Eastern Europe so despite being born in New England I know EXACTLY what it's like to be hunted by Nazis and Communists.
 
2012-04-23 09:28:35 AM

Satanic_Hamster: And that's a fair and debatable criticism. One response, though, the affects on the country of a Republican President with a Republican controlled House (and possibly Senate too). Ignoring the "both parties are the same" mantra, do you really think that would be a good thing? Or even a bad thing by a wide margin?


The days of Republican party discipline and Reagan's 11th commandment are gone. I think the radicals in the House would turn on Romney right out of the gate, and even if they didn't, the Democrats would keep enough of the Senate to block anything too extreme.

A Republican supermajority would be a disaster, unless you subscribe to the "run it into the ground so we'll be forced to try something different" school of thought, which is admittedly getting more attractive each day. But, there is virtually a zero chance of that happening. The Republicans are wildly unpopular, especially with women, and they'll most likely lose seats, rather than gain.

In the end, I think Romney would be a completely empty suit. His handlers would tell him to sign something, and he'd sign it, no questions asked. Obama would sign it, too, but he'd try to get it watered down a bit before he did. Obama may be the best choice, but that really farking sucks.
 
2012-04-23 09:28:42 AM

imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.


You mean here?
 
2012-04-23 09:28:44 AM

vudukungfu: Tyrone Slothrop: Republicans are relying on people hating Obama rather than anyone liking Romney.

That's because he looks whiter.
And they don't care about the country, they just want a whiter prez.


When you only donate to the losing side, you are leaving yourself open for an IRS audit.
 
2012-04-23 09:28:53 AM

ChaoticLimbs: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

When you donate to both sides, you're not making sure your guy wins, you're making sure that the guy who wins is your guy. There's a difference. Democracy is dead, and these people killed it.


Once again: this graphic does not show the difference between individual and corporate contributions.
 
2012-04-23 09:29:26 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.


So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

www.underconsideration.com

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.
 
2012-04-23 09:30:43 AM
Presidents who could remember not being wealthy:
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
 
2012-04-23 09:31:22 AM

ChaoticLimbs: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

When you donate to both sides, you're not making sure your guy wins, you're making sure that the guy who wins is your guy. There's a difference. Democracy is dead, and these people killed it.


Your graph's numbers and conclusion don't appear to match. Do you ever look at the data yourself, or do you just parrot the talking points that were fed to you?
 
2012-04-23 09:32:47 AM

TFerWannaBe: Once again: this graphic does not show the difference between individual and corporate contributions.


The graphic makes no sense at all. The numbers are all over the place, and it's in direct conflict with what's listed at the website it references.
 
2012-04-23 09:35:02 AM

wademh: trotsky: wademh: [www.moviesbyrizzo.info image 300x376]

That's unfair to Idi. Idi really was a product of the lower classes in a colonial society. Hell, he basically took power as a Lieutenant, which made him the highest ranking officer in Colonial Uganda. Sure he killed a couple hundred thousand of his own people, but comparing him to Mittens is unfair...Idi pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become dictator. He only gutted Uganda's middle class out of Africa-first racism, not pure profit.

I have a very erudite and compelling response that is entirely eviscerated by the fact that I'm responding to somebody with a "trotsky" handle. Prescience must be respected.

\Bene Gesserit something something


Don't make me call in a 3rd Stage Navigator.
 
2012-04-23 09:37:37 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)


Without labeling, we have no idea which column is for which candidate.

Also, we don't know if this is "total campaign contributions 2008-2012" (in which case, it's understandable that Obama would have raised more than the WillyMitten), "contributions from employees of X-Corp" (rather than contributions OF X-Corp), or even just the time frame.

But yes, $1,013,091 in contributions from Goldman Sachs is not really comparable to $367,200. Well, math-wise it is, but the comparison is that the one is ~2.75 times larger.

Ditto Citigroup - $736,771 is ~12.91 times larger than $57,050. TWELVE TIMES the donation from one to the other, and that pic has the gall to say "there's no significant difference"?

Every statistics teacher in history gave you a facepalm (p
 
2012-04-23 09:38:26 AM

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.


Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.
If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?
 
2012-04-23 09:39:36 AM

vudukungfu: Tyrone Slothrop: Republicans are relying on people hating Obama rather than anyone liking Romney.

That's because he looks whiter.
And they don't care about the country, they just want a whiter prez.


If that is true, why do we have an orange speaker of the house?
 
2012-04-23 09:39:46 AM

imontheinternet: The days of Republican party discipline and Reagan's 11th commandment are gone. I think the radicals in the House would turn on Romney right out of the gate, and even if they didn't, the Democrats would keep enough of the Senate to block anything too extreme.

A Republican supermajority would be a disaster, unless you subscribe to the "run it into the ground so we'll be forced to try something different" school of thought, which is admittedly getting more attractive each day. But, there is virtually a zero chance of that happening. The Republicans are wildly unpopular, especially with women, and they'll most likely lose seats, rather than gain.

In the end, I think Romney would be a completely empty suit. His handlers would tell him to sign something, and he'd sign it, no questions asked. Obama would sign it, too, but he'd try to get it watered down a bit before he did. Obama may be the best choice, but that really farking sucks.


Oh, of course they'd turn on Romney. And Romney would turn right back, signing anything that crosses his desk in the hopes of regaining their loyalty.

Most analysts have been pointing out the number of people up for reelection, the relative safeness of their seats, and the "Enthusiasm Gap" poll results. General consensus seems to be:
If Romney picks a non-moronic vp and doesn't go pants on the head retarded, Obama wins, Senate remains about the same, and Republicans pick up a single digit number of House seats.
If Romney picks a Palin, Democrats pick up a half dozen Senate seats and 1-2 dozen House seats.

The key for the Republicans is that they have to excite their supporters enough that they go out and vote but not scare the moderates and leftists enough that THEY go out and vote.
 
2012-04-23 09:39:56 AM
Oops. Stupid HTML. What I meant to say was:

Every statistics teacher in history gave you a facepalm (p<.001) for that.
 
2012-04-23 09:40:58 AM
A homeless guy once washed my windshield, so I totally understand the plight of the homeless.
 
2012-04-23 09:41:19 AM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 634x444]

I don't know.


j.wigflip.com

Seriously, he is dangerously fat.
 
2012-04-23 09:42:30 AM

contrapunctus: George Carlin once remarked that he kept his sanity by fostering a detached view of American lunacy. To him, the great freakshow of American life was entertainment to be consumed; not be taken seriously. He truly felt that we're doomed as a country and as a species.

With that in mind, just imagine the entertainment value of working class Americans voting into the presidency a man who:

1. Made a fortune destroying our manufacturing base as well as middle class people's lives.

2. Belongs to a whackjob cult that was started by a known conman.

3. Intends to decimate social safety nets in the midst of a bad recession, while making our current tax system even more favorable to the oligarchy.

The hilarity alone is worth the price of admission! A vote for Romney is a vote for entertainment! Riots, fuel shortages, increased poverty, violence. We're talking Emmy award winning television here folks.

//Some say I'm a dreamer.
//I'm not the only one.


Well I vote Republican for the LOLs, but then I'm a misanthrope that wants to see the US burn.
 
2012-04-23 09:46:10 AM

spongeboob: tomWright: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 385x500]

Now Republicans are against children following blindly what their elders tell them to do like clear their plate.
Why do you hate Children respecting their elders?


Experience tells me that their elders, like mine, are rapists, thieves, arsonists, drug lords, gun runners, and pedophile Republicans.

Why anybody would respect people like that I'll never. Remember kids trust no one over 12, including me.
 
2012-04-23 09:48:21 AM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 634x444]

I don't know.

[j.wigflip.com image 470x632]

Seriously, he is dangerously fat.


I'm honestly worried about his health and the fact that he hasn't seen his ding dong in like ten years. Can you imagine what that does to a man
 
2012-04-23 09:50:53 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.

Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.
If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?


You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012. This makes no sense, as 2008 happened before 2009.
 
2012-04-23 09:51:03 AM
Also I was thinking last night, how is it that in the English language there are so many words for "penis" that are also like bell sounds? Dong, ding dong, ding-a-ling, etc. It's a weird phenomenon.
 
2012-04-23 09:51:45 AM
I'm pretty sure the only time Mittens ever worried about where his next meal was coming from was the time his personal chef suddenly quit.
 
2012-04-23 09:52:28 AM

Dog Welder: I'm pretty sure the only time Mittens ever worried about where his next meal was coming from was the time his personal chef suddenly quit.


Nah, he knew his wife would take care of it.
 
2012-04-23 09:52:55 AM
Saw Trading Places. Know what it's like to lose everything.
 
2012-04-23 09:53:06 AM
Before RTFA: "No way he said that."
After RTFA: "He farking said that."
 
2012-04-23 09:54:35 AM

Jackson Herring: I'm honestly worried about his health and the fact that he hasn't seen his ding dong in like ten years. Can you imagine what that does to a man


Just looking at a picture of him I understand what it is like to be fat.
 
2012-04-23 09:54:39 AM

Jackson Herring: Also I was thinking last night, how is it that in the English language there are so many words for "penis" that are also like bell sounds? Dong, ding dong, ding-a-ling, etc. It's a weird phenomenon.


While I don't have any data to support this assertion, perhaps something to do with the similarity of the bell's clapper to the penis?
 
2012-04-23 09:55:15 AM

Satanic_Hamster: The key for the Republicans is that they have to excite their supporters enough that they go out and vote but not scare the moderates and leftists enough that THEY go out and vote.


this is why i thought Romney would do the best against Obama in that he doesn't excite Obama's base even if he can't excite his own. However, he's a much worse candidate than I thought he'd be in that he makes mistakes repeatedly and will likely over-react with his VP nominee and pick Santorum.
 
2012-04-23 09:56:04 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dog Welder: I'm pretty sure the only time Mittens ever worried about where his next meal was coming from was the time his personal chef suddenly quit.

Nah, he knew his wife's personal chef would take care of it.


There, more accurate
 
2012-04-23 09:56:37 AM

Satanic_Hamster:
Most analysts have been pointing out the number of people up for reelection, the relative safeness of their seats, and the "Enthusiasm Gap" poll results. General consensus seems to be:
If Romney picks a non-moronic vp and doesn't go pants on the head retarded, Obama wins, Senate remains about the same, and Republicans pick up a single digit number of House seats.
If Romney picks a Palin, Democrats pick up a half dozen Senate seats and 1-2 dozen House seats.

The key for the Republicans is that they have to excite their supporters enough that they go out and vote but not scare the moderates and leftists enough that THEY go out and vote.


The Republicans spent months in a hotly-contested primary, which resulted in consistently low turnout numbers. Their candidate is laughably gaffe-prone and vulnerable. Much of the House and a metric ton of GOP state legislators are cranking out derp in record quantities to get their 15 minutes, while the press smells blood in the water. On top of all that, Obama is sitting on a mountain of cash and hasn't even begun SuperPAC fundraising in earnest.

I think most of the analysts are saying this one is going to be close, because that's how you get ratings and clicks. The fundamentals make this election look more like Reagan in '84 than Bush in '04.
 
2012-04-23 09:57:35 AM

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: imontheinternet: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x811]

Here are the figures that matter.

What's that you say? Both sides are the bad? Hmm, what an interesting observation. I guess I will be obligated to vote for the Republican in that case.

You are missing the point.
One of those people is much more in the pocket of wall street than the other.
(hint, see that the numbers on the left are much higher than the numbers of the right)

You make a good point. Obama is largely responsible for the deregulation of Wall Street between 2000 and 2008 that caused the recession coddling wall street over the last 3 years.

ftfy.

So the recession that blossomed during the 2008 election was caused by Obama's actions in subsequent years? That darn Obama and his time machine!

[www.underconsideration.com image 410x224]

/But seriously, what a silly comment you made.

Can you not read?
0bama has coddled wall street for the last 3 years.

If they are history's greatest villains for causing the near collapse of the world, why has 0bama been such a nice guy to them? Why all the coddling?

You asserted that the 2008 Bush Recession was caused by Obama's actions between 2009 and 2012. This makes no sense, as 2008 happened before 2009.


I didn't assert anything about the Bush Recession or even the state of the economy.
Not even close.
What I wrote is highlighted for your convenience.
I will await your apology.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report